It is disgusting and disingenuous to read the claim that …

Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by LSU Alumnus 1996.

It is disgusting and disingenuous to read the claim that this site is not intended to be malicious. That is, pure and simple, a falsehood. I encourage everybody here to review the definition of the term, and then try to reconcile that definition with both the intent and the result of this site.

Pure and simple, EducateTruth is a playground for reactionary fundamentalists driven by personality flaws and negative personal experience at LSU. It serves no positive purpose for LSU, her students or the church at large – and, quite to the contrary, has done tremendous damage both within the church and beyond – as evidenced by the negative media attention (not to mention legal attention) that EducateTruth has played a hand in bringing to bear.

As a member of a multi-generational Adventist family—one who has literally spent his entire life in the church and community—I am ashamed of this site and all it represents. To use the now-familiar (and entirely appropriate) phrase, this witch hunt has set our church back decades. It is now clear that the important and glorious progress our church has made is at risk of being dismantled by a few small-minded individuals with a website. How can I possibly “witness,” in good conscience, to those outside the church if the church administration heeds the medieval attitudes espoused on sites like this?

Let us approach your illogical, irrational comments recently to Professor Kent. First of all, evolution never has (nor will it ever have) “exclusive rights” in any classroom at LSU, be it Dr. Bradley’s or any other. There has been no “evidence” presented to support this claim. Furthermore, since there is no “evidence” for creation beyond the Bible and EGW, you are proposing a senseless criteria that cannot ever be met – and as such, shall be disregarded by any rational minds among us. This means that, by your own rationale, Educate Truth should never have been formed, let alone been left to fester for this long.

I there exists any genuine evidence to support these ridiculous claims, I would love to see it. Thus far, however, I’ve only seen Dr. Bradley expressing his personal opinion, heard that a student was required to rationally support his belief in a literal six-day creation week, and heard that the scientific facts of evolution have been taught in the biology classroom at LSU alongside mention of the creation myth. To any intelligent, rational person, this sets a standard that is not only “adequate” for an Adventist university, but one our other universities should strive to meet.

There is no quicker route to irrelevance than baseless fundamentalism backed by mindless vendettas. If somebody had spent less time nursing resentment over disciplinary action and more time listening in history class, they may have understood this fact and avoided this whole debacle. As it is, I do not harbor any hope of reaching a rational consensus with those who run this site – our best hope is to draw them out, present them for what they are, and discredit them at every possible turn. Then, it is my hope, the leadership of our church will understand that they speak not for the majority, but instead for the true “lunatic fringe.”

LSU Alumnus 1996 Also Commented

My Goal for La Sierra University
Is not our entire church founded on the belief that God, at times, uses contemporary human minds to bring enhanced clarity to His “second book” (the Bible)? If so, why do we refuse to accept that He may do the same for His first (“nature”)? Is this not why we consider EGW a prophet rather than a delusional evangelist with brain trauma? Our history (and the history of all churches that venerate books as divinely written or inspired) is rife with instances of this sort of clarification, because no book – no matter how divinely inspired – can hope to remain relevant throughout centuries of social and intellectual evolution.

Note that I didn’t say God must change, or that His word is not invariant — but rather, that the Bible must be placed in either the category of “imperfect translation” or the category of “semi-literal” (or some combination of the two), because it itself holds instances of possible contradiction and, certainly, contains mandates that we have agreed have no place in our “modern” society. It is somewhat arbitrary that we have chosen, as a church, to retain some Biblical accounts as literal and perfect (the creation story) just as we have discarded others.

Could it not be possible that some modern-day “prophets”, working as scientists, are providing just this sort of clarification as they uncover the beauty and complexity of the evolutionary history that God has somehow used to bring us where we are today? If one of these scientists, in a trance and muttering about DNA and the fossil record, were to hoist an oversize copy of the Great Controversy over his head all night, would we all believe then?

We must appreciate the capriciousness of our human approximation of God’s revelations to us. If the Bible needed no “clarification,” there would be no need for EGW or the “27 Fundamental Beliefs.” We cannot help but pick and choose what is literal and what is allegorical or historical from the Bible. It is time to accept and allow that good SDAs might be questioning some of this “picking and choosing” we’ve refined into the current iteration of our 27FBs without treating them in a dishonest, disrespectful, immoral, un-Christ-like and possible even illegal manner—and furthermore, that teaching our young people to similarly assess our beliefs for themselves is a GOOD thing and only strengthens our church in the long run.


My Goal for La Sierra University
Sean:

If I am decoding your messages correctly, it appears (and correct me if I am wrong, as I may be) that you contend that:

1) When a point of faith is thrown in contrast with empirical evidence, we humans (including those of us who comprise the SDA church) will defer to empirical evidence (or evidence that has the patina of empiricism) by default. In other words, we may not require “evidence” to support our faith, but in the light of collective “evidence” to the contrary, our faith will be at risk;
2) Given this, a responsible science curriculum at our universities must be built primarily on empirical evidence (with the place of prominence given to ID theory) with the goal of educating our students about out world while simultaneously reinforcing their belief in the Biblical account of creation;
3) This presupposes (and you believe) that there is, in fact, empirical evidence to support the Biblical account of creation.

In other words, we cannot expect our students to be able to find a way to philosophically and spiritually reconcile the Biblical account with evidence that contradicts it, and therefore, we can only teach biology if we can found it upon a scientific framework that recognizes our particular interpretation of the Biblical account of creation.

When I was young and immature, I felt this way too. As a good Adventist, I considered “Evolutionists” to be nearly as bad as the Catholics. I felt a need for evidence, and believed (and argued) that there was a way to twist and mold the evidence in nature to “fit” with the creation account in which I believed.

Then I got to academy, and I just couldn’t, in good conscience, argue this any further. A decade of indoctrination was, as you feared, undone by a few years of honest investigation into the science – and believe me, I was dragged, kicking and screaming, to this realization. I’ve been eager for any opportunity to return to the comfort of the beliefs I was raised with, and want more than anything for somebody to make a true scientific assault on macro evolution, but it has yet to materialize. While evolution science is necessarily imperfect, ID science is, simply put, unscientific – in both its methods and its conclusions. I challenge you to submit a single valid, supportable, peer-reviewed (and by this, I mean peers outside of the ID community) alternative to the “mainstream” theories of evolution that supports a young Earth and a literal six-day creation event.

That said, ID has an important place in our scientific world. ID is largely aggressive in nature – in that it seeks to discredit established evolutionary theory, as opposed to a focus on the creation of new science. Assaults of this nature serve to refine and strengthen those theories that they fail to obviate (“survival of the fittest,” in fact).

Therefore, in the absence of any scientific framework that supports the Biblical account and by the rationale established earlier, we should not be teaching science in our schools. If this is your position, have the courage to say so – and indicate as much in the “EducateTruth” manifesto. If it is not, feel free to clarify.


My Goal for La Sierra University
Re: Adventists believing in the six-day creation week.

Shane, I will stipulate the point here. In review, I realized I should have qualified my statement as “do you believe college-educated SDAs believe in a literal six-day creation week”…but then, I realized that many of our colleges have been failing to properly educate their students when it comes to science. I then considered rejoining with “do you believe the majority of those educated at LSU, where I know from experience, past and present, that our world origins are being taught with respect to both our church position AND the value of science,” but then I realized that such would simultaneously prove both of our points. So I’ll withdraw that point and simply add one my tick into my “disappointment with current state of our church” column.

Re: “[God] has given no such permission for you to drink your precious spot of wine”

First of all, I don’t drink alcohol – never have, never will. I consider it unhealthy. I believe our church’s current position on alcohol is appropriate and rational. However, the Bible is at best ambivalent on the topic, and at worst (from your point of view) supports the occasional nip of fermented beverages. Don’t make the mistake of confusing EGW with the Bible. And I know exactly what being an SDA is about, thank you very much. While God is consistent, our understanding of Him is fluid – and so is a wise and vibrant church. And furthermore – what the “church” approves –any church—has little to do with what God approves. If you have managed to avoid everything our church prohibits – everything EGW spoke against — then you deserve some sort of recognition. I’m just not sure what sort of recognition that should be.

My point was simply to indicate that some “violations” of church edict are trivial and do not warrant excommunication, termination, stoning or any other forms of collective retribution. Where it does not impact the lives of others (for instance, a sip of wine in one’s own home), these behaviors are the concern only of the individual.

Re: ““just another university” road as their high goal for SDA education.”

