Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Phillip Brantley.
I appreciate David Read’s precisely-worded comment dated June 28 at 3:25 p.m. I agree that Adventist science teachers should not teach mainstream science (which includes evolution) as truth based on the following five arguments:
1. No science material should be taught as truth, as per the conventions and rules of science. [The science argument].
2. Because mainstream science in its present state conflicts with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs regarding origins, mainstream science should not be taught as truth. [The ecclesiastical argument].
3. Because the sole basis for science data is natural evidence rather than all of the evidence, mainstream science should not be taught as truth. [The philosophical argument].
4. Nature is broken because of sin and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Accordingly, all science data (no matter how truthful it may appear) that is external to Scripture must be held subservient to Scripture. [The theological argument].
5. Science teachers should not teach mainstream science as truth, because theology and the study of truth are not their formal areas of expertise. [The academic argument].
Theistic evolution represents a flawed and misguided undertaking in which Scripture is criticized through the lenses of external science data. I do not see how theistic evolution can be harmonized with Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.
We need to understand, however, that the hermeneutic of criticism which theistic evolution reflects is an approach to Scripture that most of us naturally and unthinkingly embrace. Richard Davidson’s description of the “conversion†he experienced in his decision to reject the hermeneutic of criticism highlights how unnatural such an experience is. The Church is embarrassed that the 2004 General Conference Executive Committee’s language regarding its recommended pedagogical approach for the science classroom is subject to an interpretation that reflects a hermeneutic of criticism. To our regret, science teachers have been instructed in the past by Church leaders to attempt to reconcile science with the sacred text. Ironically, some critics of La Sierra, notably Sean Pitman, have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism. Most Seventh-day Adventists, largely ignorant about hermeneutics, are naturally critical toward the sacred text.
Accordingly, I think a charitable perspective is warranted toward our science teachers. I adopted that perspective in the essay I wrote that was published on the Spectrum Blog on 10/24/10 in which I set forth a number of recommendations to La Sierra. I accept Professor Kent’s judgment about what occurred in the past and what is happening today at La Sierra. So I think this particular concern about whether the science teachers are teaching mainstream science as truth has been largely resolved.
If Educate Truth were merely opposed to theistic evolution then victory could be declared. The problem with Educate Truth is not that it opposes theistic evolution but that it seeks to foment a revolution against science and Seventh-day Adventist theology. Despite the conventions and rules for doing science adopted by the science community, Dr. Pitman declares that his method for doing science, which conflates and confuses science with theology/philosophy, is the scientific method. Despite the Church’s formal rejection of the hermeneutic of criticism in 1986, Dr. Pitman declares that his critical method for doing theology is the Seventh-day Adventist’s Church’s method for doing theology. Having a conversation with Dr. Pitman is like playing chess with someone who either does not know the rules of the game or cavalierly disregards what those rules are. He moves the pieces around in an irrational way and then announces victory.
I would encourage Educate Truth to articulate specific and precise objectives. If Shane Hilde wants to state as an objective that science data that is probative in support of creation be presented in the science classroom then we can reply with the explanation that there is no such data at present. And we can talk more about that later. What other specific and precise objectives can be articulated? I believe that articulating specific and precise objectives will help alleviate the sense many of us have that Educate Truth has often hidden behind vague rhetoric for the purpose of inciting confusion.
Phillip Brantley Also Commented
My Goal for La Sierra University
Bob Ryan, I am sure you understand that Intelligent Design need not be taught exclusively by a faculty member of the theology/philosophy department. One of the science teachers could teach the course, possibly in tandem with a theologian or philosopher, and the students taking the course could receive theology/philosophy credit. Obviously, the class would be specifically targeted to science majors.
You seem to be bitter about the science community’s classification of Intelligent Design as non-science. I don’t think that an untoward motive on the part of the science community is involved. Look at all of the other non-sciences that have been voted off the island: alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, medical quackery using magical elixirs, telepathy, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, naturopathy and other alternative medicines, pyramidology, etc.
These non-sciences share a common characteristic with Creationism and Intelligent Design: with few exceptions they are theological/philosophical by nature.
My Goal for La Sierra University
Dr. Pitman, there is a difference between saying that A is classified as X and saying that you wish A was classified as X.
You can argue that you wish Intelligent Design was classified by the science community as science, but you cannot argue that Intelligent Design is presently classified by the science community as science.
We know that the science community does not classify Intelligent Design as science based in part on the following:
1. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.
2. The Kitzmiller court ruled based on expert testimony submitted that Intelligence Design is not science. This holding of the court has never been overruled or placed into question by any other court.
3. The Intelligent Design movement has not published properly peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals.
You can utter the usual arguments that the science community is prejudiced against Intelligent Design, that many scientists are atheists, and that there are bad reasons why the science community has refused to classify Intelligent Design as science.
But you cannot argue, without incurring the risk of presenting yourself as being out of touch with reality, that Intelligent Design is presently classified as science.
I think a credible effort to adhere to honesty and transparency in your argumentation requires you to concede this point.
My Goal for La Sierra University
David, the “wedge strategy” has relevance in the current discussion because it establishes that even the founders of Intelligent Design understood that Intelligent Design does not constitute science but is instead a religious and philosophical idea. Indeed, the origins of the Intelligent Design movement demonstrate that this movement is a continuation of the “creation science” movement under a different label.
Nobody is arguing that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a Seventh-day Adventist school in a theology or philosophy class. You could even teach Intelligent Design in a pop culture class. What we rightfully object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class.
You could argue that science students should be required to take certain theology/philosophy courses in order for them to receive a well-rounded education. I don’t think anybody is opposed to that idea, either.
Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.
[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]
Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []
Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.
Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.
I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.
It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.
In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.
Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.
Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?
