Comment on LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations by BobRyan.
Larry Williams: However, we do need to make the concern more general. The other schools need to be held accountable, too. My son lost his faith at an SDA college and it wasnâ€™t LSU.
Agreed – however LSU is going to set a precident one way or the other. I have no doubt that if our denomination were to botch up the management of the LSU problem – we would soon lose lost 3 or 4 other teaching institutions in a few short years.
A lot is riding on how this is managed and the degree to which our leaders can see the big picture. I continue to pray for their success on this regard each day.
BobRyan Also Commented
LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations
When the point is made that belief in evolutionism undermines Christianity, undermines the Bible and specifically undermines SDA fundamental Belief #6 we get the side comment below —
Eddie: Professor Kent, I think itâ€™s time to concede that Sean Pitman has been right all along. Our beliefs must be based 100% on empiricism and 0% on faith.
I find a certain paucity in logic that leads to the conlusion above just because we admit to the same thing found in 3SG 90-91, and also admit to Darwin’s own observation on the fact that evolutionism and the Bible are mutually exclusive belief systems.
Ron Stone M.D.: Oh, I forgotâ€“we gotta get less students â€œperceivingâ€ the â€œwrongâ€ thing and more â€œfeelingâ€ the â€œrightâ€ thing is being taught.
Ok, well that may be their idea of a “Marketing solution” to the problem, but I prefer a solution with a bit more substance.
LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations
The opening article said
“The second recommendation was that the new seminar class (BOIL 111A), which is supposed to support the Adventist view of origins, include professors who are overtly creationist. The seminar class had been exposed in 2010 for promoting theological ideas contrary to the churchâ€™s position on creation. How could it be otherwise, when the class was taught by known evolutionists? In an interview with the Adventist Review, LSU Board Chair described the course, saying, â€œWe realize the first iteration of it did not really have the results we desired. So, we will be looking at that for revision.â€
Here is the real underbelly of the beast. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.
They have the same foxes guarding the same hen house as before – and are expressing “surprise” that they keep getting “the same results”.
Notice that the committee emphasizes the point that Bradley’s honesty did not help the school or the LSU board. Indeed honesty is not the best policy if the agenda is subversion. All the effort so far has been in the form of approving existing fox-administration refusing to blame any past policy or individual for current results, and finding new ways to “dress up” evolutionism within a more politically correct, better defended structure now that some of their work in darkness has come to the light of day.
Still the LSU subcommittee tasked with following up on the AAA recommendation refused to budge when it came to doctrines on origins in evolutionism being promoted against the origins teaching God explicitly identifies in creationism. The LSU committee flatly states that they themselves are incompetent to review the matter and that it is “innappropriate” for even the LSU board to look into it!
Smoking gun my friends.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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