LSU student writes about controversy

By Educate Truth Staff

Picture of Criterion's illustration

The Criterion is the student quarterly of La Sierra University. In the fall 2009 edition, an article titled “The Evolution of a controversy” by Nick Smith was published. Educate Truth spoke with Criterion editor, Israel Carreon Mar. 9, 2010, to request permission to re-publish Smith’s article. The request was denied, according to Smith, on grounds that Carreon wanted to protect “[Smith] and [his] reputation, given the sensitivity of the article and the nature of Educate Truth.” Carreon and Smith concluded that the overall demographic of visitors to Educate Truth were “of a certain bias against LSU already.”

Since we can’t re-publish it for you, we have summed up the rather lengthy article, highlighting what we thought was interesting.

Smith begins his article with a summation of LSU Board of Trustees’ statement, affirming the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s fundamental belief in creation. He states that despite LSU’s “profound support for these basic truths, questions have still been raised regarding the school’s commitment to Seventh-day Adventist ideals….”

After which, he begins rehashing a small history of how this controversy became viral on the web. Smith intimates Asscherick and Ptiman’s letters to the General Conference “very well could have made the situation worse.”

He quotes a segment of Paulsen’s letter to Pitman, which has since been pulled from Pitman’s website DetectingDesign.com at Paulsen’s request.

One student interviewed by Smith, a senior Charles Schoeplfin, double majoring in Biophysics and Psychology said, “If we want an education, we need to be open to all possibilities and confront them with our own set of beliefs and values.”

Educate Truth is called the “leading offensive outlet for initiates such as Asscherick and Pitman.”

Smith covers Louie Bishop’s attempt to inform alumni of what was going on in the biology classrooms. “I felt [the alumni] has a right to know what La Sierra’s classroom stance is regarding the origin of life. After all, that is what they are investing their money in,” Bishop said.

Cover of Criterion

The chronology of LaSierraUniversity.net’s demise is out of order. Smith states that the owner’s of the website “ran into some trouble regarding its domain name.” What actually happened, and Smith does record this part correctly, was Adventist Review had attempted to contact the owners of the website, but were unable to do so because they were anonymous. The server hosting the site then shut down the entire site. It wasn’t until a week later that La Sierra lawyers served the owners with legal papers, telling them to hand over the domain name.

The article goes on to talk about the petition initiated by Educate Truth and its eventual presentation to the Board of Trustees November 12, 2009. A copy of the petition was given to each board member. Randal Wisbey is quoted, “One of the things that I most want as the President of La Sierra University is to make sure that all voices are heard, and that we are respectful in sharing our opinions, as well.”

Bishop is cited as “one of the most audible voices in the demand for change in certain Biology professors’ curriculum.”

Smith asked the question, “How exactly should science be presented in the classroom?” He said there are those “who have held that the idea of a literal, recent, six-day creation is a faith-based concept, not a science.” Smith concludes, “There is definitely merit in this argument.”

The idea that there is a division between faith and science is echoed frequently from LSU professors both in the religion and biology department, according to Educate Truth’s research. Smith said that a “good number” of the students who have weighed in on this issue “haven’t taken issue with the methods in which the biology professors have presented the material.”

Senior biology major, Samuel Limbong, is quoted as saying, “I’ve heard what has been said about the biology professors, and honestly, I do not see that. I mean, when you study things up close on the cell molecular level, you really gain a deeper appreciation for God’s creation. The more I studied it, the more I appreciated it.”

Smith then goes on to talk about those who “defend the presentation of evolution,” trying to “explain why some students might misunderstand the objectives of the teachers in conjunction with the school’s mission concerning this issue, which is stated as such:

We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies or origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

According to Smith, there still remains the question: “How can we ‘understand and assess’ mainstream scientific perspectives if the merits of such perspectives are not presented in class?” Smith continued, asking how students who have been “over exposed” to a “limited creationist perspective” learn to think for themselves in regards to the origins of life.

Wisbey said, “All of our biology classes in the North American Division expect our students not only to be introduced to the theory of evolution, but to interact with it.” Wisbey doesn’t elaborate on what he means by “interact with it” in the interview.

Smith is of the opinion that “a balance should exist between time and energy spent teaching both creation and evolution.”

He admitted if LSU were to give in to the accusations and “terminate the professors in question” they would be admitting to a “corrupted faculty.”

Smith said “small” changes have been made to the science curriculum “that will allow for greater focus on the Adventist belief in a six-day creation” while still maintaining “adequate exposure to other theories of scientific thought.”

Smith went on to talk about the “study group” LSU sanctioned. To our knowledge this “study group” has not yet materialized. It will be interesting to see if LSU ever comes through with this.

Wisbey is described as having met with the biology professors “numerous” times and was “pleased with the results.”

“It has been a very enriching experience getting to know these men and women and their incredible commitment to Adventist education and their incredible commitment to teaching these biology students,” Wisbey said.

Executive Director of University Relations at LSU, Larry Becker, chimed in on the effects the negative publicity has had on LSU. Becker said, “Most of what we have heard is anecdotal up to this point. Our freshman class is up by 12% this year.” According to Becker, this is the “highest number of biology majors in 20 years.” Apparently the effects of the negative publicity has been limited to some of their recruiters getting “questions from prospective students regarding this issue.” Smith said the PR department has been working with the recruiters and Wisbey “on proper ways of addressing these sensitive questions.”

The article concluded with a classic quotation from Ellen White on education, “It is the work of true education to … train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought” (Education 17). Interesting quotation to use when the LSU biology professors are so intent on promoting evolution in the classroom. The next sentence seems to be more applicable to LSU’s situation, “Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation.” Students aren’t being directed to sources of truth in regard to the biblical creation by most of the biology department.

Smith finally suggested that our “overarching goal” should be to “allow truth to educate us” and “not to educate truth.”

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

32 thoughts on “LSU student writes about controversy

  1. Interesting that Smith put the label “True” over the picture of Darwin and “Faith” of the picture of the Bible – instead of the other way around…

    It is also interesting that the SDA position on origins is referred to as “faith” while the evolutionary perspective is referred to as “science”. Evidently Smith, along with many professors at LSU, do not realize that even theistic evolutionism is a faith-based position – as are all scientific theories. All beliefs or ideas about what is or isn’t true require leaps of faith – be they religious beliefs or scientific beliefs.

    Beyond this, all useful beliefs about the world in which we live require at least a component of empirical evidence – even religious beliefs. Without any empirical evidence to support one’s faith all that is left is blind faith. Such a faith cannot distinguish a belief in God from a belief in Santa Claus or Dawkins’ Flying Spaghetti Monster…

    In this sense then, all searches for Truth, even religious ones, can be done in a scientific manner and therefore be true “sciences”. Likewise, all sciences also take on a form of religious faith since all notions of truth require leaps of faith that cannot be absolutely known to be true.

    This is why the very same data can be interpreted by different well-educated people to mean very different things – with all honesty and sincerity on both sides.

    The problem here is that the SDA Church has one interpretation and mainstream science a completely different interpretation when it comes to origins. The SDA Church, even if wrong, should expect those it employs to represent its stated goals and ideals, to actually do so on the Church’s dime. It doesn’t really matter is Smith or anyone else within the employ of the Church thinks that the Church is clearly mistaken. It is still morally wrong, a robbery of the Church’s time and money, to take money from the Church while doing other than the Church is paying the employee to do…

    That’s the bottom line here…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  2. It is kind of a hackneyed set of arguments presented by the article, with which we are all too familiar.

    “If we want an education, we need to be open to all possibilities and confront them with our own set of beliefs and values.”

    “We need to be open to all possibilities.” That’s a fine educational recipe for a skeptic or agnostic. But accepting God’s truth as taught in the Bible eliminates many needless possibilities from what we need to consider. Why turn back to considering what the most fundamental points of the Bible have already ruled out? Does LSU really believe in Seventh-day Adventism, or is it just the cultural milieu in which we grapple with whatever bones the academic super-culture of Darwinism throws our way?

    “Confront them with our own set of beliefs and values.” This sentence looks like it was created by a computer program designed to generate random humanistic platitudes. What, is there no appeal to transcendent truth?

    He said there are those “who have held that the idea of a literal, recent, six-day creation is a faith-based concept, not a science.” Smith concludes, “There is definitely merit in this argument.”

    The old “separate worlds” side-step. Listen, Mr. Smith, if God has come into your world, there is no scientific domain outside the jurisdiction of faith. What the world needs is not more faith-brain–science-brain double-mindedness, but young Christians trained to integrate their faith into the scientific process. Let the scoffers scoff. Those who educate their science with their faith will leap over their peers, and leave the infidel scientists in the dust. The only way skeptics can pull Christians back professionally is by their creation of peer-review processes and oversight committees that arbitrarily penalize people of faith. Those who believe Genesis 1 and 2, and otherwise are equally gifted in IQ and focus, have an almost unfair advantage.

    Senior biology major, Samuel Limbong, is quoted as saying, “I’ve heard what has been said about the biology professors, and honestly, I do not see that. I mean, when you study things up close on the cell molecular level, you really gain a deeper appreciation for God’s creation. The more I studied it, the more I appreciated it.”

    It’s a nice little quote. But even many atheistic evolutionists “deeply appreciate … creation.” In other words, nice, but irrelevant. I mean, if Mr. Limbong had said, “When you study things up close on the cell molecular level, you really realize none of this could have just evolved,” then you’d have my attention. But this quote says nothing. Nothing at all.

    According to Smith there still remains the question: “How can we ‘understand and assess’ mainstream scientific perspectives if the merits of such perspectives are not presented in class?” In other words, how can students who have been “over exposed” to a “limited creationist perspective” learn to think for themselves in regards to the origins of life?

    I think most creationists love to “understand and assess” modern scientific theories, including Darwinism and the rest. That has never been at issue. What is at stake is the angle of attack. Are we coming at it from, “Well, maybe Darwin was right, and the Genesis story is junk,” or are we aiming to help students master the subtleties of a complex theory in such a way that they are armed to defeat it, as Daniel was prepared to bring down Goliath? Those are the kinds of scientists and field researchers our church needs. Not pansy yes-men who will meekly comply with the materialistic presuppositions of the scientific establishment, doing nice work in nice offices, doing nothing for God to aid in the titanic Christianity-versus-Darwinism clash.

    Smith is of the opinion that “a balance should exist between time and energy spent teaching both creation and evolution.”

    Translation: “We need equal time for truth and error.” Hmmm.

    The PR department has been working with the recruiters and Wisbey “on proper ways of addressing these sensitive questions.”

    Translation: “We are becoming experts at side-stepping the issue. We’re getting really good at it!”

    The article concludes with a classic quotation from Ellen White on education, “It is the work of true education to … train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought” (Education 17).

    This, of course, has to be the hands-down favorite of all those who long to bring regressive or erroneous theories into the church. “Let’s teach young people to question everything!” they say. But in the content of Ellen White’s writings, true education is to become thinkers of God’s thoughts, to become thinkers of faith. By “not mere reflectors,” she never meant not reflecting the light of the Bible, but rather not reflecting the ever-changing, often-erring theories of men—theories like Darwinism.

    So yes, let’s teach our youth to be thinkers. Let’s inspire them with such powerful and innovative thoughts that they can storm the citadel of academic infidelity, and plant on Darwin’s very rooftop the banner of belief in God’s Word.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Smith is of the opinion that “a balance should exist between time and energy spent teaching both creation and evolution.

    Would that even this were true! As far as I can tell, no mention is made of genetic entropy, let alone such concepts as paraconformities or carbon-14 in fossil carbon. Arguments against intelligent design are welcome, but not arguments for it.

    The situation desperately needs sunshine.




    0
    View Comment
  4. The situation desperately needs sunshine.  (Quote)

    Brother Paul, there is only one way to get the sunshine in and that is to close LSU. Do you really think anything Christian will come out of LSU (about this issue)? Please, allow me to say again the school needs to be closed, the buildings torn down and the property sold to the lowest bidder. To protect our church it needs to severe the corrupt limb.

    Everyone, please listen to reason LSU no longer supports the Bible or how Adventist’s view the Word of God, and that is ok, and it is our duty to demand that the satan’s den be closed. What would our founding members have done?

