LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department

By Educate Truth Staff

A document from La Sierra University Faculty Senate surfaced Jan. 29 on AToday. According to AToday, the LSU faculty “unanimously” approved the resolution. Executive publisher Erv Taylor said, “The LSU Faculty Senate did not–repeat NOT–choose AToday to publish their resolution.” It is not known whether or not the faculty senate is aware this information has been leaked. As of the writing of this article, no other source has been found for the document. Educate Truth attempted to contact LSU Faculty Senate through the senate webmaster Terrill Thomas, but there has been no reply yet.

Faculty Resolution

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

67 thoughts on “LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department

  1. Notice that several problems have been raised about counterfeit doctrine on “origins” taught by the evangelists for evolutionism.

    1. The degree to which the doctrines on origins found in the Bible and agreed to within Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs — are directly opposed to the atheist-oriented model for the doctrine of “origins” found in evolutionism.

    2. The confirmed history of fraud and blatant junk-science that plagues the model of blind guesswork so central to evolutionism. Junk science “stories” about “how one thing came from another” that are identified (even by atheist evolutionists themselves) as being “stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science”.

    3. The degree to which proven science debunks the foundational mechanisms of evolutionism — (for example – genome morphing such that “birds came from reptiles” is one of the more notable fictions within the evolutionist’s library of “stories easy enough to make up” that is easily seen for the “not science” that it is when eukaryote systems are studied closely).

    Instead of addressing any of the issues raised — the less-than-insightful LSU Faculty Senate statement of “affirmation” – deals with the following values;

    1. “Academic Freedom” to evangelize for evolutionism no matter what the teaching of the Adventist Church on the subject of origins

    2. LSU’s history of having “graduated many students” that then go on to one profession or another.

    Certainly ALL public universities in California’s educational system could proudly boast of the SAME values, goals and rich history of having “graduated many students” that went on to one profession or another.

    If LSU’s goal is to be the “BEST PUBLIC UNIVERSITY” that SDA tithe, tuition and offering dollars “can BUY” (only with the objective of doing so “INSIDE” the Adventist educational system) – then they have done a good job of laying out that set of values in their statement of affirmation.

    Personally I had hoped for a substantially higher standard coming from that group. Oh well… Jeremiah 6:15 does says something about those who do not even know when to blush.

    And so – we continue to hold up this issue in prayer.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  2. It appears that whoever is responsible for posting information on the EducateTruth site has difficulty in understanding the meaning of English words in the posting on the Adventist Today web site.

    The Adventist Today headline is “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Academic Freedom & Biology Colleagues.” The EducateTruth headline incorrectly states that “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Biology Professors in Their Promotion of Evolution.” The LSU Faculty Senate did no such thing.

    Upon reading the text of the actual resolution, any reasonable person of good will immediately see the difference in these headlines. It is regrettable that a site called by its proponents “EducateTruth” can not get even such a simple thing as a headline correct.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Erv – the SCRIBD document is a little easier to read than you seem to imagine.

    The reader can easily see the SAME model of reporting the document AS WELL AS – giving a perspective on the document (used at the top of this thread) that we already see so often in public news outlets all the time.

    Surely you knew we would see that — right?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  4. Ervin Taylor: The EducateTruth headline incorrectly states that “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Biology Professors in Their Promotion of Evolution.” The LSU Faculty Senate did no such thing.

    Au contraire Erv. They said: “[we] affirm our strong support for our colleagues in the Department of Biology.” The biology department is being called out on its promotion of evolution. To affirm them is to support what they are doing. The biology department is being criticized for no other reason. Do you think they were merely affirming them as good professors? A pat on the back type thing? I have it on good authority that there are quite a few faculty from the other departments who are sympathetic to the scientific world-view promoted in the biology department.




    0
    View Comment
  5. @Shane Hilde:

    Shane,

    You’d certainly have done better to quote the original statement rather than adding your interpretation. It’s very likely that some of the faculty voting for the senate resolution do not favor the standard evolutionary model. There is an important difference between the voted statement and your interpretation.




    0
    View Comment
  6. @Carl: There is a good chance not every professor who voted on this resolution believes in the theory of evolution; however, their support of the biology professors essentially affirms the professors promotion of the theory.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Carl, the faculty senate clearly know the issue, so for them to say what they did clearly shows they’re in support of professors teaching evolution. If this wasn’t the case, they would have written some type of disclaimer that said, “While we don’t particularly agree with what the professors are promoting” etc., etc. Instead, they backed them and what they’re doing 100 percent. A twisted notion of nobility, if you ask me. If they’re going to stand for something, apparently it’s not going to be for what’s right.




    0
    View Comment
  8. So how do we really know that the LSU faculty senate, composed of allegedly well educated people, would do something so stupid as to vote such a statement of support for professors known to be teaching falsehood in the classroom as fact?

    I suggest that we shouldn’t assume that the statement above really was voted by the LSU faculty senate. Perhaps it wasn’t.




    0
    View Comment
  9. @Ervin Taylor:
    Ervin, the problem is that LSU has been, in all of their statements thus far, vague and nebulous. Sure, what you say may in fact be true, but that does not mean that they are not at the same time supporting the evolutionary position being taught. Until they come out with CLEAR statements of support for Biblical Creation, and CLEAR statements against Natural Evolution, this dilema will continue. Teaching that evolution is a worldview and understanding it is one thing, but teaching it as truth in opposition to Creation, especially in an Adventist institution, is simply unacceptable!




    0
    View Comment
  10. Nowhere are the LSU faculty dealing with the real issue, that is, that the Biology Professors are teaching that evolution is real; they continue to make it look as though EducateTruth is simply making this up, and that the professors only teach the two (Creation vrs Evolution) side by side to show the differences, this is simply NOT TRUE, LSU is teaching evolution as REAL.

    I feel that Shane did go too far with interpreting the words of this document to mean they admittedly support evolution, that being said, it is documented and unquestionable that LSU is using political correctness to evade the reality that evolution is being taught at LSU as real and legitimate and that a seven day creation week is somehow symbolic and not literal.

    This unfathomable position is near insanity for a professed believer in Christ Jesus- any casual student of history can clearly see that the fruit of evolution is marxism, nihilism, communism, fascism, the final solution, rationalism and other such sadistic philosophies. What ever happened to common sense?




    0
    View Comment
  11. I know quite a few LSU faculty personally from the other schools (I don’t know any of the Biology faculty–I’m an alum of AU so know their biology faculty better), and I find it hard to believe that they would “affirm” the Bio profs’ clear evolutionary bent. I know these faculty friends of mine do not believe in evolution one bit, so my guess is that while this resolution says all the schools support their bio colleagues, I’m sure there’s more to this than meets the eyes.

    I plan to ask around and see…;-)

    Overall, it seems so clear to me that if these well-meaning bio profs want to promote evolution as THE way things started, then they should go to a public or non-SDA university. “Academic freedom” doesn’t mean you can accept church $$ and then have the “freedom” to teach things that go directly against the church! Why doesn’t the admin. and SECC get that???




    0
    View Comment
  12. Given the attention this issue has generated worlwide, it would be careless for the La Sierra University Faculty Senate to vote a statement that is not clear on exactly where it (they) stand.

