By Sean Pitman
Transparency
Many, by now, have heard of the recent resignation of three faculty and one board trustee from La Sierra University (LSU) over the public release of a recording of a private conversation. On April 20th, a board trustee, Lenny Darnell, turned on the record function of his cell phone in a private town hall-style meeting attended by more than 100 select LSU faculty and staff and two representatives from the General Conference, Elders Dan Jackson, President of the North American Division, and Larry Blackmer, Education Director of the North American Division.
The purpose of the town hall meeting, apparently, was to address the two year struggle over the evolution controversy that has been raging at LSU. Reportedly, Darnell “wanted to be sure that he could recall all that transpired,” so he recorded the meeting. The next day Darnell sent copies of his recording to several people including at least one LSU faculty member and Spectrum Magazine. What prompted Darnell to pass on the recording of a private meeting? Perhaps he thought there was something said at the meeting that would favor the efforts of some to turn LSU into a “progressive” Adventist institution rather than have it end up as some kind of “Bible college.” However, no one, except Darnell, really knows. And Darnell isn’t talking.
Not surprisingly in this internet age, the recording ended up being posted online for a time before being suddenly pulled (It has since showed up on numerous “torrent” sites). During this time the recording made its way to the office of the North American Division. A transcript was made of the recording and subsequently passed on to Ricardo Graham, LSU Board Chairman.
Unaccountably, Darnell failed to turn off the recording function on his phone at the end of the town hall meeting. While his phone continued recording, Darnell drove to a friend’s house where he met up with Jeff Kaatz, LSU Vice President of Development, Jim Beach, LSU Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Gary Bradley, LSU biology professor. While watching the Los Angeles Lakers play the Denver Nuggets in an NBA basketball playoff game, the four men discussed that day’s town hall meeting. While occasionally using some rather colorful language, they expressed less than flattering evaluations of church leaders (including Blackmer and Jackson), board members, and others.
According to a Spectrum article, “Ricardo Graham received the tape and the transcription from Blackmer on June 1. Graham contacted University President Randal Wisbey on Thursday, June 9, and requested meetings with the three employees of the University on Friday, June 10, in Wisbey’s office. In separate meetings with each of the individuals, transcripts of the tape were shared. They were then given the option of signing a letter of resignation or having the material shared with the entire Board of Trustees. All signed letters of resignation.” However, only Dr. Bradley lost his teaching job and Mr. Darnell his position on the school board. The two other men lost their administrative positions but retain their tenured jobs at LSU.
Some who have listened to the private conversation have wondered why all four men resigned from any position over what appears to many to be a relatively harmless private conversation? Sure, there were some inappropriate comments and even a little alcohol consumption, but, really, what’s the big deal? right? After all, the conversation was largely one expressing frustration over the evolution/creation controversy and what could be done to release LSU from the constraints of church oversight, especially the Adventist Accrediting Agency (AAA). They argued against the required promotion of the faith positions of the church in science classes that, from their perspective, undermine the obvious discoveries of mainstream science and overwhelming empirical evidence on the topic of origins.
Frankly, I tend to sympathize with these men to a certain degree. After all, neither LSU nor the church had asked them to substantively change what they were teaching since the controversy erupted. The problem is that the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council had asked all professors in Adventist schools to also present a rigorous defense of the Adventist perspective on origins in all classrooms:
“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. 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 of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”
It is this official guidance of the church, as an organization, that has not taken place at LSU for several decades now. For example, consider that Dr. Bradley, in an interview with the secular journal Inside Higher Education, made several very honest statements regarding his personal position on the topic of origins and how he intended to continue to teach his students:
“Bradley, who is semi-retired after 38 years at La Sierra, has seen evolution debates erupt on campus before and his traditional response is to ‘dive under the desk and wait for them to blow over.’ In this instance, Bradley says he has the backing of his president, who wrote a letter to faculty, staff and trustees affirming the university’s role in the ‘important conversation of science and faith.'”
Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.
“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is [b_s_],” he said.
“It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,” Bradley added. “That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.” In the Capstone Biology class for 2009, Bradley gave a 69-slide presentation entitled, “Hominid Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.”
Clearly Dr. Bradley never intended to follow the educational guidelines of the church, past or present. Beyond this, several other science and even religion professors at LSU have voiced support for Bradley’s position and intention. Somewhat surprisingly then (in light of past inaction) the AAA, in response to the current controversy, did not fully renew LSU’s accreditation, but granted a probationary period of one year for LSU to improve its promotion of the church’s position on origins in science classrooms.
What seems a bit strange to me, however, is that Bradley wasn’t asked to resign until he uttered, in a private conversation, a few negative comments about particular individuals in the church’s hierarchy. It seems almost like the church leadership is more concerned over private comments against individuals than public comments and public actions that directly undermine the church’s “fundamental” positions and policies.
A few questions come to mind at this point: Why were church officials sent to apologize to LSU for the efforts of, for example, David Asscherick? Should not the situation that prompted Asscherick’s widely circulated letter have been addressed by LSU many years before? Why did Elder Jackson state, during the town hall meeting, that David Asscherick and the leadership of the Michigan Conference should be officially reprimanded by the church? – for trying to uphold the fundamental goals and ideals of the church within our own universities? Has the Adventist world turned upside down?
If the church claims that certain doctrinal teachings are, in fact, “fundamental” to its basic goals and mission, why then does it align itself with those who are most emphatically opposed to those positions? On the other hand, if the church is not really opposed to mainstream evolutionary theories on origins, or does not actually consider the issue of origins to be “fundamental,” why then doesn’t it make this new position clear to its worldwide constituents?
Do not the students and parents who are paying a great deal of money for a Seventh-day Adventist education deserve to know when a particular school is actively undermining one or more of the church’s doctrinal positions in its classrooms? Calling the church’s position scientifically untenable? Believed only by the church’s “lunatic fringe”? Don’t we all have a basic right to know what we are supporting with our tuition, tithes, and offerings?
In short then, my most basic wish for LSU and for the church at large is Consistency and Transparency.
That’s it.
If the church, as an organization, really does believe in a literal six-day creation week as fundamental to the gospel message of hope, then the church, and all organizations owned and operated under the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” should be active in promoting this basic message. However, if the church does not really stand for these doctrinal positions, or if the church really cannot ensure unity on these basic issues within the various organizations that carry the church’s own name, then the church should be active in informing its worldwide membership of these facts. Those who send their children, their most precious possessions on this Earth, to a school that bears the name “Seventh-day Adventist” should not be misinformed or, worse yet, deceived as to what to expect from “Adventist Education”.
It simply isn’t right for the church, or a church school like LSU, to advertise one thing in order to draw students (and donations) from Adventist families, but then deliver something “fundamentally different.” In anyone’s book, that’s false advertising. More than this, it’s a form of both deception and theft. It’s wrong, plain and simple.
At the very least, let’s be consistent and transparent when it comes to what we stand for as a church organization and what anyone can expect from Seventh-day Adventist education…
“There seems to be a lot of belittling and judgement, which only makes people want to defend themselves and not actually search for truth with open hearts.”
I disagree (most respectfully). But we are having a fair discussion about leadership in the highest places of our SDA church – teaching that which is clearly contrary to fundamental SDA faith. (I think there is no higher calling than that of teaching our young people.)
“If we are truly Seventh-day Adventists, we need to have the mind, heart and attitude of Christ.”
I agree. ABSOLUTELY. But we must be gently firm for the truth.
Please read Matt 23.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=KJV
Charles(Quote)
View CommentCharles, I couldn’t agree more! That’s why I included the quote of how Christ dealt with it. And if God in human form, Who WAS and STILL IS the Truth, did this, then we can follow His example (and we are supposed to). Notice from the quote that Christ still got His point across, but was never rude. I love Matthew 23 as well, and in that passage HE definantly had tears in His voice. We can be both passionate and loving all at the same time. I am a teacher myself, and I believe in the Creation. I also believe that Satan would love to use this discussion, which is good, to get us to misrepresent Christ. I’m encouraging us to be who we say we are – followers of Jesus Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. God bless.
Krystaldo(Quote)
View CommentThe Kitzmiller v. Dover case is not really relevant. LaSierra is a private, church-affiliated college, and will not run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Much less is it governed by Judge Jones’ dicta about what is and isn’t “science.”
An Adventist educational institution should have a different philosophy of science and education than a taxpayer-funded state university. If it doesn’t, if it slavishly follows arbitrary “rules of science” such as that the Creator may never be acknowledged, then it is a wasteful redundancy of the public education system.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentThank-you Krystaldo.
Indeed, we must be loving and gentle – but also firm for the truth.
I think I have learned from this forum that when I say I believe in “the Creation”, I have to qualify it further with the notations of six 24 hour periods about 6,000 years ago – just to be clear.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentGood point, Charles.
krystaldo(Quote)
View CommentThe Kitzmiller decision is not only highly relevant but dispositive regarding many of the criticisms levied against La Sierra.
1. Many critics of La Sierra assert that Creationism and Intelligent Design, which are theological/philosphical beliefs, constitute science. The Kitzmiller court carefully refutes that assertion.
2. Many critics, like David Read, believe that you can have “a different philosophy of science” in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They want La Sierra to teach something different than science while representing to students that what they are taught is science. That is like saying that you can have a different philosophy of baseball. You can have thirteen players on each side, play with hockey sticks and pucks, and determine who wins the game by whichever team hits the most triples. This is not baseball. This is a newly-invented game called David Read baseball. And when you represent that you are playing baseball when you are in reality playing David Read baseball, then you are not being honest and transparent with students.
The Kitzmiller court in its careful description of the rules of science, exposed as a fraud the bastardized form of science that the Dover School Board attempted to implement.
3. Many critics of La Sierra do not understand the difference between truth and fact, so in their confusion they allege that the teaching of mainstream science as fact undermines doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that are true. Aside from the fact that practitioners of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic reject that allegation for theological reasons, the allegation also stands rejected as a matter of science. As stated by Judge Jones, who understands that there is a difference between fact and truth, “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” P. 64.
4. Many critics of La Sierra argue that methodological naturalism is atheistic science. A self-imposed convention of science is that it limits its search for answers to natural causes. Science does not reject the view that there may be supernatural causes but simply does not attempt to study them. The Kitzmiller court makes clear that limiting your study to natural causes does not mean that you reject that there are supernatural causes. P. 65-68.
5. The Kitzmiller opinion chronicles a political, cultural, and social movement in American society. Many of the characteristics of that movement are reflected in the political, cultural, and social movement agitated against La Sierra. There is much to be learned from studying how the Kitzmiller court resolved the issues.
I wish the critics of La Sierra would admit what they are attempting to accompish. The most charitable description of what these critics want is for our schools to stop teaching science and instead teach natural philosophy. But I think a more evident description of what they want is that our schools stop teaching science and teach natural philosophy, while representing to students that what they are being taught is science. There is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for that sort of deception.
If our students cannot have full trust that their science teachers will be honest with them, then how can they have full trust that their theology teachers will be honest with them.
The harm that Educate Truth and other critics of La Sierra have inflicted upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church is enormous. These critics do not seem to understand that if the Church is not seen as an honest broker regarding science, it will not be seen as an honest broker regarding theology.
Phillip Brantley(Quote)
View CommentSo sir, what is your conclusion? Was the world created in a literal week a few thousand years ago? Or did it take millions of years?
Charles(Quote)
View CommentMr. Brantley brings the fresh air of reality and a reasonable and rational discussion of the issues to the “EducateTruth(sic)” site. I suspect that this will not last long once since the voices of unreason and irrationality will immediately begin to post.
Ervin Taylor(Quote)
View CommentIf we’re going to try to use science to prove that God created using the YEC model, shouldn’t we start by using science to prove that God exists?
Al Scott(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You wrote:
You’ve yet to consider that both a spacecraft and a rock that looks like an arrowhead have a finite possibility of being produced by what are, from the human perspective, apparently non-deliberate non-intelligent processes of nature. It is just that you consider these odds so low, given your prior experience with the creative powers of mindless forces of nature, that you automatically default to the hypothesis of intelligent design whenever you see something that looks like a spacecraft or an arrowhead or a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, etc.
Your only problem here is that you don’t know why you’re invoking the intelligent design hypothesis to explain the most likely origin of such objects or phenomena. After all, you didn’t see the spacecraft or the arrowhead being made. You don’t know for sure if they were or were not deliberately designed or if they were in fact produced by mindless forces of nature. You simply assume that a fairly high level of intelligence was involved – but why? Do you know?
