Professor Kent: In my opinion, if people really did feel the …

Comment on NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community by BobRyan.

Professor Kent: In my opinion, if people really did feel the need for hearing about creationism, there are a myriad of classes which focus on the old testament/genesis offered at LSU by the religion department.

It is good news that some of the religion classes might actually be stepping up on this subject.

My understanding is that Blackmer said — LSU cannot silo off religion out of the classroom. All classes need to incorporate SDA faith since that is why we have SDA schools. (- at 1:35:35 )

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community

Bob Pickle: Philip,
A pastor at camp meeting with a background in science just told us that in 1987 the Supreme Court endorsed atheism as the only religious view of origins permitted in the classroom because of the separation of church and state.

In 2Cor 4:4 we are told that the devil is the “god of this world”. It is any wonder then that “birds come from reptiles” fictions is foisted onto the public as “observed science” by people in both the judicial branch of government (as if that was ever their mandate) and those atheists that are managing the NAS?

Surely we were not surprised by that?

And surely a sacrifice-all for evolutionism style of secularism would vote for evolution as the “more popular” brand of origins.

As for “What happened in nature” well we know that Genesis 1-2 has that covered.

As for “What is observed in nature” well we know that nobody is “observing” that “birds come from reptiles”.

But that does not stop those who are highly motivated to promote junk-science arguments on origins “As if they are science fact”.

in Christ,


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community

Professor Kent: What I am trying to say is that things have now changed, and I wish you folks would welcome that news rather than continue to deny it and maintain the ad hominen attacks not just on the biology faculty but on virtually all levels of Church administration.

We are seeing evidence of the results of that change in the “three stooges” event that Bradley mentioned earlier this week.

The “change” came in the form of trying to present LSU TE professors as now being more presentable, more civil toward the students that are convinced “SDAS”.

I think one LSU TE professor refers to that TE model as helping students “be conned into remaining SDA” even though biological science tells them that Genesis 1 is fluff and fiction.

The point is that the leopard is well behaved – but still the same four leopards as it turns out.

(Not at all suggesting that those four are the problem at LSU and that it is now fixed.)

in Christ,


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community

Faith: I find it very interesting that the guilty parties and their supporters find it “unChristian” that the general membership of the SDA church is told about the heresy going on in its own institution, but it is apparently not “unChristian” to teach heresy in our institution. What kind of logic is this? Give me a break

A very good summary of the situation!

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind