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…

Please follow and like us:
14
251
37

366 thoughts on “My Goal for La Sierra University

  1. Professor Kent: 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?

    Scripture and Nature complement each other.




    0
    View Comment
  2. 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.
    The architechts themselves of Intelligent Design concede that the movement is more religion and philosophy than science.

    The theory of evolution is not true science either. It cannot duplicate what happened millions of years ago and it cannot replicate the common ancestor process. There is no way to falsify Darwin’s claims to common ancestry; therefore, I choose to believe in Creation and common Intelligent Design.




    0
    View Comment
  3. @Phillip Brantley:

    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.

    No one is arguing that there aren’t philosophical or even religious motivations for some who hold to various forms of intelligent design theories. Such beliefs and motivations are irrelevant, however, when it comes to the basic science of intelligent design.

    As already noted, intelligent design theories can be and are based, all the time, on real scientific methodologies that are employed by many mainstream scientists in many mainstream scientific disciplines – like anthropology, forensics, and even SETI.

    For Phil (and Jeff Kent) to simply dismiss all forms of intelligent design theories just because of the motivations of some shows his lack of understanding regarding basic scientific methodologies. He doesn’t seem to understand the very definition of science. He argues that I’m the one changing the rules of the game when he joined the game without seeming to understand the rules to begin with.

    Perhaps it is for this reason that he seems unwilling to answer very simple questions on science and how scientists are able to detect design behind various relatively simple artifacts. He simply refuses to substantively address such questions because he simply doesn’t know the mainstream scientific basis behind the detection of intelligent design.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  4. @Professor Kent:

    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).

    So you can scientifically detect design after all? even if thousands of years old? Glad to see that you’ve reconsidered your original statement.

    However, I must say that I fail to see how an “even distribution” of pyramids across the landscape would tend to “falsify” the ID hypothesis for their origin. I also fail to see how a failure to identify the source of stone used in their construction would tend to falsify the ID hypothesis. Also, before the meaning of hieroglyphic carvings was deciphered, it was quite clear that these hieroglyphs were deliberately carved by intelligent design (even without being able to absolutely falsify the hypothesis of non-deliberate design) and that they most likely had some kind of function/meaning. Beyond this, even without any such hieroglyphs at all, the pyramids themselves would be clearly detectable as being the result of intelligent design and construction… even if only one such pyramid existed and even if it was built without any hieroglyphs or any other evident reason for its construction. Even if such a pyramid were found all by itself on an alien planet like Mars it would still be scientifically detectable as having been the result of ID.

    Remember also, this isn’t about detecting the actual identity of the designer. This is only about detecting intelligent design regardless of who the designer may or may not have been.

    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.

    This isn’t true for granite, which does not form such highly symmetrical geometric structures naturally as do other materials. Why else do you think I specified that the material in the cube was granite?

    If you don’t think that the discovery of such a cube, on Mars for example, would cause an international sensation, even among scientists, you’re quite clueless about the natural abilities of granite.

    As for your discussion on if the designer was God or not, again, that’s irrelevant to the scientific detection of intelligent design by itself.

    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.

    It is quite clear that such a cube can only be produced, ultimately, by intelligent design – human or otherwise. Your arguments about God being the designer are, yet again, irrelevant to the scientific detection of design for such artifacts.

    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?

    You can’t go “fishing” unless you know ahead of time how to recognize when you’ve actually caught a fish.

    The basis of SETI is important in this regard because there would be no point in even looking at radio signals if it was theoretically impossible to scientifically detect intelligent design behind certain patterns or other features of radio signals.

    It is for the very reason that the detection of certain features in radio signals would be so clearly artefactual, the result of intelligent design, that SETI is a real science – regardless of if it is ever successful or not. The potential for success is there because of the basic science of ID – a science which you still don’t seem to really understand.

    You keep confusing the search for ID with the search for God. They aren’t the same thing. The search for ID is distinctly different from the search for God. It is for this reason why the basic science behind ID does in fact follow true scientific methodologies.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  5. @Professor Kent:

    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.

    It is quite clear that God is not the only one who can create functionally complex machines, to include biomachines. Humans have in fact created the first functional fully synthetic genome, from scratch, that actually works.


    Daniel Gibson and his colleagues at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, synthesized the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides, consisting of about 1.1 million base pairs. Having assembled the genome inside a yeast cell, they transplanted it into a cell from a closely related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. After the newly made cell had divided, the cells of the bacterial colony that it formed contained only proteins characteristic of M. mycoides.

    The success clears the way for developing and testing new variants of existing organisms.

    “With this approach we now have the ability to start with a DNA sequence and design organisms exactly like we want,” says Gibson. “We can get down to the very nucleotide level and make any changes we want to a genome.”

    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3502/synthetic-genome

    So you see, among known natural processes, only those with access to intelligence can come remotely close to producing the functional informational complexity that we see in every living thing. No other non-deliberate force of nature, that is currently known to science, comes remotely close (see further discussion of this particular point below).

    This is the very same argument used to detect design behind highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, Stonehenge, the SETI radio signals, and the like. There is no fundamental scientific difference. It is the very same argument based on the very same logic.

    Evolutionary Theory – I assume Sean refers to abiogenesis, framed in terms of possibility, not the actual origin of life on earth

    All scientific theories are framed as possibilities since science isn’t about determining absolutes. If one could ever absolutely falsify or verify anything, science would no longer be needed at that point. Science is only useful when there is less than perfect knowledge…

    – 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.

    You misunderstand the concept of falsification.

    Consider a situation where one of our Mars rovers comes across a highly symmetrical polished granite cube measuring 1.5 meters on each side. In the center of each of the six faces of the cube there are geometric etchings 5.0 cm in diameter carved to a depth of 0.5 cm.

    The obvious scientific conclusion of intelligent design for such a situation would be overwhelming. This is true even though all non-deliberate natural processes have not been evaluated or entirely falsified as a potential cause for such an artifact.

    You see, if you were able to completely falsify all potential explanations for a given artifact, you wouldn’t need science. Science is based on making conclusions given information that is always very incomplete. Science is based on taking this very limited information and making the best predictions you can make given what is currently known.

    When it comes to explaining the origin of such granite cubes and the informational complexity of all living things the scientific conclusion is that no mindless force in nature that is currently known comes remotely close to doing the job while natural agents that have access to at least human level intelligence are able to actually produce such artifacts or to get much much closer to their production.

    That, in a nutshell is the scientific argument for ID.

    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).

    Both ID and non-ID hypotheses can be presented in line with scientific methodologies. Neither hypothesis can be absolutely falsified or confirmed since the achievement of absolutes is impossible in science. Science doesn’t deal with absolutes, but only with probabilities that are always less than 100% certain.

    So, the real question here is, which hypothesis carries with it the greatest predictive value given what is currently known? – not what might be known in the future?

    Given what is currently known, intelligent design comes far far closer to explaining the informational complexity that is seen in living things compared to any known non-intelligent force of nature.

    So, the most rational, the most scientific, conclusion, is, for today, that intelligent design is the most rational explaination for the origin of life and much of its diversity.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  6. Dr. Pitman, there is a difference between saying that A is classified as X and saying that you wish A was classified as X.

    You can argue that you wish Intelligent Design was classified by the science community as science, but you cannot argue that Intelligent Design is presently classified by the science community as science.

    We know that the science community does not classify Intelligent Design as science based in part on the following:

    1. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.

    2. The Kitzmiller court ruled based on expert testimony submitted that Intelligence Design is not science. This holding of the court has never been overruled or placed into question by any other court.

    3. The Intelligent Design movement has not published properly peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals.

    You can utter the usual arguments that the science community is prejudiced against Intelligent Design, that many scientists are atheists, and that there are bad reasons why the science community has refused to classify Intelligent Design as science.

    But you cannot argue, without incurring the risk of presenting yourself as being out of touch with reality, that Intelligent Design is presently classified as science.

    I think a credible effort to adhere to honesty and transparency in your argumentation requires you to concede this point.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Phillip: “1. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.”

    I’m sorry, Phillip, but who cares what the worldly science community thinks? You seem to put these mere men(and women) in the place of God. So they judge Creation to be junk science do they? Well, the Creator knows their science to be junk science. I fail to see why you and Prof Kent keep telling us we are ignorant when in actual fact anyone who believes in evolution in any form is the ignorant one.

    We are fully educated by the Bible and SOP, which is better than any text book, research report, etc, etc that any man on earth can publish. Just because the scientists have a few letters behind their name doesn’t make them infallible. On the other hand, God is infallible. Seems to me you are giving the scientific community your faith and trust instead of God…and that is not wise.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Phillip: “What we rightfully object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class.”

    What you WRONGFULLY object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class, Mr Brantley. That’s where it belongs because God is the author of science and true science cannot be separated from Him.

    You cannot be serious in classifying evolution as science. As has been pointed out time and time again on ET, evolution does not follow the scientific method. It is someone’s fancy, written down in a convincing manner that has sucked in a large number of supposedly thinking scientists, which has taken away a lot of my respect for your community.

    Professor Kent is often correcting your statements, (“What Phil means is…”) and trying to put a good spin on it, but the obvious truth is you and Prof Kent do not believe in Biblical Creation at all…one of the fundamental SDA beliefs. If you did, you wouldn’t be here defending evolution. If you don’t, why continue to call yourselves SDAs seeing as it is so unpopular with your community?

    These arguments you continue to present are so much foolishness. You so patently believe in man over God. While that is sad to see, it will never change my mind one iota, and I have decided that whatever you two men write will no longer be read by me. It is a pure waste of time. I don’t believe a word you say regarding creation…and I never will until you begin promoting Bible truth. By the same token, you can cease to read what I write as well. It is probably foollishness to you because you have rejected the word of God.

    I wish you would turn yourselves around before it is too late, but you know the truth, you have been given every oppportunity to embrace it. If you want to put your trust in the world you will find to your sorrow that you will share in its destiny.

    Sad…so sad.




    0
    View Comment
  9. To LSU Alumnus 1996:

    You are obviously loyal and biased toward Dr. Bradley. You and Prof Kent raise some valid points but they all seem laced with name calling and referring to those who do not see it as you do as intellectual inferiors. I hope this is not how you truly feel; just sharing the perspective of someone on the outside who is trying to digest the information shared.




    0
    View Comment
  10. BobRyan: 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.

    I pointed out that Bob Ryan’s oft-quoted hero, Colin Patterson, gave a tongue-in-cheek talk at a meeting of his systematics peers. Bob insists the talk was serious rather than rhetorical. You can read Patterson’s own reflection on the talk here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html. Don’t take my word for it, which Bob lovingly calls “spin.” Read Patterson’s words for yourself, and you will see how completely wrong Bob is.

    Here is a small part of the story, in Patterson’s own words:

    I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists’ is false. That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous “keynote address” at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the “Systematics Discussion Group” in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on “Evolutionism and creationism”; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious [meaning uncontrollably exuberant, unruly, noisy, and lacking in restraint] talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

    To this day, many creationists, including Bob Ryan, disingenuously treat his words as a sweeping indictment of all aspects of evolution, and bristle when anyone rains on their parade. Again, this has been pointed out to Bob repeatedly, but one can wonder whether truth is at all relevant to him.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Faith: I’m sorry, Phillip, but who cares what the worldly science community thinks? You seem to put these mere men(and women) in the place of God.

    Faith, I think you must realize that God did not hand us a definition of “science.” Humans are the ones who build a consensus on what “science” is. Please don’t conflate a description of human conventions with personal beliefs.

    If creationists want to insist that Intelligent Design is “science,” then so be it. The secular world, which shapes and carries out the vast majority of what we recognize today as science, rejects it as such.




    0
    View Comment
  12. Faith: the obvious truth is you and Prof Kent do not believe in Biblical Creation at all

    Wow. It’s not a good idea to put your opinion above that of God, and He most definitely knows that you are wrong.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Professor Kent: If creationists want to insist that Intelligent Design is “science,” then so be it. The secular world, which shapes and carries

    The secular world has decided a great many things about movies, who is God and who is not, what kinds of behavior are moral – and whether birds come from reptiles.

    But we are comforted by the fact that there is NO doctrine about “Whatever the secular world thinks is science is what science is” known to most of mankind. Still I suppose Kent would try that “story” on the group just to see how it flies.

    The non-SDA (and in some cases non-Christian) evolutionists over at the Discovery Institute – are getting smeared by a few supposedly Christian creationist SDAs here who are so befuddled as to “imagine” that Romans 1 is wrong – that I.D. is not observable “in nature” and that God is wrong to claim that all mankind is “without excuse” if they pretend they do not notice I.D. “in the things that have been made”.

    Oh well – free will being what it is – I suppose we had to expect such things.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. Faith: You so patently believe in man over God… [Regarding what you write of Bible truth:] It is probably foolishness to you because you have rejected the word of God… If you want to put your trust in the world you will find to your sorrow that you will share in its destiny.

    Faith, I imagine you will not read this, and that’s your choice, but I will offer a few comments should you decide to read them.

    I am saddened that you appear to have locked on to a narrow and personal interpretation of select points that Phil and I have made while completely ignoring the many, many posts in which we have argued–against Sean Pitman, Bob Ryan, and others here–that the Bible must be accepted on its own terms; that the Bible should be interpreted, accepted, and believed regardless of what human reason and science have to say about its claims; and that man’s reason should never be elevated above God’s word.

    Just because we disagree with Sean Pitman, David Read, Bob Ryan, you, and others on how to interpret and teach the science and evidence of origins does not mean we reach a different conclusion than they do on actual origins. Since when did the SDA Church, or FB #6, require that believers accept the Genesis account only on cosmological, geological, and biological evidence?




    0
    View Comment
  15. BobRyan said to Kent: 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.

    Professor Kent:
    I pointed out that Bob Ryan’s oft-quoted hero, Colin Patterson, gave a tongue-in-cheek talk at a meeting of his systematics peers. Bob insists the talk was serious rather than rhetorical. You can read Patterson’s own reflection on the talk here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html. Don’t take my word for it, which Bob lovingly calls “spin.” Read Patterson’s words for yourself, and you will see how completely wrong Bob is.

    1. Clearly one of Kent’s favorite ‘tell you what to think” web sites is the well known bible-bashing talkorigins sites – as we all knew for a long time – but thanks to Kent for confirmation.

    2. Kent’s endless “spin doctoring” is evident in that example he chooses above – in that he spins the alternate reality for the reader of “not serious” as if this is some kind of comedy routine being put on by Patterson. However the part of Patterson’s response Kent shares does not support Kent’s claims AND the part of Patterson’s response that Kent is NOT sharing is even more “instructive”.

    Patterson defends the serious nature of his skepticism in the very example above – and so Kent “carefully omits it” in his efforts to “craft alternate reality”.

    Patterson said:

    But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
    I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt.

    But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

    Instead of ending with “I was only joking” or “I was not serious” – Patterson ends with “we must hold to this standard” of scepticism EVEN if it exposes us” to ridicule.

    How “consistent” that Kent’s “Patterson was not serious” wild revisionist history – once again falls far short of historic fact!

    Patterson pointed DIRECTLY at wild evolutionist complaints against Christians who “claim ignorance as to the means but then claim they know creationism is true because they know it is true” — and showed how the SAME complaints hold against evolutionists.

    Patterson countered, “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has…we know it has taken place.'”

    “…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…”

    Patterson says “I know that’s true” —

    Kent “spins” that what Patterson is saying “is not believed to be true by Patterson”.

    The text proves otherwise.

    Patterson chides his fellow “true believers” in evolutionism for using the same tactics that his fellow evolutionists condemn creationists for using.

    Kent responds “Patterson can’t really mean what he is saying”.

    How sad the level of befuddled darkness among some of the “TE’s and friends” such that they cannot not see “light” even when their own atheist evolutionist masters show it to them!

    Here is how a fellow atheist evolutionist actually at that meeting responded to Pattersons chiding of fellow evolutionists.

    I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH (American Museum of Natural Hist) curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him. Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.
    Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

    Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, “My G__, how can he be doing this to us.”

    Oh no wait – Kent is more informed about Patterson “not being serious” than either Patterson or those who were at the meeting!

    At some point Kent – it pays to throw away that shovel.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  16. Professor Kent: Just because we disagree with Sean Pitman, David Read, Bob Ryan, you, and others on how to interpret and teach the science and evidence of origins does not mean we reach a different conclusion than they do on actual origins. Since when did the SDA Church, or FB #6, require that believers accept the Genesis account only on cosmological, geological, and biological evidence?

    Again “endless spin doctoring”.

    We have not argued that Genesis “only be accepted on cosmological grounds”.

    We have argued that the TE position that claims that nature shows evolution to actually be true – but no matter just promote the Bible as nonsensical religion, is silly and results in the TE-to-atheist transitions that we SEE IN REAL LIFe in the case of Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and others.

    In other words – “the obvious”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. Phillip Brantley: Dr. Pitman, there is a difference between saying that A is classified as X and saying that you wish A was classified as X.
    You can argue that you wish Intelligent Design was classified by the science community as science, but you cannot argue that Intelligent Design is presently classified by the science community as science.
    We know that the science community does not classify Intelligent Design as science

    Philip Johnson’s book “Darwin on Trial” deals with Brantley’s notion of “we vote you off the island” brand of “science”.

    Brantley is promoting the dark-ages model of scenorship where ideas are not evaluated based on merrit – but on popularity with the orthodox high priests (only in this case – priests of secular society).

    Thankfully – many SDA scientists are not so easily befuddled by “whatever is popular no matter the science lacking in support of it”.

    But when we place this in the SDA context we can then let the Romans 1 statement on I.D. seen “IN the things that have been made” by all makind – “inform us”.

    somethig that our atheist friends would never allow.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  18. Sean Pitman: “With this approach we now have the ability to start with a DNA sequence and design organisms exactly like we want,” says Gibson. “We can get down to the very nucleotide level and make any changes we want to a genome.”
    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3502/synthetic-genome

    Sean, I’m not interested in continued dialogue with you on whether pyramids known to be made by humans, hypothetical granite cubes on Mars that have never been found, and a search for highly complex radio waves constitute science or have anything to do with Genesis 1. But your quote above definitely catches my interest.

    If humans are now capable of creating unique life forms, I’d like to know your thoughts on the following possibilities:

    1 – Can Satan himself (and/or his agents) can create new life forms?

    2 – Could Satan (and/or his agents) have created many extinct animals, such as Tyrannosaurus Rex, or certain currently living animals, such as the Platypus?

    3 – Could Satan (and/or his agents) have created extinct proto-humans, or even currently living humans?

    4 – Could Satan (and/or his agents) have transported animals from one part of the planet to another, just as humans do abundantly today, perhaps redistributing them before and after the flood?

    5 – Could Satan (and/or his agents) have transported life forms from other planets and planted them here on this earth?

    6 – Could the fossil record and other evidences we see today reflect to some extent what Satan wants us to see in order to confuse our interpretations?

    7 – Could the fossil record reflect Satan’s “failure” to create a thriving planet over millions of years, with creatures evolving near-human attributes (similar to God’s image), that underwent a spectacular collapse or was wiped out by God–and then the universe witnessed wide-eyed with astonishment as God spoke into existence a much more extraordinary and harmonious planet in a mere 6 days, with humans being the pinnacle of his creation that fully reflected God’s image?

    8 – Is there anything in scripture that clearly and unmistakbly rules out possibilities #1-7?

    9 – Do you, like Faith, believe I reject the Bible, FB #6, and the Genesis account of creation?

    10 – If my hypothetical friend, Janice, taught biology at Southern Adventist University, and was not 100.0% convinced that the evidence available today supported a literal creation that took place in only 6 days, and no more than 6-7,000 years ago, should she resign even if she still believed because she was willing to trust, as I do, what God wrote with his finger in stone? If not, what if she was only 90.0% convinced? Or 50.0% convinced? Surely you have given some thought as to what the limit of “uncertainty” should be for an SDA employee.




    0
    View Comment
  19. Bill Sorensen July 2, 2011 at 5:52 am

    I think Bill said it best.

    It’s time to be ready for Jesus to come. When that happens, the discussion will be over.

    Happy Sabbath everyone.




    0
    View Comment
  20. I’m hardly surprised that Bob continues to defend the literal interpretation of Colin Patterson’s controversial lecture. In doing so (in a post above), Bob craftily blended remarks from Patterson’s tongue-in-cheek lecture and his subsequent explanation.

    Fortunately, the reader can examine a direct transcript of Patterson’s subsequent explanation of his tongue-in-cheek lecture and form his/her own opinion: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html. The reader can then decide if Bob’s claims that I “spin” are true or nothing more than his own propaganda.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Phillip Brantley: 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.

    Brantley’s argument above betrays his total lack of knowledge of the subject to which he speaks.

    How sad.

    But in an effort to humor those who would follow the rabbit trail Brantley offers you – let’s take a simple I.D. point of discussion to see how the “theology and philosophy majors” Brantley proposes for this exercise are trained to deal with the subject matter of “not science”.

    Here is an example of a simple, obvious and long-popular topic of I.D. in one review of an I.D. book by Behe that deals with the “edge” of evolutionism.

    Revisiting irreducible complexity
    Intra-flagellar transport entails the active movement of protein components, by kinesins ‘walking’ along microtubules, for repair of the cilium tip and retrieval of components back into the cell, so that each cilium is continuously rebuilt.
    Behe revisits the cilium (pp. 84–96), discussed in Darwin’s Black Box as an example of irreducible complexity—a biological feature that could not be built by ‘numerous successive slight modifications’ (Darwin) because it has some 200 different protein components. Not only the components have to be explained, many of which are peculiar to the cilium, but also their precision assembly. Exciting discoveries since DBB make the problem even worse for Darwinian naturalism, particularly the realization that intra-flagellar transport (IFT) occurs (transport of proteins within the flagellum itself) and is necessary for cilium functionality. IFT entails the active movement of protein components, by linear motors called kinesins ‘walking’ along microtubules, for repair of the cilium tip, so that each cilium is continuously rebuilt. Mutations that break IFT result in non-viability because cilia are necessary for such things as embryo development and eye and kidney function. Behe says, ‘IFT exponentially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium’ (p. 94).

    Obviously the religion and philosophy department does not have the tools to evaluate the subject matter above – to determine that “it is not science” or even to know if it is correct or not.

    Brantley’s suggestion cannot be taken seriously.

    I think a credible effort to adhere to honesty and transparency in your argumentation requires you to concede this point.

    And the next point below.

    Here is an animation of some of the “walking” mechanisms discussed above –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related

    I challenge any TE left here with even an ounce of objectivity to watch that tiny snippet of the actual animation – and yet claim to still not “get the point” that Romans 1 says is obvious to every human on the planet regarding I.D. seen in the “things that have been made.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  22. Patterson said:

    “…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…”

    But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
    I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt.
    But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

    BobRyan:

    Instead of ending with “I was only joking” or “I was not serious” – Patterson ends with “we must hold to this standard” of scepticism EVEN if it exposes us” to ridicule.
    How “consistent” that Kent’s “Patterson was not serious” wild revisionist history – once again falls far short of historic fact!

    Patterson said “I know it is true”

    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…

    Kent said Patterson does not believe that what he is saying is true.

    Let the reader decide if Patterson or Kent knows more about what Patterson believes.

    Kent said:

    I’m hardly surprised that Bob continues to defend the literal interpretation of Colin Patterson’s controversial lecture

    Kent insists on demonstrating the fact that though he can be lead to water – he cannot be made to drink – after all – this is a free will universe.

    His “any old excuse will do” policy of rejecting what is right there on the page and is careful deletion of Patterson’s own ending comment AFFIRMING his serious insistence on the sceptical comments that he made – are much more transparent and telling to the reader – than Kent apparently imagines.

    Not much left to the imagination here.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. Charles: Bill Sorensen July 2, 2011 at 5:52 amI think Bill said it best.It’s time to be ready for Jesus to come. When that happens, the discussion will be over. Happy Sabbath everyone.

    That is true.

    In that context – there is a purging a refining a “setting right” that is to happen inside the church and then follows the latter rain – and the close of probation.

    The monster “omega” problem makes Battle Creek pale into insignificance by comparison.

    At Battle Creek not only were we allowed to condemn Pantheism – we were also allowed not to TEACH it as though the “world is pantheist so even if you don’t believe in it you must still teach all the aspects of it so students are fully informed”.

    Yet that is precisely the case with the junk-science and bad-religion issue of evolutoinism.

    And further – in Battle Creek it was only one institution aflame with the bible-denying proposal. In our modern example – it is a 3 alarm fire at LSU, but it is also smoldering at a number of other institutions as well – including workers at the GC itself.

    3SG 90-91 states that this problem is “the worst form of infidelity” because it is infidelity in disguise. I am sure you will agree that that places a level of importance, priority and significance on the subject that cannot easily be ignored.

    Atheists such as Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and others all testify to the effect that blind-faith belief in evoluitionism had on their former Christianity.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  24. Bob Ryan, I am sure you understand that Intelligent Design need not be taught exclusively by a faculty member of the theology/philosophy department. One of the science teachers could teach the course, possibly in tandem with a theologian or philosopher, and the students taking the course could receive theology/philosophy credit. Obviously, the class would be specifically targeted to science majors.

    You seem to be bitter about the science community’s classification of Intelligent Design as non-science. I don’t think that an untoward motive on the part of the science community is involved. Look at all of the other non-sciences that have been voted off the island: alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, medical quackery using magical elixirs, telepathy, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, naturopathy and other alternative medicines, pyramidology, etc.

    These non-sciences share a common characteristic with Creationism and Intelligent Design: with few exceptions they are theological/philosophical by nature.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Is there a parallel between this discussion board and the discussion between EGW and Kellog?

    Is there a difference between pantheism and “theistic evolution”? Is it possible that TE is just a more matured version of pantheism?

    How does this all relate to the “New Age Movement”?

    Jesus warned us of overwhelming deceptions in the end time – just before his coming. Of what nature would those deceptions be? What is their origin and for what purpose?

    SDA institutions of higher learning were never intended to be on the cutting edge of modern (worldly) “science”. They were intended as a safe place where Adventist families could confidently send their children with an assumption that they would be trained in the understanding a knowledge of timeless truth relating to FAITH as the way of our origins.

    Centuries ago, the Waldenses had their own universities – wholly different from the Roman-influenced universities of the world. Can we not safely maintain our schools as harbors of safety for our children?

    How close to “The End of the World” are we? It is a discussion I do not hear so much about – even from our pulpits. What are the signs? Is it too politically incorrect to talk, preach, teach about them anymore?

    Jesus is coming very soon. It is time to fill our lamps with the sweet oil of God’s Holy Spirit. Those who do, will have no question as to how they came to be here.

    I don’t think anyone has ever been won to “the truth” by losing an argument.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Charles: “How close to “The End of the World” are we? It is a discussion I do not hear so much about – even from our pulpits. What are the signs? Is it too politically incorrect to talk, preach, teach about them anymore?”

    While, (as you know) we cannot set dates, Charles, I am quite sure we are nearing the end sooner than any of us think. And you are right, we don’t hear much of it being taught any more. It seems that the ministers are more concerned with “relationships” than with good old-fashioned doctrine.

    The signs? Look at all the earthquakes that are happening worldwide. Look at the tornadoes, the tsunamis, the hurricanes, the severe hail storms; they are happening with increasing intensity and frequency.

    Look at the state of the world economy–riots in Greece and other countries where austerity measures are hitting the poor and working class to the benefit of the rich. You can easily see where this is going to usher in one global economy and one global government, which, surprise, surprise, will result in a call for one global religion.

    And within the church is the progressive movement–contemplative prayer, which is nothing more than old-fashioned sorcery in the form of transcendental meditation; acceptance of evolution which denies the Creator His glory (an obvious agenda Satan has been working on for millenia); a tearing down of the health standards such as drinking alcohol, eating pork (I couldn’t believe it when I heard that one) and drinking tea and coffee; a direct attack on the 10 commandments and any other scripture that denies the progressives whatever pleasure they want to indulge in; and the use of Satan’s music in the church under the guise of “keeping the young people” or “attracting the worldly-minded”. Note: you cannot use Satan’s music to do God’s work–it is offering strange fire on the altar and is not acceptable to God. These are just a few of the signs.

    We know from SOP that the progressives will be shaken out and the church will be cleansed and go forward with the work–and it will be done. My heart bleeds for those who will have sold so cheaply their soul salvation. The biggest tragedy in the world is to have been given the truth and to despise it in favour of the world’s approval and/or acclaim.

    We seem to be like the hurricane-weary people in Florida who get so used to the calls for boarding up and evacuating, only to have the hurricane about half what they expected, that the next time, they refuse to leave and–BAM–they get hit with a big one.

    As a church we have anticipated the second coming to be very near, even at the door, for so long that we aren’t taking that event seriously anymore. We have become complacent. “My great-grandfather believed he would be alive when Jesus came and he is long dead–same with my grandfather and my father, and now I am looking at old age myself. And still He does not come.” The trouble with that attitude is that–BAM–it will come and catch us sleeping. We need to wake up and actively work to prepare ourselves, our families, our churches, and even the world for His coming.

    I pray that God will use whatever talents He has seen fit to give me in His work. That I may do what I can to speed up the process. I want to go home to heaven–to perfect peace and harmony.

    If there is anything I have learned from Educate Truth it is realizing how far from truth our church has strayed. I thank Shane and Sean for opening my eyes. I thought all SDAs were pretty much in agreement with the Bible and each other. I had no idea this tempest had been raging so long or had cut so deeply into our ranks.

    I know God will save as many as are willing to reform…I pray that will be a large number.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Here’s an old favorite joke of mine:

    Scientists: “Well, that’s it. We’ve solved the mysteries of life. We now have in our power to ability to manipulate the genome and, indeed, create new life forms. We don’t need God anymore. Who’ll go tell God we don’t need Him anymore?”

    Scientist X: I’ll go!

    Later, Scientist X and God meet….

    Scientist X: “Well God, that’s it. We can create life and don’t need you anymore. We wish you’d just go away.

    God: “Oh, no problem. I’d be happy to go away; under one condition.”

    Scientist X: “What’s that?”

    God: “Let’s have a creation competition to see who can create the best life form. If you win, I’ll go away, okay?”

    Scientist X: “Agreed!” (This will be easy thinks the scientist)

    God: “Okay, you go first”

    Scientist X reaches down into the soil to begin assembling the basic elements for life…

    God: “Hey, wait a minute. What do you think you’re doing? Go get your own dirt!”




    0
    View Comment
  28. Faith

    I could not agree more. My grandparents joined this church in 30s and cherished the message until they died in the 90s. Today, they “sleep” awaiting the call to the “first resurrecion” – unaware of the passage of time until then.

    In the light of truth, any sort of evolutionary idea about our origins is pure foolishness. The same Jesus Who had the power to create our great, great, great…(to the nth) grandfather Adam, has the power to bring all of those who trusted in His promise, back to life (eternal). “Science” that does not accomodate these facts is foolishness.




    0
    View Comment
  29. BobRyan wrote:

    “The monster “omega” problem makes Battle Creek pale into insignificance by comparison … 3SG 90-91 states that this problem is “the worst form of infidelity” because it is infidelity in disguise. I am sure you will agree that that places a level of importance, priority and significance on the subject that cannot easily be ignored.”

    ___________

    Rich replies:

    The Bible says, “Thy Word is true from the beginning” (Ps. 119:160).

    It is hints like 3SG 90-91 and Ps. 119:160 of what the omega problem might include that make some employ less flattery of Laodicea at this late hour and more alarm. It is becoming very telling at this point who is a watchman and who is a fire starter or cover for one.

    Many at first crying “no evidence” now are crying “evidence not admissible”. They are not so invisible as they would perhaps like to be, being more than gently invited away from a lukewarm state to stand for truth (Hint: Ps. 119:160; Gen. 1:1). Seventh-day Adventists should pass the test to stand for the “beginning of the creation of God”, the Son of God who speaks to the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:14).

    Three-alarm fire indeed sounded by those attentive to the issues at hand. Well done, watchmen. Yet…the fire still rages. Can we please get some water and additional support over here? There’s people dying in the flames. You have our prayers. Thank you.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  30. Phillip Brantley: Bob Ryan, I am sure you understand that Intelligent Design need not be taught exclusively by a faculty member of the theology/philosophy department.

    1. I understand that the theology department is totally out of position to deal with the subject matter in that simple I.D. illustration.

    Given the content of the material, they are in no position to make authorotarian claims about things such as the intra-flagellar transport mechanism in a religion class.

    2. But I will grant you this – even the theology and philosophy profs should be able to “watch” that illustrative video I provided where the entire nation had the opportunity to view an obvious demonstration of I.D.

    So err um “yes” watching that video – would be “in their domain” but reviewing the technical science of the I.D. argument – clearly not.

    Phillip Brantley said:

    One of the science teachers could teach the course,

    What is the rationale for having a science teacher teach “not-science”??

    Doesn’t it defeat the entire purpose of the claim that this is “not science” – when you admit that only a science teacher has the tools to evaluate the science claims about intra-flagellar transport mechanisms or “resistance to chloroquine involves 4–8 amino acids in a membrane transport protein”??

    Phillip said: Obviously, the class would be specifically targeted to science majors.

    Have have a not-science course targeting science majors – as if only science majors can understand “not science”??

    Phillip said: I don’t think that an untoward motive on the part of the science community is involved.

    Do you still recall that we are talking about “observations in nature”? If so – did you compare those claims to what even God himself says all mankind can clearly observe “in nature”?

    Look at all of the other non-sciences that have been voted off the island: alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, medical quackery…
    using magical elixirs, telepathy, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception

    Indeed all of them are junk – and all can easily be mastered by your religion and philosophy profs – no need to claim that “only science students” can be informed that witchcraft and sorcery are religion – not science.

    Is it your claim that God’s argument in Romans 1 regarding I.D. is equally junk?

    Did you actually look at that video demonstrating I.D.?

    You seem to be posting in an “any old excuse will do” fashion rather than addressing the hard questions raised.

    Phillip Brantley said:
    These non-sciences share a common characteristic with Creationism and Intelligent Design:

    Facinating! What would that characteristic be??

    Or are you not really serious about that allegation?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  31. Charles: Is there a parallel between this discussion board and the discussion between EGW and Kellog?
    Is there a difference between pantheism and “theistic evolution”? Is it possible that TE is just a more matured version of pantheism?
    How does this all relate to the “New Age Movement”?

    Evolutionism is shaping up to be the “Omega” of the Pantheism “alpha”.

    But the combination of (New Age – Evolution – signs+Wonders) that is coming up, proves to be the much expected “third element” predicted in the bible to join with the beast and false prophet.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  32. The cry goes up that religion/philosophy teachers have not much to say in the realm of science, whilst science teachers liberally affirm that Genesis supports their beliefs and they are in full harmony with the account as it was “meant to be read.”

    Hm.

    Let me think about this one. I think I’m on to something here.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  33. Shane Hilde: 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.

    I appreciated Shane’s reminder, but I think the rest of the story should be disclosed:

    Educate Truth’s Demands and Tactics

    ET demands three things: (1) that every employee of the Church believe in the traditional SDA viewpoints, not because of faith, but because of empirical evidence; (2) that every employee of the Church make clear, when discussing these issues, that the weight of evidence favors all interpretations held by the SDA Church; and (3) that every employee has an obligation to publicly support efforts to “expose” those individuals who fail to comply with the first two demands.

    The penalties for violating these three demands are severe (as documented here: http://tinyurl.com/3d4bkux
    ): you will be publicly exposed and held up to cyberharrassment and ridicule by your Church family. Consider the cases of a Geoscience Research Institute scientist and the President of Southern Adventist University. These two individuals actually BELIEVE and TEACH the traditional SDA viewpoint, but were roundly criticized for violating demands #1 and #2 [the GRI scientist, who said he accepts the Genesis account on faith rather than overwhelming evidence!], and demand #3 [the SAU president who disagreed with Educate Truth’s approach]. It’s unfortunate these two names were needlessly drawn into the public arena, where they could be tried and judged in the court of popular opinion. Very few of you had the courage to defend these individuals, so there is every reason to believe most of you sympathize with these three demands, which I find deplorable and uncharitable.

    And this is why I continue to challenge the “science” discussed at great length here. I believe the basis for demands #1 and #2 are distorted and exaggerated, which of course completely obliviates demand #3.

    I reiterate my claim: as a creationist myself, I’m not defending evolution; I’m defending your faith–the Church’s offical position that God’s word in scripture can be accepted at face value.




    0
    View Comment
  34. Rich Constantinescu: Seventh-day Adventists should pass the test to stand for the “beginning of the creation of God”, the Son of God who speaks to the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:14).
    Three-alarm fire indeed sounded by those attentive to the issues at hand. Well done, watchmen. Yet…the fire still rages. Can we please get some water and additional support over here? There’s people dying in the flames. You have our prayers. Thank you.
    God bless,

    Rich – thank you for that post.

    Well said.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  35. I’ve had the opportunity work and teach at two of our SDA tertiary institutions.
    One of then was unique. The vetting process done by the AdCom was quite thorough. It took more than just a buffed up resume’ and a letter of recommendation from my pastor to get hired there. Amongst the questions asked were things like Did my family practice daily worship?; What happened in 1844?; What was my view on popular sports?; What was my view on the Second Coming?; What is the Later Rain?; What kind of health and diet lifestyle did I lead in my home?

    A bit more in-depth than your usual interview. And the reason is that they wanted every faculty member to be on the same page. None of this two-faced business where one teacher and the school cafeteria promote vegetarianism yet the Physics or Bible instructor are inviting students over for hamburgers.

    There’s nothing so damaging as hypocrisy in education. Students see. The public sees it. We’ve got LSU faculty boozing it up and nobody’s got a problem? That’s hypocrisy.

    The ultimate concern at LSU should be the STUDENTS!!! The rights of the four with loose tongues are secondary to them.

    If nothing more is done, then Ricardo Graham and others have got some answering to do.




    0
    View Comment
  36. Rich wrote: “The cry goes up that religion/philosophy teachers have not much to say in the realm of science, whilst science teachers liberally affirm that Genesis supports their beliefs and they are in full harmony with the account as it was “meant to be read.”

    Hm.

    Let me think about this one. I think I’m on to something here.”

    ___________

    Rich again: I think I’ve got it. It is the, “Yours is mine and mine is mine” approach; “You don’t know what I know but I know what you know” case on the presupposition that “more (of anything) is better” and “the majority is (always been) right”. We are seeing the same old agrammatos accusation employed against Jesus and the apostles: “how does this man know how to read, having never learned?” (John 7:15; Acts 4:13)! Imagine that! Who would have thought, in 2011!

    The Babylonians decided the Chaldeans were scientists and the Jews decided Saul and Gamaliel were theologians while the presidents and princes rejected Daniel and the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus and the apostles for being un-credentialed and holding an opinion. Arguments undeserving of recycling!
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  37. All this gratuitous hullabaloo about ID (the science, not the Institute) not being science at all reminds me (as much a painter as pathologist) of how, in 1870, Impressionism was dismissed by the academics as hardly art at all, too undisciplined, too unrealistic, too parochial, too sloppy, too blobby. Disrespectful. Stupid. A sad waste of paint. And later, after Impressionism became the state religion like Christianity under Constantine, how John Singer Sargent’s painting was, if art, not FINE art, if art at all. Not creative, not loose enough, not unrealistic enough, not blobby. Mindlessly obsequious. A sad waste of talent. ID can’t be science, it’s too…whatever.




    0
    View Comment
  38. Earthquakes of historic proportions.
    Killer tornados.
    Rampant diseases and epidemics.
    Evolutionists teaching is SDA schools.
    Massive “worst” dust storm in Arizona.
    “Knowledge Increased”
    “Wickedness abounding”
    Dramatic increase of papal acknowledgement.
    Tsunamis
    Political upheaval worldwide.
    Wars, wars, and more wars.
    Lawlessness in abundance.

    What else?

    How can we as “Adventists” not be “on our (figurative) rooftops” screaming to the world: “Jesus is coming SOON. Get ready”

    There are some doing it and they get ridiculed – even from within “the church”.

    The climactic event of all of this is the second coming of Jesus.

    Millions in the world are expecting an “end of the world” or “end of the age” in 2012. I think it is setting the stage for the great personation of Jesus’ coming by Satan – the “anti-christ”. “The whole world” will be deceived (except for a few or “remnant”. The deceptions are powerful and we can see dramatic evidence that many will be taken in.

    This is the historic message of the SDA church. It is happening NOW. Yes, “NOW”. (Remember the little book by Merikay McLeod?) (sorry if I misspelled her name)

    NOW is the time for sealing a personal relationship with Jesus. NOW is the time for self-examination and prayerful repentance for our wrong-doings. NOW is the time to “lift up our heads” and watch for our Saviour’s return.

    “The calamities by land and sea, the unsettled state of society, the alarms of war, are portentous. They forecast approaching events of the greatest magnitude. The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones.” –9T 11

    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”
    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”
    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”

    Let’s get ready! He is coming…




    0
    View Comment
  39. Rich Constantinescu: The Babylonians decided the Chaldeans were scientists and the Jews decided Saul and Gamaliel were theologians while the presidents and princes rejected Daniel and the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus and the apostles for being un-credentialed and holding an opinion. Arguments undeserving of recycling!

    What kind of nonsensical rubbish is this? The problem we are dealing with is people who put humankind ahead of God. People who put philosophy and science ahead of scripture. People who put their own intelligence ahead of God. We have to submit our reason to a higher power and have the humility to declare on faith “I believe”. THis is the heart of the problem at La Sierra University where professors declare their intellects superior to Gods and instead of pointing to God they point to fossils and rocks and living creatures and make idols of them, as if we can learn more from these created things than from the creator himself.




    0
    View Comment
  40. Martha, the problem I addressed is that it is inconsistent to hold a caste system with regards to truth. It is frankly nonsensical for scientists to say theologians have no business in the matter, and then take a theological position themselves, after they just admitted they are not not “theologians”.

    What is a theologian by whose decision? What is a scientist? Who decides?

    Not that we cannot learn about our Creator from His creation (Ps. 19:1, 2) but we must not twist it to contradict revealed inspiration.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  41. Charles: “The calamities by land and sea, the unsettled state of society, the alarms of war, are portentous. They forecast approaching events of the greatest magnitude. The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones.” –9T 11
    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”
    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”
    “The final movements will be rapid ones.”
    Let’s get ready! He is coming…

    Good post!

    There is an interesting tie in to this thread here that you miss.

    In the events described above there are three entities that arise and are used to steer the world into the net of the enemy.

    Two of them we see on TV every day — the third one is coming and is apparently related to this topic.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. @Phillip Brantley:

    Phillip Brantley July 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    “The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.”

    *********
    Even the most adamant defenders of evolution admit that the universe has the appearance of having been intelligently designed. The human genome could not have been produced by spontaneous generation. The evidence favoring intelligent design is overwhelming, but evolutionists prefer to deny this simply because admitting what is patently clear to anybody with common sense would lead to the existence of a Creator, which science prefers to ignore and deny.




    0
    View Comment
  43. This seems a pretty sleepy thread right now, so I’ll post an observation here while everybody is otherwise occupied.

    Doctrinaire Evolutionists cringe and ram their fingers into their ears at any scientific talk of intelligent design. But, oh, the breathless rhapsodizing of the megaintelligence of Evolution and the extremely smart Evolutionary decisions on those pop-sci Evoramas on, say, the Science Channel! Makes your ears ring.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Pingback: WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation |

  45. Ervin Taylor: Mr. Pickle and Dr. Pitman:You got me!

    Dr.Taylor, I noticed on you biographical information on Adventist Today that you taught at a public university. I was wondering why you didn’t choose to teach at an adventist school. You seem to think you have a lot of information to teach us adventists. Were you ever a teacher at one of our SDA schools?




    0
    View Comment
  46. The ignorance of people like sean hild or others like him has no bounds. This website promotes nothing but fundamentalism and extremism while its authors pretend like they are defending SDA beliefs. This is something that extremists of any religous background do. They try to use peoples beliefs to promote their own dirty agenda. This website is a shame to SDA community.
    If dumb people who run this website had their way LSU would be nothing more than a very expensive bible school with no accreditation. No SDA family with enough brain cells would want to send their children to such a school.
    LSU is first and foremost an academic institution and it is affiliated with SDA church who provides 1/10th of its funding. That does not mean however that the church can use the university an instrument to brain wash people. All LSU students take atleast one year of religion courses where they study the bible. If the students are to read the Bible in biology class why not ask the religion professors to take over teaching biology as well? or perhaps it would be better to not teach biology at all.
    I have a great deal of respect for biology professors in LSU because they have to deal with the bs from ignorant people like sean hild.
    With no doubt Dr.Bradly was one of the best and most experienced, knowlegable, and dedicated professors in LSU and most of LSU biology students are proud of him for standing up to ignorant jackals like sean hilde & will miss him dearly.
    People who think they understand everything in this world and think that evolution is ‘junk science’ are the same type of people who thought the Earth was the center of the Universe during Galileo’s time.




    0
    View Comment
  47. channel: The ignorance of people like sean hild or others like him has no bounds. This website promotes nothing but fundamentalism and extremism while its authors pretend like they are defending SDA beliefs. This is something that extremists of any religous background do. They try to use peoples beliefs to promote their own dirty agenda.

    …If dumb people who run this website had their way (remainder of obligatory lib rant deleted here)

    Apparently we have more big-left-tent all-ad-hominem posters out there wanting to demonstrate that the big-left-tent is alive and well.

    Seriously – how do you guys ever expect to make a case for your POV if you are so intent on trash talking?

    You need to put serious ideas in your post – something that shows that you place enough thought into your ideas to be taken seriously.

    At the very least you should make some effort in that direction.

    Until then – may you at least find rest for your souls on this coming Sabbath.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  48. Holly Pham: Ervin Taylor: Mr. Pickle and Dr. Pitman:You got me!
    Dr.Taylor, I noticed on you biographical information on Adventist Today that you taught at a public university. I was wondering why you didn’t choose to teach at an adventist school. You seem to think you have a lot of information to teach us adventists. Were you ever a teacher at one of our SDA schools?

    Here is the beauty of it – Erv Taylor is a self proclaimed evolutionist that also lectures at LSU and is not at all timid about his pro-evolution priority.

    Sad to say – Kent is bent on claiming that Erv never promoted T.E and LSU over the last 1.5 years – while getting no confirmation at all from Erv that such a thing is true.

    I for one wish the two of them would get together more often and compare notes.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  49. Channel:

    Wow! Where do I start?

    “They try to use peoples beliefs to promote their own dirty agenda. This website is a shame to SDA community.”

    As far as ignorance goes, you have given us a very good example. You apparently are under the misapprehension that Shane Hilde (correct spelling) and Sean Pitman (two separate people, by the way) are advocating some kind of unique beliefs of their own. Have you any real idea what the SDA church stands for? Do you understand the stated beliefs of the SDA church? Do you even care? What exactly do you consider fundamentalism? It isn’t like SDAs have some sort of holy war on–we don’t go out on suicide missions or anything–if that’s what you’re thinking.

    “LSU is first and foremost an academic institution and it is affiliated with SDA church who provides 1/10th of its funding. That does not mean however that the church can use the university an instrument to brain wash people.”

    You do realize that if it hadn’t been for the hard work and sacrifice of the SDA church, LSU wouldn’t even exist? It is the right of our church to teach SDA principles in our own schools. If you don’t agree with the tennets of the SDA church, you are free to go elsewhere for whatever education you need. Are you aware that we don’t worship education, we worship God?

    Exactly what do you see as this site’s “dirty agenda?” As I see it, the founders of this site have righteously asked for an accounting of LSU as to what they are teaching in our biology classrooms. Bravo for them. They are doing the church a great service–exactly the opposite of the “shame” you think this site is to the church. Speaking as a member of this church, I am very grateful for Shane and Sean and this site.

    “I have a great deal of respect for biology professors in LSU because they have to deal with the bs from ignorant people like sean hild.”

    How very sad for you–respecting cheating and lying and undermining employers. Those aren’t qualities I particularly admire.

    And referring to the call for truth in education as “bs” shows that you have no respect for the SDA church or its principles. Apparently you share this attitude with the Dr. Bradley you so ardently admire. I understand you speak the same language.

    By the way, people who think evolution is junk science are what is known as right–just so you know.




    0
    View Comment
  50. BobRyan: Here is the beauty of it – Erv Taylor is a self proclaimed evolutionist that also lectures at LSU and is not at all timid about his pro-evolution priority.Sad to say – Kent is bent on claiming that Erv never promoted T.E and LSU over the last 1.5 years – while getting no confirmation at all from Erv that such a thing is true.I for one wish the two of them would get together more often and compare notes.in Christ,Bob

    Bob, So Dr. Taylor teaches at LSU? Why was he allowed to teach? Who was responsible for him getting a teaching job? I think that is absolutely shocking!




    0
    View Comment
  51. Channel provides another breath of fresh air on the EducateTruth(sic) web site.

    ” People who think . . . that evolution is ‘junk science’ are the same type of people who thought the Earth was the center of the Universe during Galileo’s time.”




    0
    View Comment
  52. First we get the “standard” all ad hominem all the time lib post.

    channel said: The ignorance of people like sean hild or others like him has no bounds. This website promotes nothing but fundamentalism and extremism while its authors pretend like they are defending SDA beliefs. This is something that extremists of any religous background do. They try to use peoples beliefs to promote their own dirty agenda.

    …If dumb people who run this website had their way… (remainder of obligatory lib rant deleted here)

    In addition to the standard ad hominem content – this post above is a “throw back” to the pre-GC2010 strategy of “pretending” that the SDA church was in favor with T.E. and only a few “fundamentalist extremists” in the church actually took the Bible seriously.

    That little smoke screen vanished at the GC session and since then we have not seen them attempt that trick again… until now.

    But of course that would not stop the much-to-be-expected standard big-left-tent affirmation of the form “we like ad hominem” – in response to such posts.

    Ervin Taylor: Channel provides another breath of fresh air on the EducateTruth(sic) web site.

    Is there any part of that affirmation of ad hominem – that is not “predictable as rain” by this time??

    Is it any wonder then that we ask them to post something that indicates the would like to be taken seriously?

    BobRyan: Seriously – how do you guys ever expect to make a case for your POV if you are so intent on trash talking?

    You need to put serious ideas in your post – something that shows that you place enough thought into your ideas to be taken seriously.

    At the very least you should make some effort in that direction.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  53. Holly Pham: Bob, So Dr. Taylor teaches at LSU? Why was he allowed to teach? Who was responsible for him getting a teaching job? I think that is absolutely shocking!

    I note that after your question – Taylor immediately posts his affirmation of ad hominem posting on this web site — when in fact he could have stepped up to the plate and addressed your question himself.

    In the mean time you can find the fact of his overt statement on evolution

    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-3/#comment-22005

    Ervin Taylor said:

    November 14, 2010
    “The time has come to take a clearly stated position and abandon all Orwellian language. Transparency is a must, and that is something we do not have.”

    You want transparency? How about this?

    “The Genesis narratives about “the beginning” are the sublime creations of a powerful literary and spiritual impulse which talked about the Hebrew God creating the entire world and everything in it in six days.

    Although the focus of attention for whoever wrote and/or edited these magnificent creation narratives was not about these specific points, the ancient Hebrews believed that these narratives said plainly that the world was created in six, 24-hour days, that the events related were real events and they were about real people and they all happened in the time frame that we would call less than 10,000 years ago–which to the Hebrews was a very long time ago.

    The Hebrews also believed that the world was flat and fixed in space. We now know that the world is round and moves in space. We also now know that God created the world and life over billions of years.

    The primary reason that the Adventist faith tradition officially must support the ancient Hebrew world view about “the beginning” is because Ellen G. White believed that
    and incorporated that idea into her master metanarrative—the Great Controversy.”

    Is that “transparent” enough?

    … Once a specific theological idea—such as a recent creation in seven, literal, contiguous days—gets grafted onto and encoded within a theological metanarrative or world view, it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for a faith community to admit that some misunderstandings about the details of that metanarrative is, from a factual perspective, wrong, even in the face of massive, empirical evidence to the contrary. This is especially difficult if its founding prophetic figure was responsible for creating the problem.

    And as for his participation in the LSU “all evolution all the time” agenda posted on Educate Truth.

    ErvTaylor lecturing for LSU on age of life on earth and Carbon 14 – in the Biology 404B class.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/syllabi/unstuhnr-404b-spring-qtr-2009-syllabus/

    And of course – Kent claims this does not happen at LSU at least not for 1.5 years.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. BobRyan:

    You need to put serious ideas in your post – something that shows that you place enough thought into your ideas to be taken seriously.

    At the very least you should make some effort in that direction.

    Bob the thoughts and messages in my previous post is clear as day and if you can’t see that perhaps that is why you do not have the capability to understand science. You guys knowingly or unknowingly are putting God vs Science when that is absolutely false.God gave us a brain not only to read the Bible but also to learn and discover the amazing World he has created.Science is the tool we use to discover those mysteries.

    Faith:
    Channel:

    Wow!Where do I start?

    Have you any real idea what the SDA church stands for?Do you understand the stated beliefs of the SDA church?Do you even care?What exactly do you consider fundamentalism?It isn’t like SDAs have some sort of holy war on–we don’t go out on suicide missions or anything–if that’s what you’re thinking.

    You do realize that if it hadn’t been for the hard work and sacrifice of the SDA church, LSU wouldn’t even exist? It is the right of our church to teach SDA principles in our own schools.If you don’t agree with the tennets of the SDA church, you are free to go elsewhere for whatever education you need.Are you aware that we don’t worship education, we worship God?

    How very sad for you–respecting cheating and lying and undermining employers.Those aren’t qualities I particularly admire.

    And referring to the call for truth in education as “bs” shows that you have no respect for the SDA church or its principles.Apparently you share this attitude with the Dr. Bradley you so ardently admire.I understand you speak the same language.

    By the way, people who think evolution is junk science are what is known as right–just so you know.

    Faith I tell you what I believe in. I believe in God, Jesus, and the holyspirit and there is nothing in this World that could change my mind about it.
    If you don’t know what fundamentalism means here is a description for you:
    Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines typically in reaction against the theology of Modernism.
    Thankfully people do not blow themselves up here to wage holy war but they do that cowardly act by making websites that launches attacks on scientists, professors, and anyone who does not agree with them.
    I agree with you that LSU exists because of hard work of many SDA members and you guys on this ridiculous website have picked up your swords to destroy the university they worked hard for. If the accreditation of LSU is taken away, its diplomas won’t be worth the paper they are printed on. Just in case you were not aware of that.
    And on your personal attack on Dr.Bradly I must say he is a very smart and brave man who had the courage to stand up to the lunatic wolves knowing that the fanatic morons will attempt any and every dirty trick they can to make him stop teaching BIOLOGY without censorship. That deserves much much respect.
    Cheating and lying is the work of people who run this website. Not those who try to teach Biology to students who are registered to learn BIOLOGY.Everyone knows you had it out for Bradly and you achieved your evil purpose through the lowest and dirtiest type of way.

    I absolutely think that teaching of the SDA principles in LSU should happen. I am all for it. But to teach it in Biology class is not okay. To censor scientific proof is not okay. To threaten and launch personal attacks on Biology faculty is not okay.

    What is happening on this website so unlike Christ and if you really do believe in Christ just know that one day you will have to answer for the damage that your ignorant actions and words have caused. Pretending to have been defending Christianity then will bear you even more punishment because using religion as an instrument to do harm to others is one of the biggest sins.

    I also strongly suggest you update your dictionary because apparently the meaning of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ has been switched in your medieval vocabulary.

    I pray to God that he gives you wisdom and to open your eyes.

    In Christ




    0
    View Comment
  55. Thank you Bob for the information on Dr. Taylor. I have noticed that he does not like to answer questions, but does like to make very disrespectful comments about this website and individuals.

    I still wonder how a person such as him could be a teacher at one of our institutions.




    0
    View Comment
  56. Professor Kent: ET demands three things: (1) that every employee of the Church believe in the traditional SDA viewpoints, not because of faith, but because of empirical evidence; (2) that every employee of the Church make clear, when discussing these issues, that the weight of evidence favors all interpretations held by the SDA Church; and (3) that every employee has an obligation to publicly support efforts to “expose” those individuals who fail to comply with the first two demands.
    The penalties for violating these three demands are severe (as documented here: http://tinyurl.com/3d4bkux
    ): you will be publicly exposed and held up to cyberharrassment and ridicule by your Church family. Consider the cases of a Geoscience Research Institute scientist and the President of Southern Adventist University. These two individuals actually BELIEVE and TEACH the traditional SDA viewpoint, but were roundly criticized for violating demands #1 and #2 [the GRI scientist, who said he accepts the Genesis account on faith rather than overwhelming evidence!], and demand #3 [the SAU president who disagreed with Educate Truth’s approach].

    Educate Truth attacked Gordon Bietz at Southern? When was this? Why? He’s a creationist at a very creationist university! And what is so wrong about accepting Genesis on faith?




    0
    View Comment
  57. @channel:

    channel July 25, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    “Thankfully people do not blow themselves up here to wage holy war but they do that cowardly act by making websites that launches attacks on scientists, professors, and anyone who does not agree with them.

    I agree with you that LSU exists because of hard work of many SDA members and you guys on this ridiculous website have picked up your swords to destroy the university they worked hard for. If the accreditation of LSU is taken away, its diplomas won’t be worth the paper they are printed on. Just in case you were not aware of that.

    And on your personal attack on Dr. Bradly I must say he is a very smart and brave man who had the courage to stand up to the lunatic wolves knowing that the fanatic morons will attempt any and every dirty trick they can to make him stop teaching BIOLOGY without censorship. That deserves much respect.

    Cheating and lying is the work of people who run this website. Not those who try to teach Biology to students who are registered to learn BIOLOGY. Everyone knows you had it out for Bradly and you achieved your evil purpose through the lowest and dirtiest type of way.

    I absolutely think that teaching of the SDA principles in LSU should happen. I am all for it. But to teach it in Biology class is not okay. To censor scientific proof is not okay. To threaten and launch personal attacks on Biology faculty is not okay.

    What is happening on this website so unlike Christ and if you really do believe in Christ just know that one day you will have to answer for the damage that your ignorant actions and words have caused. Pretending to have been defending Christianity then will bear you even more punishment because using religion as an instrument to do harm to others is one of the biggest sins.

    I also strongly suggest you update your dictionary because apparently the meaning of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ has been switched in your medieval vocabulary.

    I pray to God that he gives you wisdom and to open your eyes.

    *********
    When a blogger resorts to hurling insults such as “lunatic wolves” and “fanatic morons” towards those who have a differing opinion about origins, it tells me that said Individual is on the loosing side.

    Attacking the character and honesty of the opponent is a clear sign that the participant does not have valid arguments to bolster his views.

    You claim to be Christian, but I see evidence that contradicts such an assertion. You accuse those in charge of Educate Truth of “Cheating and lying.”

    Cheating and lying are based on motivation, which only God can determine. Are you perhaps a clairvoyant who can read the intentions of those who disagree with you? I believe that you owe an apology to both Sean and Shane.

    You are greatly concerned about accreditation, and this is understandable. The church is concerned about the school’s accreditation as well, but if the securing of wordily approval requires compromising on the most fundamental teaching of the church—creation—then the price is too high to ignore.

    As I look at nature I see adaptation to the changing environment, but I do not see evidence of evolution based on the theory of a common ancestor. No scientist has ever observed the transformation of bacteria into a higher form of life.

    Archeologists have dug north and south, east and west, and the evidence supports the theory that animals have adapted to new environments but have not evolved into higher and totally different forms of life.

    My ancestors have always been human and their common ancestor is God himself. We were made in the image of God instead of apes. I can predict with certainty that the descendants of chimpanzees will never evolve into humans and will never write poetry, build skyscrapers, or design spaceships which could carry them to the moon.

    Those who designed Educate Truth may not be perfect, but they are on the right side of truth regarding origins and they are supported by the Adventist Church worldwide.

    The church is growing outside of North America, while the same is stagnant in the U.S. This means that those believing in Creation instead of evolution are bound to prevail. You and Dr. Bradley seem to be on the loosing side, as far as I can see!




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Nic, You are also so right about how our church is growing. More of the third world people are joining the SDA church.

    The North American division is getting smaller in percentage as a part of our church. Most of the evolutionists are from the US. This doesn’t seem to be in the favor of the progressive wing.




    0
    View Comment
  59. channel: if you can’t see that perhaps that is why you do not have the capability to understand science

    Seems to affirm the comment Charles makes below…

    Charles: @channel:
    The spirit behind this post is self-evident and needs no comment. It plainly speaks for itself.

    oops! I think we were supposed to pretend not to notice 😉

    Oh well – I guess this is not the big-left-tent some had hoped it would become.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  60. Why no answer to my question about Gordon Bietz, the President of Southern? Who attacked him here? I thought he was a great administrator. And I am certain he believes in creationism.




    0
    View Comment
  61. I have not seen any attacks on Gordon Beitz or Southern. Ohhh that all of our schools would have the faithful leadership that SAU has been blessed with.




    0
    View Comment
  62. Lev 18 is pretty clear on the nation-destroying activities that some people think are “just fine” –

    In Lev 18 the point is made that even non-Bible-aware pagan nations will accelerate the close of their period of probation by engaging in certain sins.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.