    There is no other way to solve this issue, satan is well establish at LSU, clearly we can all see that? Look at the way a professor answers a student in a rude unprofessional way questioning the truth of the Bible, and the only thing that happens is the school as a whole, board included stands behind him. We as Adventist have been slapped in the face and our leadership is too weak to remove these demons. As members of the Remnant Church we need to overlook political correctness and embrace God’s Law.




    0
    View Comment
  5. I dont think you need to be as drastic as that Thomas, but there certainly needs to be a change in personal. That can be done. And will probably be done. Thanks to this web site..




    0
    View Comment
  6. I have only briefly heard of LSU in the past. I stand up for what is the truth and facts and what is right in the eyes of GOd. We need to stand up for truth.If you don’t stand for the truth you will fall for anything.And that is what has happened. WE must NEVER comprimise!!! NEVER! JESUS NEVER compromised! He did not set his self to their standards,or should I say Satans standards! (It is david and goliath,daniel was later.lol)




    0
    View Comment
  7. @Allen Roy:

    Brother, I am sorry but I don’t think I am being drastic. I believe satan is behind evolution and by allowing one of our schools to support it as a fact is a very bad thing to do. How can we allow satan’s agents the freedom to teach our children. That, my Brother, calls for drastic action.

    Why are we sitting here debating with ourselves, we need to be talking about taking real action against LSU. As an Adventist educator I have made sure my students know what is happening in our church. We need to open our mouths and let our voices be heard.

    Why do we have our own education system? So, we can teach the TRUTH, and not lies made up by satan and man. Please, understand how big this issue really is, everyday in one our of schools God is being replaced with satan, and we are doing nothing about it, except begging them to stop. My Friends, satan will not change he will do everything possible to avoid the issue, so why are we dealing with his agents. We need to start at the head of the GC, we need to protest, raise this issue for the whole church to know.




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Thomas:
    Brother Thomas, I do see your point. What happens to a barrel of water when only 1 drop of arsentic is added? The whole barrel is tainted.
    Isaiah 8:20 ‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
    If this gangrene cannot be cured, amputation may be the only alternative.

    We as Seventh-Day Adventist Christians, are to uphold the bible as God’s true Word, that is our standard, and we need to stand for what is right. Jesus stood up for us & died on the cross that we may have the right to choose life in Him or death with satan. I choose life. We cannot support this kind of error being taught in our schools, our young people deserve better from us.
    Proverbs 22:6, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
    If we do not train him/her correctly, what foundation do they have? Let us lift our voices to be heard, that we will stand for this NO more. Our leadership needs to act & act now.

    Thank you Jesus, give us strength to stand in the gap……..




    0
    View Comment
  9. The more I read about the problems at LSU the more I am inclined to agree with Thomas. The school administration has now had ample time to rectify the situation and have chosen instead to look for ways to justify and/or obfuscate it. The officials at the top of the GC have also had ample time to step in and force a realignment, and have similarly failed to do so.

    The real question left, though, is what can the rest of us do? Is there a move afoot to take the upcoming GC in Atlanta hostage until something definitive is done? Would that kind of grass-roots takeover be feasible, or even possible? If so, where do I sign up? I’ve had enough!




    0
    View Comment
  10. Thomas, I recently asked an SDA Pastor what would Ellen White do regarding this matter if she were alive today. He just smiled and nodded his head. We all know what she would do, and it wouldn’t be “dialogue” and delay and avoid!




    0
    View Comment
  11. Byron, I would certainly be supportive of some way to get the GC to address these issues but they won’t. Taking them hostage won’t work–just more fodder for LSU to claim they’re a “victim” of some kooks. But, we DO need to DO something–not just talk our way down the toilet bowl!




    0
    View Comment
  12. I am not a biology student or ant philosopher, but I am able to understand a few things clearly. If the Bible is the gospel then all in it is relevant and true, if it isn’t the gospel then there is doubt in everything, God said if he speaks not of my word, then the truth is not in him. It clearly will say in Genesis in 6 days. He made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is’ and on the 7th Day he made the Sabbath and made it holy and rested from ALL His work. So it clearly is a seven daycreation. Let me see evolutionists come up with how to make a Sabbath day and make it holy. I don’t believe that a church that I come back to and believe in is allowing evolution to be even mentioned as an alternative. This going on in our own church is not looking good to anyone wanting to bring people into our church. Please stop this now. This is my prayer in Jesus name.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Allen Roy, I don’t have your optimistic view, but we DO need to start taking some kind of action. The Board has had enough time to avoid, table, and do nothing.




    0
    View Comment
  14. The more I read about the problems at LSU the more I am inclined to agree with Thomas.The school administration has now had ample time to rectify the situation and have chosen instead to look for ways to justify and/or obfuscate it.The officials at the top of the GC have also had ample time to step in and force a realignment, and have similarly failed to do so.The real question left, though, is what can the rest of us do?Is there a move afoot to take the upcoming GC in Atlanta hostage until something definitive is done?Would that kind of grass-roots takeover be feasible, or even possible?If so, where do I sign up?I’ve had enough!  

    Byron,

    as the long-agers have shown, the battle is won or lost in the minds of the people. “let every man be convicted in his own mind” is the principle.

    So, forget the GC and the rest of the politicians. Go out to the churches and talk to the people.

    Jesus did not preach to the priests and scribes until they came to see Him. He went to the people. He did not send us to the governments of the world but to the people of the world.

    The reason the politicians can prevaricate and wash their hands is that the people are sleeping.

    Wake them up!

    Regards
    Denver




    0
    View Comment
  15. Denver, I completely agree with you. Most of the SDA’s I know don’t really know or seem to care about what is going on at LSU. Our so-called leaders have had AMPLE time to act, which I believe they will never do. LSU and the SECC has hunkered down to fight us, so we need to start acting, now!




    0
    View Comment
  16. Carreon and Smith concluded that the overall demographic of visitors to Educate Truth were “of a certain bias against LSU already.”

    It is very transparent of the authors to show that the LSU position requires that a site dedicated to the 28 FB, (Belief 6 in particular) on creation and to upholding the view that Ellen White had in 3SG 90-91 that theistice evolutionism is the “worst kind of infidelity” — is in fact a position that is opposed to LSU itself.

    How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

    As noted previously – their argument is that evolutionism is “TRUE” and that the Bible is merely a “belief” that is opposed to TRUTH.

    I think they call that “balance” at LSU.

    Speakig of the editors called for “balance”

    Smith is of the opinion that “a balance should exist between time and energy spent teaching both creation and evolution.”

    Imagine for a split second that the LSU biology professors were actualy “balanced enough” to spend equal time such that for every hour they spend wildly claiming that evolutionism is the “right answer for origins” – they spend an hour genuinely affirming and explaining why creationism is true and evolutionism is simply an atheist-centric doctrine on origins based on junk science quesswork consistently debunked over time as additional data comes to light.

    I don’t think the editors thought that one through. And I don’t think the biology professors at LSU are up to the task.

    So we are left with the editors “proposed changes” being “at best” to promote BOTH “the worst form of infidelity” (3SG 90-91), which of course is the atheist centric model that evolutionism is the “right answer for a doctrine on origins”, and then also promoting actual Adventist understanding of Origins for the same amount of time in those science classes.

    How wonderful that “a change” that “a fix” to the problem is that the Adventist view might actually be given 50% focus!!

    What a wonderful “change”.

    I think this is a message from the editors to the LSU board of trustees letting them know that they are not really getting anything like a “you actually have to BE Adventist” message across to the University.

    So it still looks like mismanagement to me.

    Speaking of which – I would like to know more about that letter to Sean. What was so sensitive that it had to be taken down? Why are so many of our leaders running for cover when it comes to their positions on this subject?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Byron Comp:
    The real question left, though, is what can the rest of us do? Is there a move afoot to take the upcoming GC in Atlanta hostage until something definitive is done? Would that kind of grass-roots takeover be feasible, or even possible? If so, where do I sign up? I’ve had enough

    I for one will be there.

    But am not likely to be able to add to, or in any way affect, the agenda of any meetings.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  18. “…..Smith finally suggested that our “overarching goal” should be to “allow truth to educate us” and “not to educate truth…..”

    Let’s assume the evolutionists are right and their theory of evolution is taught and accepted as “truth”.
    What happens when Jesus returns? After all, He says “All things were created by Him and without Him NOTHING was created”. Do we call Him a liar? Do we say; only some things were created by Him….that; the other things created themselves? Do we say He started the process, allright; but that He didn’t have the wherewithal to complete the job; so a fictitous ‘mother nature’ did what He was unable to do?

    It is impossible for one who believes in evolution…and that includes even a cursory belief; to believe that an all powerful God would entertain unbelief in Him, and at the same time save these unbelievers….and neither would any who doesn’t believe in an all powerful God, ever think that any such God could live more than 200 miles above the earth without donning a spacesuit for oxygen and protection !..certainly no human could exist these many millenia of years…or none that I know of!; in ‘out of earth conditions’….So how could there be a God[out there!] who is to be believed by the evolutionists?…A God who himself was not created by nature!

    Hence, for the evolutionists; it is impossible to entertain dual beliefs in a Creator God and evolution. The evolutionists must take as fiction a human body descending from the far reaches of outer space…Such human bodies would be defying gravity[science] and be doing what asteroids as big and bigger than the earth have so far been unable to do. Not even our very superfast, superheavy space shuttle can descend at will[it endures a fiery passage as it pierces the earth shield]..it requires megatons of force to find its way back to home base. The evolutionists, therefore, cannot see a God dressed in white silk accomplishing this feat without being incinerated.

    Such evolutionists are unable to see such a God as creating another non-human species called angels…..These angels cannot even create themselves as humans do…making them [in the evolutionists point of view] less capable than humans…yet these angels can walk through solid walls, just as protons and neutrons and electrons do[science]making angels superior to humans….Or in short the dilemma of the evolutionists!….You can’t have both! and so you can’t teach both!…..Truth and error cannot co-exist like buddies…Wherever error and truth exist together…there is only error!

    If evolution is truth…only evolution should be taught!

    If Total and complete Creation, by an all Powerful Creator God is TRUTH; then no error can be associated with a Pure Creator God by cosying the dwarfing influence of the error of evolution alongside the gigantism of the Purity of Omnipotent TRUTH.

    Jesus is the WORD![see John 1:1]
    The WORD is TRUTH!
    JESUS is TRUTH!

    Error is Satan….Satan is error….as relates to any discussion re God.

    TRUTH does not and cannot exist with error!

    Evolution CANNOT be taught alongside Creation!

    Courtney




    0
    View Comment
  19. Darwin claimed “to know somehing about evolutionism” and he said he found now way to retain his belief in christianity and yet continue to be a darwinist evolutionist.

    So also said Richard Dawkins.

    So also P.Z Meyers

    So also Provine.

    So also numerous other former Christians turned evolutionist.

    Thus has the E.U been driven into a post-Christian age.

    And yet the SDA evolutionists must still blindly “pretend” that they cannot see the glaring point – that the emperor has no clothes!

    How sad.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  20. @Paul Giem:

    Would that even this were true! As far as I can tell, no mention is made of genetic entropy, let alone such concepts as paraconformities or carbon-14 in fossil carbon. Arguments against intelligent design are welcome, but not arguments for it.

    The situation desperately needs sunshine.

    To watch atheist evolutionist scientists (In this case cosmologists) displaying their religious fervor in trying to avoid the intelligent design that they themselves say – keeps slapping them in the face – -see this video starting at about the 12 minute mark.

    http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#docid=-7044753105944203252

    Notice how they squirm at trying to rationalize multiple Universal factors engineered down to a tolerance of less than 1% as “simply chance”, but then when they find the Cosmological Constant engineered down to a tolerance of 1/10^120th – they begin to howel “yes but we don’t want a designer!!! oh what can we do!!”

    This is the core of what is happening in all the sciences where evolutionism is being “inserted”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  21. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#docid=-7044753105944203252

    Notice how they squirm at trying to rationalize multiple Universal factors engineered down to a tolerance of less than 1% as “simply chance”, but then when they find the Cosmological Constant engineered down to a tolerance of 1/10^120th – they begin to howel “yes but we don’t want a designer!!! oh what can we do!!”

