Comment on LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations by Eddie.
David Read wrote:
David Read: Our colleges should be platforms for scientific creationism, but instead they are becoming platforms for Darwinism, which is merely an apologetic arm of atheism, an alternative version of earth’s origins that leaves God out of the picture.
Actually SDA colleges still have many science professors who believe in scientific creationism. However, many find it a bit tough to find time and money to do anything other than teach heavy loads for 15-25% less than what the denomination pays primary and secondary school teachers, and many like myself wind up moonlighting to pay off overspent credit cards.
SDA colleges can’t even afford to send professors to professional meetings. My institution, for example, provides only $500 a year to attend a professional meeting. I would be happy to attend the creation meetings hosted by the SDA Church, but travel and lodging anywhere these days for a 3-5 day meeting easily exceeds $1000.
Furthermore, origins-related research isn’t free. Where does one apply for a grant to fund origins research? It’s much easier for biologists to get $$$ for studying obscurities like slime molds and deep sea shrimp than to study the age of ice layers in Antarctica.
Eddie Also Commented
GMF: Frankly, I do not believe pay is the main problem. If we all should sacrifice why should profs be exempt?
Excuse me: SDA profs often get paid LESS than primary and secondary school teachers in SDA schools across the street!!! Do you seriously think it is fair for a professor with a PhD degree to be paid less than a teacher with a BS degree? Whenever a vacancy occurs in a SDA college or university, there are very few applicants and often the only applicants are fringe SDAs who superficially support the church’s mission. Can leaders be blamed for not hiring conservative SDAs when none apply? Why is it that so few conservative SDAs seek a career as a professor?
If you don’t believe me, simply ask any biology professor at Educate Truth’s two favorite universities why they can’t find suitable candidates for their vacancies, which they continue to advertise for year after year.
How can the SDA church expect to staff SDA colleges and universities with professors dedicated to the mission of the SDA church when nearly all students interested in science wind up in health care professions? Has the church ever asked health care professionals to sacrifice?
Out of curiosity, Sean, if educating truth is so important for you, why did you pursue a career in medicine rather than education?
David Read: I would like to see an Adventist foundation created solely to fund creationist research
I would love to see that happen!
LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations
Professor Kent, I think it’s time to concede that Sean Pitman has been right all along. Our beliefs must be based 100% on empiricism and 0% on faith. All scientific data, without exception, prove beyond doubt the Biblical truth that all life was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days about 6000 years ago, and Noah’s flood covered 100% of the Earth’s surface. Any SDA professor or administrator who disagrees must resign or be fired. In fact, anybody who disagrees is not even SDA. Seventh-day Darwinists are not SDA and never can be, unless they repent and agree with Sean. The sooner we stop arguing the better, so this ignominous website can finally be closed.
Recent Comments by Eddie
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Will humans and animals in New Jerusalem need to sleep?
Stephen Ferguson: Sean, how did we get to this position? In particular, why after spending decades and millions of dollars has the official Church’s own pet organisation, the Geoscience Research Institute, done so little to disprove evolution?
Why if it is all hogwash has it been thoroughly not been disproved over the last 150 years? Why do some 99% of scientists across a multitude of different fields (e.g. paleontologists, physicists, archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists, historians, cosmologists and geologists etc) all consider evolution to be the most plausible model?
Maybe because the evidence for microevolution and speciation is overwhelming. And some evidence for megaevolution (e.g., sequence of fossils) and long geological ages can be perplexing to explain from the perspective of most (but not all) young life and young earth creationists.
Stephen Ferguson: Why, if it is all rubbish, is there Adventist scientists and theologians who believe in evolution? Why would they risk their careers and standing in the Church to promote something they consider truth, given the huge pressure to just shut up, if they didn’t believe there was something in it?
Maybe because they’re not as honest as some prominent supporters here. Or their faith is weaker. Or, perhaps, physicians and lawyers are simply better trained than scientists and theologians to evaluate scientific evidence.
Stephen Ferguson: I really, really hope Christian scientists, especially Adventist ones, will disprove evolution some day.
Stephen Ferguson: If the SDA hierarchy wants someone to blame for all this, they should blame themselves. It has been their pet organisations that have so spectacularly failed to offer scientific arguments in favour of YEC. Ted Wilson must accept some of the blame onto himself – if not personally then on behalf of the hierachy he leads.
I wouldn’t blame anybody. But if they were to fire the current GRI staff, hire certain supporters here, and then move GRI from LLU to SAU or SWAU, I suspect a certain faction of the church would be happier.
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
Sean, you have essentially written enough about this to publish a book, which you ought to do, exhorting SDAs to abandon Sola Scriptura and rely exclusively on empirical data, which surely will be a best seller among neoconservative SDAs.
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Like Ken, I am puzzled by the lukewarm reception of his suggestion to establish an endowed chair for intelligent design at LSU. Perhaps there was confusion about his term “intelligent design.” I think he had in mind the kind of creationism that most SDAs believe in, specifically young earth creationism or young life creationism (I realize some of you view ID negatively). So it could be called an Endowed Chair of Young Life Creationism, or whatever term is preferred.
For what it’s worth, I like his idea for several reasons:
1) SDA professors in all our institutions with the exception of LLU have relatively heavy teaching loads and scant time available for research, which means they have little time to conduct and publish research on creationism (I’m quite certain Art Chadwick would concur). That’s why as a denomination we have no well published and respected researchers with expertise on the subject, with the sole exception of Leonard Brand at LLU–who ranks among the world’s most successful scientists whose research focuses on YLC (if you believe there are other SDA experts with more expertise, you might be disappointed if you conducted a search of their publication records).
2) Most students in our institutions are seeking a career in a health profession, therefore SDA professors by necessity focus mostly on subjects that prepare students for the biomedical fields. Few have time to keep up with issues related to creationism and evolution, let alone conduct original research on the subject. You can’t really expect all professors to be as well informed with the subject as Leonard Brand.
3) It would be fantastic for LSU to have a professor with the available time and resources to pursue high quality research on creationism, which I believe was the intent of Ken’s wish. We already have one such professor at LLU; why not another at LSU? I’m astonished that some here seem to think it is undesirable to have another expert SDA researcher on the subject. Perhaps some of you naively imagine that ALL professors have the unlimited time and resources to become world-class researchers on creationism–and are wasting the denomination’s money by not doing so.
4) SDA institutions struggle to meet their payroll obligations and can benefit by obtaining financial assistance from donors.
5) If the evidence overwhelmingly favors the traditional SDA position of origins, as some here claim, what harm is there in funding a professor with the time and resources to discover even more evidence? It’s pretty hard to convince the world that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors our position unless the evidence is published in respectable scientific journals–as Leonard Brand has done repeatedly. It won’t ever happen unless there are more full-time researchers who focus exclusively on issues related to creationism.
Sean Pitman: Most scientists who believe in the Biblical model of origins interpret Tertiary sediments as post-Flood sediments.
So if Noah’s flood ended at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, which coincides with a period of high global sea levels according to geologists, does that mean Noah’s flood is represented by the second of two worldwide floods in this graph?
How would you account for the geological evidence for a worldwide flood during the Paleozoic and the lack of geological evidence for high sea levels during the early Mesozoic?