Can you explain why a highly symmetrical polished granite cube or an arrowhead is clearly designed, even if found on an alien planet like Mars, while an amorphous rock that looks like a river rock does not obviously require the input of intelligence to produce? Why do you think that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, measuring 1.5 meters on each side, if found on the surface of Mars, would hit the front page of every newspaper in the world? – while amorphous boulders on Mars demand no such attention?
If you actually try to come up with a reason for your conclusion of design for such objects and/or phenomena, you’re well on your way to understanding the very real science of detecting design.
Hint: You don’t need to know anything about the actual designer in order to know, via scientific reasoning, that the designer of the object or phenomenon in question was highly intelligent.
You effort here is to challenge those who try to specifically identify the designer. The basic science of detecting design behind various artifacts is not dependent upon identifying the designer beyond the fact that the designer is/was intelligent.
God may design each and every snowflake or river rock with careful thought and deliberate design. But, it is also possible that God simply set into place mindless natural laws that operate independent of the need for constant oversight and supervision – like a computer system that is designed to work without the direct guidance of the designer of that system according to set laws.
What this means is that I cannot tell the difference between the hypothesis that a snowflake was the result of very predictable repeatable mindless laws of nature vs. a deliberate act of intelligence. The same is true for an amorphous river rock. Humans can and do make amorphous rocks that look very much like river rocks. There are companies that do this – produce and sell natural-looking rocks.
So, the question is, can you tell the difference between a natural looking rock, which can be produced by what appears to be mindless natural law as well as by deliberate design, verses a rock that seems to be beyond the powers of mindless forces of nature to produce but is within the realm of intelligent design to produce? – like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube or an arrowhead?
Do you really not see a fundamental difference between an amorphous river rock and a highly symmetrical polished granite cube? – when it comes to determining the most likely origin of both types of rocks? Yes, a river rock could be designed, but it could also reasonably be the result of apparently mindless forces of nature. A highly symmetrical polished granite cube (or an arrowhead) on the other hand, can only be the result of deliberate design to a very high degree of probability.
You see, we’re talking about the design-only hypothesis… the hypothesis that only intelligent design can rationally explain the existence of certain phenomena. If this could not be done, if apparently mindless natural forces could explain all phenomena just as easily as could the hypothesis of intelligent design, there would be no forensic science, no anthropology, and no hope of SETI as a science.
Exactly… like weather patterns. There are things that weather patterns and other apparently mindless forces of nature simply cannot produce which intelligent minds can produce – like geometrically intricate crop circles or Stonehenge, etc.
How do you not your arrowhead was not produced by mindless natural processes? – like apparently non-directed wind and rain, lightening, and hail? Are you absolutely sure? Or, is this notion of yours simply a theological/philosophical position?
Why not just admit that science is the basis for detecting design behind many natural phenomena? – like arrowheads, granite cubes, Stonehenge, and radio signals with mathematical tags? I’m really amazed that you don’t seem to want to recognize the fact that intelligent design is a scientific theory that is used by many mainstream scientific disciplines.
Let me repeat myself yet again: The identity of the designer does not need to be determined before the phenomenon in question can be scientifically determined to be the most likely result of intelligent design of some kind. It doesn’t matter if the intelligence is natural or supernatural. That’s irrelevant to the question of if intelligent design is or is not clearly required to rationally explain the phenomenon in question.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You wrote:
This statement is, ironically, absolutely correct. One simply can’t redefine a game and call it by the same name. If you redefine the rules of baseball, it isn’t baseball. And, if you redefine the rules of basic scientific methodology, you aren’t playing the game of “science” and, therefore, you shouldn’t call what you are playing “science”.
David Read is mistaken in his notions that the basic rules of science need to be redefined. They don’t need to be redefined since they are the very basis of logical thinking – invoking basic concepts such as inductions, deduction, abduction, etc…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You also wrote:
It seems like neither you nor Judge Jones really understand the difference between facts and truth either. Science doesn’t make factual conclusions in the absolute sense of the word. Science takes facts or observations and uses them to make predictions that are tentatively thought to be “true” with a certain degree of confidence that is always less than 100%. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science.
Also, as already noted, the court didn’t seem to understand that the basic concepts of intelligent design are an integral part of many mainstream sciences – to include forensics, anthropology and even SETI. To conclude that ID, in its basic claims, is not science is simply revealing a gross ignorance of what science is as well as the scientific basis for detecting the need for design to explain certain phenomena.
Again, the basis of the scientific detection of the need for intelligent design to explain certain phenomena does not require an attempt to identify any other feature of the proposed designer.
This is the primary mistake of this particular court opinion – and it’s a big mistake.
There is no inherent need to qualify the proposed designer as being “supernatural” – though some features of the universe demand a level of intelligence that is so superior to our own as to be indistinguishable from a designer who may well be “supernatural” from our own perspective.
While interesting, this particular aspect of the court’s opinion is truly irrelevant to the question of if the basic methods used to detect the need to invoke intelligent design as an explanation for a given phenomenon is or is not “scientific”.
What I personally want is for our students to be exposed to the very real scientific arguments for intelligent design for various features of our universe and for the rational credibility of the biblical perspective on origins – which is also scientific in that it is testable and potentially falsifiable as is any valid scientific hypothesis/theory. Such an exposure should be presented to our students, along with the presentation of the mainstream position, by those who are actually supportive of the Church’s position on origins as the most rational explanation for the world in which we live.
Just because a science professor understands the weight of evidence to favor the biblical model of origins does not mean that this professor is therefore being dishonest by definition. That’s a silly argument.
I ask again, what is the harm in asking our schools and our church at large to simply be honest and open with the entire membership as to exactly what is being taught to our own young people in our own schools? What is the problem with asking for consistency and transparency?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentI don’t want to redefine the basic rules of science, except insofar as to reject the philosophical bias that theories of origins must be naturalistic. This arbitrary philosophical bias is inconsistent with the Adventist worldview, and hence inappropriate to insist on in an Adventist institution.
It is also this bias that prevents Intelligent Design theory, which Sean is eloquently defending, from being considered science by the Judge Joneses of the world.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentSean, it is easy to argue that Intelligent Design theory applied to origins is science, because other branches of science incorporate detection of design. But you also speak of the “the church’s position on origins” and “the Biblical model of origins” both of which terms I take to mean that God created the earth’s original life forms in six literal days, and subsequently destroyed the world in a universal Flood that reshaped the surface of the planet. Thus, the Biblical model of origins, which is also the church’s model of origins, goes way beyond mere intelligent design. Accordingly, it isn’t prudent to get boxed into defending only Intelligent Design theory when our actual model of origins encompasses far more specific supernatural intervention, by a very specific deity–the God of the Bible.
I don’t think it can be denied that a creationist view of origins is a radical departure from the mainstream scientific view of origins. Phil is right about the centrality of naturalism to mainstream origins science. It has comprehensively shaped the whole area, across many different scientific sub-disciplines, and even non-science disciplines such as history. I along with all other biblical creationists, reject the naturalism, along with the rest of the mainstream origins science that the naturalism has shaped. This doesn’t seem workable to Phil, but the alternative Phil suggests–continue to teach mainstream origins science while insisting that it isn’t really true–doesn’t seem workable to me. I don’t see any alternative to full-blown creationism and creation science.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@David Read:
You wrote:
How is it possible for what is natural (humans) to demonstrate that which is supernatural? – something that is beyond our abilities to even comprehend?
I propose to you that the very best we can do is to demonstrate that certain phenomena require such high levels of intelligence and creative power, relative to our own, that such an intelligence, even if “natural” (whatever that really means), would be effectively indistinguishable by us from a supernatural creative intelligence.
In short, the only basis we have to know that God is in fact supernatural is his own claim that he is and our inability to determine otherwise. God’s creative power is so far beyond our own that even if God were actually “natural” (and this term really isn’t defined in science) we couldn’t falsify his claim to being supernatural.
And, there are certain phenomena that are very hard to explain without appealing to an individual with access to supernatural powers – like God’s evident ability to very accurately know the far distant future.
There is also the argument that the term “supernatural” is just a relative term. Depending upon one’s perspective a higher level perspective would seem “supernatural” – as in the perspective of an ant vs. that of a human. From the perspective on an ant, the abilities of a human would see very “supernatural” while remaining perfectly “natural” from the perspective of the human. The same may be true when considering the human perspective vs. God’s perspective. What seems “supernatural” from our own perspective no doubt seems very “natural” from God’s perspective.
This is only true when one tries to apply the very same science of intelligent design used by many mainstream sciences such as forensics, anthropology, and even SETI to various features of living things… or to the origin of certain structural features of the universe itself. Otherwise, scientists are not at all opposed to the idea that the ability to detect the need for an intelligent designer is well within the realm of science.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment1. My point was not to imply that the specific text explained the begining of time but to explain that God views time differently than you or I.
2. How do you explain the things you can’t explain, and no one here has been able to yet or even tried to…. dinosaurs.
3. I’m sure your faith is the strongest of all of us. And in the eyes of you and the people like you I am a total “bad-ventist” despite growing up in the church and going to grade school, high school, college, and graduate school in the SDA system. I question everything. I want answers to all the questions I have. Does it make me less of a believer in God and his awesome power?
Let’s just say hypothetically every “day” in creation in 100,000 years. And during that time God manipulates things to the way he wants them. And allows things to grow and grow in the wild. Do you think that changes how he loves you or that he sent his son to save you. Will accepting his grace not count as much? Will heaven be any less spectacular.
Does it change anything?
Ben Bartsch(Quote)
View CommentBen Bartsch,
Saying that various testable claims of the Bible are only allegorical or symbolic or different for God than for us removes the Bible from the realm of potential falsification. What this does is undermine the practical credibility of the Bible for being detectable as the Word of God vs. other texts that make this same claim – like the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. Upon what basis do you pick the Bible over all other competing options?
Also, your suggestion that God views time differently than we do suggests that God is unaware of how we view time and forgets to speak to us in our language. Why would he speak to us in a language that is meaningless to us? – or doesn’t mean to us what it means to Him? That would show a failure to communicate effectively with one’s target audience – i.e., us in this case.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@David Read:
You wrote:
Exactly…
If you can get someone to admit that intelligent design theories are a basic part of many real mainstream sciences, and they are, you’ve gotten them to take a big step toward being able to understand the rational basis for the SDA position on origins. You can’t even try to identify the designer if you can’t figure out that intelligent design is required in the first place…
I don’t think that either you or Phil, or anyone else for that matter, are able to really define what you mean when you use the terms “natural” or “supernatural”. These terms seem to be relative terms as most people use them. Because of this, I don’t think that you or anyone else really knows if it is possible or impossible for many if not all of the miracles, described in the Bible, to be performed using “natural” mechanisms – given the appropriate technology.
You see, miracles may only seem miraculous from the perspective of those who don’t know how to produce the same effect themselves.
Beyond this, when scientists use the term “naturalism” they often are referring to what seems like mindless mechanisms of nature – that ultimately no intelligence of any kind is needed to explain any aspect of the universe in which we live.
It is for this reason that many scientists, like Dawkins, Hawking, and the like, believe that ultimately everything came from nothing and that everything is the result of the mindless laws of nature. In short, such scientists have made a God, of sorts, out of the mindless uncaring laws of nature. The simply worship a mindless uncaring God instead of an intelligent loving God. Yet, they invoke a God-like creative power none-the-less.
In this sense, this form of naturalism is indeed a religious or philosophical position that is quite different from the conclusion of creationists and even IDists.
Neither do I, but I also don’t see the need to define creation science using anything other than standard definitions of science.
If one is not willing to directly name the designer in science classes in our schools as an initial teaching tactic, that’s fine, as long as our professors are willing to admit to their students, right up front, that a very high level of intelligence is needed to explain the origin of many features of living things on this planet and that the model of origins presented in the Bible is not inconsistent with the best available empirical evidence – especially when it comes to explaining the rapidly degenerating nature of the genomic quality of slowly reproducing living things on this planet as well as the catastrophic features of much of the fossil and geologic records… etc. At this point, of course, I think our professors are not out of bounds to suggest that the design that is evident in nature is not inconsistent with the Christian God described in the Bible.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentI am not a scientist and my view is thus more simplistic.
“Science” cannot explain life. It is that simple. If so-called “science” understood what constitutes LIFE, then science could maybe be an authority on it.
Science has no qualification to make a judgement about where life comes from because there is no understanding of how it is originated. Scripture explains from WHERE it comes but the “HOW” of it is God’s power and His alone. Once the life has totally left a formerly living body, it is gone and cannot be restored by any one.