I never claimed, nor have my peers, that LSU should be “just another university.” I feel it is our particular place in the world to encourage our students to find a way to reconcile our beliefs (based on faith) and the observations that have been made about the world we live in (evolution). It cannot be done scientifically, however, so a deep examination of creation in the context of a biology course is pointless. It is not our place to “hide” the facts or “shield” our youth from reality. David Read drove to the root of this issue succinctly:

“…if students are taught that all the data support Darwinism, only a very small minority of them will continue to believe the Bible’s origins narrative by faith (nearly) alone”

Thus is the issue at hand. “If we teach the evolution, the students might believe it…and what if they start questioning the rest of our beliefs? What if they leave the church?” We forget that our goal is not to trap people into our church and keep them there by putting a sheet over their head, but rather to raise our young adults with the ability to think critically, to make their own decisions, and to remain in the church at the end of their discovery process. To do that, we need to offer them ALL we know – both what we know from the Bible and EGW and what we know from science. History shows us that manipulation of the population leads to rebellion, and we do nobody any favors by lying to our students.

Re: Phillip Brantley and Professor Kent

Bravo, and thank you for trying to engage rationally in this pool of ignorance. We may or may not completely agree, but at least we believe in logical support for our belief, rather than purely references to scripture or the fraudulently reported, self-selected “surveys” of those who believe LSU is doing ill by its students.

Re: “Christian education should lead towards a belief in a Creator, not sway from him.”

At the university level, in a biology classroom, Christian education should not lead toward anything. Christian education is like regular education freed of the restrictions AGAINST discussing divine involvement. In other words, Christian education is unique and special in that it permits our professors to infuse the course with their personal spirituality (and that of the greater church). But to assert that it is the responsibility of our biology professors to “lead students to Christ” is to misunderstand entirely the point of a university, SDA or otherwise.

Re: “Sean has spoken what makes a lot of scientific sense”

I will assume (possibly inaccurately, granted) that this poster has had the benefit of an SDA education, and propose this as yet another stinging indictment of our abject failure, as a church, to properly educate our youth. Sean has spoken nothing of any scientific value yet, but I encourage him to do so. As it stands, while his arguments may be consistent and compelling, they are not scientific.

Re: “The agitation against La Sierra is fundamentally more a commentary on the agitators than on what has occurred at La Sierra.”

Well said.

The solution to this problem is to simply accept that a belief in evolution (both macro and micro) is not Anti-Adventist. It is in direct opposition to one of our fundamental beliefs, yes, but it is not “Anti-Adventist.” Acceptance of evolution does not put at risk your belief in the God we have chosen, as SDAs, to believe in. It merely points to a need for our church to examine Fundamental Belief #6 in light of the scientific evidence, and encourage our young scientists to go out into the world and use the tools God granted us (our brains) and the evidence He gave us (nature) to understand more fully His relationship to the world we live in. To that end, our biology classes should include a few specific elements:
1) An affirmation that our church believes that the world was created in six literal days, a few thousand years ago;
2) An examination of the overwhelming evidence that tells us that our world has existed for several millennia, and that there is a direct and discernable genealogy that can be traced through species to demonstrate that the flora and fauna in our world didn’t simply spring into existence, but rather evolved in a manner governed by the reproducible and well-studied mechanisms of natural selection;
3) A reminder that, as with all science, there are flaws in the current understanding of evolution and, in fact, there is no single universally-agreed-upon standard “theory” of evolution. As such, belief in evolution is still very much a matter of “faith,” either in the power of man or in the power of God to reveal to man through our world the nature of His Creation.

All of these elements are currently present in LSU’s biology courses. I grant anybody their right to live in a bubble and ignore rational arguments that contradict their own beliefs. I don’t understand it, but it is the right of each of us to make that choice. What I do not accept, however, is that those bubble-people should be able to dictate to the rest of us that their narrow, ignorant approach is the “only” approach, or worse yet, to force-feed their ignorance to our youth.

And while we’re examining our Fundamental Beliefs, let’s take a look at number 23 and update it to eliminate the whole “man and a woman” thing. No reason to cling to that outdated, bigoted notion that homosexuality is wrong (a position that relies entirely on the absurd notion that homosexuality is a “choice”) – but that’s an issue for another time. To quote our official SDA position:

“Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”

Just a few mild tweaks to #6 and #23, and we’ll be good for another 150 years or so. The rest of them are just fine. Let’s hope for some divine inspiration before we drive any further toward this cliff.


Recent Comments by LSU Alumnus 1996

At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
I can only speak for myself, Sean – but you’ve sure got me wrong.