    My take of the resolution is that they have no problem whatsoever with the content of the curriculum as long as they graduate students that can move on to advanced professions and their professors can research and publish papers in journals.

    Thus they show (by their resolution) that they do NOT care about a Bible-based background for their actions but only what the world approves of.

    They show they have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. In effect, the group of people behind this resolution show a commercial motive.

    Where in the resolution do they have a care for the glory of God?

    If all the faculty indeed agree to this resolution, then the church must begin a divorce process and without delay withdraw all financial support. If there are some who do not support this resolution their voices should be heard before they partake in the curse that will come upon the wayward people of LSU, the Union and any other body that has influence and responsibility and did not act to stop this rot.




    0
    View Comment
  13. That’s it, the ‘big’ statement.

    God and creation is at the center of this debate, and they (LSU faculty) failed to even acknowledge it. The issue was totally avoided, I don’t feel sorry that the LSU faculty is feeling a little stressed.

    I think the whole school needs to be closed. It is a black mark that is getting bigger.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Interesting that LSU quoted Matt. 18 to “defame” this website. While Matt. 18 is a perfect person-to-person model, it is by no means an exclusive Biblically-based proposition for dealing with differences. For example, 1st Timothy 5:20 is clarion clear in it’s stentorian proclamation that a public response is truly appropriate for public challenges to the Church. So, regardless of “who-dunnit”, Scripture clearly allows for alternate responses to Matt. 18. [Adventist pioneers also supported the 1st Timothy 5:20 model in “public” circumstances]




    0
    View Comment
  15. Since, the source of the document is unknown at this time and no one else has come forward with anything about this resolution, it would be fair to treat it as spurious. While it appears that the college is concerned about academic freedom it is unfair to hold this document up in support of their errant ways.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Shayne Vincent: I feel that Shane did go too far with interpreting the words of this document to mean they admittedly support evolution, ….

    I don’t see any interpretation involved.

    Another possibility, if the statement really was voted, is that the faculty who voted it were unaware of the nature of the concerns the statement calls a “public attack.” Only then would the statement not be supportive of teaching evolution as fact in an Adventist classroom.

    But that possibility is inherently contradictory and impossible, since the statement itself indicates an awareness of the nature of those concerns.

    So if the statement is truthful that the faculty understand the nature of the concerns expressed on this site and elsewhere, then the statement is indeed supportive of teachers teaching evolution as fact in an Adventist classroom.




    0
    View Comment
  17. Ervin Taylor: The Adventist Today headline is “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Academic Freedom & Biology Colleagues.”The EducateTruth headline incorrectly states that “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Biology Professors in Their Promotion of Evolution.”

    I appears to me, Erv, that the AToday headline is an attempt to spin and conceal what really happened, if that statement really was voted, which I question.

    As far as avoiding spin and making plain the truth, I would have to say that EducateTruth’s headline does a better job.

    Whoever at AToday chose a headline that paints the issue as one of academic freedom, perhaps you ought to have a talk with him or her … which might be difficult if you still have a conflict of interest.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Ernie Medina: Thanks–I know that there is no such thing and everyone and always and never. I’m not even sure that half the the professors really know what is going on. They have just heard that someone is attacking the Biology department. It is nice to have someone local who has a level head that can talk to people and find out what is really happening.

    In the end, in their defense of the school and department they may be defending something that shouldn’t be defended–like you said–I agree with you.

    I would like to chime in one other thing–because you know one of my family members has been involved from the beginning, I have been following this issue for a long time. In my opinion, after multiple pleadings and contacts personally with students to teachers and then to department chairs and then administrators and then contacting a mediator who did this all 5-7 years ago and got no where at the school level. Then there was a repeat of the process this last time through the staff and administrators to the conference and finally the union and then the Division and GC–all of whom ignored the requests for intervention or address to the issue by my family member–only once additional weight of Pastor David Asherick stepped forward did there seem to be a response. Also, this web site has been as God send as well. But, after all of this, there were fingers pointing saying why was this not kept private and also then the complaints of Matthew 18. I do not know how it could have been followed more completely. Let me see–if the other party ignores it long enough you don’t get to do anything–did Jesus say anything like that there? No he said to take it to larger and larger groups until you took it to the whole body of believers and that is what is being done!

    Take care and blessings.




    0
    View Comment
  19. I am uncertain what this resolution from LSU means in terms of freedom to teach unbiblical science. If teaching science contrary to Adventists’ beliefs is what LSU calls academic freedom, then for sure these leaders are in the wrong institution. None is opposed to teaching Darwinism from the context of the world’s response to biblical statements and scientific creationism. But posing it as real science and science preferable to Adventists’ beliefs, is false and deceptive. Students go to Adventist universities not to learn the false sciences of the world; to be knowledgeable of them yes, but not to have them taught as fact. At this point we must speak with the grass roots and with our pocket-books, if the GC refuses to intervene. We must stop all funding of LSU until they realize who is paying their salaries. This notice must be given to our conferences, Unions, Divisions, and the GC. Every church member must receive information of this process in order to act decisively.




    0
    View Comment
  20. Although I feel that LSU Science Department, by teaching Evolution, is not upholding the SDA standards and beliefs I also feel that the Board of Directors, The Union, and the GC are remiss for not taking a stand. By doing nothing they are complicit.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Ervin Taylor: One of the subjects I had to do in grammar school was a subject called ‘Comprehension.’ Comprehension meant clearly explaining(if one could)how one understood a certain passage read by the teacher. My comprehension of the resolution, if it is genuine, is that supporting colleagues who are falsifying Adventists’ beliefs is supporting their class work of falsification. I see no other way of understanding this passage, unless one admits of some form of retribution for not doing the biblical thing and talking to them, which is another falsification and injustice to the biblical text.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Hello

    I am proud to say that I am an agnostic friend of Ron Henderson. Ron and I have been carrying on a lively dialogue about evolution over the last several years. We disagree respectfully. I think by trying to punish your biology faculty you act in fear and reduce your credibility. Rather, why not show compassion and respectfully disagree with them. Is this not the tolerant Christian approach? I hope you are bold enough to allow this dissenting opinion to stand.

    Best Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  23. @Ken C Johnston: A disagree between friends really can’t be compared to employees blatantly disregarding church beliefs in the classroom while taking a paycheck. No one that I know of is trying to punish anyone. I’m not sure why that would even surface.

    I’m all for respectfully disagree with people. It appears you don’t think we are, so what would you suggest. How should church members approach this situation? Keep in mind that LSU has essentially ignored all private attempts to address this issue for the last 10+ years.

    Tolerance? Ken, our position has always been to keep the presentation of evolution in the classroom, but along side the view of the church and with emphasis. What’s ironic is that LSU isn’t even tolerating creationism. Sure they added a 1 unit freshman seminar class that is taught by evolutionists, but none of the actual science classes are taught from a creationist point of view that we know of. We, the church body, are being considerably more tolerant than some of the biology professors.




    0
    View Comment
  24. If the LSU Faculty Senate statement is genuine, they are either:
    A. Showing a weakness of will in putting up a statement that is open to interpretation
    B. Putting up a red herring by deflecting the issue to a debate on “academic freedom”

    By doing the latter, they seem to have succeeded in creating debate which is a “divide and conquer” strategy. Please let us not be drawn into argument on whether Shane Hilde has bumbled the headline. The real problem is how to get the LSU Biology department back into teaching real creation science.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Dear Shane

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I would also like to thank the Editors for allowing my comments to stand. That shows tolerance and courage!