We are all here ALIVE. That is evident by our interactions. But what is life? Explain it scientifically! If you understand it, then you should be able to restore it after it is gone. Certainly science does not support the hope of a resurrection. And I sincerly doubt that the purist in evolutionary belief has a genuine hope for a resurrection. If I cannot believe in an all-powerful God who put life into the dust that made the first man, how can I have hope in a resurrection?
Science has done a whole lot of good for mankind. But it does have limitations. After all, science IS only human. It is not God and it cannot probe the secrets of God.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentDr. Pitman, I am happy to continue to expose the flaws in your analogies. Suppose a “highly symmetrical polished granite cube, measuring 1.5 meters on each side,” is found on the surface of Mars. Let us agree that our feelings that the cube was intelligently designed are no less fervent than the feelings of a person living in 1600 that a finch was intelligently designed.
Do you get the point?
Obviously many things in the world are intelligently designed, such as chocolate cakes. Scientists don’t waste their time studying the origins of chocolate cakes. But you seek to compare the scientist who is eating his chocolate cake while doing serious work in the area of biological change with his six-year old daughter who announces to her father, “Mommy made the cake!”
Here are just a few of the many reasons why no more than 5 minutes should be spent in an Adventist university classroom discussing Intelligent Design:
1. What is taught in the science classroom should be curriculum that constitutes science, as determined not by Sean Pitman but by the science community. The entire credibility of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is at stake.
2. The science community has determined that Intelligent Design is not science. (Characterizing forensics, anthropology, and SETI as fields of Intelligent Design ignores the historical context in which the Intelligent Design movement originated as a rebranded continuation of the Creation Movement).
3. Science teachers should focus on mainstream science, which you admit does not include Intelligent Design. Students are paying thousands of dollars for their education and they deserve not to have limited resources and classroom time diverted to novel and heterodox theories. We certainly don’t want our history teachers to focus a lot of classroom time and assigned readings concerning theories that the Holocaust is a hoax.
4. You have gone to great pains to denude hypothetical Intelligent Designers of supernaturalistic characteristics, arguing that these Designers need not be God. If we are not necessarily discussing God, then what ecclesiastical imperative could there possibly be for including this material in the standard curriculum?
I am sure that science teachers in many colleges and universities will take at least 5 minutes of classroom time to talk about the Intelligent Design movement, primarily as a pop culture lesson. I cannot imagine why any more time should be spent on the topic, assuming the teacher does not have a stuttering problem. There really is not that much to say. Intelligent Design is one of the great non-ideas of the latter part of the twentieth century.
Phillip Brantley(Quote)
View CommentCharles, I agree 100% with your 6:34 p.m. comment. Thank you for sharing those observations.
Phillip Brantley(Quote)
View CommentSean, the idea that the distinction between natural and supernatural is an artifact of limited human perspective, and that God is really just a much smarter being with a higher technology, is an interesting idea.
I don’t think this concept is helpful vis-a-vis the origins issue, however, because mainstream origins science now seems to be wedded to an origins narrative that is random and specifically non-purposive. The science enforcers that currently exist strictly rule out any teleological or purposive origins narrative, regardless whether the designer is a super-intelligent “natural” being or a real God. The hostility to teleology is behind the hostility to Intelligent Design theory.
There are hints in the writing of Ellen White, however, that God doesn’t just understand natural law much better than we do but actually performs real miracles, i.e., does things that violate natural law. Consider this quote from GC 525 (in the context of prayer):
“The universe, say they, is governed by fixed laws, and God Himself does nothing contrary to these laws. Thus they represent God as bound by His own laws–as if the operation of divine laws could exclude divine freedom. Such teaching is opposed to the testimony of the Scriptures. Were not miracles wrought by Christ and His apostles?”
I think miracles are real, not just a product of human limitation and God’s higher intelligence.
I’d also be disappointed if science teachers in Adventist institutions felt they had to be so coy as to not mention the name of the Designer. We have private, Adventist schools precisely so that we can say who the Designer is without being hauled before the Judge Joneses. Also, if mere design is all that a biology teacher will allow, he’s going to be producing theistic evolutionists. You need the Genesis Flood to explain the geological strata in a young earth context, as opposed to hundreds of millions of years, and that’s much more than mere ID theory.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentKrystalado, how do you define “belittling” and “judgement?” Is commenting on how people’s beliefs and behavior differ from our church a problem for you? If someone is doing wrong and we identify that and seek to not allow that to spread in the church, is that ok? If someone calls themselves a church member but causes others to leave the church by spreading doubt, and they don’t follow direct beliefs of the Bible, is that a problem for you?
The Bible says that we will know people by their fruits. That implies that we are to know, judge, if the fruit is good or rotten, right? We compare our own and other people’s behavior by the Bible. Doesn’t the Bible say not to throw our pearls before swine. So we would need to have an idea who a swine is right, and avoid them, right?
Your concept of not judging is very linked to the liberal/progressive concept that there are no defined rights and wrongs. It is only wrong if you think it is wrong and God is not really concerned about our behavior. He is going to save us because we say Jesus is our savior and obedience is not really necessary. It’s ok to drink a little wine, or not go to church, or be gay (because they say they were born that way). If it feels right, or not exactly wrong, then it is ok. The Bible writers were from a different time and don’t understand our modern times. We need to reinterpret the Bible in connection with modern science.
The conservatives believe differently. We believe that there are definite rights and wrongs. We believe that the Bible says what it means and we have some self-sacrificing to do to change our sinful lives to get in line with God. That is not to earn anything, we cannot do that.
Why is it that when a conservative disagrees with a liberal, the conservative is just an ignorant, judgemental, backwards, uneducated, bigotted, homophobic, sexist, fundamentalist? But when a liberal/progressive disagrees with a conservative, they are just enlightened?
What is happening at LSU is WRONG! Young people are being harmed, the evidence is strong. The problem needs to be corrected NOW!
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View CommentPhillip –
I’d like to believe that we have common ground.
I do not believe that “science” as popularly taught is honest with it’s “method”. There is much that is taught for fact (including THEORIES of evolution) which has not been observed, tested and demonstrated. Life is a primary example. Yet, so-called science pretends to offer an explanation and not only that, but seeks exclusivity for those ideas and generally ridicules the miraculous creative life-giving power of an eternal and all-powerful God.
One of the primary messages of the SDA church is to explain to the world about the “Great Controversy between Christ and Satan”. I have walked through the great halls of the Smithsonian in DC and read a sign that says “meet your ancestors” – on display a variety of old animal artifacts. This is so-called “science” speaking to me. I reject that. Satan has used this “science” as a religion to put doubts in the hearts of most of mankind about their true origins. Without Jesus as our Creator, we do not have responsibility to God or His laws. Its the same old story, over and over. The lies that Satan (literally) told Eve in the garden – “Has God told you this? Not so.” “You shall not surely die”. “You shall become as Gods.”
Evolutionary thought puts us on a continuum to imagined Godhood. It teaches that through the miracles of (infallible) science, we can eventually find our own eternal life and do other marvelous things – such as to conquer space. But it is precisely OPPOSITE of the truth. We are on a continuum of decline that if God himself does not intervene, we would all perish.
There are many areas of reality that are addressed by both faith and science. When there is conflict between the two, I embrace my faith.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentI would think, Erv, that before we begin, it would be appropriate to have some ground rules. But since you have not proposed any, and since you decliend to respond at all, I think we should just begin.
Soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
The amount of protein in dinosaur bones, inconsistent with the half life of protein and the assumed ages given these bones by unbelieving skeptics.
OK, now it is your turn to list 98 bits of scientific data in support of the evolution delusion, since you stated that the ratio of data in support of evolution to data in support of creation is 98:2.
Bob Pickle(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You wrote:
That doesn’t address my question as to how you determine that such a cube was most likely the result of intelligent design while you cannot say the same thing for the amorphos rock sitting right next to the granite cube. How do you know that the cube was designed? Can you explain it to me? beyond an appeal to your “feelings”?
I must say that you appeal to your feelings quite a lot to determine the validity of numerous things… as in your “laugh test” and now your “feelings” regarding the origin of granite cubes on Mars…
No, I don’t get your point. You didn’t explain your method for determining how certain things are clearly designed while others are not.
Ok, so how is this so obvious? By what method is such an obvious conclusion determined? – outside of your “feelings” for what is and what is not the obvious result of intelligent design?
Scientists do “waste their time” trying to figure out how they would know if a radio signal coming from outer space was intelligently produced. They would also “waste their time”, a great deal of it, studying granite cubes if the type of granite cube I’ve described was in fact found on the surface of Mars.
So, how do scientists, or the little girl you mentioned, determine that the cake (or the granite cube) was most likely designed? – having not actually seen it made? After all, I’ve seen people make amorphous looking “natural” rocks or “natural guardens” that cannot be readily distinguished from those produced by non-deliberate means. So, the fact that humans can produce the phenomenon in question is not enough to automatically invoke intelligent design as the origin.
So, please do explain to me what it takes for a scientist, or anyone else, to determine that a highly symmetrical polished granite cube was most likely designed? – even if it were found on the surface of an alien planet like Mars?
What is taught as science should follow basic rules of science, not the conclusions of popular scientists. Popular scientists have often been painfully wrong and the conclusions of the minority have been right. Therefore, to simply make popular opinion the very definition of science isn’t scientific.
Here are the facts: The basic concepts of intelligent design employed by scientists in fields like forensics, anthropology and SETI are scientific concepts – open to testing and potential falsification. That’s a fact.
The only thing you’re upset with is that some people take these very same rules and apply them to the study of living things and conclude that certain features of living things must also have been designed. That’s a testable hypothesis open to the potential for falsification. It is therefore a valid scientific hypothesis just like the other fields of science that employ the use of intelligent design.
But, you’re especially upset when certain people suggest that the identy of the designer is the Christian God. Just because some people see religious implications behind the conclusions of science does not therefore mean that the science behind the conclusions really isn’t valid – it is. It is the very same type of science used by mainstream scientists in many different fields of science.
I’m sorry, but you simply can’t have your cake and eat it to. If ID isn’t “science” when applied to living things, then anthropology, forensics, and SETI aren’t sciences either since they are based on the very same methodologies and logical arguments which are testable and potentially falsifiable.
If you would answer my questions on how you determine that symmetrical polished granite cubes are most likely designed, you’d begin to understand…
What’s wrong with your memory? Have I not been explaining to you this whole time that mainstream science does in fact include the basic concepts of intelligent design? What about forensics, anthropology and SETI do you not understand when it comes to their use of intelligent design theories?
You just don’t understand the universal application of these rules because you have yet to even consider the method by which you yourself recognize the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various phenomena that you somehow intuitively know were intelligently designed. You just don’t know why you know this.
Our Adventist schools exist for the very reason that Adventist education should offer something more than secular educational institutions. While secular theories should be presented and well-learned, our schools should devote a significant portion of class time presenting the rational reasons for the uniquely SDA perspective on origins. Young people are otherwise inundated with the evolutionary perspective in all other media. Our schools should be at least one place where the biblical perspective is presented in the most favorable light possible.
If you do not believe this, then you should sent your children to a secular university where they will hear only the mainstream perspective without being given any other rational alternative theory to consider…
Determining the need for intelligent design behind various features of our universe and of life on this planet is the first step toward God. If one cannot even determine the need for basic intelligent design, one cannot see the need to determine who the designer might be.
You see, for many people the discovery that intelligent design is required to explain various features of the universe and of life on this planet would quickly lead them to the religious implications of such a discovery.
Yet again, just because some people may see the religious significance of certain discoveries of science does not therefore mean that the science itself isn’t really scientific. That’s a mistaken conclusion.
And I think you’re simply regurgitating what you’ve been told without really considering the actual science of intelligent design for yourself. It would do you a great deal of good to try to put down, in your own words, how you yourself are able to determine the necessity of intelligent design to explain something like a highly symmetrical granite cube – even if it were to be found on some alien planet…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@David Read:
You wrote:
This is true only for the origin of fundamental features of the universe and for living things on this planet. For such features most mainstream scientists (especially biologists as compared to physicists) invoke non-intelligent natural laws to explain everything that exists. Ironically, however, this is not true for many mainstream sciences that invoke intelligent design on a daily basis – to include forensic science, anthropology and, of course, SETI (most ironic since SETI scientists argue for their ability to detect alien intelligence behind certain hypothetical artifacts – like narrow spectrum radio signals and radio signals containing mathematical tags, etc.).
You may think that (as do I), but you and I cannot demonstrate this assumption. It is entirely based on the declarations of God about his own ability… abilities that are so far beyond you and I that we cannot know, outside of God’s word, if they really are the result of vastly supperior intelligence and technology or the result of an ability to exist outside of universal natural laws.
I don’t think it is a problem to mention who we think the designer is. However, I do think it is very wise to start out explaining that the basic rules and methodologies invoked by mainstream scientists to detect design (as in anthropology, forensics, and SETI) are the very same rules and methodologies that show that various fundamental features of the structure of the universe and of living things also demand an origin in an highly intelligent mind. Once this is established, it is perfectly fine to suggest that such a highly intelligent designer is not inconsistent with the Christian God described in the pages of the Bible.
That’s true. But, if you can’t get someone to accept the need for design up front, you’re probably not going to get very far with the timing issue for fossils and/or geology.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentPhillip: Many critics of La Sierra assert that Creationism and Intelligent Design, which are theological/philosphical beliefs, constitute science. The Kitzmiller court carefully refutes that assertion.
First of all, Phillip, you fail to realize that this court decision means nothing to us as SDAs. We don’t put the decisions made by earthly judges in earthly court rooms over and above the Bible and the Greatest Judge of all. That you appear to do so is very sad. This is the very pitfall that LSU’s biology dept has fallen into…taking the word of man over the word of God. Anyone doing so is building their house upon the sand. And we all know how that turns out, don’t we?
This knocks out all your arguments based on this court decision…if you are willing to accept God’s truth as recorded for us in the Scriptures. If you reject that there is no help for you. Anyone who doesn’t accept God as Creator, has no real connection with the SDA church. That is the whole issue here. Worldly psuedo-science has no place in an SDA institution.
What you and the rest of LSU need to do is to raise your sights above the world and all its false science to God who knows more about science than you or any human being can ever learn in a lifetime.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentSean: “If one is not willing to directly name the designer in science classes in our schools, that’s fine…”
Sorry to contradict you, Sean, but no it’s not. Our schools should be teaching Creation by God and giving Him the glory He so richly deserves. I don’t give an inch when it comes to this principle and I am somewhat surprised that you do.
Evolution of any kind has no place in our schools and there should be zero compromise with its proponents. Just because worldly scientists don’t want to name the God of the Universe as Creator, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. It is the thin end of the wedge to give in to them on this point or any other.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentPhillip: “Here are just a few of the many reasons why no more than 5 minutes should be spent in an Adventist university classroom discussing Intelligent Design:…”
How dare you! You have just clearly shown why you shouldn’t be allowed within 100 miles of an SDA science class.
Your words, Mr. Brantley, are being recorded in heaven and you will come to meet them one day. You won’t have a leg to stand on then, before the Creator of the Universe who holds the trump card in relation to all your supposedly brilliant scientific teachings–He was there! Name one your precious scientists who were–go ahead–I dare you.
You will also be held responsible for your influence, which is obviously not a benefit to anyone, let alone impressionable young minds. Shame on you!
Faith(Quote)
View CommentFaithful Disciple: “What is happening at LSU is WRONG! Young people are being harmed, the evidence is strong. The problem needs to be corrected NOW!”
Amen, Amen, and Amen. You hit the nail on the head throughout this post. God Bless you and your courage, brother.
Faith(Quote)
View Comment@Faithful Disciple:
Hello Faithful Disciple. What I am referring to are the “comment guidelines” where it says, at the bottom of this page, “all comments should be civil. comment on the issues, not fellow bloggers. No belittling of individual members, their character, or their motives.” This is what I am reffering to. (if anything goes on this site, then don’t include the comment guidelines/rules at the bottom of this page). I think it’s awesome to defend the truth, but let’s do so with love, as Christ did. We are not greater than Christ. I find it funny that you believe I am liberal when you really don’t know me! 🙂 It’s ok, though – I hope my comments on following Jesus’ example of love in defending truth is not drawing lines between “liberals” and “conservatives” – it was meant to remind us that we can debate, but in a Christ-like way. I find it interesting that an Ellen White quote about how Jesus dealt with controversy, and that He, as God, showed us the model of how to defend truth, is taken as not applicable to this issue. Jesus is our example. Thank you for your honesty and I wish God’s richest blessings upon you and may this debate bring us closer to truth and not rip each other apart. Here is the quote from E.G. White I am/was reffering to:
“Christ Himself did not suppress one word of truth, but He spoke it always in love. He exercised the greatest tact, and thoughtful, kind attention in His intercourse with the people. He was never rude, never needlessly spoke a severe word, never gave needless pain to a sensitive soul. He did not censure human weakness. He fearlessly denounced hypocrisy, unbelief, and iniquity, but tears were in His voice as He uttered His scathing rebukes. …The servants of Christ are not to act out the dictates of the natural heart. They need to have close communion with God, lest, under provocation, self rise up, and they pour forth a torrent of words that are unbefitting, that are not as dew or the still showers that refresh the withering plants. This is what Satan wants them to do; for these are his methods. It is the dragon that is wroth; it is the spirit of Satan that is revealed in anger and accusing. But God’s servants are to be representatives of Him.” Desire of Ages p. 353
Krystaldo(Quote)
View Comment@Faith:
In response to my comment, “If one is not willing to directly name the designer in science classes in our schools, that’s fine…â€
You wrote:
You should read the rest of what I wrote. I’m all for giving God his rightful due. It is just that it is important to present the evidence for God’s existence in a logical sequence before expecting students to make the leap of faith to connect the evidence for design with the specific Designer described in the Bible.
There are many forms of evolution, or change over time, to include several forms that we creationists can actively support and teach as valid to our students. Of course, all of the various real forms of evolution in action that are known are limited to very low levels of functional complexity. It is this very clear limitation to evolutionary progress that allows one to detect the need for very high levels of intelligence to explain the very high levels of functional complexity that are present in every living thing.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Bob Pickle:
You wrote:
I would propose that it isn’t the absolute number of evidences for one side or the other, but the quality of the evidence that is most important.
As Thomas Huxley once said, “There is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact”.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentKrystalado, thanks for your response. It was too the point, respectful, and comprehensive.
You are right, I do not know you. I don’t know if you have leanings towards a more conservative or liberal philosophy. I can only go on your comments. If I have mischaracterized you please accept my apology.
There are many of us who think enough is enough. It is time for the nonsense to end. Our young people are our gift from God. We are not going to allow them to be siphoned away by wolves in sheep’s clothing any longer. Seventh-day Adventist institutions should teach SDA beliefs unashamedly and those that have issues with our church and doctrines should go join a team where there beliefs fit and where they are happy.
Unfortunately, there are two “sides” in our church right now. You can call them conservatives/liberals, historic/progressive, or whatever. The truth is that conservatives are tired of our church, doctrines, and leaders being torn down, while our youth’s minds are being poisoned. It is time to call sin by its right name, name names, and get this church back on the right track to finishing the work that Jesus gave us delivering a message of coming judgement and hope of eternal life in and through Him.
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View CommentI agree. But I suspect that Erv can’t keep up with a 98:2 ratio regardless of what the quality might be.
Of course, I could be wrong, and would welcome seeing data listed in such a ratio for the public to review.
Bob Pickle(Quote)
View CommentMr. Pickle and Dr. Pitman:
You got me!
I should indeed be more careful in the positing the ratio of the current scientific data supporting young life creationism (YLC) as opposed to scientific evidence that point to a continuous creation of living organisms over billions of years.
When I wrote that YLCs ignore 98% of the scientific data and focus on the 2%, it was somewhat of an exaggeration, but I would not characterize it as a “gross exaggeration.â€
However, upon further reflection, these numbers should indeed be modified.
I would now suggest that only be ignoring 97.5% of the relevant scientific data and focusing on 2.5% of the data can young life creationists pretend to be “scientific.â€
Thank you for allowing me to revise my statement.
Ervin Taylor(Quote)
View CommentIrv, how honorable (sic) of you to own up to this. What a ethical scientist (sic) you are. Thanks
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Taylor,
How precious! Now your, er, suggestion is 97.53416 pie percent, give or take a millisecond or nanopixel or megaera or two. Surely the Latter Rain, a whole 0.5% thou hast bestowed, surely by some sort of inspiration, upon Genesis 1. Your weekly revision, to whatever decimal point you’re in the mood for, would be so helpful in this exchange of opinions and spins. See you soon.
Oink(Quote)
View CommentBy ignoring 100% of the “observations in nature” – evolutionists come up with wild fictions about “birds coming from reptiles”.
Atheists do it because “they have no other option”. Their religious world view “needs it”.
The rest do it for reasons of their own choosing.
In the spectrum of light to darkness — the clearest light is in Genesis 1-2 where we find that “what actually happened in nature” is a 7 creation week where all complex life comes into being.
Next to that comes T.E’s who have retained enough light to know that I.D. is observable fact not just for Christians – but for all mankind –
Next to that comes the T.E that unwittingly embraces distinctly atheist arguments designed to help them ignore evidence for I.D.
And then comes the pure atheist form of evolutionism – that arguably may be considered a step up from or a step-down from the prior level depending on your POV.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment1. It is a total corruption of the text – because it is an arbitrary wrench of the text simply to “serve the dictates” of some other agenda having nothing at all to do with accurate rendering of the text. (Hint – Moses was not an evolutionist).
2. No scientist would swallow the idea that plants existed 100,000 years before the sun.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Commenthint: Not any more than they have determined that “there is no god”.
The scientists at the Discovery Institute (and 1000’s more) have not concluded that I.D. “is not science”.
What has happened is that the ACLU has “resorted to the courts” to try and get the debate into a courtroom and away from actual “science” venues such as those in which the Discovery Institute is asked to present the case for I.D. in an honest peer review process.
Sadly for your argument above – an ACLU-circus is not the grand court of science opinion” that you have dreamed it to be.
Far be it from our own institutions to engage in the fictions that you seem so content to embrace in your “other reality” view of science.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentYou have just killed your own argument by claiming that the only thing that can be science — is that which is atheist.
No scientist (centuries ago) argued that science is not able to study that which God has made. In fact 1000’s of scientists claim to be doing that very thing – to this very day.
Your argument suffers from the “believe whatever a atheist tells you to think” problem.
You need to open your mind to other options.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMr. Taylor
Surely there is a place of honor at Berkley for you?
Charles(Quote)
View CommentDr. Pitman, allow me to continue to labor with you.
I listed 9 theoretical causes for things such as arrowheads, highly symmetrical cubes on Mars, and chocolate cakes. I then explained to you that scientists self-limit their study to only natural causes (1-3).
You have attempted to vitiate this distinction between natural causation and supernatural causation by arguing that God may be a mere natural person who is more intellectually and technologically advanced than we are. And by positing God as a mere natural person whose acts are natural rather than supernatural, you smuggle into the domain of science the study of God (or as you term it Intelligent Design).
The conventions and rules of science do not allow you to do this.
What you refuse to acknoweldge is that neither of us gets to decide what the conventions and rules of science are. It is the science community that decides. I think your argumentation is too cute, but that is just my lay opinion. Therefore, you should understand that I am not trying to persuade you what the rules and conventions of science should be. I am merely stating to you what they are.
In essence, you criticize Seventh-day Adventist science teachers for adhering to the conventions and rules of science, which expressly characterize Intelligent Design as non-science. Why should these teachers be blamed for what the conventions and rules of science are? And why should they, as science teachers, teach non-science material while representing to students that the material is science?
You still want to talk about the highly symmetrical polished granite cube on Mars. You analogize to objects that are clearly designed or probably designed, (which is the analogy’s premise that you force me to accept), and then challenge me to explain how I know that the cube as compared to an amorphous rock is more likely to be a result of intelligent design. Your analogy breaks down, because the premise you require me to accept is not something I do accept. I reiterate that any of the 9 possible explanations I previously described are theoretically possible for the cause of the cube.
You want to argue (or at least permit the inference) that because we can determine (according to the conventions and rules of many different disciplines) that some things like chocolate cakes are designed by human beings, we can also make a determination that some things like finches are designed by a personal God, impersonal God, or alien. This argument is theological and philosophical by nature, because it rests on one’s beliefs about the characteristics of a personal God, impersonal God, or alien, all of whom are not testable by natural tools and mechanisms. Even the necessary premise to Intelligent Design that such an entity would ever design anything is profoundly theological/philosophical.
No matter how hard you try, you cannot transmogrify the theology/philosophy of Intelligent Design into science.
There are many Seventh-day Adventists who because of their ignorance regarding science and the relationship between science and theology, are incapable of understanding what occurs in an Adventist university science classroom. I think critics of La Sierra should take care not to inflame the irrational passions of these confused people.
I would encourage you not to disparage the Seventh-day Adventist Church and those persons, (many of whom like myself believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood), who disagree with you.
These are not open issues that we are discussing. What is preventing a quick and amicable resolution to the controversy is not uncertainty about the right course of action but a political hesitancy that reflects an apprehension that many Church members who are uneducated, undereducated, and mis-educated about the issues, will become upset notwithstanding the correctness of the approach adopted.
I will need to take a pause in my commentary. I will give you the last word.
Phillip Brantley(Quote)
View CommentAs I understand it, the thrust of ID authors, such as Steven Meyers in his book Signature in the Cell, is to show that natural processes are unable to account for the rise of life. That is, they are saying that it is impossible to account for life by natural processes without intelligent intervention.
If making such an assertion is really outside the bounds of science, then isn’t falsification of naturalistic evolution as a broad concept outside the bounds of science, by definition? If a theory isn’t falsifiable, then it isn’t fully testable, and therefore isn’t a valid theory. My impression is that evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that specific theories within the evolutionary paradigm are falsifiable.
Now either naturalistic evolution in some form or another is true, or it is not true. If it is not true, then the popular definition of science is simply a false definition, isn’t it? In other words, it is “science falsely so called.” 1 Tim. 6:20.
Ralph Clark(Quote)
View CommentSo Erv, I provided you with 2 bits of data, 4/5’s of your new figure of 2.5 bits. Where are you going to post your 4/5’s of 97.5 bits?
Or will you ignore the challenge and allow people to conclude that you probably can’t back up your statement with hard, scientific facts?
Bob Pickle(Quote)
View CommentBen wrote:
“I personally have many unanswered questions about the origins of life. Such as; why are there no human fossils with the dinosaurs? Where did the dinosaurs come from? If God created them then why were there none on the ark with Noah. (that would have been a huge ark to carry two brontosaurus.)”
I too am interested in why we haven’t found much in the way of human fossils, located next to dinosaur fossils or any other fossils for that matter. Maybe very few humans were on alive on the planet at the time of the flood….
Why couldn’t the ark have held brontosauruses? The cubit is assumed to be 18 inches putting the ark at about 450 ft long. If the cubit was closer to 24 inches, due to the greater stature of antedeluvians, then the ark would have been 600 ft long! Plenty of room for a couple of yearling brontos’. (Who said they had to be full-grown?)
John Kannenberg(Quote)
View CommentI believe God created humans, and not so long ago, but I don’t understand the fossil record.
According to Ellen White and popular creationist beliefs, humans have “devolved” from magnificent creatures much larger and bigger brained than those that exist today. But where is the evidence of this in the fossil record? Why is the only trend evident from records showing a transition from small bodies and small brains to large bodies and large brains? What’s the story? Why is it that we see so many ginormous extinct animals, but not the big humans with big brains that we’ve been told existed before the flood? Where are they hidden?
Perhaps someone expert on the human fossil record can help us out.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI was visiting recently with a coal miner who had spent several years working in the mines of West Virginia. I was stunned to learn that he spent much of that time very deep in the earth – as much as 3 miles deep. The veins of coal were as much as 10 ft thick. He told me of seeing much fossilized animal remains in with the coal but nothing much recognizable as a whole creature.
The presence of an organic matter layer under 15,000+ feet of earthen matter suggests to me nothing but a cataclysmic event. What sort of event could broadly spread a three mile deep layer of earth? The description of the flood from scripture and EG White is most convincing to me.
So, what happens to all of that organic matter under the pressure of three miles of dirt? In a flood, it is roiled and churned and quite liquified. As the earth presses upon the mixure, it would be compressed in the way that makes coal. WaaLaa – fuel for the little people that inhabit the earth 3,000 + years later. It is not so hard to understand what happened to most of the life forms that inhabited the earth prior to the flood. It was all destroyed by a God whose standard is perfection.
What about the great animals of the earth – some of which have some scattered remains that have been found? They are evidence of the pre-flood earth. Scripture makes it clear that prior to the flood, the earth was in a different state. People lived very long which contributed even more to the “wickedness”.
The ecology of the Earth must have certainly been different. The earth was watered by a mist at night and there was no rain. The flood came when the “fountains of the deep” were broken and the rain fell in torrents from the sky. I do not think we can begin to imagine what the earth was like before the destruction. Surely the presence of tropical fossilized remains in cold regions of today’s earth suggests a different ecology.
I am not a scientists but from a common-sense approach, it seems highly convincing to me that the world before the flood was a wholly different place.
People were strong and of great intellect. I believe that many of the huge animals were bred by those humans in a way that displeased God and thus those animals were not preserved through the flood.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentThe reason no humans are found in the fossil record could be that, due to rampaging dinosaurs, people kept close together in a few cities which were totally vaporized by direct asteroid strikes during and after the flood, some of which left craters over 100 miles wide. Earth was “stoned” by giant rocks, perhaps this was the origin of punishment by stoning. Because the Bible IS true there are answers to these questions,
Colin Maunder(Quote)
View CommentRE
Phillip Brantley – June 27, 2011 at 6:28 pm
You speak of the “conventions and rules of science” as if they are the commandments issued by God. Who wrote these “conventions and rules”?
I just have to say that Dr. Pittman makes a more compelling discussion to me than you do. I guess that I am just one of those “Seventh-day Adventists who because of their ignorance regarding science and the relationship between science and theology, are incapable of understanding…” – (even if I did sit in SDA university classrooms and took biology, chemistry, comparative anatomy…)
Ohhh, but that was at SAU. Maybe they don’t count.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentPhillip: “In essence, you criticize Seventh-day Adventist science teachers for adhering to the conventions and rules of science, which expressly characterize Intelligent Design as non-science. Why should these teachers be blamed for what the conventions and rules of science are? And why should they, as science teachers, teach non-science material while representing to students that the material is science?”
So, you think that letting mere human beings make all the rules is acceptable? How blind can you be? God makes the rules, not you or any scientist on earth. The fact that they consider Intelligent Design as non-science should give you a clue as to how reliable they are.
You have quite a nerve to sit there smugly telling creationists that they are ignorant when in fact you and your “scientific” buddies are the ones who are ignorant.
Psalms 14:1 says “The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (emphasis supplied by me) This is a perfect description of your much-lauded scientific community that makes all your rules.
You have invested your faith in the wrong direction, and that is your choice–you have to decide which side of the great controversy you are on.
What I object to is your spreading this poison to innocent minds. No one teaching in an SDA institution has the right, much less an obligation, to teach such tripe. Our church believes in creation. If you don’t, then you don’t belong in the church. Period. And, certainly, no science professor, who cannot support our views on creation whole-heartedly, should be teaching in an SDA classroom of any description.
You speak of how it would be dishonest to teach anything but evolution…how ridiculous is that? What these professors are doing is totally dishonest. They have been hired to teach science within the guidelines of the SDA church and they are doing the opposite while still accepting the church’s paycheck. Now that is dishonest even by worldly standards.
I’m sure that to appeal to the honesty of such persons is most likely useless. What these professors are doing is corrupt on several counts. They are dishonest, subversive, and rebellious. These are not traits of character desirable in professors representing our church.
If they had a shred of honesty they would leave our institutions and go to the public colleges and universities…that is apparently where their hearts are anyway.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentCharles wrote:
“I was visiting recently with a coal miner who had spent several years working in the mines of West Virginia. I was stunned to learn that he spent much of that time very deep in the earth – as much as 3 miles deep. The veins of coal were as much as 10 ft thick. He told me of seeing much fossilized animal remains in with the coal but nothing much recognizable as a whole creature.”
As a follow up, anyone interested could contact SDA pastor Michael Olenik about this. He has photographs taken when he himself visited deep within a coal mine in Russia. And what do you suppose was embedded within the coal all those hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of feet underground? A large wheel…….
You disbelievers in the flood out there got some splainin’ to do!
John Kannenberg(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You did in fact explain that science limits its study to “natural” causes; that science cannot, by definition, investigate the “supernatural”.
I agreed. Those who are “natural” cannot search out the “supernatural” or demonstrate that only a supernatural power can create this or that feature of a living thing or other artifacts of the universe. Your only problem, of course, is that you seem to have defined all efforts to detect any kind of intelligent design behind any phenomenon in nature as “philosophy/religion”, not “science”.
When asked to explain how you would know that something like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, if found on an alien planet like Mars, would strongly suggest intelligent design, you responded that such a determination was obvious because of your “feelings” of design… but not science.
Your main problem, you see, is that you won’t admit that the need to invoke intelligent design to explain certain phenomena is a key part of many mainstream sciences… real sciences. The process by which intelligent design is invoked by these sciences is itself a scientific process that is not dependent upon understanding the actual nature of the proposed designer beyond the fact that the designer is intelligent. It doesn’t matter if the designer happens to have access to supernatural powers as well. All that matters is that the designer is, evidently, very intelligent.
This is not just a religious/philosophical conclusion my friend. This is a valid scientific conclusion. And, the science involved doesn’t go away when one starts considering something other than granite cubes, crop circles, radio signals, and the like. The science doesn’t go away when one starts considering certain features of living things that show the very same features of design to a much more striking degree…
You just don’t think the religious implications of such hypotheses are scientific. That’s fine, but the religious implications of a discovery do not remove the scientific basis of the discovery itself… i.e., that, at the very least, a very very high level of intelligence was most likely required to explain various features of living things and of the basic structure of the universe. You can do with that scientific conlusion whatever you like, but what you do does not remove the science, and predictive value, behind that conclusion.
Yet, you argue:
You’re obviously mistaken. Upon what basis is the “Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” or SETI a valid science if the “rules of science” do not allow for one to detect the need for non-human intelligence to explain certain phenomena? Do you know the scientific basis for SETI? I don’t think you do…
In order to be rational, the scientific community must be consistent in how it applies the “rules of science”. If intelligent design can theoretically be detected in certain features of radiosignals and granite rocks via scientific methodologies, then it is quite obvious that these same methodologies can be applied universally to detect the need to invoke intelligent design as the origin for other types of phenomena as well.
My “too cute” arguments are the very same ones used by forensic scientists, anthropologists, and SETI scientists. If you care to study the scientific basis for detecting design, you’d find their arguments even more “cute” than mine! 😉
You, as a lay person who has never really had to struggle with determining the difference between “natural” vs. “intelligent” causes in your professional practice (as I have had to do as a pathologist), don’t really understand that a scientific methodology is vital to determining the degree of confidence one can present for the proposed ID hypothesis to explain a given situation.
You have no idea what they are. You’re simply assuming that Judge Jones does… when he really doesn’t.
Why have you avoided explaining to me how you know that a highly symmetrical granite cube is the most likely result of intelligent design? – outside of your “feelings” of design? Hmmmmm?
Because, the basic methodologies of intelligent design are scientific and are used by many mainstream fields of science. If ID is scientific when it comes to studying radio signals or granite rocks, then why is it not scientific when studying various features of living things?
You simply can’t answer this question, and neither can anyone else in science.
They are also theoretically possible for an amorphous granite rock. Yet, you don’t automatically assume design when you see an amorphous granite rock. Why the difference?
You don’t understand that the answer to this question is key to understanding the whole science of ID. You can’t simply say that the granite cube is “obviously” designed without any further reasons for why it is so obviously designed while the amorophous rock next to it is not so obviously designed. How do you make this determination? Put it into words…
Not any more theological or philosophical than assuming that an alien intelligence may design a narrow band radio signal embedded with mathematical tags or a highly symmetrical polished granite cube.
You don’t have to know the reasons for the artifact in front of you or the actual identity of the designer to know that the artifact was, in fact, intelligently designed.
Again, if a highly symmetrical polished granite cube (1.5 meters on each side) happened to be found on Mars, everyone would quickly assume that intelligent design was involved without knowing the actual identity or motives of the designer – or even if the designer had access to only natural or supernatural powers. That information simply isn’t needed to quickly determine the need to invoke intelligent design.
It’s already been done by mainstream scientists my friend. You’re way behind the game.
Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance, but I personally haven’t found your understanding or presentation of the science involved in these issues to be all that informed or persuasive. You don’t seem to wish to even discuss the basic methodologies of science when it comes to detecting design in many fields of science. Because if this it is very difficult for your readers to understand the implications of these methodologies for the particular debate surrounding LSU.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging the SDA Church, and its institutions, to stand up for its own stated fundamental beliefs on origins – and to be consistent and transparent with all of its members.
As deemed “correct” by those who view themsevles as informed, like you, but who are just as ignorant as to what is truly the correct and most rational course of action.
I appreciate your efforts thus far. It would be easier for both of us, however, if, in the future, you would at least try to substantively address the fairly simple questions I’ve posed to you – specifically regarding how you are able to tell that a granite cube is obviously designed while an amorphous rock sitting right next to it is not so clearly the result of intelligent design?
I dare say that your honest effort to address this question would open up your mind a great deal when it comes to understanding the issues surrounding the LSU situation in the SDA Church.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThe percentage of data supporting one view or another is going to vary greatly by topic. I think Erv is probably within the ballpark about the percentage of published studies that support an age of the Earth and age of life on Earth older than 10,000 years. However, when it comes to research on abiogenesis, thousands (maybe tens of thousands?) of experiments have been conducted testing dozens (hundreds?) of hypotheses for how life may have evolved from non-living matter. And what percentage of those studies supports abiogenesis as the explanation for life on planet Earth? Zero!
I’m a bit troubled by those who insist that ID should not be discussed in a science classroom. In most disciplines of science, a hypothesis that is repeatedly falsified is rejected. Yet despite being repeatedly falsified in laboratory experiments, the theory of abiogenesis is widely accepted among most members of the scientific community. We’re talking about SCIENCE!!! Is there some reason why the failure of science to explain the origin of life on planet Earth should not be discussed in a science classroom?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentI’m still wondering, how do we even get to the scientific proof of creation without starting with a scientific proof that God exists?
Al Scott(Quote)
View CommentThe interesting issue is how do we minister to those members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who are ignorant about science and the relationship between science and religion. These are possible approaches to take:
1. We can resist harboring the assumption that these Church members are unteachable. I regret that I have until now chosen to ignore Faith and her intemperate comments under the assumption that she doesn’t have a mind that can grasp what I am talking about.
What persuades me that this approach is untenable is that as Seventh-day Adventists we have an obligation to witness to others. Jesus ministered tirelessly to everyone. And to assume that someone is inherently incapable of understanding something is uncharitable and dismissive. I post this comment in recognition, albeit untimely, of my responsibilities (even though, as I suggested yesterday, I need to attend to other things).
2. We can be diligent in correcting misunderstandings. The comments posted by Faith reflect that she misunderstands my views.
I believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood. I believe in the Seventh-day Adventist method for doing theology. (Faith may not understand that we do have a method for doing theology). By seeking recognition of the fact that Intelligent Design is not science, I am in no way denigrating Intelligent Design, which is theological/philosophical by nature and in many ways compatible with the biblical account of creation. There is no offense intended by placing Intelligent Design in the theological/philosophical realm where it belongs. Indeed, I believe that truth lies in the theological/philosophical realm rather than in science.
I do not believe that evolution theory is compatible with the biblical worldview. But I recognize, as I must, that evolution theory is at present mainstream science. What Faith may not understand is that there is not to my knowledge one Church leader or theologian who disagrees with me on this point.
I may not have addressed all of Faith’s misunderstandings, but I have tried.
3. The third approach that may be helpful is to request a Church leader or theologian whom everyone respects to carefully explain the issues. Faith does not know me well enough to place any trust in what I say, but she might have some trust for particular Church leaders such as Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Clifford Goldstein, Dan Jackson, Doug Batchelor, etc.
I remember as a young boy sitting in Pioneer Memorial Church listening to Roland Hegstad carefully explain that the world is not under the control of the Illuminati. A lot of people were whipped up into a frenzy about the Illuminati thirty years ago, just like many are whipped up into a frenzy about science today. Because of the audience’s respect for Elder Hegstad, they deferred to his judgment. And the controversy came swiftly to an end in the insular community of Berrien County, Michigan.
I urge all Church leaders and theologians to help bring healing to the Church.
4. The fourth approach is to be longsuffering and patient with these church members. It is not difficult to properly teach an Adventist university student about science and the relationship between science and theology. But to teach 16 million Church members is a vast undertaking that will take time.
5 The fifth approach is to emphasize the probative value regarding what the Bible says about origins. Not only should there be increased study of the biblical account of creation but also the hermeneutical approach to Scripture formally endorsed by the Church in 1986.
I hazard a guess that less than one percent of all Church members understands the chiastic structure of the Genesis creation and fall narrative. Less than one percent of all Church members understands the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation that informs our understanding of the relationship between science and theology.
If greater education were provided in these areas, the hysteria and confusion about what is happening in Adventist university science classrooms would be greatly minimized.
There may be other suggestions that can be offered. And we should be aware that despite our best efforts not everyone will fully understand. But if they do, then their understanding of the issues and their spiritual development will be greatly enhanced.
Phillip Brantley(Quote)
View CommentPhil, I think I’ve understood your position for approaching a year now. You argue that science teachers in Adventist colleges should teach mainstream science, including Darwinism. You personally believe, however, that the real truth about our origins comes from the Bible, not from science with its limiting rule that supernatural causation is never considered.
If that is what professors Greer, Grismer, and Bradley were teaching at LaSierra, however, I don’t think Educate Truth would ever have been established. But if you think that is what they are teaching, you’re the one who is confused about what is happening in Adventist university classrooms. They’re teaching Darwinism, including the idea that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor, as truth. Not as the best that science can come up with given its arbitrary insistence on naturalism, but as truth, as what really happened.
Your position is that mainstream origins science is bunk, but Bradley rather pointedly told a newspaper reporter that he wasn’t about to stand in front of his students and say that mainstream origins science is B*** S***. If this is hysteria, it is hysteria concocted by Bradley and a secular news writer.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley: The Pith: “The interesting issue is how do we minister to those members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who are ignorant ….â€
WE? We minister? We being who? Who’s doing this ministering to the ignorant?
The lawyer corps? The scholar corps? The core lawyer? ….( might that be you?) The core scholar? Donald Trump? the FDA? TSA? The UN? In a pinch Al Gore or the pope or Fuller Seminary? But never one’s own self, one’s own mind, nor hardly (not even token) God, the Holy Spirit. Don’t even think about EGW.
And The Ignorant, who might they be? Easy. Ask the guy who does the ministering. Blessed are the ignorant for they…
Now then, as you were saying, and with such musical orotundity.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentFor once we agree on something~!
I too am concerned about those people. I am convinced that if we had paid more attention to their confusion and befuddlement – they never would have gone to the horrible confused extreme of becoming T.E.’s
So I have some suggestions
1. We can resist harboring the assumption that these Church members are unteachable.
(I regret that I have until now chosen to ignore some T.E.’s under under the assumption that they dont have a mind that can grasp what I am talking about.
What persuades me that this approach is untenable is that as Seventh-day Adventists we have an obligation to witness to others.
Jesus ministered tirelessly to everyone. And to assume that someone is inherently incapable of understanding something is uncharitable and dismissive.
2. We can be diligent in correcting misunderstandings. The comments posted by several T.E.’s here reflect the level to which they simply do not understand the glaring difference between junk-science and actual science. They simply do not understand that simple point that you cannot wrench-and-bend the Bible everytime evolutionism tells you that birds come from reptiles – not other birds.
I believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood. Which means if you are looking for what happened “IN nature” then you are looking at a real 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago.
I believe in the Seventh-day Adventist method for doing theology. (Many T.E.’s may not understand that we do have a method for doing theology that includes the Historical Grammatical hermeneutic for rendering the text instead of just bending the text every time an evolutionist needs it bent).
By seeking recognition of the fact that Intelligent Design is observable in nature (as God Himself states in Romans 1) such that it is observed even by atheists and pagans who “have no excuse” for pretending otherwise, I am in no way denigrating Intelligent Design or Romans 1 (even though I.D. is not very compatible with the atheist doctrine on there being “no god”.)
There is no offense intended by placing by-faith-alone affirmations of evolutionism in the category of junk-science and “bad religion” where it belongs.
Indeed, I believe that truth lies in the theological/philosophical realm as well as the realm of science – if that science is not being coopted by evolutionist dogma about there being “no god”.
I like most atheist evolutionists and Bible believing Christians – (and Ellen White as it turns out) see the glaringly large gap between the doctrine on origins taught by evolutionism and that which we find in the Bible.
But I recognize, as I must, that evolution theory is at present more popular than the pure science of I.D. just as Sunday keeping is more popular than Sabbath keeping.
What some T.E.’s may not understand is that there is not to my knowledge one serious Church leader or theologian who disagrees with me on these points while holding to the GC2010 vision on origins voted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Not to mention many other Christian organizations who have the same view).
3. The third approach that may be helpful is to request a Church leader or theologian whom everyone respects to carefully explain the issues.
Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Clifford Goldstein, Dan Jackson, Doug Batchelor, would be helpful in this regard.
4. The fourth approach is to be longsuffering and patient with these T.E. church members. It is not difficult to properly teach an Adventist university student about science and the relationship between science and theology as long as you are not drinking evolutionism’s junk-science koolaid. In fact we can even teach 16 million Church members that in fact “birds come from birds” and not reptiles.
As challenging and as difficult as this may seem to some of our T.E. friends.
5 The fifth approach is to emphasize the probative value regarding what the Bible says about origins. Not only should there be increased study of the biblical account of creation but also the hermeneutical approach to Scripture formally endorsed by the Church and known today as the Historical Grammatical model. Where the text is allowed to speak for itself instead of being bent and wrenched to serve the dictates of outside agendas such as evolutionism.
I hazard a guess that less than one percent of all T.E. Church members understands the chiastic structure of the Genesis creation or the basics of exegesis.
If greater education were provided in these areas, the hysteria and confusion brought on by our T.E. friends would quickly abate and schools like LSU would right-themselves in no time. Adopting a model that embrace actual observed science – rather than constantly promoting “stories easy enough to tell – but they are not science”.
There may be other suggestions that can be offered. And we should be aware that despite our best efforts not everyone will fully understand. But if they do, then their understanding of the issues and their spiritual development will be greatly enhanced.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Commenthmmm – “a puzzle” — the absence of proof is not the proof of absence that some may have imagined.
Suppose for a half-second that the humans with ginormous brains were actually “smarter” than a dumb animal and found a way to survive longer during the flood event “than the average dino”.
As far fectch as that might seem to an evolutionist.
Suppose further that the animals we see fossilized today are the dumber ones that were rapidly overtaken by both water and mud at the time of the flood. Those animals and humans that were last to be killed were left in a much more exposed state at death or are contributing today to our oil supply… either way they would not be avaible for “review”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentPhillip:
And yet, even with my puny intellect, I can tell truth when I see it. And I know enough to believe the only living Witness to creation…while you choose to side with those who made it all up as they went along milleniums after the fact.
There is one thing that puzzles me though, I can’t seem to figure out why supposedly intelligent people are so bent on trying to separate the God of Creation from Science. He invented science. It’s kind of dumb to try to understand it without Him, don’t you think, oh Mr. Massive Intellect? (she said with sarcasm dripping from her lips)
Faith(Quote)
View CommentI am told by unimpeachable sources that, regardless of whatever may have transpired in the past, they absolutely do not teach these as fact today. You folks continue to make accusations today that are based strictly on heresay.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentMore of the same.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentOutstanding, Bob. This clever explanation never occurred to me before. I’m sure that David Read and Sean Pitman would heartily agree.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentOh, Professor Kent, I believe in your hunt for “belittling” remarks you may have missed one, so I thought I would repost it to make it easier for you to see. 🙂
Phillip: I regret that I have until now chosen to ignore Faith and her intemperate comments under the assumption that she doesn’t have a mind that can grasp what I am talking about.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentHe then wrote this, Faith: “And to assume that someone is inherently incapable of understanding something is uncharitable and dismissive.” He was criticizing himself for the inappropriate assumption he made of you.
With all due respect, Faith, I believe you form a negative judgment of others, myself included, before you have much understanding of what we truly believe. I ask for you to be a bit more charitable.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentGive me a break, Prof Kent, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. 😉
Faith(Quote)
View CommentHowever, perhaps you’re right, I shouldn’t take this lightly. I know you think I am being uncharitable in this…but you must understand, Prof Kent, that people’s souls are on the line here. I believe in the Bible literally, and I know that is the only way people will be saved.
I desperately wish that eveyone could be saved and it really upsets me when people so blatantly disregard the truth that God has so graciously provided us with. But even worse is when they use their influence to mislead others. This is so serious.
I can see so clearly that the biology professors have been misled by the worldly standards that they have held in higher regard than the Bible. You can’t worm your way around the issue. You will never be able to have it both ways. You cannot pollute the Bible with Satanic doctrine–just like you cannot put God’s words to rock music. It is like offering strange fire on the altar. Oh, how I wish the professors at LSU could just see this.
I keep hearing that it is not that way anymore, yet the students who have come on this site make it clear that they are indoctrinated into evolution–they scorn creationists. And who can blame them? Their professors do the same thing.
Come on, Professor Kent, the fact is the belittling has come just as much or more from the evolutionists than the creationists. We may have stated the straight truth, but we aren’t really interested in personal attacks…we are more concerned with putting a stop to the teaching of heresy. Though some of our comments were reaction to the comments of others.
I wish you people could just accept God at His word. He can explain every single apparent contradiction there is. You keep saying you have faith–then prove it. Believe Him when He says He made the world in six days–and that they were literal days. Believe His messenger when she says “For six thousand years…” when describing the second coming. All this may seem impossible to reconcile to the evolutionary evidence, but God will explain it all. It’s because we don’t understand God’s ways that we misinterpret the evidence. Just wait till we get to watch while he creates another world…all your questions will be answered then. Don’t miss out on it.
There is nothing more important in this world than belief in God. Nothing. And I can tell you, that if I was confronted with something that apparently contradicted the Biblical account of creation, I would know that God has a good explanation of it all. I believe in Him as Creator. And only those who acknowledge Him as their Creator will pass the test. That is how important this all is.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentOh, okay, Jeff, whatever your anonymous “unimpeachable” sources say.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentWait a minute. Just because a former student accepts evolutionism does not mean they were taught this or encouraged to accept it by their professors. I can tell you that one of the best known evolutionary biologists today–a botanist–was a product of Southern Adventist University. Sorry, but I don’t believe this fact says anything about Southern having indoctrinated this student. Surely you recognize this.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentPreviously at another thread, I cited a handful of current students who claimed that theistic evolution IS NOT being taught as fact. Here is another quote supplied by a recent graduate who wrote me privately–and I share this with the student’s permission.
“I went to La Sierra 02-07 and graduated with a degree in Biology. None of the teachers taught theistic evolution in any way. Evolution, as it is in science books was taught. As well as an understanding of what science is and what science is not. Part of what science is consists of theories which can be disproved. Because of this, nothing is taught as fact. But if a theory stands in place for long enough, it is regarded as close to fact as one can get. But is always up for scrutiny. (Forgive me if I am telling you things you already know I don’t know what kind of professor you are). They teach the theory of evolution to be scientifically sound and accept it as the explanation for diversity of organisms. They don’t belittle a literal creation week a relatively short time ago. They avoid talking about religion or the Bible in their class (rightfully so as it is a science class) and encourage students to take the time to come talk to them in their offices about religious or biblical questions. But they make it clear that a literal creation week a relatively short time ago is not scientific. They never discourage students from their personal beliefs and some of them did reveal to me that they believe in some kind of theistic evolution. Like I said before, theistic evolution was never taught of course, because it would be academically dishonest.”
Interestingly, this former student believes in theistic evolution, but avoids talking about his/her beliefs when around friends and family. This student also wishes to remain within the Church, and by doing so, I believe, remains within a nurturing community (I’d like to think) in which the Holy Spirit can more readily convict this individual of his/her need for Christ. Surely our Church has enough love and grace to warmly embrace these individuals.
More relevant to the LSU issue, PLEASE READ WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHAT WAS AND WAS NOT TAUGHT BY THE BIOLOGISTS. Yes, there are testimonies of disrespectful teaching that many of you believe with eagerness. Yes, there may be some faculty who privately believe in or are open to theistic evolution. But there are also testimonies of very respectful teaching that many of you treat with biased scorn. If we were in a courtroom, the judge would reprimand many of you for the prejudicial remarks you make based often on nothing more than hearsay. Your sweeping indictments based on mixed evidence–and evidence that excludes the recent 1.5 years–are simply not appropriate.
I don’t understand why I am so detested in praising your work here at Educate Truth. You’ve succeeded! You’ve compelled change! You’ve won!
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentDavid, I’m sorry if it upsets you that I have inside sources on the current teaching situation at LSU. You could walk into the place yourself and ask questions; as a lawyer, surely you know better than to rely on outdated, often hearsay evidence.
Where is your evidence that theistic evolution has been indoctrinated the past 1.5 years? If you can’t back up your claims, you can’t convict. You know this. Or, by golly, do truth and presumption of innocence no longer matter to you, a man of the law? Why does it actually irritate you to think that the faculty treat the SDA position on origins with respect?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentFaith, I COMPLETELY agree with you. I’ve written more than 100 posts here, I suspect, affirming my simple trust in God’s word. I’ve defended it from those (Sean Pitman in particular) who equate simple trust in God’s word with “blind faith” and declare it as useless as belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m with YOU 100% in accepting God at his word.
And, like you, I can wait until the second coming to have my many questions answered. We can both look forward to that glorious day.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentJeff, thanks very much for sharing that student’s communication with us. I sincerely appreciate it. That said, I’m puzzled that you think it has any tendency to exculpate LaSierra, or rebut the need for reform at that institution.
What the student said is that they teach atheistic evolution at LaSierra, but some teachers are privately theistic evolutionists. He personally did not encounter any “ridicule” of traditional Adventist views (which doesn’t prove others did not encounter ridicule), but he notes that the traditional Adventist view of origins is dismissed as unscientific. His testimony does give the lie to Randal Wisbey’s claim, in an open letter a couple of years ago, that LaSierra does not teach “atheistic” evolution. In fact, they do teach atheistic evolution, while privately believing (perhaps?) theistic evolution.
Jeff, atheistic evolution and theistic evolution are equally incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism. The Bible teaches, and Adventists believe, that God created the world and all its life forms in six literal days a few thousand years ago. We believe that this is what really happened, historically, in the real, physical, materal world. I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise to you but, frankly, I’m starting to wonder.
There really are now two Adventist Churches, the traditional, believing Adventist Church and the liberal church-within-a-church. The reason there is so much support for LaSierra is that, in the part of the country where LaSierra is located, the liberal church-within-a-church predonderates numerically. They think they are entitled to their own college that reflects their own (non)beliefs, they have it in LaSierra, and they are enraged that it might, at this late date, be wrested away from them. Based upon Dan Jackson’s words and tone to the LaSierra faculty when he did not know he was being recorded, I think the liberal church-within-a-church has little reason to worry.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentJeff, p.s., congratulations on learning how to spell “hearsay.” Some of us had to go to law school to learn that, and you’ve managed it untutored in the space of just a few posts.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentDavid, you point out exactly what is happening in the church today.
“There really are now two Adventist Churches, the traditional, believing Adventist Church and the liberal church-within-a-church. The reason there is so much support for LaSierra is that, in the part of the country where LaSierra is located, the liberal church-within-a-church predonderates numerically. They think they are entitled to their own college that reflects their own (non)beliefs, they have it in LaSierra, and they are enraged that it might, at this late date, be wrested away from them. Based upon Dan Jackson’s words and tone to the LaSierra faculty when he did not know he was being recorded, I think the liberal church-within-a-church has little reason to worry.”
Unfortunately there can be only one truly genuine SDA church. The other is a counterfeit. The genuine believes that the Holy Bible provides our road map for faith, the counterfeit says that the Holy Bible needs to be reinterpreted and science holds the answers. The genuine SDA Church believes that Jesus established this movement at the end of the 2300 day/year prophecy to warn this world of coming judgement, and of a loving Savior who is ministering in the Heavenly Sanctuary made by God. The counterfeit denies the existence of a heavenly sanctuary, a significance for 1844, and a special purpose of warning the world of coming judgement. The genuine also believes that God’s plan and structure for the family and marriage is eternal and as old as the world itself, and is unchangable, The counterfeit believes it is not and that the church is bigoted.
The counterfeit believes that our beliefs are smorgasbord, pick and choose what you like, and discard the rest. The genuine believes our beliefs are a beautiful system of truth that are joined together as a golden thread that runs through the Bible, both from the old and new testaments, presenting the truth about God and His character.
It is clear to me and many others that the shaking spoken of by our messenger EGW is fully underway. The fuzzy middle is disappearing. The two sides are falling into line. On one side is the genuine, and on the other side is the counterfeit. By their fruit you will know them.
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View CommentFaithful Disciple:
Beautifully and eloquently put. I love the SDA church and watching the precious truth being trampled underfoot is extremely difficult for me. The truth is so simple, yet it covers every aspect of life on this earth and the next.
I fail to see how anyone can reject it. Yet we have had more than sufficient evidence for years now that there is this movement afoot to change our church by those who don’t want to leave the world behind and fully embrace the truth.
I have no desire to force anyone to believe anything, nor does God. He gave us the freedom of choice to believe His gospel or not. However, He did not give us the freedom to CHANGE His truth and those who are trying to do this have set themselves up against God Himself. How they dare do this is totally beyond me. The Bible shows over and over again how anyone who does this loses out in the long run. Why can they not see this? Instead of learning from this they seem to just conveniently reject God’s word…????? We have always been known for basing our faith and beliefs on the Bible and they want to reject the Bible and remain an SDA? It makes no sense whatsoever. If they don’t want to believe in the Bible, they need to leave our church and go to one of the other churches that supports this belief.
That is so ridiculous. You can’t fight God and win…Satan is trying but is doomed to failure…that is what the great controversy is all about. Can they not see that they are allying themselves with the enemy of God–the losing side? What do they hope to gain?
We know that the shaking is going to result in these people leaving the church–as sad as it makes me feel that they are dooming themselves, I can’t wait for the day to come when they do. We have serious work to do to get ready for Christ to return.
Well, I have to go or I’ll be late for school.
God Bless and have a great day, everyone.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentLet’s be clear about something regarding whether there is proof that LSU has been promoting theistic evolution. LSU is the one who got caught doing it and there is plenty of evidence to show that they were.
Thus the burden of proof lies in their court to show that something has changed. As of today, they have published nothing that says anything has changed in the classroom.
And if they’re not presenting the evidence for creation, which they weren’t, and still aren’t, then they are still promoting theistic evolution.
AAA and the LSU board ad hoc committee confirm Educate Truth’s allegations this last school year. Read about their findings http://t.co/ueIjX2d.
AAA found the following to be true of LSU: Some biology faculty use evolution to explain creation (p. 6) http://t.co/NXP2v5o.
AAA said: Some faculty seem averse to sharing the position of the church on creation (p. 6). http://t.co/NXP2v5o
So until LSU gives evidence that they are no longer promoting theistic evolution and that they are promoting creationism, nothing has changed their. The burden of proof lies with LSU. If there was any change the ’10-’11 school year it’s their job to let us know about it.
Jeff is the one bringing hearsay to the table. He’s got no syllabi, presentations, quotations from publications, just his inside information. In light of LSU’s history, that doesn’t mean anything without any evidence to back it up.
Or maybe we should just accept this on faith without any evidence 😉
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAmen Faith! God is good, all if the time. He will not be mocked. He us the Creator and knows what is best for us. Our job is submission and obedience. Not a legalistic attempt at obedience, but a submission to His will that is best for us. We have a choice, obedience to Him, or rebellion with Satan. There is no middle ground. The clock is ticking; it is time to decide. Which side will we be on, the genuine or the counterfeit.
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View Comment@Phillip Brantley:
You wrote:
Why do you believe in a literal 6-day creation week and a worldwide Noachian Flood that killed all land animal life save those on the ark? Why do you believe in a story that most of the educated world thinks is nothing but a fairytale for children?
When I’ve asked you this question before you eventually cited prophecy and your own experience with God and his Word as evidence that is undeniable to you.
One might think that in your appeal to prophecy as evidence that you are in fact appealing to a form of external empirical evidence to support your faith in the superior credibility of the Bible. But, of course, you reject any empirical support and cite prophecy only to establish the “internal consistency” of the Bible.
Really, then, all you have is your own personal experience with God and your feelings as to what is and is not true (similar to your feelings that granite cubes and chocolate cake are the result of intelligent design outside of any appeal to empirical evidence).
While such feelings and personal experiences with God may be very helpful and fulfilling for the individual who has such feelings and personal experiences, how effective are such internal arguments when it comes to presenting a convincing reason why someone else should also consider the claims of the Bible to be superior to the claims of mainstream scientists? Upon what basis are you able to convince a young person that the Bible’s version of history is more likely true than that of the vast majority of mainstream scientists who are telling this young person that the Bible is nothing but legend and allegory? – not real history?
Based on what? Science, by definition, is a method by which truth can be separated from error to various degrees of certainty. Upon what basis, in your opinion, can theology/philosophy determine truth, regarding the empirical world in which we live, to a greater degree of certainty than that obtained using scientific methodologies?
You’d be correct if you had said that evolutionary theory is believed by most mainstream scientists. You’re mistaken, however, to argue that science is defined by the majority opinion of mainstream scientists. That is not true. Scientific methodologies function independent of the conclusion of the majority of individuals who claim to use these methodologies.