Our church should (and has) evolved to accommodate scientific, social and theological advancements. The number of drugs dispensed at LLUMC in a single day undoubtedly has EGW spinning in her grave. Our “church fathers” would be aghast that our institutions allow (let alone encourage) the establishment of retirement accounts (could there be a more genuine repudiation of our deepest, core-est belief than to consider even momentarily that the world might be here for 30 more years?). Why, I’ve even heard of our good SDA students not just watching movies, but MAKING THEM!

I’m consistent with the name of our organization. I worship on the seventh day, and I believe Jesus is coming back to take us home. I also realize that the 27FB are a snapshot in time, a necessary formalization of what it means to be an SDA – but the preamble to the 27FB specifically indicates that the 27FB are NOT God’s (nor even EGW’s) “law”—that they are indeed subject to change. So, by all rational measures, I’m comfortably within the nominal confines of our shared denomination.

HOWEVER – and here is the salient point – I just don’t happen to be within the confines YOU want to artificially establish. That’s ok, your bigotry will fade, or you’ll establish some splinter group – either way, my prayers have been that this celebration of reactionary hypocrisy will be short-lived. Events seem to indicate an answer to my prayers, though I know better than to let my guard down just yet.

The truth is, an SDA institution finding its own way to include both the myth of Creation and the facts of science in the curriculum does not in any way impair your ability to enjoy the particular pre-industrial revolution form of SDAism you prefer. The world is over-populated with people who share your ability to side-step logic and reason in search of blissful cognitive accord. I’m sure there’s a compound in Texas with a “for sale” sign up right now waiting for new occupants, and I reckon you could make quite a deal in this slow economy.

Anyway, I’ll disappear again. I just wanted to poke this thing with a stick again. Looks like there’s still a bit of life in it (sadly), but I’ll check again in a few weeks.


At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
Why would anybody bother Randy Roberts with their bizarre and inflammatory questions? Don’t we think he has something better to do than politely smile at the voluntarily ignorant while listening to their drivel?


At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
Oh, and really? There are people in 2011 who are actually able to write the words “I am totally against homosexuality and abhor their agenda”? Maybe we should save our vitrol for something that:

a) people have a choice about,
b) actually matters, and
c) is any of our business?


At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
It looks as though this destructive hurricane of misinformation and closed-minded bigotry might finally be passing. I am heartened to see so much hand-wringing by the EducateTruthers over the fact that this door—which the NAD foolishly kicked open at the frothing insistence of pseudo-scientific radicals with hurt feelings and no substantive evidence—might be closed before the lunatic fringe was able to turn LSU into a useless backwater Bible college. Rational SDAs the world over are preparing to breathe a tentative sigh of relief. We can just hope that the Big Bus of Common Sense can run over this little pet project on its way back into the Garage of Reason, hopefully backing up and running it over a few extra times to ensure it doesn’t rise up, Friday-the-13th-style, to terrify us again. Until the paint on the tombstone dries, though, we’ll just keep a level eye, walk softly in the sanctuary and be on the lookout for EducateTruthers who seek to destroy our church.

God bless!


LSU, Pacific Union Conference and North American Division Sued
@Lou:

Isn’t there a saying about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater? The SDA church (of which I am a member of good standing, considering our church does not excommunicate simply because a member is uncomfortable with a belief or two), generally, believes as I do – especially if you further limit the pool to the educated and intellectually honest church community. If the SDA church refuses to advance, then I may be forced to leave it – but it is my duty to try and help my church to grow before abandoning it. Should those who agitated for equal pay (and equal status) for women have simply “left to find a church that believed the same way” they did? Fortunately for us all, not all of them did, and we have a stronger, more moral church because of it. [edit] Creation vs. evolution? I my crystal ball’s a bit murky on that one, but I can hope that this debacle can shove us into the 21st century soon. I propose that those who do not see a need for an evolving church (you know, the type of church EGW started) should in fact leave to stagnate without dragging the rest of us down with them.

@Faith:

The faculty at LSU (including those in the religion department) taught me that thinking for myself was not heretical, and for that, they deserve every accolade I can bestow. If you believe the job of an SDA university – even only the religion department — is simply to enforce SDA dogma, you are more dangerous than I first imagined. Again, condemnations and shame from those who feel as Faith do only support my point that LSU is doing a spectacular job of educating our young SDAs and preparing them for a world where they will be attacked not only from the outside world, but from those inside the church as well. I rest assured – and advise those with attitudes similar to mine – that the bigoted, narrow-minded ignorance spewed at them comes only from the a few loud and generally impotent parties. I intend to do all in my power to push those parties back into the obscurity they crawled out of, and allow the rest of us a church that we can be proud of.