    What I mean is I don’t think the biology professors should be fired because their scientific beliefs don’t accord with Adventist fundamental beliefs. Certainly the University had the right not to hire them in the first place if it didn’t agree with the science that they were going to teach.

    But the University has the right to teach Creationism in counterpoint to evolution as well and I support that right. I think it would be great if students took both courses and made up their own minds. In fact I would support Creationism being taught at public universities as well, in counterpoint to evolution.

    You see, through my ongoing dialogue with Ron I have learned much about your faith and I am better off for it. If some atheistic body had tried to bar my study of Adventism, I’m sure you and Ron would come to my defense. Well, as an agnostic I’m trying to suggest that the biologists of La Sierra deserve that same respect.

    Here is what I would do if I was the President of the University: I would encourage the parallel study of both disciplines giving each equal weight. I would encourage open forums for faculty and students alike so both concepts could be actively debated. Then I’d advertise that tolerance and open mindedness to intolerant secularists to demonstrate what a wonderful, strong Adventist institution LSU is.

    You see I am not concerned that you and Ron believe something different than me. I am more concerned about having fellowship with you so we can better understand each other’s position. I think that is what Jesus would want, no matter how we conceive Him

    I wish you all a wonderful Sabbath
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  26. Dear Ken,
    Unfortunately, you miss the point concerning the purpose of having Seventh-day Adventist education. This is understandable as you are probably not aware of Seventh-day Adventist history. I would encourage you to read the book “Education” written by Ellen White. Doing so, you would clearly see that there is no room for “tolerance” in Seventh-day Adventist education. This is a church run institute, and God, through the sacred Word, directs us in 1 Corinthians chapter 6:

    “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

    Amos 3:3 states, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

    The Lord has carved out this church with the mighty cleaver of truth. We as a church are to stand distinct and separate from the world, a peculiar people. Not because we try to be, but because we hold to the doctrines of the Bible, of which the world is at enmity with. The world and the Word cannot walk together, because they cannot agree.

    Although tolerance sounds good to the politically-correct mind, we cannot be tolerant of error being taught as truth in a Seventh-day Adventist insitution, for it is supposed to be an institute “in” the world but not “of” the world. The idea of teaching both of the issues as equals is nothing more than to offer the forbidden fruit to the students which comes from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This plays well into the hands of the Serpent, for once we engage our mind against his, he has already won.

    Ken, I can tolerate your beliefs as an individual. That is a decision you make between you and God. Beyond that, I could not tolerate you teaching your beliefs to my children if those beliefs do not align with the Word of God. Neither should a Seventh-day Adventist institute tolerate the teaching of false doctrines to its collective children.

    The Old Testament is full of stories of the people of God “tolerating” idolatrous nations, and, as a result, they became corrupt and did worse than the nations surrounding them. God has placed a hedge about His people, not as a restriction, but as a protection. This includes protection from the so-called academic “freedom” that threatens to lead many of our youth down the path of infidelity. Jesus has said that it is the truth that shall make us free. No amount of falsehood, however free we think we are to believe it, will make us free.

    May God help us all, and may God bless you through Jesus Christ whom “God, having raised up…sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26)

    Thank you for the Sabbath wishes. May you also find rest in the Lord of the Sabbath,
    Lee Folkman




    0
    View Comment
  27. Ervin Taylor: The Adventist Today headline is “LSU Faculty Senate Affirm Academic Freedom & Biology Colleagues.”

    If the real issue is academic freedom, then I would think that AToday would just as vocally and publicly and enthusiastically and repeatedly defend a history professor teaching as fact that the holocaust never occurred. Or a political science professor teaching how to hijack planes or build roadside bombs.

    But I don’t think AToday would defend professors teaching such things, even if those professors were tenured. And thus I don’t think the issue is really academic freedom as far as AToday goes. The issue still to me appears to be that the powers that be at AToday are out to defend those who spread anti-Adventist and anti-Bible propaganda, such as the lie commonly known as evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  28. Norman: Since, the source of the document is unknown at this time and no one else has come forward with anything about this resolution, it would be fair to treat it as spurious. While it appears that the college is concerned about academic freedom it is unfair to hold this document up in support of their errant ways.  (Quote)

    I would think so if this document was being passed around via e-mail rumor, but seeing that it is published in a reputable journal (AToday) and that LSU have the opportunity to disclaim it but haven’t, I would say that it is fair to treat it as genuine, rather than spurious.




    0
    View Comment
  29. Ken C Johnston: But the University has the right to teach Creationism in counterpoint to evolution as well and I support that right. I think it would be great if students took both courses and made up their own minds. In fact I would support Creationism being taught at public universities as well, in counterpoint to evolution.

    This would be great if you weren’t talking about a Church school. The whole purpose of having a Church school is to educate the Church’s young people from the biased perspective of what the Church thinks is true and important to contribute to the world’s understanding of reality. This is not to say that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) shouldn’t be taught at all in SDA schools – quite the contrary.

    The ToE should be taught to the highest standard possible in SDA schools, but SDA education should not end here. The SDA science teachers hired by our schools should also be able to go beyond the mainstream ToE and present its many overwhelming pitfalls and problems as well as the significant weight of evidence favoring the SDA perspective of a recent arrival of life on this planet as well as the subsequent world-wide Noachian catastrophe. If a professor cannot do this in good conscience, that professor shouldn’t be working at an SDA school… it’s as simple as that.

    This being said, living in a free civil society where one always has the right to leave any church organization without any fear of civil reprisals or penalties of any kind is vital. No church should ever take on political power to coerce anyone to support any doctrinal beliefs whatsoever.

    However, if one freely chooses to represent a church organization in an official paid capacity, that person should actually teach/preach what the Church is paying him/her to teach or preach. No one should expect to get paid by any organization while going around publicly undermining what that organization stands for as “fundamental”. It just doesn’t work that way. Such thinking leads to chaos and fragmentation – not continued strength and viability.

    It’s a matter of simple practicality on the part of the organization and a matter of simple ethics (one’s responsibility toward one’s employer) on the part of the individual representative…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  30. Ted L. Stephens DDS: I also feel that the Board of Directors, The Union, and the GC are remiss for not taking a stand. By doing nothing they are complicit.  

    Unfortunately a lot of these issues are the fruit of turning to higher criticism for knowledge at the expense of faith, faith in things that cannot be explained in this current world, and thus we use reason as the foundation of truth rather than scripture.




    0
    View Comment
  31. To the Physician (name not accepted by this software) you are the appropriate apologist in this controversy. You have the credentials that catch the attention of most people. Don’t relent, keep up the pressure.

    Unfortunately, most people only respect certain academic titles, like yours. Other participants are brushed aside with a wave of the verbal hand, in spite of graduate degrees and medical specialties.

    An anecdote may help: Two of our sons finished medicine at Loma Linda. During one of our infrequent visits from the East we worshipped Sabbath at the University Church where a visiting Adventist Clergyman presented the sermon.

    To my dismay he said (textually): “Why be a Seventh-day Adventist? It requires 10% of your income, and one day each week. Personally I don’t think it’s worth it. Look around for a Church that meets your need.”

    I nearly stood up in that “distinguished” congregation and challenged him, but did not, to avoid embarassing my family !

    Preachers and Science Professors who expect to receive a paycheck and benefits from an employing organization, should not expect them to overlook actions that lead to a destruction of the principles of that organization. This is an attitude, logically embraced worldwide, in secular circles.

    The handwriting is on the wall—-LSU Biology Professors that are not fully supporting the clearly Biblical version of origens should start packing their bags. Sooner or later the University will have to decline to rehire them,—-or cease being an Adventist-supported institution.

    May God be merciful to those professors who are so much “wiser and better informed” than the rest of us, and keep His Laodicean Church in the path to reformation and conversion.

    Pastor Richard Gates, R.N.
    (Retired GC Mission Aviation Bolivia/Peru)




    0
    View Comment
  32. Sean Pitman, you are the appropriate apologist in this controversy. You have the credentials that catch the attention of most people. Don’t relent, keep up the pressure.

    Unfortunately, most people only respect certain academic titles, like yours. Other participants are brushed aside with a wave of the verbal hand, in spite of graduate degrees and medical specialties.

    An anecdote may help: Two of our sons finished medicine at Loma Linda. During one of our infrequent visits from the East we worshipped Sabbath at the University Church where a visiting Adventist Clergyman presented the sermon.

    To my dismay he said (textually): “Why be a Seventh-day Adventist? It requires 10% of your income, and one day each week. Personally I don’t think it’s worth it. Look around for a Church that meets your need.”

    I nearly stood up in that “distinguished” congregation and challenged him, but did not, to avoid embarassing my family !

    Preachers and Science Professors who expect to receive a paycheck and benefits from an employing organization, should not expect them to overlook actions that lead to a destruction of the principles of that organization. This is an attitude, logically embraced worldwide, in secular circles.

    The handwriting is on the wall—-LSU Biology Professors that are not fully supporting the clearly Biblical version of origens should start packing their bags. Sooner or later the University will have to decline to rehire them,—-or cease being an Adventist-supported institution.

    May God be merciful to those professors who are so much “wiser and better informed” than the rest of us, and keep His Laodicean Church in the path to reformation and conversion.

    Pastor Richard Gates, R.N.
    (Retired GC Mission Aviation Bolivia/Peru)




    0
    View Comment
  33. @Bob Pickle:

    If the real issue is academic freedom, then I would think that AToday would just as vocally and publicly and enthusiastically and repeatedly defend a history professor teaching as fact that the holocaust never occurred. Or a political science professor teaching how to hijack planes or build roadside bombs.

    But I don’t think AToday would defend professors teaching such things, even if those professors were tenured.

    Indeed. Can you imagine the “advertising to parents of would-be students” that was of the form “come to LSU – we have diehard evolutionists and budhists and gay-rights and terrorists and anarchists — classes as well as Christian courses so that students can make up their minds in our school just as they would in any public university. YES my brothers and sisters – LSU is the BEST PUBLIC UNIVERSITY that SDA tithe, tuition and offering dollars can buy!”

    And thus I don’t think the issue is really academic freedom as far as AToday goes. The issue still to me appears to be that the powers that be at AToday are out to defend those who spread anti-Adventist and anti-Bible propaganda, such as the lie commonly known as evolution.

    AToday has an “agenda” that reflects closely the ideas of Fritz Guy when it comes to promoting evolutionism and gay rights and possibly the “downsizing of Adventism” (possibly more accurate to call it the “downgrading of Adventism”.)

    But as you point out – they are not promoting every error all up and down the street. They seem to have their own preferred “list”.

    They also like to see themselves in a “watchdog” role on issues of finance and ethics when it comes to Church actions.

    So it is not like they are simply “all heresy all the time” in their focus.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. @Ken C Johnston:

    Ken C Johnston says:
    January 30, 2010 Dear Shane

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I would also like to thank the Editors for allowing my comments to stand. That shows tolerance and courage!

    What I mean is I don’t think the biology professors should be fired because their scientific beliefs don’t accord with Adventist fundamental beliefs. Certainly the University had the right not to hire them in the first place if it didn’t agree with the science that they were going to teach.

    But the University has the right to teach Creationism in counterpoint to evolution as well and I support that right. I think it would be great if students took both courses and made up their own minds. In fact I would support Creationism being taught at public universities as well, in counterpoint to evolution.

    You see, through my ongoing dialogue with Ron I have learned much about your faith and I am better off for it. If some atheistic body had tried to bar my study of Adventism, I’m sure you and Ron would come to my defense. Well, as an agnostic I’m trying to suggest that the biologists of La Sierra deserve that same respect.

    Here is what I would do if I was the President of the University: I would encourage the parallel study of both disciplines giving each equal weight. I would encourage open forums for faculty and students alike so both concepts could be actively debated.

    Ken – first of all I would like to applaud and affirm your proposal above as being a great example of how an agnostic would arrange things at LSU if he/she were to be given the role of President of LSU.

    I agree with you completely – that such an open handed, balanced scenario on all topics — finding strong “evangelist” promoters of the various points of view on topics that might be of interest to students – and relavent to society – is a great model for an agnostic institution.

    However let us contrast that with a private school – distinctively “Adventist” institution.

    Think about this for a minute. Why in the world should an Adventist church group in the 1800’s divert even one dollar in funds, resources, focus to the task of “building and staffing colleges” instead of simply – ALL HANDS ON DECK – spreading the Gospel??

    Was it because “Early Adventists pioneers were better at calculus”??
    Was this a “math ministry for mankind” on the part of the SDA church? Is that why we had all that focus on creating an educational system?

    Was it because they felt that Adventists had advanced knowledge of biology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, music, art?? Was the mission to improve the quality of education in America by providing superior classed in chemistry, physics, music, biology and math??

    Why divert so much of the scarce Church resources in the 1800’s and early 1900’s to “educational institution building”??

    Recall that the Christian mission is to “spread the gospel” not to “spread the Calculus”.

    (Here we have some thought questions that could get a lot of “I don’t like that” voting from our not-used-to-critical-thinking evolutionist friends)

    So what was the actual reason for diluting the focus?

    The answer to that question – is the answer to your post above.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  35. @Ervin Taylor:
    It seems to me as a long time worker in the church in evangelism and administration that the answer is very simple. If LSU wishes to continue to be a Church sponsered University they need to abide by the idea of why we have a school system, to educate workers for the lord here and around the world to gather together a people ready to meet the coming of our Lord. God help us if we stray from this fudimental purpose.




    0
    View Comment
  36. @Sean Pitman, M.D.:

    Dr. Pitman, I don’t believe it would be possible for anyone to say it better than you did here. A personal thank you from me.

    At the time I cast my vote in support of your statement there were three negative votes. This is a mystery to me. How could anyone possibly not see the truth when presented so clearly? I’d like to address those three voters:

    For the sake of clarity, what exactly were you objecting to? If you don’t respond and let the rest of us know, how can you ever expect to get support for your position? If you happen to be right, as I believe you think you are, then shouldn’t you feel some kind of responsibility to help the rest of us get our thinking straight?

    Do you actually believe any entity, religious or otherwise, should pay somebody else to destroy it? Of course you don’t. That would be like paying a wrecking crew to tare down your home while you are living in it!

    Please explain your position to the rest of us. This is the real issue here. Anything else can only be designed to divert attention away from it for as long as possible – in order to do as much damage as possible before being stopped? Please don’t leave us to believe that about you as your silence seems to indicate. What could possibly be your motive for doing a thing like that?

    For those who vote on my statement here – if you vote negative, please respond as to why? I’m not too old to learn. I have been known to change my mind as new information becomes available to me. 1 John 4:1 & 1 Thes. 5:19-21.

    Sincerely Your Brother in Christ,

    Wayne Matlock




    0
    View Comment
  37. Richard Gates: May God be merciful to those professors who are so much “wiser and better informed” than the rest of us, and keep His Laodicean Church in the path to reformation and conversion.

    Pastor Richard Gates, R.N.
    (Retired GC Mission Aviation Bolivia/Peru)

    Thank you Pastor Gates for your words of encouragement. Also, would you have happened to know my parents Tui and Faye Pitman? They were also missionaries in Bolivia/Peru in the early 1970s when I was just a small boy. And, my brother was born in Bolivia…

    Sean

    DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  38. @Robert Bamford:

    I don’t think you have proved your point that they are teaching it in opposition to creation. I haven’t seen anything so far that would support that assertion.

    And I don’t think calling science “junk science” is helpful to the discussion. What is needed is real science that would support an alternate interpretation, however “creation science” seems to be getting weaker while evidence for evolution increases everyday.




    0
    View Comment
  39. @BobRyan:

    Actualy Bob, According to Mrs. White, the reason we developed schools is so that our science department could inform our theology department. One of her stated goals, was to counteract the influence of poorly educated “evangelists” who were teaching fanatacism.

    The real trial here is: Science vs dogmatism. Reason vs fanatacism. Tolerance vs intolerance. Compassion vs. judgement. Openess to truth vs. closed mindedness. Doing the hard work of study and reason vs. spouting platitudes. Freedom vs persecution. Belief in Present Truth or Traditionalism.




    0
    View Comment
  40. @Richard Gates:

    Richard, I respect your love for the Lord and your miraculous experience. Unfortunalty Science is not founded on the Bible. It is founded on careful observation of the natural world. Until there is credible evidence for creationism, it belongs in the theology department, not in the science department.

    The problem with this whole discussion is that it fails to deal with the simple fact that we see evoution occuring around us everyday. Not millions of years ago, but NOW, in the laboratory today. Until you can harmonize what you read in the Bible with what we observe in science, the premise of this web site has no reasonable foundation. You can’t expect a few biology teachers to do what the whole denomination has been unable to do in the last 166 years. And not just Adventists, but the whole Christian world. Don’t you think Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans would like to disprove evolution too? Of course they would. Until you can, I think is unethical to ask our faithful God fearing Biology teachers to teach something that has no scientific foundation.

    The other premise expressed on this site, that evolutionism somehow destroys the value of the Sabbath, or Adventism, I am unwilling to grant. It certainly doesn’t for me.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Wayne Matlock:

    Matt, I think part of the answer is in the text you quoted, 1st John, “test the spirits” and “hold on to what is good”. What is the spirit of this web site? It it the spirit of Faith? Reason? Tolerance? Grace? Forgiveness? Freedom? Truth?




    0
    View Comment
  42. Ron: Until you can harmonize what you read in the Bible with what we observe in science, the premise of this web site has no reasonable foundation. You can’t expect a few biology teachers to do what the whole denomination has been unable to do in the last 166 years. And not just Adventists, but the whole Christian world. Don’t you think Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans would like to disprove evolution too? Of course they would. Until you can, I think is unethical to ask our faithful God fearing Biology teachers to teach something that has no scientific foundation.

    There are plenty of very well-educated scientists who do in fact question the modern Theory of Evolution and who consider the idea that a God or God-like intelligence is the most scientific conclusion to many phenomena that we see in the natural world.

    In fact, the significant weight of available evidence strongly supports not only the need for very high level outside intelligent input for many features of both animate and inanimate things within this universe, but for a recent origin of life on this planet.

    But, beyond arguments for or against the ToE or Creationism, I have a very hard time understanding how it is remotely “unethical” to ask teachers to be able to support the clearly stated position of their employer before taking on the job. If they cannot do this, in good conscience, what would be most ethical is for them to not take on the job – to work for an employer who is in fact willing to pay them for their position without any ethical conflict.

    Remember, it isn’t “unloving” for an employer to expect to get what the employer is paying for with the employer’s own money. Anything else, on the part of the employee, is robbery of the employers time and money…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  43. Ron says, “According to Mrs. White, the reason we developed schools is so that our science department could inform our theology department.”

    Really? Where?

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  44. Ron: @Jonathan Smith:
    Johnathan, Do you have any evidence for the accusations you are making?  

    What accusations am I making?

    Why try to put a negative spin on perceptions by using an inflammatory word?

    Please go and look at the first “Whereas” and read the 4 bullet points under it to see what the resolution highlights as the achievements.

    Remember that the issue under discussion is neither new nor hidden. It is important for those making a resolution to be clear about what their true position is – what they hold dear. In my estimation, what is written clearly exalts humanistic secular goals and mentions nothing about being true to God and His clearly reveled truth.

    He who has eyes to see let him see.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Ron: @Wayne Matlock:
    Matt, I think part of the answer is in the text you quoted, 1st John, “test the spirits” and “hold on to what is good”.What is the spirit of this web site?It it the spirit of Faith? Reason? Tolerance? Grace? Forgiveness?Freedom?Truth?  

    You keep using the word tolerance as if there is any virtue in tolerating heresy and rebellion.

    Please do not insult our intelligence with this type of “political correct” paradigm. Those who believe in God and His word do not tolerate error, lies and sin even if they tolerate the one in error – the sinner.

    The fact is that those who are promoting tolerance are promoting dishonesty and robbery. It is dishonest to claim you agree to and adhere to the beliefs of the church and then turn around and disparage those beliefs.

    It is robbery to accept the salary that comes from the church while hating the principles on which it stands.

    These professors and administrators are welcome to their beliefs in evolution and are free to teach it in any university that subscribes to secular beliefs.

    Please do not insult us by trying to foist rebellious ways on a people trying to follow God.




    0
    View Comment
  46. Ron: @Ron Henderson:
    That might send a mixed signal, since some may be holding their Tithe until the denomination takes a firm stand for truth, and freedom of thought, and against witch hunts, falsifications, and censorship.  

    This may not sound nice but what you have written sounds just like the discourse the serpent had with Eve at the forbidden tree (knowledge of good and evil).

    In case you have been reading your Bible please navigate to the chapter that tells us that even every thought must be brought captive to obedience to Christ. Freedom of thought outside Biblical parameters and loyalty to God is just a recipe for anarchy, rebellion and destruction.

    2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

    The Power of Intellect.–Intellect ennobled, purified, heaven directed, is the universal power to build up the kingdom of God. Intellect perverted, has exactly the opposite influence; it is a corrupting of the human power given in trust to be multiplied in earnest labor for good. It deceives and destroys. God has given sufficient endowments to make men capable and wise to carry forward, and strongly and graciously to represent, the Lord’s wonderful works to all those who love Him and obey His commandments (MS 63, 1900). {6BC 1105.7}

    Satan cannot touch the mind or intellect unless we yield it to him (MS 17, 1893). {6BC 1105.8}

    The devil will use your mind if you give it to him (MS 2, 1893). {6BC 1105.9}




    0
    View Comment
  47. I wonder if those who are in such a rush to get rid of science professors at La Sierra for teaching evolution, have considered that these professors might be performing a valuable role in keeping many of our most talented young people in the church? Large numbers of educated young Adventists worship God as their creator and redeemer as a matter of religious faith, but do not, however, try to turn their religious faith into scientific theories. They would like to be both Adventist Christians and at the same time practice good science–which means going where the evidence leads. They do not believe that scientific evidence for a very long history of life on this planet and the relatedness of all life conflicts with their relationship with God or undermines the Sabbath. These young people, and there are a lot of them, need good role models in our schools, professors such as those at La Sierra, who are both good Adventists and good scientists, which means willing to follow where the evidence leads. If we mistreat or get rid of those role models, we will lose a lot of young adult Adventists who will get the message that they are not welcome in the church and that the church is hopelessly confused about what belongs in science and what belongs in theology.

    But then what happens to those traditionalist young people who believe that their faith requires them to hold to certain beliefs about natural history and the age of the earth? They will go right on believing that because that is what they think they must do to be Christians. Some of them will even write letters complaining about professors teaching evolution. Later, if reading or additional education have shaken that belief and they are tempted to give up their faith, they will hopefully remember their fine Christian professors at La Sierra who showed them a path whereby they could be intellectually honest scientists and Adventist Christians as well.




    0
    View Comment
  48. John Testerman: These young people, and there are a lot of them, need good role models in our schools, professors such as those at La Sierra, who are both good Adventists and good scientists, which means willing to follow where the evidence leads.

    You seem to be advocating a form of schizophrenia. In other words, the SDA statement of fundamental beliefs is really irrelevant according to your argument here. In other words, it being a Seventh-day Adventist isn’t really based on what you believe as long as you are a good person and believe in God? How is that different from any other religious groups? – to include non-Christian religious groups?

    SDAism isn’t based on blind faith. If your science and your religion are diametrically opposed, something is wrong with either your science or your religion. Useful religion is not schizophrenic like this. While you are correct in the seeming suggestion that a belief in a literal 6-day creation week is not a matter of salvation in and of itself (knowledge isn’t what saves a person – the motive of love does that), you are incorrect to think that this knowledge or understanding isn’t important. It is very important as far as the basis of the Gospel’s “Good News” or a solid hope in a very real and very bright future for us all…

    Truly, if I became convinced of the scientific validity of mainstream evolutionary theories, I would immediately leave the SDA Church. I might still believe in a God of some kind, but certainly not the SDA view of God – – not even the Christian view of God.

    I really don’t think you understand the implications of the ideas in play here…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  49. @Ron:

    Hi Ron,

    Thanks for responding. Yes, I recognize what you said about compassion. I am so much into that, filled with so much compassion and patience, that outsiders who know me and have observed me at work with difficult people, have labeled me as one who has the patience of Job. My last job, after closing my business, was a semi-retirement job as a medicaid driver. My supervisor, in the annual evaluation report of the drivers, reported to the company CEO concerning me, “This man never complains about anything.”
    If you will read the book ‘Living God’s Love’ you will understand how I came to be like that.

    However, if someone starts taring down my house while I’m in it, I may not lose my temper, but I will surely try to stop them lest the house fall in while my family is in it.

    I became aware of this problem sometime during 2008. I believe someone pointed out that it has been going on ten years or more? That seems long enough to verify defiance?

    When I was elected first elder in my church the first time, the day I was voted in our local pharisee was waiting for me after service. He loaned to me his copy of volume three of the Testimonies. He had highlighted certain passages which he was much troubled about. Among them was the quote that says if the leaders of the church didn’t do something about the sins in the church God would hold the church responsible as a body – meaning himself included. He then began to tell me what was going on, naming names. I reacted with shock. I had no idea of all this. I asked, “How long has this been going on?” He said, “Oh, twenty years or more!” I responded,”Well, if it has been going on that long, it can just continue a while, while I pray about it and study the problem. Then, I promise you I will do something about it.” It took me two years to complete my study. During that time the congregation, including the offenders, got to observe my way of dealing with problems. At the end of the two years I delivered the findings in the form of a sermon. I was astonished at the results.

    This man who caused me to do the study had been trying to do something about it himself. He was in every-body’s face. Of course he was repulsed. No one likes to be criticized. Don’t misunderstand me. This Brother was very sincere. I had no doubt of his own relationship with God. However, he turned out to be the most blessed with the message. It relieved him of a burden he was not supposed to be carrying.

    A few years later, just before his passing, his last words to me were, “Wayne, I don’t know how I will ever be allowed through the gates into the city after I have been so guilty of judging others?” I responded, “Brother _______ , You just took care of that! He went to his rest in peace.

    I wish no harm to those who don’t believe like I do. No one has to believe like I do in order to be my friend. If you have read the other postings I did on this issue you noticed how, when addressing those who are believed to be teaching things our church does not believe then accepting pay from the church while doing it, I have closed by signing off as “a friend you haven’t met yet?” I sincerely mean that!

    Compassion does have its place in this, and it does not end when the time comes to take decisive action(I remember as a child when my mom had to resort to spanking she would always tell me it hurt her more that it did me. I had to grow up and have children of my own before I understood what she meant. I think it must be something like ‘God’s strange act’ when He has to punish the wicked – whom He loves dearly!).

    Now that we have talked about compassion, let’s get back to the real issue. After ten years, is it not time to take decisive action? Even now we still don’t have to go through what God will eventually. These folks don’t have to be our enemies! I would like very much to study their material and ask honest questions. But, as stated repeatedly, by myself as well as others, the real issue is their accepting church pay to tear down the church. A case of biting the hand that feeds them. Are they perhaps thinking of converting the whole church to their way of thinking? As I pointed out before, the church has built into its own governmental framework a way of changing. However, to just start preaching and teaching something different without going through the proper channels, without giving the church a chance to study it and respond to it, is just out of line and unacceptable. It can ony cause strife and confusion. Done right, it would give the whole church the privilege of voting on it through their representative to the ‘General Conference in session.’

    Again, thank you for responding. If you would like to talk further, and perhaps on any other subject or topic, I have two email addresses. prodnew@swbell.net & waymat@swbell.net. You may use either one.

    Sincerely Your Brother in Christ,

    Wayne Matlock




    0
    View Comment
  50. John Testerman: It seems as though the only goal is to keep young people in the church but what we believe may not be an issue salient to that goal given your statement. In other words, we want as many people to join and it doesn’t matter what you believe but the end will justify the means to keep you in the church or bring you here. Sounds more like a Universalist Church and not an Adventist Church.

    Can we make up our minds. We are what we are. Why do we need to change what we are to be more popular though it does not agree with the Bible when the stated goals of our church is to stick with the Bible and the measuring rod with this as the ruler for all other things to be judged? Suddenly, we need to change who we are because people may leave? Then it isn’t our church–we will be someone else. Why not just have a group of people that do not agree with what the Seventh-day Adventist church believes start a church that believes whatever you want and go from there as opposed to change everyone else?

