@Eddie: What they are teaching needs …

Comment on LSU Board says ‘we apologize’ by Sean Pitman.

@Eddie:

What they are teaching needs to be public knowledge that is well known and knowable by all. – Sean Pitman

So what do you want, a webcam in each classroom–so people can freely learn what others pay tuition dollars for? – Eddie

Don’t play ignorant here. You know as well as I do that parents have a clear right to know the general outline of what their kids are being taught – to include if their kids at one of our schools are being taught that the SDA position on origins is clearly irrational and part of the “lunatic fringe” of belief systems. Teachers have no right to keep what they are in fact teaching along these lines secret and should expect to be called out in public when they promote such ideas in our classrooms.

your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU – Sean Pitman

Excuse me. I have never supported secrecy at LSU. I have repeatedly stated my oposition to megaevolution being taught as the truth at LSU. I even wrote privately to church leaders BEFORE this website ever appeared. I was initially pleased when I first saw this website–until I quickly realized it was being used to attack individuals, including many who have no association with LSU. I have a number of friends who have been slandered here and a few have been so upset they were nearly in tears–and yet nobody ever apologizes.

It amazes me how often this forum’s “Comment Guidelines” are ignored: “Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated… No belittling of individual members, their character, or their motives.” I remain indignant. – Eddie

It is very difficult for one or two people to monitor as many comments as a website like this receives over a relatively short period of time. We have earnestly tried to make the conversations as civil as possible, but certainly aren’t perfect in this regard. I’m sure someone like yourself would do a much better job.

However, what I’m questioning with regard to your own comments are your suggestions that at no time should the actions of an individual who is attacking the Church in a classroom forum be addressed in a public manner. I just can’t buy into that argument given the serious nature of what has been taking place at LSU for over 30 years without substantive challenge or correction. I’ve written many private letters and had many private conversations with various parties involved during the past 10 years myself. Taking this issue public isn’t something that Shane, David, or I took lightly. We soberly considered many other options before taking this issue to the Church body at large.

Of course, mistakes have been made for which we do and have apologized. But, the basic goal and overall presentation of the evidence was presented, I believe, in a very even handed way given the urgency of the situation. Allowing for comments in response to the information presented does not come without risks. We did not and still do not agree with most of the comments that we allow to be posted on this forum. We especially cringe at many of the comments from those posters who claim to be on “our side” and supportive of what we are trying to do, yet who, we feel, inflict the most damage to our cause. Yet, what are we to do? Block all comments with which we don’t agree? We’ve seriously thought about doing that as well… It’s hard to know what to do about comments…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
@Ron Stone M.D.:

So, for Sean and Shane to say a “so and so” other person is “hurting” their cause is pure baloney!

The people whose opinion we most care about don’t work for or likely subscribe to Spectrum – let me tell you 😉

When those on “our side” make needlessly pejorative comments and use vulgar or crude language (as you are prone to do on occasion), it makes people at Spectrum or AdventistToday quite pleased to be able to point such things out…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
I’m not quite sure how professors who already believe in mainstream evolutionary theories of life existing and evolving on this planet over hundreds of millions of years of time are going to be effective in presenting the SDA position on origins? – i.e., that life was created in just six literal days within recent history?

It seems futile to me to make these professors attend GRI workshops – like that is going to change their minds or make them more effective at promoting the Church’s position on origins in their classrooms as remotely rational or scientific compared to the mainstream scientific perspective on origins.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
There were indeed a few problems with the survey. For example, the language of the survey wasn’t specific enough to be as meaningful as it could have been. It didn’t ask, for instance, “Did your LSU science professors promote the Seventh-day Adventist perspective on origins with regard to the validity of a literal six-day creation week for the origin of all life on this planet within recent history?”

I dare say the response to such a question would have been a universal “No” from all honest responders. However, at least the survey did tip the scales enough so that LSU felt forced to make a public statement of apology. What it and the Church actually does to correct the errors of the past, errors and attacks on the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals for decades, is a whole different matter. So far, I don’t see any advances or recomendations that meaningfully solve the this long-standing problem for the Church within its schools of higher education.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com