You forget that science is not free from the biases of the scientists. It is for this reason that different scientists looking at exactly the same set of empirical data and using the very same methodologies to evaluate the data, can come to very different conclusions as to what the data means. It happens all the time. And, as it turns out, the majority opinion is often wrong.
If you can cite no convincing reason why the Biblical account of origins should thought of as more reliable than the opinion of mainstream scientists, no one is going to care how clear the hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible may be.
You could say, “Biblical hermeneutics clearly show the what the authors of the Bible were trying to tell us.” – and, for the most part, you’d be right! – with very little argument. However, if Biblical hermeneutics do not match what people understand of empirical reality via scientific or other methodologies, who cares? You’re not going to convince the vast majority of intelligent young people by telling them that they should believe Biblical hermeneutics even when the hermeneutics directly counter what you yourself admit is the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence and scientific discovery regarding empirical reality.
Given this suggested approach of yours you might as well do one of two things:
1) Shut the doors of your science classrooms.
or
2) Revoke the “fundamental” position of the Adventist Church on origins.
Those are your own two practical options because otherwise, you’re going to lose the vast majority of your students to the conclusions of mainstream scientists. Very very few are going to identify with your beliefs in a literal 6-day creation week based on empirically-blind faith alone.
The Adventist Church actually realizes the truth of this. It is for this reason that the church at large is so up in arms over the LSU situation. The church, as an organization, knows that the hiring of science teachers who tell their students that the Adventist perspective on origins is scientifically untenable and empirically irrational is very effective in undermining the confidence in these young people in the Biblical model of origins and the overall credibility of the Bible as the Word of God.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentThey teach the very same atheistic evolution from the very same textbooks used at Southern Adventist University, Southwestern Adventist University, and other SDA universities. Every SDA institution teaches students about the general theory of evolution. Stop twisting and spinning everything to malign a single institution. For God’s sake.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYou are so gracious. Thank you.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You wrote:
The difference is that SAU and SWAU also teach intelligent design and creation theories as viable and even their own preferred scientific interpretations of the available evidence. This is something that LSU science professors do not do. They tell their students that the Adventist perspective is scientifically untenable, leaving their students with no empirical support for their faith whatsoever…
I know that this isn’t a problem for you or Phil since your faith exists independent of empirical evidence. However, this is a huge problem for the significant majority of intelligent young people since their faith (and mine) is closely tied to the perceived weight of empirical evidence…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentH-E-L-L-O-!!!
http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=1164
When you study biology at La Sierra University, you:
– Will study with professors who all deeply believe in God as the Creator of everything.
– Will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God.
– Will be introduced to theories of evolutionary process, focusing on speciation and adaptation, with which students are expected to be conversant as they prepare for success in graduate school and career [just as they are at other SDA universities].
…
– Will use the same textbook in General Biology that is used by Adventist colleges and universities in North America and is used by most biology classes in the nation.
– Will study with professors who will help you navigate issues of faith and science, in and out of the classroom, so that your faith in God is strengthened.
IF THIS ISN’T EVIDENCE, THEN WHAT IS? La Sierra has announced it to the world in as plain and clear language as you can possibly get.
Now watch the “thumbs down” count that will go up with this post because, in truth, it ticks many of you off that LSU is proclaiming to the world that they ARE teaching the SDA position on origins.
Stop the false accusations, Shane, Sean, David, and others. You’ve got your “official” evidence that supports exactly what I’ve shared from anonymous sources. I rest my case. And you’ve won yours.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentLooks like you are officialy wrong, per my prior post. Remember, the description I shared before was from a student who graduated four years ago. Things have changed. Are you Christian enough to praise the change and dismantle a website that no longer has a cause?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Nothing in this statement even suggests that LSU professors will also promote the Adventist perspective on origins – to include the empirical compatibility of intelligent design theories to explain various features of living things and of the universe as well as the biblical account of a literal 6-day creation week and a worldwide Noachian Flood.
The fact is that several LSU’s science professors do not believe in and certainly will not promote the Adventist perspective on origins in their classrooms, nor will they invite anyone else into their classrooms who is willing to do so.
That’s the problem with LSU’s one-side mainstream-only perspective on the topic of origins…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You’re in denial. The same professors who were actively promoting the truth of mainstream evolutionary theories, telling their students that the SDA position on origins is irrational and untenable, are still teaching at LSU. They are not promoting the SDA position. That’s the problem…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentH-E-L-L-O-!!! Can you not read? The statement read “Will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God.”
I’ll bet this is MORE EXPLICIT than any statement made at other SDA university websites. The website for biology at Southern Adventist University makes no mention of teaching SDA understandings of Creation.
Why don’t you just admit that you will NEVER be satisfied until the LSU biology department and the LSU administration call you on the phone daily to gain your approval of every public statement and teaching? You will never give this up because your heart is filled with rage and vengence. You’ve made this deeply, deeply personal.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentYou do not know what they are currently promoting. You are offering prejudicial speculation in place of evidence. I am pasting a statement from Educate Truth’s official “Purpose and Goals:”
We often get accused or asked if we’re trying to get people fired. The answer is no. If the professors are unwilling to represent the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s beliefs without pushing their own contrary beliefs, then we don’t see any other alternative but to ask them to resign. It is not our responsibility how the problem is dealt with. We have no desire to lead a campaign to take away someone’s job. It may be the fruit of this controversy, but it is not our goal.
It’s now clear that the professors are representing the Church’s beliefs. And you are accusing them of lying (nothing new here). You are making yourself appear increasingly like the Accuser of the Brethren.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentThou shalt not bear false witness. It truly disturbs me, Sean, that you continue to make this statement after being told repeatedly that it’s a lie. You are becoming pathological. I think you need to address your own pathology, Dr. Pitman.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t both you and Phil claimed that your faith isn’t dependent upon empirical evidence for support? – that it’s great if the evidence is there, but the evidence isn’t necessary for your faith?
That has been my understanding of your position for some time – and certainly for Phil’s position. After all, Phil has pointed out, quite emphatically, that his H-G method of Biblical understanding and faith does not allow for any empirical testing – that God’s Word cannot be put to the test and is not, therefore, dependent upon empirical evidence.
Now, if I am somehow confused, by all means please do correct my confusion…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
For one thing, this claim has been on LSU’s website since before this controversy began two years ago. This claim was deceptive then and it is deceptive now. Am I accusing LSU of false advertising? Absolutely!
Being “introduced” to the Adventist understanding isn’t the same thing as promoting the Adventist understanding as most likely true or even rationally tenable. In fact, I don’t think it possible for several of LSU’s biology professors to introduce the Adventist perspective in a convincing or favorable light at all – given that they do not themselves consider this perspective to be remotely rational as a valid understanding of the empirical world.
Now, if you have some actual evidence to the contrary, beyond your own personal say-so and other hearsay comments, by all means, present it to me and I’ll publish it here on this website. Otherwise, I do see that you’ve demonstrated the ability to acknowledge what is, for most people, very clear and reliable evidence.
The biology department of SAU is very active and public about their promotion of the Adventist perspective on origins… more so than any other Adventist school of which I’m aware. I don’t think anyone at all familiar with SAU’s science departments in general has any real question as to what they stand for regarding the SDA position on origins.
This conflict with LSU is indeed deeply personal for me. While I wouldn’t exactly describe myself as being full of “rage”, I am obviously very upset by what LSU has been doing. It needs to stop.
To be clear, I’m not personally opposed to anyone who holds mainstream evolutionary views. Many of my very good friends are evolutionists and some are agnostic and a few are ardent atheists. We get along great. The difference, of course, is that they don’t claim to be Adventist nor do they expect a paycheck from the Adventist church for expressing views that undermine the fundamental goals and ideals of the church.
Let me also say, to explain some of my emotion over this particular issue, that I’ve had a number of personal friends and family members who have lost their faith in what I consider to be a very important aspect of Adventism because of the influence of LSU. Why else do you think I’ve spent so much of my personal time on this controversy with LSU over the past two years (and several years beyond that)?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentYou’re wrong. We’ve corrected you many times before. And we’ll be doing so again, no doubt.
Speaking for myself only, I long ago concluded that the Bible is real and that God’s word can be trusted, in part from empirical evidence and in larger part because of my personal relationship with the Creator himself. As a result, I personally accept the Genesis account of 6 literal days in a relatively recent past. I accept this on God’s word more so than on any evidence. As I’ve elucidated in many dozens of posts, I believe there is very limited physical evidence to support that all major life forms were created in a mere 6 days, that a flock of sheep can appear instantaneously on a verdant mountain pasture, that a living human being can be created out of a pile of dirt, and that the flood covered every single scrap of ground. Very few SDAs believe there is evidence to support these claims of Genesis; most, like me, accept these on faith.
Although you insist your beliefs are grounded on evidence, you most certainly accept these claims on faith as well.
Of course, it doesn’t matter how many times I plainly state my position. You, Shane Hilde, David Read, Bob Ryan, Ron Stone, and others claim to know my heart well enough to declare me a liar. This is simply the way you guys choose to treat those who disagree with some of your own views. It’s not the way Christ wants us to treat our fellow brethren.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI have a question for those of you that have been following this longer than me. The statement has been made,
“When you study biology at La Sierra University, you:
– Will study with professors who all deeply believe in God as the Creator of everything.
– Will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God.
– Will be introduced to theories of evolutionary process, focusing on speciation and adaptation, with which students are expected to be conversant as they prepare for success in graduate school and career [just as they are at other SDA universities].
…
– Will use the same textbook in General Biology that is used by Adventist colleges and universities in North America and is used by most biology classes in the nation.
– Will study with professors who will help you navigate issues of faith and science, in and out of the classroom, so that your faith in God is strengthened.
IF THIS ISN’T EVIDENCE, THEN WHAT IS? La Sierra has announced it to the world in as plain and clear language as you can possibly get.”
I am assuming that these are from La Sierra’s website. Are these new, or did they exist from the time before Educate Truth started? If they are new, then they do represent an improvement in La Sierra’s attempt to show what it is doing. Of course that is only valuable if LSU is following this and teaching it in the classroom. If these statements existed before the controversy, at a time when LSU was speaking out of both sides of its mouth. One public statement on the website and anti-SDA teaching to students in the classroom, then they need to go further now to show that what they are teaching in the classroom is loyal to the church. When this type of behavior has occurred, it is incumbent on LSU to go out of their way to be transparent. Trust but verify.
Faithful Disciple(Quote)
View CommentI believe you are again misrepresenting facts. I recall La Sierra pointing out a change to their website, and remarking that it was more explicit than that of any other SDA university.
Tell me: why do you think La Sierra recently flew out biologists from Southern, Southwestern, and other SDA universities to discuss the teaching of the SDA position on origins? Was it so that they could learn better from those individuals how to cover up their continued indoctrination of theistic evolution? Or was it because they are serious about better representing the SDA position on origins?
You look mean-spirited and unChristlike when you defend the a priori position that LSU cannot make meaningful changes. I prayerfully ask that you reconsider your deliberately hurtful rhetoric.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentWhere is the evidence from the classroom that something has changed? LSU has been found guilty of undermining the church’s belief in creation, it is now their responsibility to show that they are indeed doing things differently. Paying lip service isn’t evidence.
Remember when LSU was claiming it was “doing” something when it created the BIOL 111A class, which was only for freshman, and it was found out that even that class was undermining the church’s hermeneutic, particularly in regard to Genesis 1 and 2? Even Ricardo Graham was on record for saying the board was not pleased with the class.
LSU has a record of being less than honest with what has been going on, an observation made my AAA too. To my knowledge they have not stated any change to how evolution and creation are taught in the classroom. They published nothing in this regard, and if they have, please point me to that document.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentThe document you are referring to was posted in response to the controversy.
If what LSU stated in that document is really taking place that would be an improvement, but all it is, is words. They haven’t shown any evidence that anything has changed in the classroom. LSU has stated a number of things that haven’t been entirely true.
The burden of proof is on them. They broke the trust of the church and now they must give more than just words, because their word has been shot.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
I was involved with the LSU situation from around 8 years ago when I first spoke there. Even then it was publicly advertised that all at LSU were in full support of Creation and were presenting the church’s position on origins – which was only true in the most deceptive sense of the word. The current advertisement on LSU’s website is only a slight modification from what was there originally – before the creation of this website. This advertisement was deceptive then as it is now. Nothing of any real substance has changed as far as I’m aware. Those professors who were promoting the mainstream position on origins are simply not now promoting the SDA perspective on origins in their classrooms in what anyone would call an effective manner.
If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment