Comment on LSU undergraduate biology bulletin by BobRyan.
The SDA Church, as an organization, has asked all pastors and teachers who are employees of the Church, to actively support the Churchâ€™s fundamental positions on doctrinal issues from pulpit and classroom â€“ especially with regard to the Churchâ€™s stand on a literal creation week. Like it or not, this is an official stand and request of the Church as an organization. Therefore, for an paid employee of this organization to expect to get paid for directly undermining the Churchâ€™s positions is sheer audacity and morally corrupt â€“ a robbery of the Churchâ€™s time and moneyâ€¦
But it is more then simply misleading or abusing their position – it is more than “saying – DOWN – when the church paid you to say – UP” — it is taking the souls of students and sending them down the path of distrust in the Word of God – belief in junk-science – and acceptance of what Ellen White calls “the worst kind of infidelity”.
It would be hard to imagine a more blatant form of Achan-ism. And it would be hard to imagine how the SDA church itself will escape a close review on this matter when the time comes.
I pray that some administrator some place has the courage to stand up.
BobRyan Also Commented
you posted the syllabus as evidence that evolution is exclusively promoted. I still did not find that to be the case based upon what I found in the syllabus. If the actual course experience does not reflect the syllabus, students should bring that concern to their department chair and request that the syllabus and experience be appropriately aligned.
The article above includes this 404B link
At that link we see in the slides provided – reference after reference to evol fiction claimed as “confirmed”.
If you find something in 404B with slides stating YEC as “confirmed” and then some argument that follows – please share that with the class. We are all ears.
Ervin Taylor says:
December 17, 2009 I trust that the EducateTruth.com administration will keep the entire record of the postings on all threads of this site from the beginning and provide that record to an historical archive specializing in Adventist studies such as at Loma Linda University and at Avondale College in Australia.
That record will be a valuable reference source for future historians of the Adventist Church to document one small aspect of how difficult it is for a denomination to mature from its populist and fundamentalist roots in light of the extremist, vocal views of small groups of arch-reactionaries with access to the internet.
The comment above is (I believe) a good example of what passes for logic – among our evolutionist friends.
Notice that Taylor pretends to be interested in a historic change or shift within the denomination away from our doctrinal statement and toward a more atheist evolutionist doctrine on origins. A shift where the current stated position of the denomination – as voted on by the world church — is in Taylor’s imagination someday “change” (at some unknown future point in time).
While waiting for that change from the existing stated position – Taylor suggests that we view current acceptance of the current voted positions of the church (concerning the doctrine of origins) to be “extremist” an “arch-reactionary”. His happy fiction suggests that those in favor of the existing voted position of the church are a “small group”.
Certainly we can all grant that Taylor-world is indeed a “happy fiction” for evolutionists hoping one day for a doctrinal “course change” in this denomination – it is still far from reality for the church membership today.
But if you think about it — it is that same kind of “fiction for fact” thinking that leads to acceptance of evolutionism in the first place!
How instructive then the statement by atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson that evolutionism actually “conveys ANTIKNOWLEDGE”.
Iâ€™ve heard from three other LSU students about the hostile environment thatâ€™s created in the classroom sometimes when they attempted to broach the subject. One professor became so upset one time he began yelling at a group of students who were creationists, telling them it was people like them that flew planes into buildings. Yes, I know who the professor is and I have multiple witnesses to this incident.
The treatment of these students sickens me, considering theyâ€™re at an Adventist university. The professor above shouldnâ€™t even be in the classroom.
I am facinated by the fact that these stories surface from students at LSU – as well as a number of former LSU students that have posted on this web site atesting to the same all-for-evolutionism history at LSU (and even some ex-LSU professors have admitted to the same here) — and yet we have recent comments here by one of our pro-evolutionist posters that all the student posts on this web site – of actual LSU students – are in full support of the “in-the-tank for evolutionism” policy of the LSU biology professors.
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