    I am really fine with people believing whatever they want. The problem I have is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church states that it’s beliefs are based on the Bible. You can choose to joint this group or leave it freely. You can complain all you want about it’s beliefs. You can even try to explain a different view of scripture to everyone and see if they read it your way. In the end, it is still a group that is bound together with a certain set of common beliefs. If you don’t hold to them, you are free to not be a part of it or still associate if you would like. I think the issue from this website’s perspective and a lot of the people writing’s perspective is that if you are representing a group in a free country as a paid position whether a teacher or pastor, you should feel comfortable and in agreement with teaching their beliefs. If not, then you are stealing and lying and should find employment else ware.




    0
    View Comment
  51. Boo Hoo! I say treat them like a “pagan or tax collector”. Don’t send your children to the university, and tell everyone you know about the situation. When the money trickles, then something will be done about it.




    0
    View Comment
  52. Maybe I should rephrase my statement: they (Educate Truth, Sean Pitman, David Assherick) are not asking teachers to even find employment else wear. They are asking LSU to be honest and publicize that this is what the teachers are teaching to students. I think that what a lot of us realize is that it would end up the same way essentially if they did as LSU’s main client base is till Adventist. I guess I could be wrong though. Educate Truth’s name lives up to that point as to make constituents aware of these facts. Seems like it has gotten some heat for it as well.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Wayne,
    You say we should study it out and let the general conference take care of the matter through our delegates. That’s plain wrong. The Holy Spirit counseled us in the Testimonies that we are not to lay local burdens on the general conference. To have the general conference weighed down with simple issues as this is rediculous, unless the university board refuses to live by and run the school in line with the fundamentals of belief accepted by the general conference. It seems obvious that there is a problem at La Sierra. If there weren’t, the university board would not be trying to keep things under wrap. They would come out with evidence to the contrary to exonerate the outstanding characters and class material the professors are teaching. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. If the board was sure of the professors’ teachings being in line with the doctrines the church holds on intelligent design/creation, they would give the evidence. I have seen none. Therefore, I must presume they are trying to cover up the issue.

    I have seen this same kind of attitude taken over and over again, and I am plain sick of it. I think God is too. Why pussy-foot with error? That’s how the new theology and celebration worship came into our church. Nearly everyone said, “We will sit back and study it for a decade or so to be sure if it is good or bad.” In the mean time, Satan did everything possible to set up his kingdom in our churches. Now we are dealing with ID/creation/evolution, and the same thing is happening before our eyes.
    Where are our leaders? Where are our leaders? Where are our leaders?

    Let’s not repeat the same mistakes. The situation should be dealt with swiftly and decidedly.




    0
    View Comment
  54. @John Testerman:

    John Testerman says:
    February 1, 2010 I wonder if those who are in such a rush to get rid of science professors at La Sierra for teaching evolution, have considered that these professors might be performing a valuable role in keeping many of our most talented young people in the church? Large numbers of educated young Adventists worship God as their creator and redeemer as a matter of religious faith, but do not, however, try to turn their religious faith into scientific theories. They would like to be both Adventist Christians and at the same time practice good science–which means going where the evidence leads. They do not believe that scientific evidence for a very long history of life on this planet and the relatedness of all life conflicts with their relationship with God or undermines the Sabbath.

    1. Those young people NEED someone who can carefully show them that Ex 20:8-11 is much easier to read and understand than the average Theistic Evolutionist would like to imagine.

    2. Those young people NEED to be informed about the “inconvenient details” found in 3SG 90-91 so they can fully understand the motive and message behind what is called “disguised infidelity” and just how it damages about half dozen SDA beliefs.

    3. Those young people NEED to be INFORMED about the CONFIRMED junk-science and exposed fraud history behind evolutionism.

    4. Those young people NEED to be taught the skill of “critical thinking” so that they don’t simply swallow all the hype and marketeering being sold as “a kind of science” by evolutionists. Marketeering that even atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson call “NOT SCIENCE”.

    These young people, and there are a lot of them, need good role models in our schools, professors such as those at La Sierra, who are both good Adventists and good scientists

    Which is what they WILL get at SDA schools OTHER than LSU. Any SDA school that knows enough to expose the junk-science religion of evolutionism STARTING with classes on critical thinking and the confirmed junk-science proven frauds central to evolutionism – will be a huge step from from the “sacrifice-all when evangelizing for evolutionism” model being used at LSU.

    BUT if a few faithful SDA parents and students still choose to ignore this web site’s warnings and risk-all by sending students to LSU biology courses and pro-evolutionist religion courses — then what they WILL get from LSU that you cannot find in a public school – is a fully compromised faculty instructor promoting rank error — and being upheld by local university staff and faculty as a “a role model” that shows SDA students “how its done”.

    The unbiased objective reader will find it more than a little “instructive” that this clear distinctive available only at LSU – is one key item that John zeros in on in his statement above!

    Clearly we have at least ONE point that BOTH sides see clearly!!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  55. @John Testerman:

    But then what happens to those traditionalist young people who believe that their faith requires them to hold to certain beliefs about natural history and the age of the earth? They will go right on believing that because that is what they think they must do to be Christians. Some of them will even write letters complaining about professors teaching evolution. Later, if reading or additional education have shaken that belief and they are tempted to give up their faith, they will hopefully remember their fine Christian professors at La Sierra who showed them a path whereby they could be intellectually honest scientists and Adventist Christians as well.

    This is the classic “surrender first” solution that France tried in WWII.

    It did not work then — it is not going to work for SDAs.

    And oh by the way – it was already tried in Europe with respect to evolutionism. The Christian churches of Europe totally caved in to evolutionism – – and now they are being treated to having their church facilities turned into pool halls, beer halls and book stores and bowling alleys.

    They are demonstrating to the rest of the world what a “post Christian age” actually looks like.

    Turns out Darwin was right about one thing – there is no happy marriage possible for the thinking person – between evolutionism and the Bible.

    At least not in the long run.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. @Ron:

    Ron says:
    January 31, 2010 @BobRyan:

    Actualy Bob, According to Mrs. White, the reason we developed schools is so that our science department could inform our theology department. One of her stated goals, was to counteract the influence of poorly educated “evangelists” who were teaching fanatacism.

    I see. So the church diluted its focus on evangelism so that darwinist evolutionism could downgrade faith in God’s Word “sufficiently” and thus fulfill our mission as a church? Funny thing about that claim of yours — no quote, no reference to anything at all.

    But as it turns out – I happen to have one for you –

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old…. {3SG 91.2}

    So is the quote above – an example of the “fanatacism” that you claim Ellen White was trying to get rid of in your rather wild claim above?

    To put it directly to your point — I find your logic somewhat illusive in that you appeal to Ellen White – who has already given that bold statement above about “disguised infidelity”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  57. @Ron:

    Ron says:
    January 31, 2010 @Robert Bamford:

    I don’t think you have proved your point that they are teaching it in opposition to creation. I haven’t seen anything so far that would support that assertion.

    And I don’t think calling science “junk science” is helpful to the discussion. What is needed is real science that would support an alternate interpretation, however “creation science” seems to be getting weaker while evidence for evolution increases everyday.