    Very interesting clip. Thanks for sharing it. I’m going to use a portion of it at a lecture I’m giving tonight at Simpson University on the origin of functionally complex meaningful information within the universe and living things…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  22. Sean – you are welcome –

    Here is another video you might find interesting by another set of evolutionist (probably atheist) cosmologist. They argue for the plasma model over the “dark matter” model. (Some people wrongly accuse them of arguing for the plasma model over observed gravitational forces). The importance is that just like S. J. Gould was “outing” his fellow evolutionists on the fact of the missing transitional forms, so also the plasma physics guys are “outing” the standard model “dark matter” gludge, showing exposing things such as the problem with accretion disks from gases never actually producing a viable rotating planet with an atmosphere.

    http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. The above sequences bring out an interesting aspect regarding the logic used by devotees to evolutionism. Their first response to any problem is “I don’t notice that problem” or “I solve the problem by saying there is no problem”. Such was the case with gradualism all the while Bible believing Christian science was harping about “missing transitional forms” (the emperor had no clothes).

    Finally someone like S.J Gould comes along to solve that problem – and finds that he must contend with his own fellow devotees to evolutionism, because he is addressing a problem that supposedly “does not exist”.

    You see the same thing with the Plasma physicists and with the mulitverse proposal in my prior link. They are proposing solutions to problems that fellow devotees to evolutionism wanted to argue as non-existent problems. Thus is observed the habbit of devotees to evolutionism-as-if-it-were-revealed-truth is a never ending pattern of turning a blind eye to problems for evolutionism’s mythology.




    0
    View Comment
  24. You’re right on target, Bob. Look at LSU. Same type of response–“What problem?” Then, avoidance of the problem with any and all “statements” issued by LSU! Same with Graham, Wisbey, and Schneider.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Why Ervin Taylor doesn’t have an entourage or “deep pockets.” Read Ervin’s 4-5 comments on the AT website. He says Educatetruth.com is “attacking” LSU because the Biology Dept. “teaches ABOUT evolution.” Is that what this site is about, Shane. Or does Erv have his facts twisted, as he usually does? Just wondering!




    0
    View Comment
  26. Ron,

    The way I see it the Review gave enough info to get the broad lines of the debate and where people can go for more info. That is all I expect from such a piece. It is way more than we get most of the time from most places.




    0
    View Comment
  27. So Carreon and Smith are afraid to let us see the article because of its “sensitivity?!” I guess it wasn’t too “sensitive” to actually publish in Criterion? [edit] Simply more avoidance and closeting, as we have seen from Wisbey and the rest at LSU. They teach their students well!




    0
    View Comment
  28. I am truly surprised and shocked how many negative emotions LSU evokes in people! It pains me, as a Christian who attends LSU, to see comments like “there is only one way to get the sunshine in and that is to close LSU” among people who visit this website. It seems to me that the entire reason this website exists is to dig as much dirty laundry (which BTW everybody has) as possible and neglect the great mission and so many people who are truly passionate about their faith and their university… Personally, I found hope at LSU, my girlfriend was baptized here, thanks to a number of spiritual and supportive people, and I know that LSU is NOT what you’re all tying to portray here. A sad situation, truly.

    [This website is not about “digging up dirt” on anyone. It is simply about increasing transparency as to what is really being taught at LSU with regard to one, and just one, fundamental SDA doctrine – that of a literal creation week. In this particular regard, the LSU science department is clearly not supportive and is in fact actively challenging this fundamental doctrine of the SDA Church in favor of mainstream evolutionary ideas as the true story of origins on this planet. Of course there are many many good things happening at LSU as you point out. However, in our opinion, these good things do not resolve this problem of a direct and decided undermining of a very important Pillar of the SDA faith at LSU.] – Sean Pitman




    0
    View Comment
  29. Personally, I found hope at LSU, my girlfriend was baptized here, thanks to a number of spiritual and supportive people, and I know that LSU is NOT what you’re all tying to portray here.

    I’m happy that you found hope at LSU. I don’t know what kind of hop you’re talking about, but it sounds good. Your girlfriend being baptized is awesome. As wonderful as these things are though, they have nothing to do with the issue that this website is dealing with. No one here is saying good things don’t happen at LSU, we’re saying there is a problem that needs to be addressed and LSU is failing to address it.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.