My Goal for La Sierra University

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…

366 thoughts on “My Goal for La Sierra University

  1. @Professor Kent:

    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.

    So rational faith is dependent, at least in part, on empirical evidence? In other words, your faith is directly affected by the perceived weight of empirical evidence? – and can potentially be falsified by empirical evidence? Is this what you’re saying?

    If so, you are in direct conflict with Phil’s definition of the H-G method of biblical interpretation and faith. Phil argues for a form of faith that is not dependent upon empirical evidence at all – faith that can take it or leave it when it comes to empirical evidence.

    If your position on faith gives more weight to the role of empirical evidence in establishing rational faith in the Bible, I am encouraged…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. In Dec. 2009, Educate Truth published 11 slides from a presentation Lee Greer gave for his BIOL 111 course.

    There is no mention in this presentation or in any other presentation from this class support of a literal creation week, a likely recent formation of life on Earth, or any weaknesses with the mainstream model of the origins of these genetic similarities, or the likely mechanism needed to produce the functional differences.

    This class is a good example of what is going on in the classroom. Greer may not be saying evolution is fact, but evolution is all he is presenting. The evidence for creationism is not being presented. This is the way it’s been for a while, but if LSU has changed, again the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate that things have changed in the classroom.

    Notice I sad “in the classroom.” I’m less concerned with new classes and professors meeting with professors from other schools as I am with how they are actually changing things in the classroom.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with faith without evidence. I believe many things I have no evidence for, and that’s completely appropriate and in fact unavoidable for a Christian believer.

    The problem is believing in something that is known to be false. For example, there’s no point in me trying to believe that there is no place called Dubai. I’ve never been there and never seen it, but it is known to exist and many people have been there. So there would be a real problem if I kept insisting that there is no such place as Dubai. I would basically be insane.

    So there’s no problem with believing something by faith. The problem comes in when you want to believe something that is known to be false, or not believe something that is known to be true.

    The problem with the teachers at LaSierra is that they put belief in a recent creation in the category of “known to be false” and belief in evolution over millions of years in the category of “known to be true.” Thus they put the Adventist believer in the category of “known to be insane.”

    Fortunately, it is very easy to demonstrate that both beliefs are just that, beliefs. And since one of them is an Adventist belief and the other is anti-Adventist belief, it ought to be a very simple matter to fire the professors who insist on teaching the anti-Adventist belief on the church’s dime. I pray that we can get on with that process.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Shane Hilde: 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

    To state the obvious, “their word” will never, ever make you folks happy. Nothing short of broadcasting every single lecture and recording every private conversation will satisfy you folks–and even then, you will twist and spin any statement at will to fit your malicious accusations. We’ve seen this in abundance here at Educate Truth.

    I think La Sierra and the Church will move on (both continuing to thrive and grow) while Educate Truth continues to do its utmost to smear individuals and destroy institutions. This is my prediction, and you guys will still be at this dark quest for years to come. You will answer to God one day.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Sean Pitman: So rational faith is dependent, at least in part, on empirical evidence? In other words, your faith is directly affected by the perceived weight of empirical evidence? – and can potentially be falsified by empirical evidence? Is this what you’re saying?
    If so, you are in direct conflict with Phil’s definition of the H-G method of biblical interpretation and faith. Phil argues for a form of faith that is not dependent upon empirical evidence at all – faith that can take it or leave it when it comes to empirical evidence.
    If your position on faith gives more weight to the role of empirical evidence in establishing rational faith in the Bible, I am encouraged…

    Sean, I really don’t care to engage you in another obnoxious, long-winded debate about whether simple faith in God (my postion, and that of the SDA Church) is subservient to that of human reason and science (your position).

    I’m surprised you have not recognized how foolish you look to those who believe everything else that you write. Many have been shocked by how you belittle simple faith in God’s word; I’ve had private emails from individuals shocked at your writings. Do you really want to reinforce their perception, and put yourself further in doubt as the champion of SDA beliefs and organizational purity?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Professor Kent: To state the obvious, “their word” will never, ever make you folks happy. Nothing short of broadcasting every single lecture and recording every private conversation will satisfy you folks–and even then

    Their word at this point, is worthless regarding the present conflict. Once evidence begins to appear from LSU in the form of testimony, presentations, syllabi, etc, demonstrating that evolution no longer has exclusive rights in the classroom and that the evidence for creation is being presented, then Educate Truth can seriously think about ceasing.

    Professor Kent: you will twist and spin any statement at will to fit your malicious accusations. We’ve seen this in abundance here at Educate Truth.

    You are being extremely judgmental of our motives Jeff. Do you really think this site exists to be malicious? What has been published here that has twisted or spun any statements from LSU? Nothing to my knowledge, and if something needs to be corrected I am always willing to correct anything we have published as truth that is not. We are not above correction.

    You appear to misunderstand the existence of this website.

      (Quote)

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. I appreciate David Read’s precisely-worded comment dated June 28 at 3:25 p.m. I agree that Adventist science teachers should not teach mainstream science (which includes evolution) as truth based on the following five arguments:

    1. No science material should be taught as truth, as per the conventions and rules of science. [The science argument].

    2. Because mainstream science in its present state conflicts with Seventh-day Adventist beliefs regarding origins, mainstream science should not be taught as truth. [The ecclesiastical argument].

    3. Because the sole basis for science data is natural evidence rather than all of the evidence, mainstream science should not be taught as truth. [The philosophical argument].

    4. Nature is broken because of sin and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Accordingly, all science data (no matter how truthful it may appear) that is external to Scripture must be held subservient to Scripture. [The theological argument].

    5. Science teachers should not teach mainstream science as truth, because theology and the study of truth are not their formal areas of expertise. [The academic argument].

    Theistic evolution represents a flawed and misguided undertaking in which Scripture is criticized through the lenses of external science data. I do not see how theistic evolution can be harmonized with Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.

    We need to understand, however, that the hermeneutic of criticism which theistic evolution reflects is an approach to Scripture that most of us naturally and unthinkingly embrace. Richard Davidson’s description of the “conversion” he experienced in his decision to reject the hermeneutic of criticism highlights how unnatural such an experience is. The Church is embarrassed that the 2004 General Conference Executive Committee’s language regarding its recommended pedagogical approach for the science classroom is subject to an interpretation that reflects a hermeneutic of criticism. To our regret, science teachers have been instructed in the past by Church leaders to attempt to reconcile science with the sacred text. Ironically, some critics of La Sierra, notably Sean Pitman, have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism. Most Seventh-day Adventists, largely ignorant about hermeneutics, are naturally critical toward the sacred text.

    Accordingly, I think a charitable perspective is warranted toward our science teachers. I adopted that perspective in the essay I wrote that was published on the Spectrum Blog on 10/24/10 in which I set forth a number of recommendations to La Sierra. I accept Professor Kent’s judgment about what occurred in the past and what is happening today at La Sierra. So I think this particular concern about whether the science teachers are teaching mainstream science as truth has been largely resolved.

    If Educate Truth were merely opposed to theistic evolution then victory could be declared. The problem with Educate Truth is not that it opposes theistic evolution but that it seeks to foment a revolution against science and Seventh-day Adventist theology. Despite the conventions and rules for doing science adopted by the science community, Dr. Pitman declares that his method for doing science, which conflates and confuses science with theology/philosophy, is the scientific method. Despite the Church’s formal rejection of the hermeneutic of criticism in 1986, Dr. Pitman declares that his critical method for doing theology is the Seventh-day Adventist’s Church’s method for doing theology. Having a conversation with Dr. Pitman is like playing chess with someone who either does not know the rules of the game or cavalierly disregards what those rules are. He moves the pieces around in an irrational way and then announces victory.

    I would encourage Educate Truth to articulate specific and precise objectives. If Shane Hilde wants to state as an objective that science data that is probative in support of creation be presented in the science classroom then we can reply with the explanation that there is no such data at present. And we can talk more about that later. What other specific and precise objectives can be articulated? I believe that articulating specific and precise objectives will help alleviate the sense many of us have that Educate Truth has often hidden behind vague rhetoric for the purpose of inciting confusion.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. @Phillip Brantley: These have already been articulated, but I’ll repost them for you here:

    Educate Truth’s purpose

    Educate Truth was created for a number of reasons. We wanted to 1) create awareness within church in hopes our leadership would address the concerns of LSU students and church members, and 2) give potential students and their parents the ability to make informed decisions.

    Educate Truth’s goals

    So what’s the end game? What do we want to happen? Here is what we would like to see happen:

    1. Transparency.

    2. Church employees support and represent the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the classroom.

    3. We would like to see a fair, supportive, and encouraging environment for students who believe in the church’s position on creation.

    4. That the Bible and true science are taught as being in harmony, shedding light on one another.

    You can read an expansion of these thoughts here:

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/educate-truths-purpose-and-goals/

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. Shane writes: “You are being extremely judgmental of our motives Jeff. Do you really think this site exists to be malicious?”

    If a web page may be judged by its fruits, then the answer is “yes.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Phil, I love your five reason why Darwinism is not truth! Well, except for number five. That one seems to imply that somewhere on the campus of LaSierra there is a Department of Truth, with associate professors of truth, and they have a monopoly on the teaching of truth.

    I still can’t agree with you, moreover, that apologetical argument in support of the biblical view of origins somehow amounts to scientific “criticism” of the Bible. The opposite seems nearer the truth: It is biblical criticism of science. The main difference between us seems to be that I don’t believe criticism of science is the unpardonable sin you seem to believe it is.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. After re-reading some of the previous comments on this story, I am further discouraged by the collective intellectual caliber of those who vociferously resonate with this site and its founders. It requires either a fundamental lack of mental facility or an intentional avoidance of reasonable engagement with this topic to find any common ground with Sean, Shane and—frankly—the “official” SDA position.

    In my nearly four decades of active membership in this church, I have not crossed paths with as many people who believe exclusively in the literal creation myth as I’ve been made aware of on these boards in the past month. My parents, teachers, friends, pastors, doctors – all them SDA – generally understood that the creation story simply cannot be true. It is true that there were some who chose to remain ignorant of science, and clung to the myth. There were others who cited this discrepancy as a primary motivator to break from the church entirely. The bulk, however, simply have the humility to accept that the science we are doing cannot simply be ignored, but still see the “fingerprints” of God in all creation. Call it theistic evolution, call it heresy, call it whatever you like – but by my reckoning, this is the mainstream SDA understanding of the origin of our world. Perhaps I am wrong – perhaps I was just blessed to grow up in a particularly enlightened pocket of the church here in Southern California, or maybe I owe special thanks to a unique support structure that nurtured in me the ability to rationally evaluate my world without discarding my faith entirely. The crux of this issue, though, is violent (and, yes, ignorant) assault on spectacular professors who have done nothing but strengthen our church and their students, in harmony with modern, rational SDA belief.

    It is not the job of an SDA university biology department to indoctrinate its students, but rather to prepare them for a world beyond our church. Failing to teach evolution as the scientifically-sound origin theory would be negligent at best, and genuine thievery at worst. Anybody who attends a biology class at an any respectable institution—SDA or otherwise—expecting to learn that the world was created in six days is naïve, and – let’s be honest – may not be a good fit for an academic environment in the first place. Students should be presented, as they were in Dr. Bradley’s courses, with both the facts we’ve uncovered through science and the beliefs we have as a church, and then left to reconcile the two fundamentally contradictory frameworks as each deems appropriate.

    To claim that those who support Dr. Bradley have “strayed” from the church, have some have done on this board and elsewhere, is intentionally patronizing and patently hypocritical. The church you believe you joined may no longer exist – and given the self-righteous tone evident in the postings, probably never did exist beyond your own mind — but in 2012, thank the Lord, we live in a world where Adventists are allowed to drink a spot of wine, eat a hamburger, equate our superiors with a body part, watch a movie, swim on Sabbath, go bowling, use ketchup, get fat—all without fear of excommunication or, the university handbook notwithstanding, generally fearing for our job. It is only the outbreak of a pox like EducateTruth that brings the real world of Adventism in contact with the insular fringe, however – and, unfortunately, that fringe seems to have the reigns at the moment.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. “If Shane Hilde wants to state as an objective that science data that is probative in support of creation be presented in the science classroom then we can reply with the explanation that there is no such data at present.”

    That’s a true statement if the data of nature must be interpreted acoording to naturalistic presuppositions, assumptions, and theoretical constructs, in order to become “science data.”

    But again, I don’t see any compelling reason why origins science at an Adventist university has to be done that way. A rigid rule in favor of naturalism in all cases is not a rule of science that should be insisted on in an Adventist context. We know who the Creator is, and we know what little He has chosen to share with us about how He created the world and its life forms: in six literal days, a few thousand years ago. We need to do our origins science pursuant to the assumption that He’s telling us the truth.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. I love Phil’s posts and believe that he, like me, is frequently misunderstood by those of you who are critical of him.

    I encourage readers to take a closer look at what Phil writes and see for yourself that he DOES support SDA beliefs. What he objects to is the attempt by Sean Pitman and others to place human reason and science ahead of God’s word and faith, and the insistence that science (the study of natural phenomena) can verify the SDA interpretations of creation (which encompass supernatural phenomena).

    There is nothing sinister about Phil’s position. Like me, he is DEFENDING your SDA faith; he is properly elevating God’s word to the highest level; and he is arguing that the SDA position on origins should be taught at our institutions as a matter of faith in God’s word rather than a mere hypothesis that is subject to falsification by science. If you cannot see these positions from Phil’s posts, then I urge you to re-read what he has thoughtfully shared.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. David Read: The main difference between us seems to be that I don’t believe criticism of science is the unpardonable sin you seem to believe it is.

    Phil is speaking to criticism of scripture, not science. He has been very mindful of the conventions and limits of science. If anything, Phil clearly draws a tighter rein on what constitutes “science” than those who own and support Educate Truth.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Um, no, Jeff Kent, Phil isn’t defending the faith. He’s arguing that it doesn’t need any defense, and that any rational defense of the Bible’s origins narrative based upon the data of nature is actually “criticsim” of the Bible.

    Thank you LaSierra Alumnus 1996!! Sean, Shane, why do we write anything, when the university’s “supporters”–like Jeff’s 2007 graduate friend and the 1996 graduate who posted above–condemn LaSierra far more efficiently and effectively than anything we could ever write?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. I find it interesting many of the LSU alumni that comment here, AToday, or Spectrum do not believe in the biblical creation as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The anonymous comments from these people only demonstrates further the role the LSU biology department, and perhaps other departments, has played in shaping the world view of its students.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. “Phil is speaking to criticism of scripture, not science.”

    I know, Jeff, and I think his opinion that apologetics and/or creation science amounts to biblical criticism is goofy. Try to keep up with the conversation.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. In reference to Educate Truth’s goals:

    Transparency. Transparency at LSU was never an issue. There were never any hidden, underground classes meeting in the basement of San Fernando Hall to undermine the church by teaching evolution. There were no undue restrictions placed on students desiring to take the classes, no secret handshakes, no non-disclosure agreements signed on the first day of class. If anybody within or outside of the school had any question about what was being taught, it was a simple matter to find it out. By “transparency,” what Educate Truth means is “a big red E sewn into the LSU seal”.

    Support and represent fundamental beliefs. Again, this is not an issue. Dr. Bradley and rest of the biology department supported the rights of students to believe in the creation myth OR the facts of evolution. At no time did Dr. Bradley employ mind control or neurosurgery to extract those beliefs from the minds of his students. Students were left to make reconcile the story with which they were familiar (the creation story) with the facts as science has discovered them. Both creation and evolution were presented (“represented”), in proportion appropriate for the course. What Educate Truth really means by “support and represent” is “personally believe in” and “present as the only viable option” the view of a literal six-day creation.

    A fair, supportive and encouraging environment for students who believe in … creation. Speaking as former student and frequent visitor to campus, with an ear to the goings-on in the science department, I can assure you that the environment at LSU is nothing but “fair,” and furthermore, that it is unfailingly supportive of those who choose to align themselves with the official church position. Beyond this “support,” however, is a genuine encouragement by professors such as Bradley to examine one’s beliefs and decide, based on the bulk of the evidence, how one forms his or her world view. What Educate Truth means here, however, is clearly “an environment where evolution is denounced as the heretical perversions of worldly heathens,” with a course schedule limited to classes such as “What is the Firmament, Exactly?” and “Were Dolphins Created On Fifth Day or Sixth Day?”

    That the Bible and science are taught as being in harmony While we at it, shouldn’t we just require the biology department to end world hunger, bring peace to the middle east and figure out who killed JFK? To a rational mind, all of the previous “requirements” are non-starters, as they were clearly not an issue to begin with. This final point, however, is the lifeblood of EducateTruth, as it is an impossible goal, and can therefore never be accomplished. Those passages of the Bible that describe the origin of the world are fundamentally incompatible with science, and any attempt to bring them into harmony is a fool’s errand. Only through faith (or blind ignorance) can one retain any belief in an intelligent Creator in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence against a literal six-day creation. I choose to believe in both, but I don’t make the mistake of trying to figure out how they fit together. While I’m here on earth, I’ll accept the organic, flawed, yet consistent theory of evolution over the untenable mythology that the world was created over the course of 144 hours a few thousand years ago—and when I get to heaven, I’ll ask for clarification. I believe in a God that expects me to have faith in Him – but I don’t believe in a God who would command me to remain ignorant. The flaws in my theology do not concern me, as my “Adventist-ness” is not predicated on my understanding of a Grand Theory that takes this all into account, and neither should anybody else’s – so why should we hold our professors to this un-attainable standard? Teach us what science knows, tells us what the church believes, and let us figure it out for ourselves – that is their job.

    Of course, if we leave the next generation to decide for themselves how our church should evolve, the church we know and love today may disappear. As a conservative, I don’t like it when things with which I’ve grown comfortable change. As a realist, however, I accept that change is necessary—and inevitable. The best I can do is guide and educate those who come after me, and hope I can prepare them to make intelligent decisions when I’m no longer in charge. And for that wisdom, I thank professors such as Dr. Bradley.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. LSU Alumnus 1996: There were never any hidden, underground classes meeting in the basement of San Fernando Hall to undermine the church by teaching evolution. There were no undue restrictions placed on students desiring to take the classes, no secret handshakes, no non-disclosure agreements signed on the first day of class.

    Did you read the expanded version? Allow me to cut and paste it here for you:

    There is an inconsistency between the biology department and the university administration in regard to how evolution is taught. The administration says evolution isn’t promoted, yet the evidence from the biology department strongly suggests otherwise. In other words, the professors have been open about what they believe and teach, but the administration denies what they’re doing.

    LSU Alumnus 1996: Dr. Bradley and rest of the biology department supported the rights of students to believe in the creation myth OR the facts of evolution.

    I agree; however, LSU is employing professors who are not representing the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in their classes. When applicable, we would like to see evidence for the biblical creation presented and promoted in the relevant science classes.

    LSU Alumnus 1996: I can assure you that the environment at LSU is nothing but “fair,” and furthermore, that it is unfailingly supportive of those who choose to align themselves with the official church position.

    That’s great! I really hope things are improving in this area. This doesn’t negate the experience of Seventh-day Adventist students who have not been treated as they ought.

    LSU Alumnus 1996: Those passages of the Bible that describe the origin of the world are fundamentally incompatible with science, and any attempt to bring them into harmony is a fool’s errand.

    If you’re talking about mainstream interpretation of science, then I’d absolutely agree with you. This is primarily why I have a problem with how the LSU biology department is teaching evolution.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. Shane, Sean, Mr. Read, etc – is it truly your understanding that your beliefs are in the majority among your peers? That most SDAs hew as closely to all of our fundamental beliefs as you claim to? That the majority of our brothers and sisters believe in the literal creation week? If so, I suggest you commission a ValueGenesis survey to gauge “stubborn ignorance” and “venomous disregard for dissenting opinion” among our current membership. If the results come back favorably for you, then I feel confident that many of those without your audacity and self-importance will join me as we leave “your” church and let you relive the glory of the Middle Ages. Be warned, however, that the church that remains would be left rudderless and adrift, as our church is somewhat unique, in that it is one built on a willingness to (eventually) accept our flaws and remedy them. If, God willing, our church survives long enough, it will have no choice but to find a way of formalizing the de facto acceptance of evolution that currently characterizes mainstream SDA reality.

    Until I see the results of your survey, I will remain in this church, aggravating for a reasonable, rational approach both to our accepted origin story AND to the handling of diverse opinions. Hopefully, the day will soon come when it is you who considers the formation of a splinter church more in agreement with your narrow interpretation of scripture and prophecy, your dogmatic ignorance of science and your unwillingness to find wisdom in contrary opinion. In the short term, I will find comfort and solace in the fact that your brand of Adventism is, indeed, the “lunatic fringe,” and that all around me I can find intelligent Adventists who find this witch hunt deplorable. I can only hope that the repercussions of the fascism this site has fomented can be contained to the recent political hangings conducted by the GC at LSU.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. David Read: Um, no, Jeff Kent, Phil isn’t defending the faith. He’s arguing that it doesn’t need any defense, and that any rational defense of the Bible’s origins narrative based upon the data of nature is actually “criticsim” of the Bible.

    Phil is telling us that GOD’S WORD CAN BE TRUSTED apart from any so-called “creation science;” that the faith of Christ’s 12 apostles, uninformed by your book or by Sean Pitman’s book on the all-so-important apologetics and “evidence” that you guys demand we pay heed to, was perfectly legitimate for them as it is for us today; and that we can strengthen our faith without the need to have science meet our predetermined stipulations.

    If faith needs to be supported by the evidence of things seen (rocks, fossils, DNA, and so forth), then it cannot be the substance of things unseen. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Heb 11:1, NIV)

    Some like you may need your “evidence” to believe, but many, like Christ’s apostles, can have a vibrant spiritual life without it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Re: inconsistency between the administration and the professors: evidence of this, please? I haven’t seen any obvious discrepancy. The administration maintains – rightfully – that the courses are consistent with SDA teachings. Nothing I’ve seen in the courses renders that inaccurate. Where is the discrepancy you cite, exactly?

    Re: employers not presenting the beliefs of the SDA church: since there is no evidence to support the biblical creation myth, what do you propose they do? Make something up? It is not the job of a scientist – even one at an SDA school – to manufacture evidence to bring the beliefs of their employer in line with the subject of their course. At an SDA insitution, however, it is expected of them to present their employer’s belief – and they do. Where do the fail by this measure?

    Re: students who have not been treated as they ought: put simply, I have seen no documented cases of any student not being treated as he or she “ought.” I have seen cases where somebody who probably shouldn’t be in college had their feelings hurt because they lacked the willingness or ability to engage in the academic process, true – but that is not the professor’s fault. Perhaps you have evidence to support this of which I am not aware. Feel free to share with the class.

    There is no “mainstream” interpretation of science. There is science that withstands scrutiny, and there is everything else. Science is an activity – largely, science IS the act of interpreting, but instead of interpreting words in a book, it interprets evidence left by a disinterested party – nature. The interpretations that comprise the “mainstream” view of our origins – collectively, the science relating to evolution—stand up to rational and frequently hostile scrutiny. Dr. Bradley, and all other honest scientists, welcome such rational scrutiny, for that is how science is done. The “theory” of evolution therefore benefits from the belief in creation, in that it helps refine and define our observations. Nonetheless, some may call clinging to a belief that a rational scientific evaluation has failed to support “faith”…I call it ignorance. As a true, genuine SDA, as a professor, I would tell a student – “if you believe in the creation myth, support it with true science. I would love nothing more than to be able to align my beliefs with the facts.” Anything less would be malpractice.

    And with that, I must bow out of the conversation for now. Let the unsupported, illogical refutations commence!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. LSU Alumnus 1996: is it truly your understanding that your beliefs are in the majority among your peers?

    Your question is a bit broad but if you’re referring to my belief in a recent, six-day creation, then yes, I believe the majority of Seventh-day Adventists believe in the historicity of Genesis 1-11. But we don’t believe this to be true because the majority of the church also believes it, we believe it because we believe the Bible to be true. Having the majority on your side is a luxury and says absolutely nothing about the truth.

    This isn’t our church, it’s God’s church, and as a representative of his church I have a responsibility to represent the beliefs of the church in all aspects of my life.

    Now regarding your question about a survey, there was a survey done by the Institute of Church Ministry at Andrews University in 2002. You can read the whole thing here. Question 31 asked members if they believed “the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago.” The survey response mean was 92.83% agreed with the statement.

    This was 9 years ago, so it would be interesting to see what that statistic would be now.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. A lot of discussion here about the science department at LSU. What does their religion department have to say? Seems they should be on the cutting edge of this discussion.

    Again, what about the religion department? What about them in all of our (SDA) universities? Do we believe that the second coming of Jesus is imminent? Are we proclaiming the three angel’s messages to a doomed world? According to Jesus, the last days would be as it was before the flood. It seems to me that we should be desperately warning anyone who we care about to be preparing their hearts for the second coming.

    The reality is, it doesn’t really seem so much to be a matter of urgency – as it would be if we really believed that the end of the world is right upon us. What if we could know for sure that we only had 5 days? Or even just 5 weeks? What would be do differently?

    I have watched this world change SOOOO MUCH in 50 years. The trouble, wickedness, and evil has increased unbelievably. Are we as SDA people paying attention? We KNOW what is coming. There is an urgent work of preparation of the heart to accomplish – so we’ll be “ready”.

    There will be a time in the near future, when this earth will be desolate. That is a CORE Adventist understanding. There is a terrible “time of trouble” coming. There is a preparation to be done. And preparation does not mean a big bank account, fancy home, and luxury cars.

    My brothers and sisters, it is time to get ready.

    I love you all.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. Jeff Kent says, “Some like you may need your ‘evidence’ to believe, but many, like Christ’s apostles, can have a vibrant spiritual life without it.”

    This is really the heart of my disagreement with you and Phil. Setting aside your bizarre contention that Christ’s apostles, who witnessed Him raise men from the dead, and who saw Him after his own resurrection, believed without evidence, I agree completely that God’s word can be trusted apart from evidence. But it also helps to understand that the data of nature are consistent with what is taught in God’s word. As Sean and I understand the data of nature as it relates to origins, it is consistent with the Bible’s narrative of origins. It is at least as consistent with special, recent creation as it with Darwinism and other gradualist theories.

    However, if students are taught that all the data support Darwinism, only a very small minority of them will continue to believe the Bible’s origins narrative by faith (nearly) alone. The overwhelming majority will end up believing exactly as “LSU Alumni 1996” believes: that the Bible’s origins story is just a myth, whereas Darwinism is true history in the real world. The evidence that this will be the outcome is simply overwhelming. Most people do not have the ability, as you and Phil seem to have, to believe two contradictory narratives at the same time. What will inevitably happen is that the church will move away from its historic position on origins, and toward theisitic or even atheistic evolution (as “LSU Alumni 1996” claims has already happened with the majority in Southern California, and he may be right). For every one who continues to believe God’s word by faith (nearly) alone, ten will defect to theistic evolution or atheism.

    No, my friend, the course that you and Phil suggest is not the one the church should pursue. If it does, it will in the end be suicidal for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. LSU Alumnus 1996: “To claim that those who support Dr. Bradley have “strayed” from the church, have some have done on this board and elsewhere, is intentionally patronizing and patently hypocritical.
    The church you believe you joined may no longer exist – and given the self-righteous tone evident in the postings, probably never did exist beyond your own mind — but in 2012, thank the Lord, we live in a world where Adventists are allowed to drink a spot of wine, eat a hamburger, equate our superiors with a body part, watch a movie, swim on Sabbath, go bowling, use ketchup, get fat—all without fear of excommunication or, the university handbook notwithstanding, generally fearing for our job. It is only the outbreak of a pox like EducateTruth that brings the real world of Adventism in contact with the insular fringe, however – and, unfortunately, that fringe seems to have the reigns at the moment”

    Boy, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Your list of “progressive” permissions makes it crystal clear that you have no idea what being a real SDA is all about. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He has given no such permission for you to drink your precious spot of wine. He said don’t even look at it in the cup. So where did you get the idea He has given you permission to drink alcohol? Just because you didn’t instantly get turfed from the church doesn’t mean God approves. Or does that make any difference to you whatsoever? Is it just because you have gotten away with drinking that you are so bold as to make these claims? Well, here’s a shock for you, the church has not accepted this and nor will it. The progressives will eventually separate from the people of God. This we know from the SOP.

    If there is any among us who is hypocritical, it is you progressives. You claim to be SDA and then smugly go about ignoring the basic principles it stands for. If you want your spot of wine, then be honest enough to leave the church.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. David –

    Your comment just above it right on target. There can be no reconciliation of any form of evolutionary ideas with the scriptural account of Creation. Some argue that it is based on life that adapts. But it is not the same thing.

    I just think that the reality is that being faithful to the Adventist faith involves an embrace and understanding of how we came to be here by the supernatural creation a few thousand years ago. If one is truly “Adventist” in the historic sense, there is no need to argue him into a Creationist corner. He understands and that is it.

    We need to all be focused on being ready for when Jesus returns.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. Charles: A lot of discussion here about the science department at LSU. What does their religion department have to say? Seems they should be on the cutting edge of this discussion.
    Again, what about the religion department?

    The LSU religion department (al a Fritz Guy and company) have been promoting evolutionism for decades.

    The LSU biology department could never have gotten away with what they were doing – for so long, without the full support of the religion department providing them “cover” within the university body politic.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. LSU Alumnus 1996: Re: employers not presenting the beliefs of the SDA church: since there is no evidence to support the biblical creation myth, what do you propose they do? Make something up? It is not the job of a scientist – even one at an SDA school – to manufacture evidence to bring the beliefs of their employer in line with the subject of their course. At an SDA insitution, however, it is expected of them to present their employer’s belief – and they do. Where do the fail by this measure?

    There once was a meeting between the NAD VP of Education and University faculty in which Blackmere said that EVERY class (math, english, history, science, etc) has the mission of blending SDA faith and education and that NO area of teaching is exempt.

    That goes “triplicate” for areas where the atheist doctrine on origins is contrasted with the Bible doctrine on origins as far as “What actually happened in nature” is concerned.

    As Blackmer stated it – we did not create SDA universities simply to be the best public university that SDA tithe, offering, gift and tuition dollars can buy.

    We did not divert tithe dollars to create another Harvard or another Christian college. That was never the mission to start with.

    The fact that some LSU alumni are as confused as they are on that point – testifies to the degree to which LSU strayed from their mission.

    Fortunately we have some LSU alumni posting here from time to time – that absolutely “know better” to than to go down that “just another university” road as their high goal for SDA education.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. Professor Kent: Previously at another thread, I cited a handful of current students who claimed that theistic evolution IS NOT being taught as fact.

    The student “survey” says otherwise.

    Note when Becker was told to tell the story above – I simply said “fine – if you do not teach that evolution is true – why not have Wisbey or your biology department state that to SDAs in some kind of publication?”.

    His response was to immediately back peddal and say that they needed faculty buy-in before making such a statement – which apparent was going to take a number of months… and ultimately never happened.

    But “imagine” the fiction that some of the blend-and-defend tactic people are spinning. They want us to believe that LSU is being told to STOP doing what they are doing – which according to these blend-and-defend contributors – would mean that LSU is being told by AAA to stop telling students that evolution is not a fact of nature. They imagine that we are now engaged in telling LSU that no longer should they refust to promote evolutionism as being true.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. Phil appears to be determined to fall on his sword over the idea that science is not supposed to be able to tell “what happened in nature”.

    His argument has been that God created the world in 7 real days less than 10,000 years ago – and that this is what actually happened “in nature” – but “true science” cannot “observe nature” and get any clue as to “what happened in nature” NOT EVEN enough of a “clue” to know that “it was designed” by someone!

    (No matter God’s bold statements in Romans 1 – constrated to Phil’s wild claims to the contrary.)

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. I just want to express my appreciation for Educate Truth and the posters here. I especially enjoy reading the discussions between Bros. Pitman, Brantley, Kent, and Read. I think you all make important contributions to the subject at hand. I believe each of you has enriched this community by your contributions, and I’m glad you have taken the time and energy to express your beliefs and convictions. You have each made heroic attempts to be understood in the face of seeming obstinacy on the part of others.

    Notwithstanding the value I see in these discussions, I am also grieved by what I perceive as personal jibes at each other that often accompany your discourses. I would gently challenge each of you to read your posts after writing, not merely to polish your presentations to make them more readily understandable, but to see if you can express your beliefs and convictions with greater respect and deference for each other. I love the quote “In the advocacy of truth the bitterest opponents should be treated with respect and deference,” and how much more so ought we who are joined in the body of Christ.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. I would like my good friend David Read to ponder the consequences that would occur if the Seventh-day Adventist Church were to adopt a convention that methodological naturalism be abandoned in origins science:

    1. Because methodological naturalism is a requirement of science, all research, study, and teaching of origins by Seventh-day Adventists would by definition be non-scientific and theological/philosophical. In essence, David proposes that the Church abandon origins science altogether. There is a rationale for David’s proposal: if the biblical data is sufficient and comprehensive for our understanding of origins, then science data is irrelevant and not worthy of study.

    2. No papers written by Seventh-day Adventists on origins science would be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, because such papers would not adhere to the scientific method.

    3. Seventh-day Adventist scientists would be forced to abandon their scientific endeavors on origins that they are presently conducting.

    4. The Seventh-day Adventist Church would play no role in altering or affecting the current Darwinian paradigm in science. In essence, David proposes that the Darwinian paradigm in science remain undisturbed and unchallenged by Seventh-day Adventist scientists.

    5. All Seventh-day Adventist studies on origins (necessarily published in non-reputable journals) that purport to be based on science data would be fraudulent. For example, if a Seventh-day Adventist were to do radiometric testing of an igneous rock and the result shows the rock to be 1,000,000 years old, the Seventh-day Adventist would be forced to rely instead on biblical data and not only disregard the result (consistent with his or her disregard of methodological naturalism), but claim (by strength of the biblical data) that the result of the test is that the rock is 6000 years old.

    6. Theologians, pastors, and teachers would be required to teach that there is no data that contradicts the biblical account of creation. Because science data on origins rests upon methodological naturalism, these Church employees would be forced to represent all of that data to be worthless and corrupt.

    7. The Seventh-day Adventist Church would lose all credibility not only in matters relating to science but in matters relating to theology. Many Seventh-day Adventists would abandon their belief in the biblical account of creation as a result, viewing the Church’s advocacy for it described herein to be deceptive and dishonest.

    8. Because of the Church’s failure in understanding and explaining the relationship between science and religion, in a couple of succeeding generations many Seventh-day Adventists would eventually abandon their belief in the divinity, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, miracles, and Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

    I believe for these reasons and others that no Seventh-day Adventist Church leader, theologian, or scientist has embraced David’s proposal. The proposal he makes is uniquely his.

    I continue to recommend that bearing with tension is better than undertaking an unprincipled effort to resolve the tension.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. Sadly for Phil’s endless lines of fiction – we have not yet reached the “thought police” state he is so fond of imagining.

    1. Many Scientists today accept the fact that God MADE all that they see in nature even as they STUDY nature. The “thought police” are not allowed to step in and claim “you cannot make that observation in nature – err..umm.. because of what you are thinking”.

    2. The endless “dancing” around the fact that the I.D. movement is being lead by the peer-reviewed scientists at the Discovery Institute (that Phil is so anxious to avoid” is more than “a little instructive” to the unbiased objective reader.

    3. Our schools were NEVER under the atheist obligation to present course work as if “there is no God”.

    4. ALL of our observations in nature – must be taken on their own merrit “no matter the person’s religious views on who MADE nature”.

    Just stating the obvious.

    But it is the “obvious” that birds-come-from-reptiles fictions are so anxious to ignore.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. Phillip Brantley: The science community has determined that Intelligent Design is not science.

    Christian education should lead towards a belief in a Creator, not sway from him. If an Adventist university is either unable or unwilling to perform such a duty, it should divorce itself from the Adventist church. Why should my tithes and offering be used to destroy the Christian faith in a Creator of my children and grandchildren? What is the point of mimicking at great expense what public universities have been doing for decades?

    If our Adventist teachers prefer to do no more than what government universities have been doing, then perhaps I should divert my tithes and offerings to said non-Christian entities or else to other countries where the Adventist leaders do not allow their Adventist Schools to mismanage sacred funds for the purpose of turning our children away from a belief in a Creator and leading our youth towards agnosticism. In fact I have decided to do just that.

    Most of my tithes and offerings are no longer channeled through the regular church coffers. The Quiet Hour and many Adventist church entities outside the U.S. are doing a much better job in advancing the cause of God and in educating our youth than some of our Adventist universities in America. A friend of mine living outside the U.S. was asked to write an evangelistic book to be widely distributed and our members were asked to pay for the printing of a million copies.

    In a short time they had to print more, and the last I heard was that thirteen million copies have been printed and distributed. Someone commented that the author of said book must be rich by now. Not so, my friend responded. “I have taken not a penny in royalties for my work of writing it.” This type of work deserves to be supported with our tithes and offerings instead of schools which promote a disbelief in a Creator.

    I am glad for this debate and I am giving an A to Sean Pitman and an F to Phil Brantley. As far as Intelligent Design is concerned, Sean has spoken what makes a lot of scientific sense. When I find hieroglyphics and highly elaborate paintings in a cave, my scientific mind and my common sense force me to assign said evidence not to natural phenomena but rather to the action of Intelligent Design. Nature testifies to the action of a very intelligent Creator who demands my admiration and worship.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. BobRyan: Professor Kent: Previously at another thread, I cited a handful of current students who claimed that theistic evolution IS NOT being taught as fact.
    The student “survey” says otherwise.

    The survey summary lumped “agreed” and “neutral” responses to the pertinent question, leaving doubt as to what students thought. More germane, the survey was conducted prior to the most recent school year and most of the students surveyed had previously graduated. Thus, the survey did not address recent teaching. My point stands.

    I don’t understand why you really, really, really want to believe the very worst about LSU. It resembles desperation. Satan’s angels revel in this stuff; why you?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. Nic Samojluk: Nature testifies to the action of a very intelligent Creator who demands my admiration and worship.

    Does nature also testify to a Creator who placed animals in a daily struggle to survive? Creatures, including humans, that hunt, kill, envenomate, parasitize, poison, and rape at every opportunity? Creatures, including humans, that suffer from the ravages of disease?

    To state the obvious, if we rely heavily on nature and the evidences we perceive with our senses, the character of a creator God is VERY DIFFERENT than that which we see in scripture. Without scripture to guide our interpretation, what kind of God is it that nature truly testifies to? Is he as cruel and cunning as the leopard, the smallpox virus, the venomous snake, the baby aphids that kill their mother by eating their way out of her? Is this the picture of God you admire and worship?

    This is why we must put scripture and God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence we have available to us. Satan is determined to deceive us through our senses. When we allow science and “intelligent design” to be the arbiter of “truth,” we play into his hands. You may not like it that Phil and I put God’s word ahead of everything else, including human reason and science, but it is the SDA Way.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. Bob Ryan, I want to thank you for being candid and honest in your praise of Discovery Institute. I believe everyone at Educate Truth shares your high regard for that organization. That Educate Truth has a high regard for Discovery Institute tells us everything we need to know about Educate Truth.

    I recommend that all Church leaders, theologians, and members read about Discovery Institute on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute. Then they can ask themselves: Do we want society to perceive the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a way similar to how Discovery Institute is perceived?

    I understand the persecutorial complex that inheres in Adventist subculture. I understand that for the Church to be shown to be void of credibility, to be ridiculed and laughed at, to be shunned as a cult, and to be considered unworthy of trust, feelings of holiness will swell in the hearts of certain Adventists.

    The agitation against La Sierra is fundamentally more a commentary on the agitators than on what has occurred at La Sierra. I reiterate that the inability of these agitators to be able to intellectually cope with tension is the root cause of the problem. Making sweeping changes in Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics for the purpose of relieving the tension will only make things worse.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. @David Read:

    You wrote:

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with faith without evidence. I believe many things I have no evidence for, and that’s completely appropriate and in fact unavoidable for a Christian believer.

    Believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, not even indirect evidence (like the witness of someone or something with well-established credibility), is not rational. It is like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). There is no evidence that the FSM exists and there is no evidence that the FSM doesn’t exist. If the Christian faith is in a similar boat, what good is it?

    The problem is believing in something that is known to be false. For example, there’s no point in me trying to believe that there is no place called Dubai. I’ve never been there and never seen it, but it is known to exist and many people have been there. So there would be a real problem if I kept insisting that there is no such place as Dubai. I would basically be insane.

    The problem with this argument is that the FSM is not known to be false. Like the “Celestial Teapot”, he could exist somewhere in the universe.

    You see, just because something is not definitively falsifiable doesn’t mean that it is rational to believe in its existence. In order to be rational, you must also have at least some positive evidence for your faith as well…

    The problem with the teachers at LaSierra is that they put belief in a recent creation in the category of “known to be false” and belief in evolution over millions of years in the category of “known to be true.” Thus they put the Adventist believer in the category of “known to be insane.”

    This much is true. However, if the Adventist believer has nothing to positively counter the evidence that is brought against Adventist position, how is the continued faith position of the believer at all rational?

    Fortunately, it is very easy to demonstrate that both beliefs are just that, beliefs. And since one of them is an Adventist belief and the other is anti-Adventist belief, it ought to be a very simple matter to fire the professors who insist on teaching the anti-Adventist belief on the church’s dime. I pray that we can get on with that process.

    All beliefs are just that – beliefs. It is just that some beliefs are rational while others are not – even according to your own arguments.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. Phillip Brantley: I recommend that all Church leaders, theologians, and members read about Discovery Institute on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute. Then they can ask themselves: Do we want society to perceive the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a way similar to how Discovery Institute is perceived?

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Phil. I was disturbed to read about their high-priority Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) with its political and policy-making objectives.

    Here are some admissions from the policy creator himself, Phillip Johnson:

    Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

    This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.”

    There are some who continue to insist that the “intelligent design” movement is science rather than religion and philosophy, but they need to take up their argument with those who actually crafted the movement, who apparently have the integrity to concede what they are really up to.

    As I understand it, SDAs have always been officially opposed the required teaching of religious ideas, including creationism and intelligent design, in public schools. This is a religious liberty issue that I hope our Church never reverses itself on.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Re: Adventists believing in the six-day creation week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Re: Phillip Brantley and Professor Kent

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. There has been a recent spate of encomiums for beloved LSU biology professors by LSU graduates, and, being one myself, a biology major, I want to join in.

    Of all my professors, and I’ve had a slew of them, high school, college, medical school, my major professor was perhaps the most memorable. As admirable as any professor I ever had, including those at Harvard’s and Washington University’s graduate medical programs. My La Sierra major professor loved biology, taught it passionately with a burden to thoroughly teach and familiarize students with all data relating to all hypotheses, especially evolution (I’ll always remember that famous old embryology diagram demonstrating that “ontology begets phylogeny”). He stood in front of his class and he taught what he himself believed, ardently. He ardently and openly believed Genesis 1. Pity, for UCLA therefore granted Prof. Downs only an M.A. I am LSU (then LSC) class of 1948.

    Now I spryly, as spryly as my aged joints allow, pop aside for the instant onslaught of posts decrying Bible College LSC’s embarrassing cultural, scientific, theological, biological, artistic, philosophical, sociological, mental, political, intellectual, hermeneutical ignorance — unrefined, unenlightened, primal, primeval, autistic … and so on. Excuse me while I take my nap. Carry on.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Phillip Brantley: I believe everyone at Educate Truth shares your high regard for that organization. That Educate Truth has a high regard for Discovery Institute tells us everything we need to know about Educate Truth.

    You’ve made a bit of leap. Bob, while an avid commenter here at Educate Truth, does not represent Educate Truth. I or Sean do not have a high regard for ICR. I don’t recall ever referencing it either in any post. I don’t think Sean has either.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. @Professor Kent:

    Does nature also testify to a Creator who placed animals in a daily struggle to survive? Creatures, including humans, that hunt, kill, envenomate, parasitize, poison, and rape at every opportunity? Creatures, including humans, that suffer from the ravages of disease?

    Just because we recognize decay and even a form of malevolent design in nature does not mean that the need to invoke intelligent design to explain many features of nature is therefore not abundantly clear.

    Without scripture to guide our interpretation, what kind of God is it that nature truly testifies to? Is he as cruel and cunning as the leopard, the smallpox virus, the venomous snake, the baby aphids that kill their mother by eating their way out of her? Is this the picture of God you admire and worship?

    Just because the Bible provides additional details that would be very difficult if not impossible to derive from the study of nature alone does not mean that the Bible’s credibility is therefore independent of all empirical evidence. While the Bible makes clear many concepts that go well beyond the study of nature, the Bible’s basic credibility is dependent upon a correct description of empirical reality. If nothing that the Bible said about empirical reality was consistent with that reality, where would be the basis to believe those biblical claims that regarding metaphysical realities which cannot be tested against empirical reality?

    This is why we must put scripture and God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence we have available to us.

    There you go. You just said it again – that faith is essentially independent of all empirical evidence. You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth Jeff.

    Satan is determined to deceive us through our senses. When we allow science and “intelligent design” to be the arbiter of “truth,” we play into his hands. You may not like it that Phil and I put God’s word ahead of everything else, including human reason and science, but it is the SDA Way.

    It’s fine with me if you want to put your own faith ahead of all empirically-based reason. Just don’t claim that your faith can exist independent of empirical evidence… when you just now said that it could.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. @Professor Kent:

    There are some who continue to insist that the “intelligent design” movement is science rather than religion and philosophy, but they need to take up their argument with those who actually crafted the movement, who apparently have the integrity to concede what they are really up to.

    The motives of a scientist for proposing a hypothesis should have nothing to do with the question of if the hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis or not. So what if intelligent design hypotheses or theories may have religious implications for some people? How is that likelihood at all relevant when it comes to determining the scientific nature of the theory itself?

    What if SETI scientists found radiosignals prefaced with mathematical tags coming from deep space? Don’t you think the obvious intelligent origin of such signals would have religious implications for many people? Does that likelihood remove the science from our ability to detect the intelligent origin of such a radio signal? Of course not…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. Sean Pitman: The motives of a scientist for proposing a hypothesis should have nothing to do with the question of if the hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis or not. So what if intelligent design hypotheses or theories may have religious implications for some people? How is that likelihood at all relevant when it comes to determining the scientific nature of the theory itself?

    Indeed – those who major on “yes but what were you thinking when you measured that result in nature” or those who major on “forget science – lets just thing about whatever the ACLU tells us to think about I.D.” – are totally drinking the koolaid instead of exercising a little critical thinking and showing a little interest in science itself.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. Phillip Brantley: I believe everyone at Educate Truth shares your high regard for that organization. That Educate Truth has a high regard for Discovery Institute tells us everything we need to know about Educate Truth.

    Shane Hilde:
    You’ve made a bit of leap. Bob, while an avid commenter here at Educate Truth, does not represent Educate Truth. I or Sean do not have a high regard for ICR. I don’t recall ever referencing it either in any post. I don’t think Sean has either.

    While it is true that ICR bashing is fun game for many evolutionists – that is not actually what Philip is doing in his quote above.

    His backhand is being aimed at the Discovery Institute instead of ICR in this case. They are about as far apart as you can get and still hold to the basic facts on I.D.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. Phillip Brantley: Bob Ryan, I want to thank you for being candid and honest in your praise of Discovery Institute.

    You are welcome. I certainly do have praise for the peer-reviewed science that is coming from the Discovery Institute.

    And as I stated in an earlier post – the opposition to the very basics of I.D. is in fact a “disinctly atheist” POV according to Romans 1 when it comes to “observations in nature” EVEN when being made by non-Christians.

    Phillip Brantley:

    I believe everyone at Educate Truth shares your high regard for that organization.

    It is not entirely clear that everyone here is actually up to speed on what the Discovery Institute is publishing.

    But I would hope that as they become more informed and also as the point of Romans 1 as applied to I.D. observations “in nature” becomes apparent – the result you state above would indeed be the case.

    That Educate Truth has a high regard for Discovery Institute tells us everything we need to know about Educate Truth.

    On the contrary it tells you the MINIMUM – it tells you that they have not unwittingly embraced distinctly atheist proposals on origins.

    It is the “minimum”.

    I recommend that all Church leaders, theologians, and members read about Discovery Institute on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute.

    I recommend that those actually interested in what the Discovery Institute is doing – GO to the Discovery Institute and look themselves instead of constantly being “told what to think” by our lib atheist and evolutionist friends at Wiki.

    Hint – if you want to see wiki doing a hatchet job — look up Seventh-day Adventist or Investigative Judgment or the Dover trial on Wiki.

    Fair and balanced is not in their vocabulary.

    Then they can ask themselves: Do we want society to perceive the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a way similar to how Discovery Institute is perceived?

    Oh no wait! Now you are going to chant – toss magic dust and tell the crowd our souls are doomed as was done in the dark ages when arguments failed and the masses were to be turned away from truth??

    Come on Phil – you can do better.

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

    How “funny” that the alternate reality you are spinning did not “carry the day” either at the GC2010 session or the AAA review.

    Is there ever a point where you might be willing to contrast the facts of actual history with our “vision casting” of an alternate reality for your readers?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Professor Kent: Here are some admissions from the policy creator himself, Phillip Johnson:
    “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

    Are you someone who has actuall read Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial” book — or is this more of the subject that you are not allowing yourself to read “first hand”?

    Hint the place to look for Discovery Institute science is not wiki – it is actually at their web page – http://www.discovery.org/

    Why not face them directly and answer the issues they raise?

    Why run to wiki to be told “what to think” the very way you do NOT want others to “learn what to thinkg” when it comes to

    Why pretend that your embrace of a distinctively atheist view attacking I.D. (when it comes to observations “in nature”) is somehow helping your case?

    The “we think wiki” solution that you and Phil are chiming in on – merely affirms my prior post that the “TE’s and friends” club is really not informed at all on the subject of I.D. They merely repeat what they are being told to think by “others” without going directly to the source material.

    you can do better.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Professor Kent: The survey summary lumped “agreed” and “neutral” responses to the pertinent question, leaving doubt as to what students thought. More germane, the survey was conducted prior to the most recent school year and most of the students surveyed had previously graduated. Thus, the survey did not address recent teaching. My point stands.
    I don’t understand why you really, really, really want to believe the very worst about LSU. It resembles desperation. Satan’s angels revel in this stuff; why you?

    You see to think that every 5 minutes – all of previous history is “negated” when it comes to LSU.

    You need a dose of reality – and those 3 faculty and 1 LSU board member that recently made the news — have provided you that much needed ‘dose’ of reality.

    But to that you simply respond that you “cannot see”.

    Oh well – you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. Ervin Taylor: Mr. Brantley brings the fresh air of reality and a reasonable and rational discussion of the issues to the “EducateTruth(sic)” site.

    I believe that there is a certain consistency in what Phil, and Kent and Erv are saying.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Professor Kent: The survey summary lumped “agreed” and “neutral” responses to the pertinent question, leaving doubt as to what students thought.

    For what it’s worth, the full unaggregated survey results can be found in attachment 3 starting on page 16 of this document: http://www.lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/provost/LSU_Board_Report.pdf

    Please note Attachment 4, as well, which outlines specific actions they have taken and plan to take in addressing the issues under discussion. It is clear from this document that La Sierra University is taking specific steps to address these issues. While there may be some resistance on the part of some faculty and administrators, I cannot see how we can in good faith declare that nothing is changing and that they are not addressing the issues.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. Ralph Clark: Is anyone going to the Geoscience Research Institute Conference on Teaching Origins, held in Alberta, Canada from July 28 to August 2, 2011? http://www.grisda.org/2011-banff/
    Here is the program schedule:
    http://www.grisda.org/2011-banff/program.htm

    I won’t be there, but it certainly does look interesting. I’m especially pleased to see there will be talks on environmental stewardship, care of animals, and the ecological crisis–outstanding!

    Sadly, some Educate Truth proponents (David Read and Sean Pitman) would like to throw the Geoscience Research Institute under a bus.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. Sean Pitman: [Professor Kent: This is why we must put scripture and God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence we have available to us.]

    There you go. You just said it again – that faith is essentially independent of all empirical evidence. You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth Jeff.

    Use some logic, Sean. “God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence” does not translate to “faith is essentially independent of all empirical evidence.”

    It’s amazing how often something I write gets distorted beyond recognition.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. Sean Pitman: [Professor Kent: Satan is determined to deceive us through our senses. When we allow science and “intelligent design” to be the arbiter of “truth,” we play into his hands. You may not like it that Phil and I put God’s word ahead of everything else, including human reason and science, but it is the SDA Way.]

    It’s fine with me if you want to put your own faith ahead of all empirically-based reason. Just don’t claim that your faith can exist independent of empirical evidence… when you just now said that it could.

    Huh? This is getting a bit comical.

    Do you really want conservative SDAs to know that your SDA beliefs will vanish if science fails to back them up? That God’s word (from an infinite mind) comes second to the Book of Nature and what human reason and science (finite minds) have to say about the Book of Nature? I can help you out some more in this regard…

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. Sean Pitman: What if SETI scientists found radiosignals prefaced with mathematical tags coming from deep space? Don’t you think the obvious intelligent origin of such signals would have religious implications for many people? Does that likelihood remove the science from our ability to detect the intelligent origin of such a radio signal? Of course not…

    I had lunch with my wife today. There’s no question in my mind that she baked the tasty bread roll that I ate. There’s a few big boulders in my backyard with one that looks much like a bread roll that Mrs. Kent bakes. There’s no question in my mind that she did not make it. If it produced Beatles music, I’d think someone was playing a joke on me, but I would not conclude from this that God created beatles on the fifth day. I’m also doubtful the music would inspire theological contemplation. On second thought, I might wonder whether John Lennon could benefit from a Doug Batchelor sermon upon my hearing, “I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob, g’goo goo g’joob.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. BobRyan: Why pretend that your embrace of a distinctively atheist view attacking I.D. (when it comes to observations “in nature”) is somehow helping your case?

    What in Adam’s hairless navel are you talking about? I quoted Phillip Johnson, a key architect of Intelligent Design, who conceded that they were debating religion and philosophy rather than science. I also stated my appreciation for the official SDA position against the Discovery Institute’s attempt to introduce religion (ID) into public classrooms. If you seriously believe this means I embrace a distinctively atheist view, then you have quite the imagination (or perhaps just malicious tactics).

    You write often of “critical reasoning,” but it is not synonymous with criticizing Professor Kent.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. @Professor Kent:

    Do you really want conservative SDAs to know that your SDA beliefs will vanish if science fails to back them up? That God’s word (from an infinite mind) comes second to the Book of Nature and what human reason and science (finite minds) have to say about the Book of Nature? I can help you out some more in this regard…

    Intelligent rational people will indeed give up on the notion that a particular text is “The Word of God” if it clearly conflicts with the weight of perceived empirical evidence. If this were not the case, then no one would be worried about the LSU situation.

    The fact is that empirical evidence does strongly affect many people’s faith. If the empirical evidence strongly suggests that a particular “Holy Book” is out to lunch in most of its empirical claims that can actually be tested, then most people will see little reason to trust in anything else it says as being remotely credible.

    It is for this reason that I respect the Bible so much, vs. other books claiming to be of Divine origin – like the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an. In my opinion, none of these other books have the backing of empirical evidence that the Bible has going for it – in abundance. That is why, for me, they lose credibility while the Bible gains credibility as the true Word of God.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. @Professor Kent:

    Use some logic, Sean. “God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence” does not translate to “faith is essentially independent of all empirical evidence.”

    This certainly seems confusing for me. Please do explain to me how you can place your faith in the Divine origin of the Bible ahead of both human reason and empirical evidence and yet claim, at the same time, that your faith in the Bible’s claims are at all dependent upon either human reason or empirical evidence?

    For me, that statement is indeed quite confusing and seemingly contradictory…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. @Professor Kent:

    There’s a few big boulders in my backyard with one that looks much like a bread roll that Mrs. Kent bakes. There’s no question in my mind that she did not make it. If it produced Beatles music, I’d think someone was playing a joke on me, but I would not conclude from this that God created beatles on the fifth day. I’m also doubtful the music would inspire theological contemplation.

    You may or may not have theological thoughts given strong scientific evidence of an intelligently produced radio signal coming from deep space – like a radio signal embedded with a hypothetical message that is decoded to read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

    Other people, however, may have such thoughts when learning of such a message from deep space.

    My point is that the presence or absence of such thoughts is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the scientific arguments used to establish, to a useful degree of certainty, the intelligent origin of the radio signal in question.

    Yet, you argue that because some people might attribute Divine attributes to the Designer of various features of living things, in particular, that the science used to determine the intelligent origin of these features must therefore not really be valid science. That’s a false argument.

    The motives or potential religious convictions of a scientist, or how the scientist may use the scientific evidence to support his or her own personal religious or philosophical agenda, should have nothing to do with the validity of the actual science used by the scientist. To suggest otherwise is to define science according to your own biases and prejudices against the personal religion or philosophy of the scientist irrespective of the actual science itself. In other words, such arguments turn out to be a debate between opposing philosophies/religions rather than a debate between opposing views on science or between science and religion.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Sean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Professor Kent: Does nature also testify to a Creator who placed animals in a daily struggle to survive? Creatures, including humans, that hunt, kill, envenomate, parasitize, poison, and rape at every opportunity? Creatures, including humans, that suffer from the ravages of disease?

    Jesus said: “An enemy has done this!” Nature reveals that there is a controversy between God the Creator and his arch enemy. Nature reveals the glory of God and the work of the one who rebelled against the Lord’s authority. The same controversy between good and evil is revealed in Scripture. The book of nature reveals to us the work of an Intelligent Designer and the work of an Intelligent Deceiver. Pretending that there is no scientific evidence of design in nature violates the rules of evidence.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. Sean Pitman: [Professor Kent: “God’s word ahead of the empirical evidence” does not translate to “faith is essentially independent of all empirical evidence.”

    This certainly seems confusing for me. Please do explain to me how you can place your faith in the Divine origin of the Bible ahead of both human reason and empirical evidence and yet claim, at the same time, that your faith in the Bible’s claims are at all dependent upon either human reason or empirical evidence?

    Here we go again. I have elaborated elsewhere, on multiple occasions, why I find compelling the personal impact that prayer and reading of scripture has on me and on others; the humble lives of the disciples who chose death over recanting their views; the accuracy of certain prophecies in scripture; and so forth. The Holy Spirit moves me to submit my reasoning to the higher power acknowledged in scripture. I’m sorry that you remain confused, but how many times need I clarify my position?

    If my views make me a bAdventist in your book, whose faith is as useless as belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then so be it. Feel free to continue the belittle my beliefs. But I know that I am with the vast majority of SDAs in my faith. You are the outlier.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. Sean Pitman: Intelligent rational people will indeed give up on the notion that a particular text is “The Word of God” if it clearly conflicts with the weight of perceived empirical evidence. If this were not the case, then no one would be worried about the LSU situation.

    To continue where I left off while also addressing this remark from Sean, here is a simple contrast of positions:

    Sean Pitman and the official Educate Truth position – “I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well…” – http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/

    The theistic evolutionist positionWhen science and scripture conflict, go with the weight of empirical evidence. This is the very same position advocated by Educate Truth.

    Professor Kent’s and the official Seventh-day Adventist position – “Humankind’s mental and emotional faculties have also become depraved since the Fall; but even before the Fall, neither human reason nor experience could safely be trusted apart from or superior to God’s Word.” – a well articulated summary of the Church’s position by Dr. Richard Davidson, J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation of Andrews University, representing the GC’s Biblical Research Institute (http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf)

    Yes, as your remark above indicates, you see the dispute between LSU and the Church as one regarding evidence. Your personal interpretation of the geological and biological evidences is that it strongly supports the Church’s position, and you believe that LSU concludes differently than you do. This ticks you off. The bizarre irony, however, is that the Church is ticked off because you have convinced it that LSU puts science and human reason ahead of God’s word. You fail to realize that you yourself are at odds with the Church.

    I can summarize in 8 words why I put my trust in God’s word ahead of my own reason: God is a lot smarter than I am.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. Nic Samojluk: Jesus said: “An enemy has done this!” Nature reveals that there is a controversy between God the Creator and his arch enemy.

    What is it in nature that tells you there is a controversy? That Satan even exists? Is there a rock, a fossil, a DNA sequence, or a bird song that proclaims this? Do you seriously believe that someone could come up with these notions independent of God informing us?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. Sean Pitman: Yet, you argue that because some people might attribute Divine attributes to the Designer of various features of living things, in particular, that the science used to determine the intelligent origin of these features must therefore not really be valid science. That’s a false argument.

    Yes, it is false. It’s not my argument.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. @ Sean:

    Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago. More pertinently, science cannot falsify a past cause that was supernatural.

    The architechts themselves of Intelligent Design concede that the movement is more religion and philosophy than science. If you want to declare them wrong, be my guest.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. @Professor Kent:

    Here we go again. I have elaborated elsewhere, on multiple occasions, why I find compelling the personal impact that prayer and reading of scripture has on me and on others; the humble lives of the disciples who chose death over recanting their views; the accuracy of certain prophecies in scripture; and so forth.

    I agree with these arguments. I use them myself as valid evidences for the Divine origin of the Bible – evidences I think are required to have a rational faith in the Bible.

    Do you not see these sorts of arguments as an appeal to empirical evidence to support the rationality of your faith in the Bible as the Word of God? – arguments that would tend to appeal to human reason? In other words, do you not first determine that the Bible, and not some other book making the same claim to a Divine origin, is in fact the Word of God via the use of your God-given reasoning abilities to evaluate the Bible’s claims? compared to what you think you know of empirical reality?

    The Holy Spirit moves me to submit my reasoning to the higher power acknowledged in scripture. I’m sorry that you remain confused, but how many times need I clarify my position?

    How do you know that it is the Holy Spirit that moves you and not some other spirit? After all, my LDS friends tell me exactly the same thing about why they have faith in the Book of Mormon as the Word of God… “Because the Holy Spirit told me so and the Spirit wouldn’t lie to me”.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. @Professor Kent:

    Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago.

    Oh really? I guess that means you can’t determine if the Egyptian pyramids were the likely result of intelligent design or not – since they are thousands of years old? I guess SETI is, by your definition, a philosophical pursuit? – not really a valid scientific effort? – since the radio signals being researched are many thousands of light years old? Oh, and the theory of evolution itself wouldn’t meet your definition of science either… right?

    Surely you don’t really believe that the ability to determine the intelligently designed origin of a given phenomenon cannot be investigated by science if the phenomenon in question is thousands or millions of years old. I don’t care if a highly symmetrical polished granite cube is a billion years old, it would still be easily recognizable as an intelligently designed artifact regardless of where it happened to be found (like on the surface of an alien planet like Mars).

    More pertinently, science cannot falsify a past cause that was supernatural.

    Can God create a highly symmetrical polished granite cube? If so, can such a cube be detected as most likely requiring an intelligent origin? – even if God’s supernatural powers are not necessarily evident in everything He creates?

    Perhaps God creates a great many things so that we can simply recognize that a higher form of intelligence exists in this universe besides us? – and in this manner He leads us to discover more and more about Him and His work?

    The architechts themselves of Intelligent Design concede that the movement is more religion and philosophy than science. If you want to declare them wrong, be my guest.

    The architects themselves are simply pointing out that the real debate isn’t actually over the science involved, but over the philosophical positions of those in opposing camps.

    These philosophical/religions position are, as already noted for you, irrelevant to the fact that the basic detection of the need to invoke intelligent design hypotheses to explain various phenomena in nature is a real scientific enterprise.

    The religious and/or philosophical meaning one might or might not derive from the discovery of an intelligently designed artifact is entirely irrelevant to the science used to detect the intelligent origin of the artifact.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

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

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

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

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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. If, as Jeff Kent contends, Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago, then Darwinism is not science either. If science cannot verify whether something is designed, it can’t verify whether something is not designed.

    Pick your poison.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. Still a lot of comment – debating whether or not we are here by evolution. Perhaps Mr. Alumnus ’96 is best evidence of what has happened at LSU – even more than a decade ago. I never would have guessed.

    Happy Sabbath everyone. Or at least to those who understand what it means.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. It’s the same “bickering” that has gone on for months.

    Evolution is a religion. Period. It can not be varified nor proven. The “evidence” is weak and faulty at best. It has no viable foundation to support it.

    Namely, a first verifiable cause.

    Scripture is self validating by way of prophecy. This “evidence” is not refutable.

    In the end, you either believe it, or, you don’t. Faith would not be faith if you could “prove” it by way of science.

    People have taken their stand and few “change” their minds.

    Hope you all have a happy and blessed Sabbath.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. LSU Alumnus 1996: Is not our entire church founded on the belief that God, at times, uses contemporary human minds to bring enhanced clarity to His “second book” (the Bible)? If so, why do we refuse to accept that He may do the same for His first (“nature”)? Is this not why we consider EGW a prophet rather than a delusional evangelist with brain trauma?

    As it turns out – Ellen White is the one that says in 3SG 90-91 that God showed her the literal 7 day creation week.

    So you have an “update” almost 4000 years after God showed the same thing to Moses – and guess what! Seven days turns out to mean the same thing 4000 years later!

    We have the sure word of prophecy – “made more sure” –

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. Professor Kent: Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago. More pertinently, science cannot falsify a past cause that was supernatural.

    One of the most laughable ad hoc definitions of what is and is not “SciencE” that one could imagine.

    I assume that your excercise above in just “making stuff up” is not meant to be persuasive to someone who does not already take your extreme positions.

    Professor Kent:
    The architechts themselves of Intelligent Design concede that the movement is more religion and philosophy than science. If you want to declare them wrong, be my guest.

    Good “spin doctoring” but poor statement of fact.

    Collin Patterson – atheist evolutionist British Museum of Natural Hist speaking at the American Museum of Natural Hist.
    ==================================

    “”…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…

    “…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”
    =================================

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Professor Kent: The theistic evolutionist position – When science and scripture conflict, go with the weight of empirical evidence. This is the very same position advocated by Educate Truth.

    Well crafted – but obviously false to anyone using an ounce of critical thinking.

    What is TRUE – is that the T.E’s claim that birds-come-from-reptiles fictions is to be called “SCIENCE” — is the same baloney that was being sold to students at LSU and it is being exposed as such in places like Educate Truth.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. Kent quotes a non-SDA TE (Dr Philip Johnson author of a number of insightful books on this debate including “Darwin on Trial” and “Reason on the Balance”) and shows his contempt for anyone who would dare support the Romans 1 concept that all mankind are “without excuse” when the pretend to deny the attribute of “Design” that can be seen “in the things that have been made”.

    Professor Kent said: Here are some admissions from the policy creator himself, Phillip Johnson:

    “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

    Johnson states that the mere hint of design runs agains the “atheist distinctive” about there “being no god”.

    To attack I.D. is to make a “dinstinctly atheist” argument – albeit unwittingly for some the “TEs and friends” group.

    so I responded –

    BobRyan:

    Are you someone who has actuall read Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial” book — or is this more of the subject that you are not allowing yourself to read “first hand”?
    Hint the place to look for Discovery Institute science is not wiki – it is actually at their web page – http://www.discovery.org/
    Why not face them directly and answer the issues they raise?
    Why run to wiki to be told “what to think” the very way you do NOT want others to “learn what to thinkg” when it comes to
    Why pretend that your embrace of a distinctively atheist view attacking I.D. (when it comes to observations “in nature”) is somehow helping your case?

    Professor Kent: I quoted Phillip Johnson, a key architect of Intelligent Design, who conceded that they were debating religion and philosophy rather than science.

    Hint – at no point does your quote of Johnson show him claiming that “I.D. is religion not science”.

    Your “spin doctoring” is not going to convince anyone using a tiny amount of critical thinking – especially if they take the 5 minutes necessary to actually go read something Johnson actually said.

    That’s the easy part – that you and I both know to be fact.

    Kent said –
    I also stated my appreciation for the official SDA position against the Discovery Institute

    The “SDA official position” is that the world was created in 7 real days.

    This was voted at the GC2010 session.

    I do not recall any vote at any GC session “in all of time” saying that Intelligent Design is “not science” or that I.D. should only be known to Christians no matter what Romans 1 says to the contrary.

    Perhaps you can detail your source for such nonsense.

    Prof Kent: If you seriously believe this means I embrace a distinctively atheist view, then you have quite the imagination

    Is this the part where you did – or did not read Romans 1? Because you seem to be dodging the point without actually answering it.

    Did you not see the issue God raises in Romans 1? If you did see it “clearly” then you cannot help but agree that those who oppose it are taking a “distinctively atheist” course — albeit unwittingly in the case of the “TE’s and friends” group.

    What part of this point is difficult to grasp for our TE friends?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. Since the quote blocks are messed up in that last half of that post – and I still cannot get the Click-to-Edit to work… here is the end of that post —

    ========================================

    Professor Kent said: I quoted Phillip Johnson, a key architect of Intelligent Design, who conceded that they were debating religion and philosophy rather than science.

    Hint – at no point does your quote of Johnson show him claiming that “I.D. is religion not science”.

    Your “spin doctoring” is not going to convince anyone using a tiny amount of critical thinking – especially if they take the 5 minutes necessary to actually go read something Johnson actually said.

    That’s the easy part – that you and I both know to be fact.

    Kent said –
    I also stated my appreciation for the official SDA position against the Discovery Institute

    The “SDA official position” is that the world was created in 7 real days.

    This was voted at the GC2010 session.

    I do not recall any vote at any GC session “in all of time” saying that Intelligent Design is “not science” or that I.D. should only be known to Christians no matter what Romans 1 says to the contrary.

    Perhaps you can detail your source for such nonsense.

    Prof Kent said: If you seriously believe this means I embrace a distinctively atheist view, then you have quite the imagination

    Is this the part where you did – or did not read Romans 1? Because you seem to be dodging the point without actually answering it.

    Did you not see the issue God raises in Romans 1? If you did see it “clearly” then you cannot help but agree that those who oppose it are taking a “distinctively atheist” course — albeit unwittingly in the case of the “TE’s and friends” group.

    Perhaps some of those on that side of the isle can help us understnd what part of this point is difficult to grasp for our TE friends?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. Ralph Clark: Is anyone going to the Geoscience Research Institute Conference on Teaching Origins, held in Alberta, Canada from July 28 to August 2, 2011? http://www.grisda.org/2011-banff/
    Here is the program schedule:
    http://www.grisda.org/2011-banff/program.htm
    It looks to me like good things are happening in our church in this area

    Rumor has it – this is one of the points of discussion that came up “among the four” LSU thought-leaders on that audio recording.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. David Read: In Jackson’s defense, when one faculty member quoted an Ellen White passage (probably the one about “thinkers, not merely refectors of other men’s thoughts”), Jackson said that Ellen White had alot to say on the topic, and we should pay attention to everything she wrote. It would have been even better if he had a quote or two handy, such as:
    “But the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. It represents the Creator as commanding men to observe the week of literal days in commemoration of vast, indefinite periods. This is unlike His method of dealing with His creatures. It makes indefinite and obscure that which He has made very plain. It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible.”

    Good point.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. David Read: The 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.”

    That is true – but “Evolutionists and friends” have tried to use the Dover case in a smear campaign against the science demonstrated in I.D. without ever having to actually defend such attacks on I.D. in a context where the Discovery Institute was actually on hand to refute the wild charges and tortured arguments they employed.

    Only the one clinging to the belief “there is no human” is forced to bend science to the point of denying the design attributes apparent in a cake.

    Everyone else is free to use the tools of science unhindered.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. LSU Alumnus 1996 wrote:
    “My parents, teachers, friends, pastors, doctors – all them SDA – generally understood that the creation story simply cannot be true.”

    This statement ranks right up there with Lutherans, especially of the ELCA branch, which have officially repudiated most every point of theology which Martin Luther lived and died for i.e. The Papacy is the seat of the anti-Christ, the primacy of Scripture, justification by faith etc… And yet these same people call themselves L-U-T-H-E-R-A-N-S!! The name you take defines the creed you follow.

    If you, your parents, your doctors, your teachers and others don’t believe in the creation story, they and you aren’t Seventy-day Adventists. That’s the whole idea behind the name “Seventh-day”. God created world in 7 days. A person can’t vote Republican all the time and still call themselves a Democrat.

    We, of course, could go into the “science” that you’d like to bring to the table but my guess is you’d soon turn the conversation to other things. It happens EVERY TIME I converse with evolutionists. They want to discuss the science only. I say fine, let’s do it. But they soon try to change the conversation. Why? Because they themselves don’t really, truly believe in the scientific method. Evolutionary theory is not based upon the scientific method. It is based upon feelings. BTW, I usually only use the frank and revealing words of professed evolutionary scientists to turn themselves back on their heads. Ha!

    It’s like when last year, Stephen Hawking said that the universe came from—–nothing! It just appeared. It just happened. Oh the hilarity!!!
    And can you just hear the evolutionists around academia cringing when they hear a statement like that? Some are more honest with THEMSELVES. They understand that evolutionary thought is largely a branch of philosophy, not science. And they fear that the Creation group will gain an upper hand when guys like Hawking kind of accidentally pull back the curtain and show us what evolutionary thought really is—smoke, mirrors, and a religion which countenances no open investigation of it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. Regardless whether one is or isn’t horrified by the ID movemant’s “wedge strategy”–using design science as a wedge to get theism back into the public schools–it is irrelevant to LaSierra, which is a private, church affiliated school.

    It is a bit surreal to watch a conversation unfold in which people are saying that Intelligent Design must not be taught in a private Adventist school, because some people want to get theism into the public schools.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. David, the “wedge strategy” has relevance in the current discussion because it establishes that even the founders of Intelligent Design understood that Intelligent Design does not constitute science but is instead a religious and philosophical idea. Indeed, the origins of the Intelligent Design movement demonstrate that this movement is a continuation of the “creation science” movement under a different label.

    Nobody is arguing that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a Seventh-day Adventist school in a theology or philosophy class. You could even teach Intelligent Design in a pop culture class. What we rightfully object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class.

    You could argue that science students should be required to take certain theology/philosophy courses in order for them to receive a well-rounded education. I don’t think anybody is opposed to that idea, either.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. Sean Pitman: I guess that means you can’t determine if the Egyptian pyramids were the likely result of intelligent design or not – since they are thousands of years old? I guess SETI is, by your definition, a philosophical pursuit? – not really a valid scientific effort? – since the radio signals being researched are many thousands of light years old? Oh, and the theory of evolution itself wouldn’t meet your definition of science either… right?… Can God create a highly symmetrical polished granite cube? If so, can such a cube be detected as most likely requiring an intelligent origin?

    Okay, Sean, I’ll give this a go. For the questions I address in this post regarding your pyramids, cubes, and SETI, I’m specifying only a single hypothesis to streamline things. The next post will expand a bit more on Intelligent Design and Theory of Evolution.

    Egyptian pyramids
    Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
    Falsifying the hypothesis: Pyramids are evenly distributed across the landscape rather clustered in the vicinity of human civilizations; no sources of the rock used to construct the pyramids can be located; pyramids do not contain human artifacts, including hieroglyphics that explain some details of the culture and the contents within the pyramids.
    My conclusion: I believe there is sufficient evidence to accept this hypothesis, and that the intelligent designers likely to be humans. I can’t reject whether God himself was the intelligent designer of at least some pyramids, because I can’t figure out how to falsify this possibility (i.e., any quest to confirm that God created the pyramids ain’t scientific).

    A highly symmetrical polished granite cube
    Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
    Falsifying the hypothesis: minerals with perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes can be found in nature, or their formation by natural processes can be observed.
    My conclusion: A visit to any museum that exhibits presumably naturally produced minerals (i.e., those unearthed from mines) should reveal various minerals that adopt a range of perfect or near-perfect geometric shapes, and some can even be produced by mixing solutions together in a lab. Mineral surfaces often appear highly polished. I think the evidence is sufficient that a highly symmetrical polished cube could plausibly result from natural causes apart from human intelligent design. However, I can’t reject whether God himself was the intelligent designer of at least some such cubes, because I can’t figure out how falsify it (i.e., any quest to falsify this hypothesis ain’t scientific). Clearly, Sean, you disagree in that you believe such a cube can be produced only by a human. However, your logic seems flawed: just because I see a rocket and conclude it was made by humans does not mean I can conclude that God created the humans that made the rocket.

    SETI’s detection of complex, highly patterned radio waves
    Hypothesis: made by intelligent design.
    Falsifying the hypothesis: radio waves similar to those intercepted by SETI’s receivers can be generated naturally.
    – My conclusion: SETI hasn’t detected anything, so why are you making a big deal about this? I fail to understand what SETI has to do with evidence for fiat creation, or why you would even consider it science. It’s basically a fishing expedition: casting a hook in the water to see if there is a fish around to bite it. I have friends who blow big bucks on deep sea fishing, and they ain’t doing science as far as I’m concerned. I think you’re too permissive with your definitions of “science” and “evidence.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. To continue, here are my attempts to answer two more of Sean Pitman’s questions, which address “Intelligent Design” and “Theory of Evolution” (his words). I have chosen to frame things within classical statistical parlance, with null versus alternative hypotheses, because of some rather interesting contrasts. Someone has probably done a better job reasoning through this than I have. With more thought, I might well change my mind on specifics, but this is what I have gotten through so far.

    Intelligent Design – framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
    Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot be created by an intelligent designer.
    Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can be created by an intelligent designer.
    Falsifying the null hypothesis: humans succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions (this would mean that God is not alone in the capacity to create).
    Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
    My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for abiogenesis (below). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified, as stated above. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth, nor would it inform us that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Genesis 1. Thus, Intelligent Design as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally am willing to accept.

    Evolutionary Theory – I assume Sean refers to abiogenesis, framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth
    Null hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms cannot arise spontaneously through natural processes.
    Alternative hypothesis: living, reproducing organisms can arise spontaneously through natural processes.
    Falsifying the null hypothesis: experiments succeed in creating living, self-replicating entities (cells or something similar) under specific conditions.
    Falsifying the alternative hypothesis: in essence, cannot be done since an infinite combination of conditions would need to be tested to show impossibility.
    My conclusions: Experimental tests to identify the conditions under which self-replicating entities can form are well underway, but have not yielded confirmatory evidence. This activity clearly comprises science, but it cannot be distinguished from falsifying the null hypothesis for intelligent design (above). More important, abiogenesis simply cannot be falsified. Furthermore, failure or success in this endeavor still cannot confirm the cause (Intelligent Design vs abiogenesis) for the appearance of the first form of life on earth. Thus, abiogenesis as an explanation for the creation of life on earth cannot be validated by science, and can be believed only on the basis of faith–something I personally have not been willing to accept.

    To be clear, only the “alternative hypotheses” formulated above constitute what we understand to be “Intelligent Design” and “abiogenesis.” Neither, in my opinion, can ever be falsified (shown to be false), which moves them beyond the realm of science. (Sean Pitman and others may attempt to apply probabilities to abiogenesis, but are unwilling to do so for Intelligent Design, which is highly unfair.) The “null hypotheses” formulated above are more interesting, because falsifying by means of humans actually creating life forms could be viewed as real science, and could be construed as evidence potentially supporting both Intelligent Design and abiogenesis. For the typical fundamentalist creationist, however, this would be problematic in that most believe fervently that only God is capable of creating life, and would be viewed by many as an “oops!” For the typical evolutionist, this might be rightly viewed as an “I gotcha.” Thus, the evolutionist would certainly gain the upper hand with such a profound discovery. However, there is a big disconnect between showing what could have happened and determining what actually happened. There is NO WAY of knowing the latter; even if God tells us this one day, we cannot know with the sureness of science that he/she is not lying to us. Thus, once again, both Intelligent Design (which I still believe is religious in nature) and abiogenesis can only be accepted on faith.

    Your comments, Sean, seem to suggest that you believe that Intelligent Design is science and that abiogenesis cannot be (but perhaps I’m not understanding your comments). Bob Ryan clearly believes this and seems to have utmost confidence in his critical reasoning. I still cannot comprehend such reasoning.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. David Read: If, as Jeff Kent contends, Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago, then Darwinism is not science either. If science cannot verify whether something is designed, it can’t verify whether something is not designed.

    If by “Darwinism” you refer to abiogenesis, I totally agree. If you are referring to the steady progression of life forms for unicellular to multicellular, I would have to agree as well in that we cannot know with certainty what actually transpired. However, I have to acknowledge there are predictions that can be supported in this regard (both for and against this possibility).

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. BobRyan: Collin Patterson – atheist evolutionist British Museum of Natural Hist speaking at the American Museum of Natural Hist.
    ==================================
    “”…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…
    “…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

    Bob has recycled these quotes hundreds of times here, at Spectrum, at Adventist Today, and elsewhere to show that even an evolutionist (who authored a book on evolution) recognizes that evolution is useless. Others have shown Bob repeatedly that Patterson was tongue-in-cheek with his words–by self admission.

    The guy died as a die-hard believer in evolution. Bob will die believing Patterson disavowed himself of evolution.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. BobRyan: Kent quotes a non-SDA TE (Dr Philip Johnson author of a number of insightful books on this debate including “Darwin on Trial” and “Reason on the Balance”) and shows his contempt for anyone who would dare support the Romans 1 concept that all mankind are “without excuse” when the pretend to deny the attribute of “Design” that can be seen “in the things that have been made”.

    I didn’t say anything about Romans 1, and I have no contempt for anyone who believes in any verse from Romans 1.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  91. I wrote this:

    I also stated my appreciation for the official SDA position against the Discovery Institute’s attempt to introduce religion (ID) into public classrooms. If you seriously believe this means I embrace a distinctively atheist view, then you have quite the imagination (or perhaps just malicious tactics).

    Bob Ryan wrote this:

    Kent said –
    I also stated my appreciation for the official SDA position against the Discovery Institute

    The “SDA official position” is that the world was created in 7 real days.

    This was voted at the GC2010 session.

    I do not recall any vote at any GC session “in all of time” saying that Intelligent Design is “not science” or that I.D. should only be known to Christians no matter what Romans 1 says to the contrary.

    Can you folks see what’s going on here by the one who endlessly accuses me of “spin doctoring?”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  92. This incredible irony of 4 liberal California “Adventists” getting caught doing what their liberalism says is oh so “right in their own eyes” – serves as a sobering and humbling reminder to us all:

    Gal 6:7,8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

    The mocking of God the Creator that has gone on at LSU…the mocking of God’s humble servant, Ellen White…the mocking of God’s chosen leaders (reminds me of the fate of some boys mocking Elisha)…the mocking ridicule of our special health message by their drinking…the mocking of the Bible truth that we will all be held accountable for every idle word that proceeds from our mouths….

    God is absolutely IN CONTROL! He mercifully allows His law of cause –> effect to play out time and again. No one wrestles against mere flesh & blood. We reap what we sow, end of story.

    Let us pray for these who’ve been so self-deceived, lest any of us also fall. Let us pray for our church leaders that they will draw courage to make righteous decisions surrounding this. Let us pray for the students & faculty of LSU, that somehow a revival of true Godliness will sweep the enemy back in California. Before probation closes and all mocking ceases…all reaping commences.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  93. fabian: To doubt is Divine

    Interesting thought.

    The Bible teaches the lesson in Gen 3 that to “doubt the divine Word is demonic” and at the same time “to doubt the demonic is divine”.

    When it comes to the “doctrines from beneath” we should be using more than a little critical thinking.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  94. BobRyan: Collin Patterson – atheist evolutionist British Museum of Natural Hist speaking at the American Museum of Natural Hist.
    ==================================
    “”…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…
    “…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

    Thus Patterson who is himself every bit the devotee to blind-faith-evolutionism that Kent would have — still is “aware enough” to lament the sad religious nature of his fellow devotees in promoting evolutionism “as orthodoxy” rather than as actual science.

    However Kent sees this as yet another opportunity to “spin doctor” the quote.

    Professor Kent:

    Bob has recycled these quotes hundreds of times here, at Spectrum, at Adventist Today, and elsewhere to show that even an evolutionist (who authored a book on evolution) recognizes that evolution is useless.

    You have crafted another interesting “spin” Kent – but your efforts are more transparent to the reader who compares the actual quote to your spin -than you appear to have at first supposed.

    Kent said:
    The guy died as a die-hard believer in evolution.

    I applaud Kent’s effort above to finally include one point that is actually true in his post.

    That is a beginning my friend. I look forward to your progress in that area.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  95. Evolutionists have no “first cause” and don’t claim to have one.
    Bible Christians acknowledge God as the “first cause” and this is the true beginning and end of all discussion on the subject.

    Everything else is useless bickering with no possible concensus or unity and no viable conclusion to any discussion.

    Until an evolutionist can state and define a “first cause”, we must accept their declarations as basically, blowing in the wind. Fairy tale speculation that has no basis for an intelligent discussion.

    There comes a point when all a Christian can do is damage and possibly end up destroying their own faith by playing continually on the devil’s ground. If you think not, ask Eve.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  96. In Gen 3 the liberal progressive tactic was to cast doubt on the one who would normally be trusted.

    There we see the tactic of spinning spinning an alternate reality for the conservative Eve to believe.

    There we see “a puzzle” presented to the conservative minded Eve – so that “if you cannot solve this puzzle then doubt the Word of God which you are still accepting”.

    When you see the lib-progressive agenda telling you to doubt this or that group that opposes “drink the koolaid” promotion of evolutionism – then critical thinking demans that you exercise a little doubt of the smear campaign they are promoting.

    If you find that you already were doubting whatever group they are also condemning – then it would be wise for you to take a second look. An objective look. One that is not snookered by the fact that this or that group made a mistake or two in their efforts to do the right thing.

    The tactic of revisionist history, repeating false charges, and in general simply “making stuff up” (with the obligatory puzzle or two) – is the common practice! One that the lib-progressive group uses on conservatives. One that is all-too-often successful in those cases.

    It is time that God’s people are wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

    A word to the wise.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  97. Professor Kent: Can you folks see what’s going on here by the one who endlessly accuses me of “spin doctoring?”

    That was the time when you were supposed to actually quote the SDA organization condemning I.D. as you claimed – rather than just complaining.

    Substance.

    As one of my coworkers used to say in his debates – “Less smoke – more fire”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Sean Pitman Cancel reply