LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’

By Sean Pitman, M.D.

The LSU PR department is working overtime to produce an image of LSU as a Seventh-day Adventist institution that is in full support of the fundamental goals, ideals and Pillars of the SDA faith.  At the GC the LSU booth is staffed by those who are telling everyone that the current controversy surrounding LSU’s promotion of evolutionary theories as the true story of origins is completely overblown; not at all representative of what LSU stands for. They, along with LSU’s President, Randal Wisbey, are passing out handouts explaining that LSU fully supports the SDA position on origins and that their science professors only teach their students “about” the theory of evolution while still supporting the SDA position on origins. They explain that those who say otherwise are simply ill-informed and have a bias against any form of teaching regarding the theory of evolution, even if it be for information purposes only and not a promotion of evolutionary ideas.

One thing is quite clear, someone isn’t telling the truth.

This is an excerpt from a handout being passed out at the LSU booth at the GC Session:

“Our biology curriculum offers a selection of classes with both breadth and depth. It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution is discussed, but not promoted, at La Sierra University.

We believe that God the Creator is the source of all life. Students examine our denomination’s voted fundamental belief regarding creation and understand the data used to support our faith in creation. We believe that by providing a complete curriculum grounded in biological principles, paralleled and supported by a strong general education curriculum, students will be able to graduate with an integrated knowledge of their discipline as well as a stronger faith and understanding of God as their Creator and Saviour.

The scientific data are presented just as they are at most other Seventh-day Adventist institutions, often with the same textbook. We believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that students receive a complete and comprehensive education as warranted by their given program of study.

Compare this statement with former president Lawrence Geraty (1993-2008):

I believe the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics is affecting our beloved church, not only in belief but in tactics that have no place among Christians. If you care about Truth, I suggest you dig a bit deeper than either Shane Hilde or the Michigan Conference have done.

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

In the book, “Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives” Dr. Geraty writes:

Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author…  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the doctrinal position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic and fossil record.

It is also rather difficult to ignore the impression that Dr. Geraty strongly favors the “progressive” movement within the Church.  When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise:

“I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer.  But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

(Read more)

Current LSU President Randal Wisbey

Randal Wisbey himself publicly questions the viability of the SDA perspective on origins without offering any apologetic arguments in support.  On November 21, 2008, Wisbey gave a speech for the Adventist Society of Religious Studies, titled “Nurturing the Adventist Mind.” In his speech, he explained how Adventists can integrate “Adventist thinking” with a “vast array of intellectual disciplines.”

One example of how the church needs this integration is in the vexing issue of the relation of Adventist thinking to the natural sciences as pertains to the history of life on planet Earth. On the one hand, for more than a hundred years Adventists have believed that “the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works” [White]. On the other hand, we recognize that “creationists do not have an adequate explanation” for “radiometric dates of many millions of years… The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers” [Gibson].

What Adventist colleges and universities can do is to provide a supportive environment and conceptual assistance not only to their students but also to the whole church in addressing this issue effectively by reexamining our understanding of both the “book of nature” and the “written word.” In the process, Adventist colleges and universities can be examples of thinking faithfully.

In support of allowing paid SDA representatives to teach fundamentally diverging opinions, Wisbey quotes J.N. Loughborough in his 1861 statement regarding the issue of Church order and government:

The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commit persecution against such.

Wisbey fails to reference Loughborough in his 1907 work, The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline. Although originally opposed to such constraints, it was John Loughborough, together with James White, who first started to realize the need for some sort of internal enforcement of Church order and discipline – i.e., a Church government.

“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.” (Loughborough, JN. Testimonies for the Church. No. 32, p. 30)

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the early SDA Church did not receive “cards of commendation”. And what was the attitude of such persons, according to Loughborough:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ “

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

Yet Wisbey thinks to quote Ellen White in support of “progressive” Adventism:

There is no excuse for anyone to take the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that our expositions of the Scripture are without error. (White, Ellen G. Counsels to Writers and Editors. p. 35, Dwyer, Bonnie. In the Eye of the Storm. 4, s.l. : Spectrum, 2009, Vol. 37.)