    To the contrary – with a little critical thinking you could easily have discovered by now – that even atheist evolutionists themselvs are decrying the “not science” methods of evolutionist diehard evangelists who tell stories “About how one thing came from another… stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science”.

    Surely you “noticed” by now.

    And as for “junk-science and confirmed fraud” we have a number of illustrative examples both recent and those that are time tested.

    How about the recent 30 year long fraud regarding Neanderthals in Europe – surely you by-faith-alone devotion to evolutionism may allow you to admit to a confirmed fraud when you see it.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Scott E:

    Hi Scott,

    Thank you for responding. As I have been watching the voting response I could tell by the poor results, as compared to my previous posts, that I had not come across the way I intended. Perhaps I dwelt too long on the ‘compassion issue.’ That was for Ron’s sake. He doesn’t know me and had shown concern that my positive remarks for ‘decisive action now’ was perhaps showing a lack of compassion. Compassion does have its place. Remember Jesus’ prayer while hanging on the cross. However, if a poisonous snake is about to bite one of my family, and since I don’t possess the power of dealing with it as God did for Paul, it will get decisive action very, very quickly. That won’t remove the fact that I know the snake is only trying to defend itself and therefore feel a bit compassionate toward it. I hope the illustration is plain? There does come a time when action must take place but not without compassion.

    Brother Scott, please review my posting that you responded to. Apparently you have been following this problem longer than I have and have come to realize, I expect a long time back, that this is not going to be stopped by persuasion. I have not been following it, didn’t even know about it, until a very short time back.

    You used the term ‘decade’ in reference to ‘the new theology and celebration worship.’ If you will notice I used the term ‘ten years’ twice in my comments – meaning that’s more than ample time to deal with this problem before decisive action – which should make it plain that I also have come to the same conclusion that you have. And I expect I got there quicker that you did.

    After reviewing my comments I can see that the next to last paragraph talking about proper procedure is where the real problem was. Let me say this:

    I’m no lawyer and what I have to say about procedure is not intended to be presented as ‘the way it is.’ It is just my concept of how it is supposed to work. I’m going to try to explain it again in more detail, and it may very well be completely wrong. I hope we do have an Adventist lawyer keeping tabs on this. If so, my plea with you, grade this presentation and give us the ‘real’ proper procedure. What follows is my understanding of how it’s supposed to work. This understanding comes from what I understood I was being told, plus what I have observed during the fifty nine years I have been a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    When the teacher, or anybody else who thinks they have found something the church is wrong about, first realized he/she had encountered what they believe to be forceful evidence that the church was wrong and the evolutionist were right, that was the time to activate the process. Instead of just starting to teach it, he/she was supposed to have taken it to the local pastor in private. It could be that the pastor would have the answers. No further action would have needed to be taken. If the pastor was unable to clear it up, he would then send it to the local conference president who would, if necessary, enlist whatever scholarly help was available on the local level. If collectively, this study group were unable to resolve it, maintaining the church’s official position, then it would be sent to the next level up, etc. until the final stop which would then be the General Conference. Even then, the GC personal would not have to spend much, if any, time on it. That would be the point where The Biblical Research Institute (BRI) would come into the picture – which is the reason for its existence. When the question found its place on their agenda they would research every bit of information known to man on the subject. All this time the individual who originated this question is supposed to remain silent, teaching what they know the church believes. If they can’t in good conscience do that, they should do the right thing and quietly leave, thus maintaining their own good record and avoiding the situation we are in right now.

    After the BRI have finished their work, they do not have the authority to make a decision on what the church is to do with it. Their job would be to bring their findings to the General Conference in session. There the officially elected delegates would consider it and vote it up or down. If it became a part of the church’s belief, then, and only then, would the individual who originated the question be free to teach/preach it. To do so ahead of this process is what splits the church and causes off-shouts.

    One other point: Someone mentioned closing down the school? Nope! It belongs to the church – the local conference where it operates. The appropriate thing to do is dismiss the offending personal and replace them with people who believe and adhere to the twenty-eight fundamentals.

    As far as the General Conference doing anything about the current situation – I rather doubt they can legally do anything beyond influence and withhold financial support. As you said, Brother Scott, this problem is the responsibility of the local conference in which the school operates.
    May God help us out of this mess with as little damage as possible.
    Sincerely Your Brother in Christ & a friend you haven’t met yet.

    Wayne Matlock
    prodnew@swbell.net
    waymat@swbell.net




    0
    View Comment
  59. Ron said:
    The problem with this whole discussion is that it fails to deal with the simple fact that we see evoution occuring around us everyday. Not millions of years ago, but NOW, in the laboratory today. Until you can harmonize what you read in the Bible with what we observe in science, the premise of this web site has no reasonable foundation. You can’t expect a few biology teachers to do what the whole denomination has been unable to do in the last 166 years. And not just Adventists, but the whole Christian world. Don’t you think Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans would like to disprove evolution too? Of course they would.

    Faith:
    So what you are saying then, Ron, is that God has to come up to your academic standard because He was definitely wrong when He said that He had created the earth in 6 literal days. (Of course, He was there and neither you nor all your little evolutionary cohorts were, but…hey…if some dude with initials behind his name said it, it must be true, right?)Obviously He wasn’t privy to your wonderful discoveries in the laboratory, I suppose. (Right–He only knows the end from the beginning.) But you just go right ahead being led around by the nose by those who are willing to defame God and His creation in the name of the god ‘science’.

    This shows very clearly who and what you worship–and it isn’t God.

    Ron:
    The other premise expressed on this site, that evolutionism somehow destroys the value of the Sabbath, or Adventism, I am unwilling to grant. It certainly doesn’t for me.

    Faith:
    Your above statement, by the way, is a great example of what you have stated you are unwilling to grant.

    Ron said: I think is unethical to ask our faithful God fearing Biology teachers to teach something that has no scientific foundation.

    Faith: How do you figure these guys are faithful or God-fearing when they are basically calling God a liar at every turn. How can you people be so blind to something so obvious? You all seem to think you are smarter than God, so how could you be so dumb?

    You need to get your priorities straight, Ron, if you are going to claim to be an SDA. You see, the SDA church believes in God, His Word, and His creation. If you have lost sight of those facts, you need to get back to the basics.
    Faith




    0
    View Comment
  60. Faith: So what you are saying then, Ron, is that God has to come up to your academic standard because He was definitely wrong when He said that He had created the earth in 6 literal days. (Of course, He was there and neither you nor all your little evolutionary cohorts were, but…hey…if some dude with initials behind his name said it, it must be true, right?)Obviously He wasn’t privy to your wonderful discoveries in the laboratory, I suppose. (Right–He only knows the end from the beginning.) But you just go right ahead being led around by the nose by those who are willing to defame God and His creation in the name of the god ’science’.

    This shows very clearly who and what you worship–and it isn’t God.

    How can you people be so blind to something so obvious? You all seem to think you are smarter than God, so how could you be so dumb?

    This general conversation and debate is focused on issues that are both academic and spiritual, and our discussion ought to be be of a quality and tone that will reflect that reality. The laughter of the secular world is our reward if Christians can not act in a civil manner.

    I have found that most (but by no means all) of us with “initials after our names” have found that the more we learn, the less we really know and we are forced to accept a fair level of humility as a result. In my experience, this has particularly been the case among professors at LSU.

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.