Shane said In May 2009, a letter written to Jan …

Comment on LSU can’t deny the facts by BobRyan.

Shane said

In May 2009, a letter written to Jan Paulsen, Don Scheider, and Ricardo Graham by Pr. David Asscherick expressed concern regarding “the teaching of evolution at La Sierra University.” The letter went on to say “[i]t is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University.” Asscherick said he had “seen the class materials with my own eyes” and personally visited with many students attending La Sierra University in 2003 who were concerned about what was being taught in the science classes.

At the “Yes, Creation” event one complaint from an LSU supporter was of the form “Why isn’t LSU given equal time here” or “some time here to present their case”.

Now in truth very little of the “Yes, Creation” seminar even mentioned LSU by name – it dealt with “creation” vs “Evolution” (and often even theistic evolutionism).

How instructive that even the LSU supporters themselves recognized that a statement in favor of Creation calls for a counter statement by LSU.

Given that the speakers included people from LLU, AU, SAU … all of which teach evolution without teaching it as confirmed fact or as actually being the correct view of origins, the LSU supporters were clearly saying that LSU is promoting theistic evolutionism as the right answer for the doctrine on origins and that this is the key that was missing from “Yes, Creation”.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

LSU can’t deny the facts

Anita Gould: Creationism vs Evolution has deep spiritual percussions. How dare this institution rob my kids of the faith they need. Now they think if they have troubles God doesn’t care

Your children were sacrificed on the altar of evolutionism by the administrators and leaders of LSU in their “sacrifice all for evolutionism” agenda.

Key to their agenda – was hiding that fact from parents ad Bradley pointed out in his Higher Ed press interview.

How sad.

in Christ,


LSU can’t deny the facts
Reading the summary article at the top of this thread is very “instructive” for anyone looking for “actual facts”.

In the GYC video – no GC VP denied that LSU has a problem with evolution. When pressed on the question of why they let the problem drag on for so long – no GC VP said “because they don’t have a problem”.

The LSU board did not come out with a statement saying “We have researched the allegations and have confirmed that LSU has no problem promoting evolution as fact”

Erv Taylor listed as a lecturer in LSU’s biology program has come to this very website and promoted evolution as fact AND defending LSU for doing the same.

LSU’s own professor Bradley has admitted to his creationism-is-junk ideas and that he refuses to teach anything but evolution on the subject of origins.

LSU’s own Fritz Guy has published in “Understanding Genesis” and other venues – his own firm conviction that evolutionism is the right answer for origins.

When Larry Blackmer we asked why LSU does not publish a statement saying that their biology and religion departments agree with a “literal 6 day creation week” he claimed that a lot of agreements would need to be signed/approved between faculty and the Admin before they could even begin to think publishing such a statement.

And then there is the actual coursework and references to pro-evolution all-evolution-all-the-time sources without a single mention or defense of the actual Bible position, or the Adventist position, or what problems the scorched-Bible all-for-evolution model suffers.

By contrast – look for things like Historical/Grammatical vs “Higher Criticism” in our Universities. There you WILL find support for the fact that they DO argue one against the other all the time instead of “just presenting the fact that Higher Criticism exists and then define what it is”.

The facts are blatantly impossible to ignore.

in Christ,


LSU can’t deny the facts
I stopped by the LSU booth at the GC and was personally told by Larry Blackmer that LSU taught a literal 6 day creation week in both their biology and religion departments, that Professor Bradley was just exaggerating in what he claimed he was teaching as the real facts on origins in class to the contrary. Another helpful LSU rep at the booth said this was all just a big misunderstanding started by an LSU student who did not attend the proper orientation class explaining the way biology lectures on origins are supposed to be interpreted.

My response was “fine – why not have Randal Wisbey (and presumably Ricardo Graham) say that in print and solve the whole problem now?”.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind