Comment on LSU student petition criticizes curriculum by BobRyan.
August 21, 2010 What a travesty that this cry for help wasnâ€™t answered years ago! It seems that the faculty of LSU has more to answer for than I previously thought. It is pretty sad when the students have to fight the faculty to remain true to the principles that the University is supposed to be teaching them. In my judgment, the students are far and away more knowledgeable than the faculty. Shame, shame, shame on the facultyâ€¦and bravo! to the students for trying to right this horrible wrong. May God bless them wherever they are and whatever they are doing now. Faith(Quote)
As the information on LSU comes to the light of day – I think fewer and fewer of the students that “choose to go to LSU anyway” will be of the sort that would raise a dissenting voice when confronted with doctrinal apostasy. So one way or another – the incidents where complaints are raised by blind-sided students – will be fewer and fewer.
BobRyan Also Commented
Brian Holland: â€œIf a worldly influence is to bear sway in our school, then sell it out to worldlings, and let them take the entire control; and those who have invested their means in that institution will establish another school, to be conducted, not upon the plan of popular schools nor according to the desires of principal and teachers, but upon the plan which God has specified.â€ â€” Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students p. 88.3
Now that my friends is an “if thine eye offends thee…” quote of a most shocking nature!
Brian has done well in highlighting the serious nature of the problem at hand.
David Kendall, PhD: there may be many reasons not to respond. One is ignorance or unawareness of the issue. Another could be the sense that the issue is not important, or does not speak to pertinent topics. Still another may be an unwillingness to enter a debate in which some or all of the arguments do not possess intellectual coherence. Yet another reason, which is my reason for not entering into the substance of the debate (note that I have only posted on issues of fact, tone or fairness and not on the central argument), is that scholars may refuse to enter into a dialogue in which there is an arbitrary limitation on the terms of the debate.
David Kendall, PhD
Adjunct Professor of Music
La Sierra University
I would argue that since the music department at LSU is not in any way being accused regarding the subject of evolutionism, a more likely reason for your not making a case one way or the other about the promotion of evolutionism in the LSU departments dealing with biological sciences at LSU or the religion department at LSU, is that you are not familiar with those classes and so you have no way to judge whether the students who complain about them (the students who did attend the classes) were in error, or if professor Bradley was not telling the truth when he stated frankly the real truth about what was going on in the biology department at LSU.
Certainly that is an option that one has to take seriously.
Ruth deGraaff: Perhaps it could become a site for sharing information that is helpful to creationists when confronted with evolution where ever they find it. It could include geological evidence, biological evidence and even evidence from outer space
One of the arguments made by LSU is that no other SDA teaching institution is presenting a solution thus LSU has a right to be clueless as to how to conduct religion and biology courses in a way that supports the SDA view of origins.
One function of this web site in the past has been to highlight various contributions by other SDA teaching institutions regarding this subject.
It would be very helpful to have a section or thread where those programs are highlighted and perhaps details by a reprentative from the various universities. (getting out the “good news” as it were about our teaching institutions).
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