Wisbey fails to note that although Ellen White does indeed use the phrase “unity in diversity,” and stated that “Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto,” she also maintained that the landmarks and pillars of Adventist truth were to remain.  Concepts that impact the science of geology which she “was shown” to be  identified as permanent include the concept of six literal, empirical,  historical 24-hour days of creation, culminating with a literal 24-hour Sabbath day of rest, and that life on earth was non-existent before the literal creation week described in Genesis (Nichol, Francis D. SDA Bible Commentary, 7 vols. plus supplement. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1970. p. 1083. Vol. 6; White, Ellen G. Silver Spring, MD : Ellen G. White Estate, 1888; Spiritual Gifts, 4 vols. Battle Creek, MI : Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1858, 1860, 1864. pp. 90-93. Vol. 3.)

She also writes that no one is to go ahead or fall behind the current leading of God in the understanding of the Church as an organized body and expect to remain a recognized part of that body.

God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that.  Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust.  The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead… (Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.)

Lee Greer, LSU Biology Professor:

As a species humans have only been around about 200,000 years and have low within-species genetic variation. ..The genes encoding various globin proteins evolved from one common ancestral globin gene, which duplicated and diverged about 450-500 million years ago. (Greer, Lee. BIOL 111: Genomes and their Evolution. EducateTruth.com. [Online] December 11, 2009. [Cited: December 21, 2009.])

Greer also publicly supports the idea that the Genesis account is allegorical and internally inconsistent – a description of at least two conflicting accounts of creation, neither of which conforms to what is known about physical reality through scientific investigation.  He presents this view in his classes and when he leads out in chapel services at LSU and in other public forums.

Lee Grismer, LSU Biology Professor:

L. Lee Grismer is an expert on the vertebrate life of Baja California, which he argues in his papers has been affected by the “dynamic environmental history . . . over the last 4-5 million years” and that this history “has had a profound effect on the evolution, distribution, and genetic structuring of Baja California’s terrestrial vertebrates.” Check out his book “Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, Including Its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortés.”

Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account the very next week after I was there (Sean Pitman – February 2009).

One student said he was the first to ask a question, ‘if scientists have been wrong so many times throughout the past, could it be possible that scientists are wrong about evolution?’ According to this student, “You could tell he [Grismer] was already upset with what I was saying. He said, ‘Ya, ya, that is true! We could be wrong, but we’re going off of what we know now. All the evidence is pointing to billions of years.’”

Grismer’s tone escalated into what two student witnesses described as yelling. According to one student, it was Louie Bishop who really got Grismer riled up. Bishop quoted Matthew 19:4 to Greer, asking how he reconciled what the Bible said about human origins with evolution. According to two of the students, Grismer said, “You’re stupid and ignorant. You don’t know enough to say anything. Your kind of thinking drives planes into buildings.”

One student witness concluded, “I should feel comfortable at an SDA school using Scripture to support science. But they were making it seem like we couldn’t use the Bible. I felt betrayed, because I couldn’t even ask a question without being called ignorant.”

Larry McCloskey, recently retired LSU Biology Professor:

Excerpt from McCloskey’s 2009 lecture, syllabus and notes:

It is vitally important for you to realize that this course—as a science course—is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs…

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence. New discoveries continue to fill the gaps identified by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. The evidence is in the form of direct, measurable, empirical observation. Is it informed to dismiss Darwin’s ideas as ‘just a theory’?… There is nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea.  It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.

The reason this unifying theory has become so widely accepted in the scientific world is that it has stood up to intense, thorough, continual observation and criticism. The way to become rich & famous in science would be to show a fundamental error in the theory. The built-in skepticism of science prevents these ideas from becoming dogma.” (Read more)

Gary Bradley, LSU Biology Professor since 1972:

From an article in Inside Higher Education:

Bradley, who is semi-retired after 38 years at La Sierra, has seen evolution debates erupt on campus before — and his traditional response is to “dive under the desk and wait for them to blow over.” In this instance, Bradley says he has the backing of his president, who wrote a letter to faculty, staff and trustees affirming the university’s role in the “important conversation of science and faith.”

Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.

“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bullshit,” he said.

“It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,” Bradley added. “That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.” In the Capstone Biology  class for 2009, Bradley gave a 69-slide presentation entitled, “Hominin Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.”

Besides LSU’s science professors, it is somewhat surprising to discover that many of LSU’s religion professors also publicly challenge the validity of the SDA position on a literal creation week.

A new freshman class was started in 2009 to address the issue of integrating “science” with “religion”.   It was touted as part of the solution to the controversy surrounding LSU regarding its undermining of SDA beliefs.  Yet, this class was organized and led by the very same professors above who are ardent evolutionists.  Almost all of the guest lecturers who were invited to help teach this class also supported some form of long-age evolutionary progression on this planet and insinuated doubts regarding the literal interpretation of the Genesis account on origins.

For further information please refer to the video clips of this class ( Link ) as well as to the response of President Ricardo Graham when presented with the additional problems this new class was causing for LSU – as reported by the Adventist Review ( Link ).

How are such faculty and administrators who think themselves so “progressive” in advance of the foundational pillars of the organized SDA Church on such basic fundamental issues going to be remotely capable of “bringing our young people home at the end of the day?”, as Elder Paulsen put it, if they don’t really believe in or see evidence for the home message to begin with?  Ultimately, is there to be no real accountability to the organized SDA Church for what is presented as “truth” from either pulpit or classroom? – by paid representatives supported by God’s own monies in the forms of tithes and offerings? (Paulsen, Jan. An Appeal. Adventist News Network. [Online] 2009. [Cited: December 21, 2009.])

In light of all of this, consider also the censorship of LSU against Louie Bishop, a LSU student subjected to academic censorship and probation for standing up for SDA fundamental beliefs in class and for trying to inform others of the attacks against the Pillars of the SDA faith within the science classrooms at LSU.  For further information, read Louie Bishop’s own very enlightening testimony regarding what he experienced and is still experiencing at LSU (Read more).

At the very least we, as constituents of the SDA Church and parents of children in our SDA schools deserve to know the truth as to what we are supporting with our time and money and to what we are entrusting the minds of our own children.  LSU has not been honest and straightforward regarding this issue.  Subtleties of language and careful turns of phrases have been used to misdirect people, in a deceptive and knowingly dishonest manner, from the truth.  We deserve better than this.  At the very least we deserve transparency from our Church and Church institutions.

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

37 thoughts on “LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’

  1. Looks like we need to have some “nose measuring” on these guys! How about hiring a cartoonists, to draw caricatures of these characters? Each day, a longer and longer nose!




    0
    View Comment
  2. @Eddie:

    Would Jesus approve of a cartoonist drawing caricatures of LSU administrators and professors?

    Didn’t Jesus refer to some of the leaders in His day as “whitewashed tombs”? – Matthew 23:27. I’d call that a pretty interesting and accurate visual to illustrate His point – wouldn’t you?

    You tell me, is LSU being truthful, open and honest about what its science professors really do believe, teach and promote in their classrooms regarding the SDA position on origins?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  3. Would Jesus approve of a cartoonist drawing caricatures of LSU administrators and professors?  (Quote)

    I believe he would. So, why do you believe he wouldn’t? They’re liars and are pretending to be God’s “servants.” Jesus spoke the truth!




    0
    View Comment
  4. “It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,” Bradley added. “That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that…”
    Does Gary know that the MAJORITY of the church would fall away during the shaking period? His faith in a mindless, random chance, purposeless dogma called evolution is what I call lunacy.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Sean, you know very well that I know that some LSU professors do indeed teach megaevolution as fact, which undermines SDA beliefs, and that I believe reform is needed. I am not defending what those professors–some of whom are my friends–teach. But does that justify belittling people about the length of their noses? I think a wise Christian could make the point–repeatedly–that reform is needed without resorting to ad hominen attacks on individuals on the WORLD WIDE WEB. I think it was Professor Kent who called it “cyberbullying.” Who is more likely to approve of such tactics, Jesus or Satan?




    0
    View Comment
  6. @Eddie:

    Sean, you know very well that I know that some LSU professors do indeed teach megaevolution as fact, which undermines SDA beliefs, and that I believe reform is needed. I am not defending what those professors–some of whom are my friends–teach. But does that justify belittling people about the length of their noses? I think a wise Christian could make the point–repeatedly–that reform is needed without resorting to ad hominen attacks on individuals on the WORLD WIDE WEB.

    You do understand that I’m talking about LSU’s deliberately deceptive PR champagne where they are telling everyone that their professors are in full support of the SDA fundamental beliefs? You realize that I’m not really talking about the physical length of people’s noses? – Right? Are you unfamiliar with the story of Pinocchio?

    The reason this has to be done publicly is two-fold. First off, people have a right to know what they are really supporting with their time and money. Secondly, nothing was done for many years when this issue was addressed more privately by me and many others…

    And, do you not realize that Mrs. White was very public about her warnings against Battle Creek in her day when professors there started teaching against the position of the SDA Church in her day? She publicly told people not to send their children to Battle Creek (see Link).

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  7. 1. Pinocchio is a cartoon character – It is unclear to me that drawing Pinocchio with a long nose is out of line with that story.

    2. LSU Marketing COMM says – “It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution is discussed, but not promoted, at La Sierra University.”.

    So what a great list of exhibit we find assembled on this web page indicating that LSU is less than open in making that wild claim.

    This single collection of source material is the real down-to-earth value of the EducateTruth web site, so that none need be deceived.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Geanna Dane:

    I am amazed by the extent to which “conservative” Adventists will justify their actions. Totally amazed.

    I’m amazed at your suggestion that our own schools who are deliberately lying to us about what they are teaching our own children, contrary to the name on the school, should not be publicly called out on what they are doing in public – especially after having resisted many private attempts over many years to correct such blatant attacks against the very name the school supposedly represents…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  9. And so on a web page dedicated to comparing the claims by the LSU marketing dept to the actual published positions of LSU biology and staff – we have the less than insightful “let’s talk about pinocchio” path of misdirection simply because a cartoon image of pinocchio appears on the page.

    Ok fine. Let those who think the real value here is discussing pinocchio – continue their quest.

    And also – let those who want to actually compare the evidence in the opening article here – pursue that point as well.

    This choice is an easy one.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  10. So would it be okay to put these cartoons on a billboard over a major interstate?  

    Geanna, I will help if you will go “halvesies” with me!




    0
    View Comment
  11. @Becci:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Eddie: I don’t think Sean or I have ever called the professors liars. To the contrary, they have been more honest then the university they work for. The university has lied about what is going on and it appears they are being more blatant about it now. The picture accurately captures LSU’s actions. There is nothing false about it in its representation of what LSU is doing in regard to it’s problem.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Shane Hilde wrote:

    @Eddie: I don’t think Sean or I have ever called the professors liars. To the contrary, they have been more honest then the university they work for. The university has lied about what is going on and it appears they are being more blatant about it now.

    Um, Shane, it wasn’t Eddie but someone else, Ron Stone, who called the professors liars:

    Ron Stone wrote:

    [@Eddie, who wrote, Would Jesus approve of a cartoonist drawing caricatures of LSU administrators and professors?]

    I believe he would. So, why do you believe he wouldn’t? They’re liars and are pretending to be God’s “servants.” Jesus spoke the truth!

    To be more clear, I believe you and Sean are calling the administrators liars and the professors thieves.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Geanna, I’m a mite confused here– who is conservative and who is justifying whom?

    1. Above, dated July 9, you stated: I am amazed by the extent to which “conservative” Adventists will justify their actions. Totally amazed.

    2. Also dated July 9, under the post “Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know,” you said: Um, many conservatives–myself included–appreciate the concepts of openness and inclusiveness. …

    Geanna, maybe it’s your twin (along with Eddie) who want to exclude a cute little picture of Pinocchio?

    For me, I want to say that this is a case where the picture is definitely worth a thousand words. My thanks to whoever is responsible for posting it. (I really like the three monkeys and the bull’s eye, too) The pictures bring a smile. With the deadly seriousness of the stakes involved, a smile now and then is helpful.




    0
    View Comment
  15. Shane Hilde wrote:
    Um, Shane, it wasn’t Eddie but someone else, Ron Stone, who called the professors liars:Ron Stone wrote:
    To be more clear, I believe you and Sean are calling the administrators liars and the professors thieves.  

    Yes, Geanna, the profs are liars in that Darwinian evolution has no empiric evidence to back it up, and to teach it as “fact” IS a lie.

