Comment on LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’? by Sean Pitman, M.D..
I can’t believe that Natalie Romero would actually quote professor Gary Bradley, of all people, in support for her argument that La Sierra University is teaching in line with the fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church on the topic of origins – that LSU has not really “apostatized” from supporting the Church’s fundamental position on origins.
As everyone knows by now, many of LSU’s science professors, to include professor Bradley, do not believe and do not support the Church’s position on a literal six day creation week within recent history much less a world-wide Noachian Flood. They believe, teach, and actively promote the mainstream view that life has existed and evolved on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years of time.
Has Ms. Romero forgotten Dr. Bradley’s public statements published in an article by Inside Higher Education? In this article, Dr. Bradley is quoted:
“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bull**it,†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.
The author of this article went on to note that, “While he’s is 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.”
This activity, on the part of LSU’s professors, is a direct attack on the foundational doctrinal pillars of the SDA Church and the Church leadership is rightly concerned. The Michigan conference, in particular, is well within bounds to call out LSU as diverging, fundamentally, from the goals and ideals of the SDA Church as an organization.
For the SDA Church, outside of the Michigan Conference, to fail to definitively respond to this long-standing attack on its fundamental positions by LSU (and others), to include the re-accreditation of LSU by the Adventist Accreditation Agency (AAA) without significant comment regarding this issue, seems to be a sign that the SDA Church is somehow intimidated by LSU and/or WASC. However, unless the Church decides to directly confront this issue, head-on, this fundamental rift in the Church will end up tearing it apart from the inside in relatively short order…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Table of Contents
Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented
LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?
Please find my reply in the thread for “La Sierra University won’t Reject Creation Teaching:” @Sean Pitman:
There’s no point talking about the same thing in two different threads.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?
@Professor Kent:
You wrote:
If I realized this deep down, I would take Noah for a fool when God instructed him to build a massive boat to escape a rain and a flood the proportions of which reason would dictate to be impossible. Why did Noah obey? Was it simple trust in God’s word, or use of his emotion-free reason?
Not if you had talked directly with God like Noah did and had hundreds of prior years of experience with God, experiencing his constant reliability and credibility.
Noah had abundant very direct empirical evidence of God’s existence and power – much more direct empirical evidence than we have today. His was not an empirically-blind faith by any means in the word of some stranger claiming to be God.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?
You wrote:
“1) Do you agree wholeheartedly with Sola Scriptura and the historical-grammatical hermeneutic elucidated by the GC “Rio†document and the SDA Biblical Research Institute scholars?”
I believe that once one has established the credibility of the Scriptures to the level of having a very high likelihood of being of Divine origin, then it would be unwise to set them aside in favor of anything else…
You go on to ask:
“2) If so, do you continue to believe that those who accept a simple “Thus saith the Lord†are as duped as believers in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”
It depends on why they accept the Bible as their source of authority. Different people have different weights of evidence. What does it for one may not do it for another – only God can judge.
However, I do know that God does in fact desire us to make an intelligent decision in favor of His Word based on the weight of evidence – the weight of empirical evidence. He does not desire empirically-blind faith in His Word. He desires His children to have a thoughtful rational religion – not a religion based on mere emotion-driven blind faith that is devoid of any basis in empirical reality…
You realize this yourself, deep down, or you wouldn’t keep referencing consistency with historical data as one of your bases for supporting the Bible’s authority vs. other claimed sources of Divine authority. You yourself cannot help but present empirical evidences to support your own belief in the Bible’s Divine origin.
So, there you have it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
