The issue is not whether there is scientific data that …

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

The issue is not whether there is scientific data that evidences creation or the sudden emergence of life on earth in six literal days 6000 years ago. The issue is whether that evidentiary data has any probative value.

There is a significant difference between data that constitutes evidence for something and evidentiary data that has probative value.

If you do not understand this important distinction, then you risk falling into what I call the Holocaust Denier’s Trap. By way of illustration: There is a body of data that supports the assertion that the Holocaust never occurred, but that evidentiary data has no probative value. Accordingly, history teachers do not give equal time or any time at all to that viewpoint. This is an extreme analogy, but it makes the point well.

There is absolutely no probative scientific data that evidences creation or the sudden emergence of life in six literal days 6000 years ago.

I wish this were not the case. Perhaps in time, mainstream science will change. But right now, to present evidentiary scientific data for creation or sudden emergence, which is devoid of probative value, constitutes a perpetration of fraud upon the students and misconduct of the science teacher.

I realize that there are people in the Church who want an “equal time or at least a little time” approach to all views in the science classroom. I sympathize. I urge these individuals to become students of history. They need to study why this proposed pedagogical approach has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected in the courts, giving careful attention to the reasoning underlying the courts’ rulings.

Phillip Brantley Also Commented

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
I meant to state that creationism (which would include sudden emergence of life on earth in six literal days 6000 years ago) is a view that is not mainstream in terms of accepted scientific thought.


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Mr. Pickle, this is my response to your question:

1. It is irrelevant whether the presiding judge in a case possesses any expertise about the subject matter of the case. The judge does not decide the case based on his or her personal knowledge of the subject matter but on the evidence that is presented.

2. In our constitutional form of government, federal judges force public schools and other state actors to do certain things, namely in this particular case to desist and refrain from violating the first amendment to the United States Constitution.

3. Evolution is not a religious-based origin theory. It is mainstream science. Creationism is neither science, nor mainstream, and more problematically, a religious belief in which public school students have a right not to be indoctrinated.

This jurisprudence is not unduly contentious or controversial. These are not difficult cases to decide. A long string of court opinions demonstrates that the law in this area is well-established.


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Here is the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case that was decided in 1987: http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html. You can read the opinion and form your own judgments. I think the case was rightly decided.


Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.

[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]


Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []

Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.

Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.


Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.

I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.


Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.

It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.

In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.

Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.


La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.

Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?