    Wisbey and Geraty are also liars in that they are deceiving us regarding the truth about what is actually being taught at LSU.

    So, both are “liars” but perhaps lying in a different manner.




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Ron Stone M.D:

    It is not accurate to call someone a liar who doesn’t know that they are in error. I personally think that the LSU professors honestly believe what they are teaching regarding the “truth” of the Darwinian story of origins. Therefore, they are not “liars”. I believe that they are in error in what they believe to be true, but they are not deliberately teaching error or “lying”.

    However, the professors are knowingly undermining the SDA Church for whom they work while on the dime of the Church. That, in my book, is a clear moral wrong. It is a form of stealing…

    The LSU administrators and PR staff, on the other hand, know what is really being promoted as the truth at LSU. They know that their science professors believe in and actively promote long-age evolutionary ideas while discounting the SDA position on a literal creation week. Yet, these representatives of LSU are going around telling everyone that this is not the case; that everyone at LSU is in full support of the SDA Church and all of the Church’s fundamental doctrines. This, as they full well know, is a bold faced lie. There simply is no other word to describe what they are doing…

    Why are the LSU representatives deliberately lying to us? Do we not have the right to know the truth as to what is really being taught to our young people? Why all this deception? Why not at least be open and honest with people what what you really stand for? – about what each one of your professors really believes and promotes? I just don’t get it. I don’t understand all this deliberate deception and I don’t understand why some people are getting angry with those who are striving to produce real openness, honesty, and transparency on this issue…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  17. Sean, We have been over this before, and I believe you are wrong. Teaching evolution “as fact” when there are simply no “facts” to empirically support it IS LYING.

    When I majored in Zoology at a California university in the 60,s, my profs were all evolutionists. However, none were so brazen to state that we have proven evolution to be a fact. In fact, when I challenged my Invertebrate Zoology prof on a number of issues, he simply stated we don’t know all the answers “yet.” Well, we still don’t have any answers! Teaching “evolution as fact” when the facts are absent IS lying!

    There is actually less evidence for “evolution as fact” today than back then. Witness the dumping of Darwinian mechanisms by Gould, in favor of “punctuated equilibrium” and Crick’s wacko theory of “directed panspermia!”

    However, we both agree in the seriousness of what is going on at LSU, so I will leave it at that.

    I simply wish you and Shane would allow those who have a different “take” on issues to state them, instead of editing, deleting, and censoring so much. I actually had more freedom to express my views at AT and Spectrum than I do here, even though they HATED what I said.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Sean, Regarding “why” the LSU administration IS lying (we both agree that they ARE lying?) the answer is simple. They’ve been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (thanks to Dave, Shane, Louie, and others!) and the human response is to deny, lie, and deceive rather than to “fess up.”

    Witness Wisbey’s smiley face interview here on this website. Besides, why would or should Wisbey and his cronies “fess up” to anything, since they have the support of the SECC, the Board (by their passivity and inaction), and the Pacific Union Conference, by THEIR inaction.

    IF Wilson and the GC decide to intervene (which is a BIG if) maybe something will be done. I have serious doubts anything will be done, by either the Board, the Pacific Union Conference, the NAD, or the GC. I hope I’m wrong!




    0
    View Comment
  19. @Ron Stone M.D:

    Sean, We have been over this before, and I believe you are wrong. Teaching evolution “as fact” when there are simply no “facts” to empirically support it IS LYING.

    The LSU science professors are not teaching evolution as “fact”, but as the most likely story of origins as they see it. They truly believe this and are not deliberately misleading their students. Therefore, it is wrong of you to accuse them of lying. I agree with you that they are mistaken in their beliefs, but I do not agree with your labeling them as “liars” when they do not understand their error.

    I simply wish you and Shane would allow those who have a different “take” on issues to state them, instead of editing, deleting, and censoring so much. I actually had more freedom to express my views at AT and Spectrum than I do here, even though they HATED what I said.

    The problem with many of your posts is that they are unnecessarily inflammatory, personal, or pejorative. You often use ad hominem attacks in your posts which are either uncalled for, over the top, or which are simply irrelevant or distracting from the topic at hand. You do have some good ideas, but you really need to tone it down quite a bit in order to be more effective…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  20. One more thing, Sean. Why don’t you “get” what’s going on? LSU is clearly teaching against the basic beliefs of our Church. They have gotten away with it for many years, but now, the gig is up.

    Do you think Wisbey, Geraty, Guy, and all the others who have been supporting this stuff are going to roll over admit to anything? They will fight to the end to support their humanistic values. In the same way, we need to be ready to fight until the end to support God’s Truth!

    Which is, of course, what the liberals fear we will actually do, and WHY they all clamor for shutting up, laying off, and, as Osborn stated, finding “more important” things to talk about.

    The battle lines are drawn. Who will blink first? I hope it’s not us!




    0
    View Comment
  21. @Geanna Dane:

    So would it be okay to put these cartoons on a billboard over a major interstate?

    What is wrong with a billboard advertising LSU as being on the cutting edge when it comes to teaching about and promoting belief in evolutionary “science”? After all, most universities wouldn’t think twice about such a promotional effort in support of mainstream “science”… the more prominent the better!

    Why then would LSU be embarrassed to have this fact known by all?

    Let’s just suppose someplace like Harvard started promoting the truth of Intelligent Design Theory or even Creationism in their science classrooms. Even if Harvard were to deny this, if there happened to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you don’t think this would hit every major newspaper in the world? – and even billboards? – perhaps even with a few cartoons I’m sure? ; )

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  22. @Ron Stone M.D:

    I simply wish you and Shane would allow those who have a different “take” on issues to state them, instead of editing, deleting, and censoring so much. I actually had more freedom to express my views at AT and Spectrum than I do here, even though they HATED what I said.

    The problem with many of your posts is that they are unnecessarily inflammatory, personal, or pejorative. You often use ad hominem attacks in your posts which are either uncalled for, over the top, or which are simply irrelevant or distracting from the topic at hand. You do have some good ideas, but you really need to tone it down quite a bit in order to be more effective…

    Sean Pitman

    Ron,
    You have been the most abrasive and antagonistic opponent of LSU on this site. Your strong feelings often bring you into verbal conflict with Educate Truth’s detractors – as well as the founders and moderators of Educate Truth!

    This is unfortunate. In becoming abrasive with Educate Truth’s detractors you help to perpetuate their straw-man myth that everyone here is a cyberbully.

    When you constantly end up in conflict with Educate Truth’s moderators and founders you detract from their stated mission and the spirit in which they are striving to carry it out. On occasion you have helped to give Educate Truth a bad name. If you would prefer to carry out a similar (but more vigorous) mission in a different spirit – then I would encourage you to start your own web site. It is a free country.

    The reason that AToday and Spectrum may of allowed you more posting freedom is quite frankly – they probably view your abrasive, and often extreme expressions, as advantageous to their cause.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Victor, AT and Spectrum have “banned” me so I don’t believe they think I’m helping their cause! Conflict is a natural state in a “free” country. I do not believe I am in “constant” conflict with Shane or Sean. I simply state my opinion. Sometimes I agree with Sean, sometimes I don’t.

    If Sean and Shane think they are the ultimate authority on these things, they do have the control to edit, delete, censor, and even ban whatever they want, as they have been doing. I do not think I am detracting at all, but pointing out where their mission is lacking, which is not placing the problem in its proper perspective. The “problem” at LSU is much more deeply rooted than the few Biology profs and administrators at LSU.

    Maybe they and you disagree?




    0
    View Comment
  24. BTW Sean, Do the LSU profs “know” that there are other explanations regarding creation other than Darwinian evolution? Well, do they? I certainly believe that they do. Otherwise, why would they attempt to stifle any alternative explanations, such as Louie attempted to support?




    0
    View Comment
  25. The Southern Union has just published an issue of Southern Tidings – that documents their stated affirmation of Creation and opposition to evolutionist doctrines on origins. Union President Gordon Retzer has a lead “Vantage Point” article speaking not only to the pro-Creation position of the Southern Union but also speaking to the history of pro-creation voted statements at SAU affirming the Bible creation account and the Spirit of Prophecy.

    SAU is one of several Adventist Universities that have been key leaders in the battle to oppose the junk-science and bad-religion that is called evolutionism.

    LSU’s efforts to mask its agenda and deny the significance of its own professors boldly proclaiming their affirmation of evolutionism – is a striking contrast.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  26. As I have been saying privatly for a long time. We got to get the syllabus out to the members so they can see for themselves what is going on!

    The fact that Louie got “black-balled” by administration for doing the same is a fairly good indication that La Sierra Administration also understands this.

    Fortunetly, La Sierra has nothing on me – I never went there and I have no transcripts there. They can’t do anything to me. I’m not even employed by the chruch!




    0
    View Comment
  27. I love Dr. Grismer, Bradley, and McCloskey. They are such intelligent, funny and caring professors. They made my time at La Sierra worth the dinero. I wish I could have gotten to know Greer too. He seems like a cool guy. It’s so funny to read all these negative comments about them from people who’s opinion comes from “he said she said” third party statements. Seriously people, they are awesome professors and good hearted men. It’s also ridiculous that teaching evolution has become an issue. Seriously? is this what we are going to waste our time on? What about loving each other and communing with each other. Why are you so afraid of this scientific concept that you would dedicate so much time and effort into slandering and demonizing those who teach it. It is clear that your faith is so week that you believe the teaching of a legitimate scientific theory could be the downfall of the SDA church. Couldn’t your time be better spent showing unconditional love, upholding peace and unity? The Educate Truth movement reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church. They get hung up on trivial issues while people starve, suffer from disease and disaster, fight wars and such.




    0
    View Comment
  28. I love Dr. Grismer, Bradley, and McCloskey. They are such intelligent, funny and caring professors. They made my time at La Sierra worth the dinero. I wish I could have gotten to know Greer too. He seems like a cool guy. It’s so funny to read all these negative comments about them from people who’s opinion comes from “he said she said” third party statements. Seriously people, they are awesome professors and good hearted men

    “awesome”?? “Good hearted”??

    Not many posts on this thread dealinng with the “awesome-ness” or the pros-cons of the “goodheartedness” of the various professors at LSU. Just the simple issue of whether or not Prof Bradley is telling the truth when he states clearly to the media what he is teaching in class. Just the simple issue of having the critical thinking skills to look at the course work and see that “yes” Bradley is accurate in what he claims they are teaching.

    Just the critical thinking skills to listen to Erv Taylor when he comes here and promotes non-stop-evolutionism just as he does when guest speaking at LSU.

    In other words – facts along on this simple issue speak for themselves.

    However were this a web site on the pro’s and con’s of the awesomeness of this professor or that professor at LSU — maybe we would indeed have differnt text in the posts just as you suggest.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. Why are you so afraid of this scientific concept that you would dedicate so much time and effort into slandering and demonizing those who teach it. It is clear that your faith is so week that you believe the teaching of a legitimate scientific theory could be the downfall of the SDA church.

    Here is a suggestion “pick a lane”.

    First you appear to argue that it is “demonizing and slandering” to admit that these LSU professors are actually teaching evolutionism as the right answer for a doctrine on origins of the complex genomes that we see in nature today — and then you appear to turn around and play the other side of the lane as well by making a statement claiming in effect that “teaching evolutionism is a good thing”.

    Well if it is a “good thing” to teach the real ‘birds come from reptiles’ evolutionism storytelling as if it were science fact — then you must suppose we have accused them of “teaching a good thing” and then how in the world does that constitue slander.

    On the other hand – the Adventist Denomination continues to teach (in all of its Universities (except LSU)) that the 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago is the real “event that happened in nature”. And of course the Church has just re-affirmed that conviction in the GC session this year. ( Look for even more affirmation of that fact in the soon to be revised FB #6 coming to an Adventist Book Store near you.)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  30. First you appear to argue that it is “demonizing and slandering” to admit that these LSU professors are actually teaching evolutionism as the right answer for a doctrine on origins of the complex genomes that we see in nature today — and then you appear to turn around and play the other side of the lane as well by making a statement claiming in effect that “teaching evolutionism is a good thing”.

    You completely twisted my words. I never said it is demonizing and slandering to admit teaching evolution. I said that they are being demonized and slandered for teaching it. Stop trying to make me look like I contradict myself just because you feel threatened by my comment. That is the problem with people arguing against evolution. The only good argument they can come up with is in response to a twisted version of their opponents words.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.