Perspectives from alleged LSU students

The following comments are from alleged students of La Sierra University. If their comments are any reflection of the general tenor of LSU students, it is no wonder Louie Bishop and Carlos Cerna have been the only students to speak out against the promotion of evolution at the university. Hopefully this is a misrepresentation of the type of faith that is being formed at LSU, but it appears that some students do reflect the attitudes and beliefs of these professors. These students could possibly be your kids after four years at LSU, but perhaps that’s what you’re paying for.

Neptunnus
November 8, 2009

I’m currently a student at LSU and I know personally that a great percentage of our campus fully supports the three professors under fire, and we also DON’T like outsiders trying to influence what goes on in our classrooms. We DON’T like how ignorant Adventists who don’t have PhD’s or other reputable qualifications criticizing what professors are teaching, who actually do have the qualifications. I find banishing the theory of evolution from our curriculum a form of brain washing. Intelligent design is just not backed up by scientific evidence. In addition, religion and science are two different methods of studying life. However, when you read the Bible literally, science and religion don’t go hand in hand. But, when you interpret Scripture and dig deeper, science can actually support the Bible. Most of us students are confused to why there is such a big controversy. In our eyes, Shane Hilde seems very unqualified to be making these accusations, especially when he exploited a recent graduate of La Sierra University to his advantage. Unfortunately for him, the paper that he used to display the unfair grading of the two LSU Biology Professors turned out to be plagiarized. I would love to address the protestors who will come to our campus this Wednesday and say, “Stand if you have a Bachelors. Remain standing if you have a PhD. Stay standing if you have a PhD in a science field. The ones who are still standing are the only ones qualified enough to be here protesting, and for the ones who are qualified obviously you’re PhD doesn’t mean s—.” But, as a well-mannered University student, I choose to ignore the ignorant and the meddling group of people who claim to value high-education. I am by the way, a conservative and practicing Adventist. Learning about the theory of evolution has actually strengthened my relationship and belief in God, not weakened it.

Michael
November 10, 2009

I am also a current student at La Sierra, and neptunnus basically summed up how the LARGE majority of students here feel. These “protests” are the work of a fringe group. Quite frankly, most Adventists in the United States understand that the scientific consensus is for evolution, but the church leadership pays lip service to creationism due to conservative elements within the world church.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

184 thoughts on “Perspectives from alleged LSU students

  1. We seem to have so many definitions of what a Seventh-day Adventist is, we could define an Adventist as a member of a church that could quite possibly believe in anything.

    Seventh-day Adventists as defined by the voted fundamental beliefs believe in a recent, six-day creation. Adventists do not believe in the theory of evolution. You can’t rightfully define yourself as a Seventh-day Adventist while rejecting the fundamental beliefs of the church.

    Is Adventism now pluralism? I think for many it may be just that.




    0
    View Comment
  2. Shane Hilde: Seventh-day Adventists as defined by the voted fundamental beliefs believe in a recent, six-day creation. Adventists do not believe in the theory of evolution. You can’t rightfully define yourself as a Seventh-day Adventist while rejecting the fundamental beliefs of the church.

    Is Adventism now pluralism? I think for many it may be just that.

    Shane,

    The question we must ask ourselves is, what level of inclusivity do we expect to have in the Adventist church? Are we a “big umbrella” organization encompassing a large number of views and perspectives, or are we more doctrinaire, more tightly focused? A requirement to sign off on all 28 fundamental beliefs to rightly be considered an Adventist is a tricky position, since the church reserves the ability to update them based on the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I am reminded of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, who was baptized on his profession of faith alone (Acts 8). The question we will have to grapple with is, whom will we exclude if they do not reach the same conclusions as we do?

    Also, I am interested in the comments from the two alleged LSU students. While it is of course impossible to know who they are, keep in mind that they represent two of over 1800 student points of view and are not indicative of trends or tendencies.

    As for Adventism being pluralism (or pluralistic), one look at the worldwide demographic consistency of the denomination will answer a resounding yes.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  3. Church leadership pays lip service to creationism due to conservative elements within the world church.

    Oh man I hope that is not true. I would like to see where he is getting his information from. Im wondering why the church leaders are confiding in Michael on their views of creationism and evolution?




    0
    View Comment
  4. These posters, if they really are LaSierra students, seem to have absorbed fully the attitude of their teachers. The worship of credentialism and the arrogant disregard for revealed religion sound exactly like modern academia. Sounds like they might be angling to become college teachers themselves; they’re already practicing the politically correct poses that they’ll need to strike in order to advance in academia.




    0
    View Comment
  5. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    A requirement to sign off on all 28 fundamental beliefs to rightly be considered an Adventist is a tricky position, since the church reserves the ability to update them based on the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I am reminded of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, who was baptized on his profession of faith alone (Acts 8). The question we will have to grapple with is, whom will we exclude if they do not reach the same conclusions as we do?

    A few observations:
    1. Click this link to see the actual 28 FB problem we are talking about –
    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9194

    2. The Ethiopian eunuch was a “believing” gentile – who already read and accepted scripture, the worship of the one true Creator God as identified in Genesis and the doctrinal truths found in scripture at that time. The “missing piece” was the prophetic revelation that the Messiah had come and had paid for the sins of the world. He did not need a lesson on Lev 11 clean and unclean meats. And he was certainly not a darwinist. (So not a case of evolution+the Bible)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  6. The “group think” aspect of these comments below cannot be ignored. It is clear that LSU is providing much more of an all-for-evolutionism brainwash event rather than actual science and critical thinking.

    However, when you read the Bible literally, science and religion don’t go hand in hand. But, when you interpret Scripture and dig deeper, science can actually support the Bible. Most of us students are confused to why there is such a big controversy. In our eyes, Shane Hilde seems very unqualified to be making these accusations,

    1. We see in that comment the “group think” idea that the Bible is not in harmony with actual science: An obvious regurgitation of what LSU students are being “told to think” at LSU. Notice that there is no example given (other than the presuming that the reader has blindly accepted “the happy fiction” about “birds coming from reptiles”).

    2. We see in that post the LSU “group think” idea that “we can bend the bible to the point of evolutionism” andas usual – it is done without showing any evidence that such Bible wrench-and-bend exercises preserve sound exegesis in rendering the meaning of the text.

    3. We see in that post the LSU “group think” idea that noticing a problem “should not be allowed” by someone who is not an evolutionist. (Or maybe the students at LSU are ALSO being told that no one with a degree in science questions BELIEF in evolutionism)

    In any case – a more startling indictment of the “effects” of LSU on SDA students could hardly have been imagined!! No wonder Ellen White calls that form of infidelity “the worst kind”.

    Are we as a denomination going to continue to be the “sponsors” of the “worst kind” of infidelity??? 3SG 90-91

    Really??

    I am also a current student at La Sierra, and neptunnus basically summed up how the LARGE majority of students here feel. These “protests” are the work of a fringe group. Quite frankly, most Adventists in the United States understand that the scientific consensus is for evolution, but the church leadership pays lip service to creationism due to conservative elements within the world church.

    Here our LSU “insiders” tell us even more about the propaganda machine furiously at work inside the walls of that well known Adventist institution. According to this comment – LSU students are “being LED to believe” that the majority of Adventists in America DO NOT accept Adventist doctrine on origins – but have instead sold out to BELIEF in the doctrine on origins taught by evolutionist evangelists such as those who are being honored and retained – and tenured at LSU!!

    The insider comment above is also telling us that LSU students “are being led” to believe that the SDA world wide administration is merely “paying lip service” to our statement of beliefs because of a tiny group of “bible believers” still left in the church.

    Certainly we would not expect that the LSU propaganda machine is in fact so efficient as to have brainwashed every student at LSU in favor of evolutionism. CERTAINLY there are to be found at LSU (even among some LSU faculty) those who have faith in the Bible view of origins rather than placing their faith in happy fictions about “birds coming from reptiles”.

    But the fact that they are successful “enough” to convince some number of LSU students that there is really only some tiny Adventist minority “out there” in America that still believe the bible, is an undeniable argument for immediate action by the LSU board of directors, and anyone who has an OUNCE of responsibility for this in our church leadership has just run out of “excuses” for not acting.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  7. As Seventh-day Adventists we are not concerned about being in the majority. The “majority” put Jesus on the cross. We love and believe in God’s Word and believe that it shines light on scientific matters as well as being a spiritual guide for our lives. We support our educational system in order to teach this to our young people. That is one of the reasons we believe in Adventist Education and support it financially as well as sending our sons and daughters to Adventists schools. The teaching of evolution as a first explanation of origins is a betrayal of the trust that we as members have in our institutions. Plain and simple, it is not what we are paying the professors to do.

    I understand that this situation is being dealt with at the NAD level this week.




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Shane Hilde: That is an interesting final sentence. Does that mean: that since it is not a “salvational issue”, we should feel more free to toss people out? After all “membership in the church is not a salvational issue.”
    Furthermore, Paul clearly indicates that being a functioning member is indeed a “salvational issue”. Salvation is about restoring relationships and we as ambassadors need to be very cautious about destroying relationships. The story of Ananias and Saphira clearly shows that God is capable of acting when exclusion is necessary. Our efforts would be better spent inviting people in, rather than driving them out.




    0
    View Comment
  9. @Martin Schratt: That’s not what I was intending. I think we become overly sensitive about disfellowshipping a member of the church. While it’s a big deal, it should in no way be equated with severing their opportunity of salvation. Only their personal decisions and actions can affect their salvation.

    Of course the church should always seek to be redemptive, but if all attempts to redeem the member fail and they are causing harm to other members it would be better to disfellowship them. Do they still have opportunity to change and return? Absolutely!

    Agreed we should be bringing people in.




    0
    View Comment
  10. David Kendall, BMus, MA: As for Adventism being pluralism (or pluralistic), one look at the worldwide demographic consistency of the denomination will answer a resounding yes.

    Professor Kendall,
    Which one of the 28 fundamentals do you have a problem with? As a professor of music I’m sure you can appreciate what a symphony orchestra would sound like if it was so pluralistic as to depart from the sheet music and the principles of harmony and melody etc. It might sound like ‘modern’ music that seeks to reflect the glaring disharmony of our apocalyptic civilization, or – that’s right, a devilish cacaphony like the choir in heaven when Lucifer lost his moral compass and departed from the heavenly faith.
    Adventism is certainly very diverse when it comes to ethnicity and cultures. You must know that the lionshare of Adventists world-wide are quite doctrinaire and intent on maintaining doctrinal purity. It is mostly in the developed/affluent Anglo-European areas where Laodiceans have the time and motivation to tamper with the ‘pillars’ of our faith – in the supposed name of diversity and inclusivism.

    There are certain non-negotiables in the Adventist faith. When it comes to a literal seven-day creation there is no question as to where the world church stands (and where our colleges should stand).
    Professors may cavil in their ivory towers and pockets of liberalistic and theistic thought – but their voice will never be added to the world-wide symphony of a diverse, yet unified Adventism (and rightly so).
    My advise is that you take a vacation to a healthier exclusive environment. A little time away from the inclusive Adventist ghetto and the rareified/polluted atmosphere of Riverside, CA might do the soul some good.




    0
    View Comment
  11. @Victor Marshall: I certainly appreciate the musical metaphors, but like most metaphors of that sort, I could note that musical instruments in the orchestra are of all different kinds that contribute to a harmonious whole. Regarding modern music and devilish cacophony (I have also read Samuele Bacchiocchi’s works), I have made the study of the history and reception of “bad” music a particular focus and there are definitely interesting conclusions to be drawn. But that is off-topic; music professors like to talk about music!

    Regarding your first question as to which of the 28 fundamental beliefs I have a problem with, I have an interesting contribution to make to this discussion. I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine) to discuss some of these topics. Since he has been “outed” as a ringleader or instigator of an evangelical evolutionary agenda at LSU (according to some posters here), I thought it would be instructive to hear what he had to say. Among other things, we discussed the 28 fundamental beliefs. Dr. Guy was the secretary of the committee that drafted the document, which of course then included 27 items, and he was instrumental in crafting them. This is sort of like speaking to one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this committee, which met at Andrews University in 1980, was to create a document that would encompass the broad spectrum of Adventist belief. As such, it was intended to be a descriptive document (describing the realities already existing “on the ground”) rather than prescriptive (dictates or rules determining membership). It was also a truly collaborative document, with no one person able to dictate or “push through” a belief; if there was not consensus in the committee, then it was not included (the issue of unbaptized children taking communion is one example). The beliefs were compiled by the committee, and then forwarded to be read and edited in two GC sessions, one of them the 1980 worldwide GC session, voted and accepted. This puts an interesting twist on the concept of the non-negotiable.

    There is a humorous story relating to the number of fundamentals (27). Dr. Guy thought that 27 was a much more interesting number than 26 or 28, since it is 3 cubed (3 x 3 x 3) and so that number was chosen. What has not turned out to be funny to those that drafted the document was that the fundamental beliefs have been used as a “litmus test” or as a set of prescriptions, in some cases causing members to be disfellowshipped. This was never the intent of the committee or of the General Conference when the fundamentals were adopted, and these misuses have caused no little sorrow among them in the 30 years since. Also, Dr. Guy quipped that the term “fundamental” is the wrong word for the 27/28, as it is difficult to have so many items as truly foundational, in the same way that it is not really possible to have 27 close friends.

    The irony in this discussion is that Dr. Guy has been rather maligned for an alleged disloyalty to the fundamental beliefs when he had a part in writing them. He and I both also realize that many of his critics will not take him at his word, or will mischaracterize his statements and/or intentions. Neither he nor I have any control over that of course, and so can only make statements with the knowledge that we know we are being candid.

    Finally, regarding the rarefied and polluted atmosphere in Riverside, I have ample opportunity to “vacation” away as I work all over Southern California, and spend much time back home in Arizona, Taiwan (where I served as a missionary) and the Philippines (where I conduct my research and where the other half of my family lives). All of this, including my time in and around LSU has done my soul much good, by the grace of God.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  12. David:
    The fact that Dr. Guy was part of the team that crafted the explaination of our held beliefs but now does not believe in them doesn’t seem like a good thing to me. Your logic is a little rusty.




    0
    View Comment
  13. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    David Kendall, BMus, MA says:
    February 17, 2010 @Victor Marshall: …

    Regarding your first question as to which of the 28 fundamental beliefs I have a problem with, I have an interesting contribution to make to this discussion. I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine) to discuss some of these topics. Since he has been “outed” as a ringleader or instigator of an evangelical evolutionary agenda at LSU (according to some posters here), I thought it would be instructive to hear what he had to say. Among other things, we discussed the 28 fundamental beliefs. Dr. Guy was the secretary of the committee that drafted the document, which of course then included 27 items, and he was instrumental in crafting them. This is sort of like speaking to one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this committee, which met at Andrews University in 1980, was to create a document that would encompass the broad spectrum of Adventist belief.

    The above statement is not entirely accurate if one is to actually believe Fritz Guy’s own account of that history. Dr. Guy’s actual role by his own admission was to hijack the process for the 1980 document entirely.

    According to Guy – (as Guy himself reported it at Evr Tayor’s web site) there was never any such intention by the GC Exec Committee – to have Guy come in and “draft from scratch” a statement of beliefs for the Adventist church.

    RATHER – what actually happened is that the Conference Exec Comm edited the then existing 1930’s statement of belief adding emphasis for creation week and a few other details – but sticking to the format of the then-existing set of beliefs. They then handed it to Andrews for review to be sure they had not inserted some kind of blunder into the text to be voted at the 1980 session.

    To their great surprise — what the Exec Comm got back from Andrews was a total rewrite. And as Fritz Guy notes – it was then HE that was “surprised” that the Exec Committee instead of blowing a gasket — simply accepted the AU rewrite letting the 1980 GC session edit and then approve what had rolled off the Fritz Guy assembly line.

    So whatever Guy’s motives and agenda was in hijacking the process, and whatever the GC Exec Committee’s rationale for not stopping to look closely at what had come back to them — the deed was done.

    As such, it was intended to be a descriptive document (describing the realities already existing “on the ground”) rather than prescriptive (dictates or rules determining membership).

    The fact that Guy’s group took that limitting view seriously – may be all that stood between the Church and total disaster. I have breahed a thankful prayer of more than “a little” appreciation regarding God’s overruling providence in that regard.

    It was also a truly collaborative document, with no one person able to dictate or “push through” a belief; if there was not consensus in the committee, then it was not included (the issue of unbaptized children taking communion is one example). The beliefs were compiled by the committee, and then forwarded to be read and edited in two GC sessions, one of them the 1980 worldwide GC session, voted and accepted.

    It is like amending the constitution – not something you want done in a maverick-leads-the-way model. We can again be thankful that no one person at Andrews was given complete control.

    What has not turned out to be funny to those that drafted the document was that the fundamental beliefs have been used as a “litmus test” or as a set of prescriptions, in some cases causing members to be disfellowshipped. This was never the intent of the committee …

    Indeed – Dr Guy seems to be the victim of his own handiwork at this point in the story (Given his pro-evolution and pro-gay-agenda public statements in recent years)

    The irony in this discussion is that Dr. Guy has been rather maligned for an alleged disloyalty to the fundamental beliefs when he had a part in writing them. He and I both also realize that many of his critics will not take him at his word, or will mischaracterize his statements and/or intentions.

    Apparently “critical thinking” is in short supply still at LSU.

    The “inconvenient detail” is that Dr Guy himself has published his own statements on the fact that our 28 FB document needs to CHANGE to accomodate his now public pro-evolution and pro-gay-agenda positions. He freely admits that these statements are NOT in keeping with the existing document.

    NOW – from your text above – it “appears” that he wants to blame conservatives “for noticing that detail”????

    Where is the logic in that??

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. Well, it now seems clear that LSU admin. and board are going to obsfucate, drag their feet, and otherwise do nothing to remedy the situation. Now we know that “SDA” schools will not consistently show how the evidence can support the Bible. We know faith is neither a criteria for hiring or releasing teachers. We know our children are being given the world’s view as the only intelligent explanation of life and science. We know that people, even with advanced degrees, will be considered a lunitic fringe for daring to call the Bible true.

    Some questions.
    1. Is the Bible the basis for SDA lives?
    2. Do we have any other gods before Jehovah that we are serving?
    3. Are we still committed to saying with a loud voice to worship Him who made heaven and earth, the seas and the fountains of waters?
    4. Is the goal of our schools to be accepted by the world or by the Word? Is it ok to backpedal our beliefs in order to gain accreditation?
    5. Does one have to have a Ph.D in naturalistic science to be able to use logical processes?
    6. Are the rank and file tithe-paying members to be considered outsiders who have no right to say anything about what happens at LaSierra or our other schools?
    7. What should we do with administrators who show more support and loyalty to their staff than to the beliefs and will of God and those they are supposed to work for?
    8. Can we find God-fearing Bible-believing administrators?
    9. Should we close our schools? If an Adventist education is no longer Adventist, why keep it?

    I have spent all my life supporting SDA eduation with my time, money, and energy. It is with great sadness that I have followed this discussion.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @BobRyan:

    I am unable to reconcile the statements regarding the drafting of the 27 fundamental beliefs that assert, on one hand, that no one maverick had complete control of the process, but on the other hand, characterize the process as hijacked by Fritz Guy and the final product as “rolled off the Fritz Guy assembly line.” We do possess enough skill in critical thinking at LSU to be confused by that line of reasoning.

    Regarding the assertion that it “appears” that Dr. Guy wants to blame conservatives “for noticing that detail” (the quoted text does not come from my post, so I am unsure of its source), neither I nor Dr. Guy have suggested this. The statement should be understood to mean that Dr. Guy’s critics (which may include conservatives, liberals and all shades of each) will likely disbelieve and/or mischaracterize his statements. Case in point.

    It is also not helpful to make the assumption that, if an academic or layperson does not come to a certain set of conclusions, that they lack critical thinking skills. I have noticed that there are two attitudes among posters to this forum, each representing a separate general set of views which are mutually exclusive. One is a fear or distrust of high academic achievement, which is construed to align itself with the world. The other is the characterization of such academics as inadequate or incompetent, due also to their academic achievement. Again, our faculty are respected experts in their respective fields, and hold advanced degrees from respected (by the world, at any rate) institutions, who generally possess the humility that comes from the realization that the more we know, the more there is to learn. They are also committed Christians and Adventists, and remain so despite suggestions to the contrary. I myself am witness to this fact, having spent my time on the LSU campus in different capacities (minus time overseas) since 1998.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  16. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    David Kendall, BMus, MA says:
    February 18, 2010 @BobRyan:

    I am unable to reconcile the statements regarding the drafting of the 27 fundamental beliefs that assert, on one hand, that no one maverick had complete control of the process, but on the other hand, characterize the process as hijacked by Fritz Guy and the final product as “rolled off the Fritz Guy assembly line.” We do possess enough skill in critical thinking at LSU to be confused by that line of reasoning.

    Well number one – I am thankful for any sign of critical thinking there that I can get – so no complaints from me on that point.

    Number two – it was Fritz Guy himself that stated that the INTENT of the Exec Committe in handing their revisions to Andrews WAS NOT to have Andrews toss it out the window and “start from scratch”. Thus it is not too difficult to see the “process hijacked” component in that inconvenient detail stated by Fritz Guy himself.

    Number three – it is not too difficult to follow the point that though the process was hijacked – the overrulling providence of God was such that “even so” no one person was allowed to dictate “a prescription” but rather the group bound themselves to “a description” of existing beliefs.

    The reason I raise Fritz Guy’s own admitted details here is that your post made it “appear” that the original intent was to have Guy’s group come up with whatever they felt was the belief of the church and then give them control over how that set of beliefs was to be used by the Church.

    No such intent was handed to them.

    Regarding the assertion that it “appears” that Dr. Guy wants to blame conservatives “for noticing that detail” (the quoted text does not come from my post, so I am unsure of its source)

    A literary device on my part – sorry for the confusion. Quotes can either be used for emphasis or for a verbatim reference. As you may have noticed – I put all the verbatim references inside the blockquote html blocks when using it in my post.

    , neither I nor Dr. Guy have suggested this. The statement should be understood to mean that Dr. Guy’s critics (which may include conservatives, liberals and all shades of each) will likely disbelieve and/or mischaracterize his statements. Case in point.

    The “detail” being missed there is that my response about Guy’s blaming conservatives for noticing the details – is about the fact that Guy himself claims our 28 FB need to change to conform to his recently published positions on evolutionism and gay rights. Yet your post made it appear that Guy as the mastermind of the 27FB should not be accused of saying anything that contradicts them.

    It is also not helpful to make the assumption that, if an academic or layperson does not come to a certain set of conclusions, that they lack critical thinking skills.

    I try to point to the “gap in logic” when I highlight issues where some idea is being “swallowed whole” without taking the time to at least “look”.

    I am noticing a form-over-function style-over-substance focus in this latest post of yours. Is that your primary interest at this point?

    I have noticed that there are two attitudes among posters to this forum, each representing a separate general set of views which are mutually exclusive. One is a fear or distrust of high academic achievement

    Is it your wild claim that those posting here in opposition to LSU views on evolutionism – do not themselves also provide examples of “high academic achievement”. If so – how did you come to that level of certainty?

    Or do you have some quote from members here saying “we oppose high academic achievement”??

    The other is the characterization of such academics as inadequate or incompetent, due also to their academic achievement.

    Again – you provide an accusation without any substantive quote from anyone much less some kind of analysis showing that this accusation factually and accurately identifies a trend here.

    Again, our faculty are respected experts in their respective fields, and hold advanced degrees from respected (by the world, at any rate) institutions, who generally possess the humility that comes from the realization that the more we know, the more there is to learn.

    That is the LCD componant that we would expect from all universities — both Adventist and public. So lowest common denominator “noted”.

    As has been stated before – if the goal of LSU administrators is to “offer the best public university education that Adventist tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy” then they are “right on track”.

    They are also committed Christians and Adventists, and remain so despite suggestions to the contrary. I myself am witness to this fact, having spent my time on the LSU campus in different capacities (minus time overseas) since 1998.

    The claim here (as I am sure you are aware) is not that ALL LSU faculty have sold out to evolution.

    There has also been no claim here that local churches are known for disfellowshipping faculty members if those members teach evolutionism. So clailming that the evolutionist evangelists among the LSU faculty are still registered on the books in a local Adventist church is not addressing a substantive point in the discussion so far.

    The actual points raised have dealt with specific details regarding the conflict between belief in evolutionism and, by contrast, acceptance of the Adventist 28 Fundamental beliefs.

    Here is link to the most recent place on EducateTruth where those gaps have once again been listed.
    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9194

    The substantive points raised have included the 3SG 90-91 issue of “disguised infidelity” being the “worst kind” and then asking if the Adventist church really wants to be in the position of institutionalizing the “worst kind” of infidelity.

    The substantive points raised here address the issue of church administrators needing to take some ownership for the chaos being promoted under their leadership – and for things like the claimed LSU student posts here that indicate students are being told by LSU faculty that SDA church leadership pays only “lip service” to Adventist Beliefs on origins.

    Other substantive points address things like the “loss of souls” at the university due to the impact of what Ellen White called “the worst kind of infidelity”. We have also talked about the history of incidents where parents and students have raised objections and have been brushed aside.

    And of course – we have also addressed the junk-science nature of wild claims about “birds coming from reptiles” and the rich history of confirmed hoaxes and frauds that have been so useful in propping up that line of pro-evolutionist storytelling.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. David Kendall, BMus, MA: Finally, regarding the rarefied and polluted atmosphere in Riverside, I have ample opportunity to “vacation” away as I work all over Southern California, and spend much time back home in Arizona, Taiwan (where I served as a missionary) and the Philippines (where I conduct my research and where the other half of my family lives). All of this, including my time in and around LSU has done my soul much good, by the grace of God.

    David,
    Please forgive me. Apparently I made a misdiagnosis. The source of your problem now appears to be that you have fallen under the influence of a non-fundamental theologian with expertise outside of your own musical field. “I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine)… He and I both also realize… Neither he nor I… we know we are being candid… neither I nor Dr. Guy have suggested this…”
    Perhaps Dr. Guy (who is an ‘expert in his respective theological field’) could speak for himself here on educate truth as to why he feels justified in challenging such fundamental pillars of the Adventist faith as heterosexual marriage and the 4th commandment (both finding their fundamental foundation in Eden).
    Finally – I have never read Bachiocchi’s book on music.

    I ask the question once again, which ones of the 28 do you have a problem with?




    0
    View Comment
  18. I believe you can be a committed Christian and maintain a belief in theistic evolution, but not a committed Seventh-day Adventist. I think our church summed up the reasons rather well:
    From this view of the world flows a series of interlocking doctrines that lie at the core of the Seventh-day Adventist message to the world: a perfect world without sin and death created not long ago; the Sabbath; the fall of our first parents; the spread of sin, decay and death to the whole creation; the coming of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, to live among us and rescue us from sin by His death and resurrection; the Second Coming of Jesus, our Creator and Redeemer; and the ultimate restoration of all that was lost by the Fall.
    The F&SC specifically reviewed theistic evolution and found it lacked theological coherence with the whole of Scripture and revealed inconsistencies with the rest of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. They concluded that theistic evolution is an unacceptable substitute for the biblical doctrine of creation held by the church:
    “Creation is a foundational pillar in the entire system of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine—it bears direct relationship to many if not all other fundamental beliefs. Any alternative interpretation of the creation story needs to be examined in light of its impact on all other beliefs. Several of the Faith and Science Conferences reviewed alternative interpretations of Genesis 1, including the idea of theistic evolution. These other interpretations lack theological coherence with the whole of Scripture and reveal areas of inconsistency with the rest of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. They are therefore unacceptable substitutes for the biblical doctrine of creation held by the church.”
    They also affirmed “the interlocking nature of the doctrine of creation with other Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.” This was accepted by the GC Executive Committee.
    For Seventh-day Adventists it’s not enough to merely believe God is the creator of all things. Because this biblical doctrine is so intertwined with just about every fundamental belief we hold, I believe a professor cannot maintain a faithful dissent while inadvertently rejecting so many of the other core beliefs of our church and then promoting opposing views in his class.
    Continued in next post…




    0
    View Comment
  19. Continuation…
    With that said, here are the points of contention I have with the biology department at LSU.
    1. The evidence for a recent creation is not taught or promoted in any known biology course.
    2. The theory of evolution is the ONLY scientific worldview being promoted in the biology department that we know of.
    3. The professors themselves reject the church’s position, thus making them inadequate to to give due diligence to the evidence for a recent creation.
    4. Extreme cases of derision have occurred toward students who believe in creation on campus. For example, at the conclusion of a Breakout session at LSU (Feb. 2009) a group of about four students (creationists) asked the professor, who had just finished a talk negating a recent, six-day creation, on what basis then do we observe the Sabbath. This angered another biology professor in the front row. Things escalated into yelling. Yes, the professor was yelling at these students. He soon lost control and said, “Your kind of thinking drives planes into buildings!” Other words such as stupid and ignorant were directed toward them. Chris Olmo, one of the four, said, “I felt betrayed because I couldn’t even ask a question. If I ask a question they call me ignorant. We do believe in science we just don’t believe in evolution. How are you supposed to learn in that kind of environment.” This was an extreme, but there have been other incidents which could be labelled minor in comparison. Seventh-day Adventist students should feel free to express their beliefs without this kind of treatment.
    5. There is good experiential evidence that strongly suggests that the promotion of theistic evolution potentially leads to an agnostic or atheistic worldview.
    I’d prefer that no one is fired or compelled to resign, but if LSU administration doesn’t start providing support for these students by giving them the classes they’re paying for and creating an environment supportive of their beliefs without derision and professors who know and understand the evidence for creation then these professors should be fired for their non-complience in the above areas.




    0
    View Comment
  20. I agree with the use of the photo from the Planet of the Apes movie, which is applicable to this thread. Is it meant to fitly represent all those who mistakenly believe that they are highly evolved? I must agree with the apes whenever they are right. To fairly represent the most dogmatic among us here is a memorable quote from the movie, which I interpret as a true judgment against fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventists:

    CORNELIUS: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes] Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Actually the photo of the Planet of the Apes is a misrepresentation of the current macroevolutionary thinking. Since we are not descended from apes, but we have a common ancestor. Which Im sure Shane knows 🙂 The point being the same, descended from animals vs created just as you see us.

    My feeble attempt at disarming Eugene’s always interesting perspective. 🙂




    0
    View Comment
  22. Rick Baskett: Actually the photo of the Planet of the Apes is a misrepresentation of the current macroevolutionary thinking.

    Rick, I have seen all the Planet of the Apes movies, you have not. Unquestionably, the possibility expressed in those movies—that gorillas and chimpanzees continue to evolve and in the distant future will take over the planet and enslave humans—is perfectly consistent with Darwin’s myth.




    0
    View Comment
  23. I always enjoy the love and character that you show to those you interact with Eugene and the blatant disregard to all incivility. I do feel like a monkey compared to you and I appreciate looking at the bottom of your nose as you put me in my place. Your graciousness abounds and I can understand why all who you come in contact with want to be a Christian so that they can be just like you since you are definitely a window into Jesus’ character.

    Im pretty sure I have seen all the planet of the apes movies and I have absolutely no idea how you would know whether I have or not.. that actually baffles me. People who have known me all my life don’t even know that. You are right, my apologies, the scenario in the planet of the apes is indeed consistent with Darwin’s myth. I stand corrected. I was focused on the macroevolutionary argument that we have common ancestors, that we’re not descended from monkeys, that I forgot to take into account the movie when I typed my message out. I apologize and will delete my message since it was not accurate.

    Hey Shane, looks like your Delete functionality is not working. I keep getting an error.




    0
    View Comment
  24. Rick Baskett: I always enjoy the love and character that you show to those you interact with Eugene and the blatant disregard to all incivility. I do feel like a monkey compared to you and I appreciate looking at the bottom of your nose as you put me in my place. Your graciousness abounds and I can understand why all who you come in contact with want to be a Christian so that they can be just like you since you are definitely a window into Jesus’ character.

    You are right, my apologies, the scenario in the planet of the apes is indeed consistent with Darwin’s myth.

    Rick Baskett: My feeble attempt at disarming Eugene’s always interesting perspective.

    I’m ashamed of watching all the Planet of the Apes movies ages ago because I was persuaded by a local TV station into thinking that I should observe “Ape Week.” And you were insulted and somehow hurt by my conclusion, based on your expressed misinterpretation, that you couldn’t have possibly seen this particular use of Darwinian myth on the silver screen?




    0
    View Comment
  25. No you pointed out where I was wrong and you were right. I have no problems with that. It’s the spirit that most all of your posts have. It’s done with malevolence and belittles those you are responding to. Maybe that is not your intent, but that is what I see from most all your posts.

    I would like to apologize, I don’t care much for sarcasm and I laid it on pretty heavily. It was a horrible representation of God and his grace. I should have pointed out the arrogance that you show in the things you write in a more gracious spirit. It’s good to think we are right, because that is what belief is isn’t it? But how we communicate those beliefs can either help people to focus on the beliefs, or if communicated badly can turn people away from even considering the belief no matter how much truth is in them.

    I am sorry for the way that I handled myself. I do want to reiterate that I have no problems with being wrong, as soon as I realize it I am wiser for it. Who doesn’t want to be wiser? 🙂




    0
    View Comment
  26. My recollection of “Planet the Apes” (the original 1968 version with Charlton Heston) was that it was even stronger in its support of Darwinism than Eugene or Rick have indicated. The apes who exalted their own “holy scriptures” were shown to be wrong about the origin of their race, and of the human race. Moreover, they shut down an archeological dig in the “forbidden zone” precisely because it was turning up facts contradictory to what their scriptures taught them about their origins and the origins of humans, and at the end of the film they actually destroy the dig with dynamite. So the defenders of holy writ were depicted as rigidly anti-science and anti-knowledge.

    So, it was almost a parable condemning people who uphold holy scripture as opposed to what is dug up by scientists. Mind you, it’s been a couple of years since I’ve seen it, but I’m pretty sure about these plot points.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Lest the thread get too sidetracked —

    A reminder of one of the substantive posts made recently

    @Shane Hilde:

    4. Extreme cases of derision have occurred toward students who believe in creation on campus. For example, at the conclusion of a Breakout session at LSU (Feb. 2009) a group of about four students (creationists) asked the professor, who had just finished a talk negating a recent, six-day creation, on what basis then do we observe the Sabbath. This angered another biology professor in the front row. Things escalated into yelling. Yes, the professor was yelling at these students. He soon lost control and said, “Your kind of thinking drives planes into buildings!”

    Other words such as stupid and ignorant were directed toward them. Chris Olmo, one of the four, said, “I felt betrayed because I couldn’t even ask a question. If I ask a question they call me ignorant. We do believe in science we just don’t believe in evolution. How are you supposed to learn in that kind of environment.” This was an extreme, but there have been other incidents which could be labelled minor in comparison. Seventh-day Adventist students should feel free to express their beliefs without this kind of treatment.

    Your thoughts –




    0
    View Comment
  28. Victor Marshall:
    David,
    Please forgive me. Apparently I made a misdiagnosis. The source of your problem now appears to be that you have fallen under the influence of a non-fundamental theologian with expertise outside of your own musical field. “I recently sat down with Dr. Fritz Guy in his office (which is near mine)… He and I both also realize… Neither he nor I… we know we are being candid… neither I nor Dr. Guy have suggested this…”
    Perhaps Dr. Guy (who is an ‘expert in his respective theological field’) could speak for himself here on educate truth as to why he feels justified in challenging such fundamental pillars of the Adventist faith as heterosexual marriage and the 4th commandment (both finding their fundamental foundation in Eden).
    Finally – I have never read Bachiocchi’s book on music.I ask the question once again, which ones of the 28 do you have a problem with?  

    Hi Victor,

    I forgive you. However, I think your attempt at a diagnosis is the search for a solution without a problem. I have no problem with any of the 28 fundamental beliefs, and have not made any specific statements regarding my opinions of them in my posts. Regarding Dr. Guy’s influence on me, the recent meeting in his office was probably the first conversation we have had on a spiritual topic (his respective field of expertise) since I took an honors seminar with him (a philosophy course) over ten years ago. Our normal conversations are usually about our families or music, so in some sense I can be said to have influence on him! I also reserve the right to disagree with him at any time and on any point, and I have on occasion done so. To have the freedom to discuss, disagree and wrestle with issues in a respectful manner is the essence of a scholarly community.

    I suspect your diagnosis stems from my use of the first-person plural (he and I; we; Dr. Guy and I) in describing our conversation. That was based on the fact that I was relating portions of the conversation in which we both made a significant contribution or we agreed on a point. Also, those were portions of the conversation for which I asked, and received, permission to relate to others.

    Finally, regarding the comment I made about your musical metaphor and Samuele Bacchiocchi, the term devilish cacophony sounded so much like Bacchiocchi and other authors in his edited volume on music that I assumed you were familiar with the work. My apologies, though you may be interested in reading his book “The Christian and Rock Music: A Study on Biblical Principles in Music.” I disagree with most of the assumptions and conclusions, but it is an interesting read for becoming familiar with the terms of the debate.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  29. Bob,

    I do not have the time or inclination to make a point-by-point analysis of your point-by-point analysis of my post, as such an undertaking would be not only tedious but steal focus away from what you have correctly termed the substantive points in this general discussion. But I will address just a couple of points.

    BobRyan: I am noticing a form-over-function style-over-substance focus in this latest post of yours. Is that your primary interest at this point?

    In much of academic writing, form and function are inseparable, just as beautiful gifts are wrapped in beautiful wrapping paper. An engagement ring would make less sense wrapped in a burlap sack. My purpose, as it were, is the same as I privately related to Shane Hilde when I proposed posting on this forum: to do my part to represent a LSU faculty member’s perspective, and to do my part to ensure that a debate that is academic and spiritual in scope maintains a tone that is faithful to the high calling of both disciplines. Otherwise, debate and disagreement will become petty and vulgar, shaming Jesus Christ and those of us called by His name. I need not quote examples.

    BobRyan: Is it your wild claim that those posting here in opposition to LSU views on evolutionism – do not themselves also provide examples of “high academic achievement”. If so – how did you come to that level of certainty?

    Or do you have some quote from members here saying “we oppose high academic achievement”??

    I do not have such quotes; my statement is based on my perceptions gained from reading through the threads. A perception is not a claim, wild or otherwise, though I could have made that more clear. Also, fear and mistrust are not the same as opposition.

    BobRyan: There has also been no claim here that local churches are known for disfellowshipping faculty members if those members teach evolutionism. So clailming that the evolutionist evangelists among the LSU faculty are still registered on the books in a local Adventist church is not addressing a substantive point in the discussion so far.

    I did not state that the LSU faculty were still registered or on the books, I stated that they are committed Christians and Adventists, which is a major and substative point of contention here on Educate Truth.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  30. David Kendall, BMus, MA: I stated that they are committed Christians and Adventists, which is a major and substative point of contention here on Educate Truth.

    That’s for sure! Here is some anecdotal evidence for why it’s point of contention (at least for me).

    1. Professor B has labelled creationists lunatics and is merely an Adventist in name (implied by himself).
    2. Professor G rejects the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and Ellen White as a messenger of God.
    3. Professor L has posted cartoons mocking creation scientists on his office door.

    So out of those three, two of them aren’t Seventh-day Adventist by any definition and out of those two one of them isn’t even Christian.

    So when people laud how these professors are such committed Adventists, my response is “not so.”

    It’s no wonder they can’t and don’t represent the church’s position in their classrooms. At the very least they’re cultural Adventists that adhere to a very different worldview.




    0
    View Comment
  31. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:
    Thank you for your kind and informative response. There is no excuse for my evil surmisings and sarcasm.
    My apologies. Unfortunately In the midst of this grotesque controversy I can’t guarantee my behavior in the future.
    I hope you understand.




    0
    View Comment
  32. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    I do not have the time or inclination to make a point-by-point analysis of your point-by-point analysis of my post

    noted – I can easily content myself with the fact that points I have raised would tend to go unnanswered – as it turns out.

    BobRyan: There has also been no claim here that local churches are known for disfellowshipping faculty members if those members teach evolutionism. So clailming that the evolutionist evangelists among the LSU faculty are still registered on the books in a local Adventist church is not addressing a substantive point in the discussion so far.

    @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    I did not state that the LSU faculty were still registered or on the books, I stated that they are committed Christians and Adventists, which is a major and substative point of contention here on Educate Truth.

    My assumption was that your claim that “They are Christian AND Adventist” was NOT a case where you are making a claim about disfellowshipped Adventist faculty members at LSU “claiming” to still be Adventist. If I was incorrect – feel free to spell that out – because IF you WERE going there – that would add a whole new level to this discussion point.

    As for the disguises that theistic evolutionists are using these days… a revealing comment by Erv Taylor to that effect was recently noted here —

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9476

    There we find a reference to Taylor claiming that evolutionists are to be called “creationist” IF they claim to be a Christian because Christians by “definition” are creationist.

    There is a problem with the wild claim that is of the form “all evolutionists that claim to be Christian can also be called creationist”.

    But it also gets to the point you raised in which we find evolutionists claming whatever they like – as best suits them for the moment.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  33. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    I have noticed that there are two attitudes among posters to this forum, each representing a separate general set of views which are mutually exclusive.

    1. One is a fear or distrust of high academic achievement

    2. The other is the characterization of such academics as inadequate or incompetent, due also to their academic achievement.

    Is it your wild claim that those posting here in opposition to LSU views on evolutionism – do not themselves also provide examples of “high academic achievement”. If so – how did you come to that level of certainty?

    Or do you have some quote from members here saying “we oppose high academic achievement”??

    I notice that you provide an accusation without any substantive quote from anyone much less some kind of analysis showing that your accusation against posters on this web site – factually and accurately identifies a trend here.

    @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    I do not have such quotes; my statement is based on my perceptions gained from reading through the threads. A perception is not a claim, wild or otherwise, though I could have made that more clear.

    You statement above appears to say that you do not have any supporting evidence to present in favor of your two point accusation against the posters on this web site.

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to – notice the inconvenient details in your accusation above – followed by your acknowledging that you have no quotes supporting your claims.

    The discriminating objective unbiased reader will be able to see whether that constitutes an “accusation without substantive fact to support it” or not.

    For my part – I don’t think the problem in coming to a conclusion in that regard is as difficult for the reader as you may have at first supposed.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. The letter from Neptunnus is so like Catholic understanding of creation/evolution. Are the children at LSU turning into Roman Catholics in their beliefs? After all, if the belief is held that each day of creation could be billions or thousands of days long, and not a literal 24 hour period, this belief effectively does away with Sabbath and the need to keep the seventh day holy. If there is no Sabbath day, then that effectively does away with the Law of Ten Commandments, leaving only nine commandments (why would you need the fourth commandment?) there is really no Ten Commandments, for all Ten make up the one Law. If there are only nine commandments, then Jesus made a mistake in writing the Ten Commandments on tables of stone or speaking them from Mt. Sinai. So then that means you can’t really trust in God at all for anything, for God verily does change and make drastic mistakes. So in reality, this false understanding being taught at LSU, called evolution, does away with the need for God in the lives of these students, and they are going to leave our school confirmed atheists or Roman Catholics.

    I don’t think God is going to bear with this much longer unless something is done to correct the problem of atheistic evolutionary teaching in our schools. Maybe it would be better to have no school at all! Remember the Battle Creek fires of long ago, how God burnt down so many buildings because things were not being corrected properly at our institutions there. Will He not do worse if there is nothing done immediately to correct things at our schools? I think Sister Ellen G White did give warning to learn from our past mistakes. I don’t think I could be too outspoken if this is what she once told us.

    Here are some references about the fire at the RH building in Battle Creek:
    Dr. Kellogg placed a personal order with the Review to print The Living Temple. About a month later the Review and Herald burned, and the plates for the book, which stood ready for the press, were destroyed by the fire. {5BIO 292.2}

    Pantheistic Teachings and the
    General Conference of 1903

    As leading workers approached the General Conference session, which was to open on March 27 in Oakland, California, the proposed book The Living Temple was a matter of deep concern. On March 16, Ellen White wrote to Dr. Kellogg: {5BIO 292.3}
    “You are not definitely clear on the personality of God, which
    is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the
    Lord God Himself.”–Letter 300, 1903. {5BIO 292.4}
    It had been hoped that in connection with the destruction of the book plates in the Review and Herald fire, Dr. Kellogg would abandon the matter of publishing The Living Temple. But instead he sent the manuscript to a commercial printer in Battle Creek. Three thousand copies of the book were printed and began to make their way among Seventh-day Adventists. {5BIO 294.1}




    0
    View Comment
  35. Neptunnus and Michael:

    Please explain to me how one is saved if you believe that evolution is true. Is that even important to you? The problem is that you have not been educated at LSU concerning the ramifications of accepting theistic evolution. Nor have you been educated in science that supports creationism. You have been “brainwashed” by the evolutionists. I have taken science classes at Southern, Southwestern, and Andrews, and I can assure you that you have not been taught the whole story.

    Faith is a whole package. You cannot pick and choose a la cart. Your view of weeding out all of the ignorant people is narrow, arrogant and elitist. I don’t believe that Jesus Himself would make your cut if He were present, since He did not meet your qualifications.

    Neptunnus and Michael, how are we saved? Surely, in all of your newly gathered wisdom from LSU you have thought this all through. Please give us ignorant ones a Biblical answer. Weave science and Scripture together for us so that it may dawn on us how stupid we have all been to have missed it.

    Again, please just answer this one question logically and I will shut up forever: HOW ARE WE SAVED?




    0
    View Comment
  36. @Shelly Senner

    Yes, I am afraid that if the leadership of LSU does not take action soon, God will. What a shame it would be if this school which was built by the sacrifice of so many, would have to be destroyed to prevent further damage to God’s church. However, it would be better to destroy or close the school than to allow even one more young student to lose their faith in God!




    0
    View Comment
  37. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    David Kendall: I think that the 28 fundamental beliefs do provide a “big umbrella.” There are many disagreements and discussions that are permissible within the framework of the church; but any organization, especially one who claims to represent God, must have an identification of who it is. In essence the Adventist church says, “Of all the many varying ideas out there we have 28 that we are settled upon–These 28 unify and define us as a church.” This is not restrictive; it’s very open!

    Your question, “whom will we exclude if they do not reach the same conclusions as we do?” misses the point. This discussion is not about whether someone should be excluded from fellowship if they disagree; but whether they should be paid by the church to publicly espouse beliefs that are directly contrary to the mission of that church. As an employee of the Adventist church I would consider it my moral obligation to resign if I could not support our fundamental beliefs.

    Let’s not forget that the original reason the Adventist church entered into the area of education was for the furtherance of our message. An Adventist teacher is every bit as much a part of the mission of the church, to proclaim the three angel’s messages to the world, as I, a local pastor, am.




    0
    View Comment
  38. According to the alleged student, I am neither qualified to speak my bachelor’s in biology was followed by only an MD rather than a qualifying PhD—not that ANY PhDs OR MDs were around when the world started), and even if I was, my opinion would be based on ignorance. I don’t care.

    God is not a God of force. I fully respect the rights of others to believe what they wish. It’s their bold rejection of God’s word while boldly insisting in their right to be paid by God’s money that astounds me.

    When I worked at summer camp and was given money by the director to provide lunch on my weekly ride to carry campers halfway across the state, I ate at Taco Bell and even drank water. I knew I was being entrusted with God’s money to do God’s work, and I dared not waste a penny. It wasn’t because I feared that I would be bolted with lightning from heaven. It was because I felt I was doing the work of my Creator and all that His people entrusted me with to do His work should be properly utilized.

    For those who think it’s a proper use of God’s worldwide monies to subsidize the teaching of evolution, I would have to think they should have to agree that I might as well have used God’s money to order beer for myself AND the young campers I was driving.

    The LSU teachers and students can believe and teach whatever they want…just don’t teach it as if they are doing God’s duty and don’t insist on receiving God’s money to subsidize it. There are thousands of schools where they can teach whatever they wish. Why do they feel the need to teach it where parents pay a ton of money to avoid such boldfaced heresy?

    Brent Goodge, M.D.




    0
    View Comment
  39. When will these “Christians” that support evolution come to see that without the garden, there is no Cross? WIthout the Cross, there is no Christ, no “Christ-ianity”! Hello!?!




    0
    View Comment
  40. No theistic evolutionist has ever answered my question on “How are we saved?” It’s because you cannot be a Christian and reject a literal six-day creation as the Bible describes. Let’s face it, theistic evolution is nothing more than deism or atheism. It is not Christianity.




    0
    View Comment
  41. I can’t speak for Wisbey or Schneider, but Elder Graham while not as aggressive as I would like is working hard. Keep in mind it would not be in the boards best interest to broadcast their intentions to the world otherwise LSU could counter act their moves easier.




    0
    View Comment
  42. David Kendall, BMus, MA:
    Shane,The question we must ask ourselves is, what level of inclusivity do we expect to have in the Adventist church?Are we a “big umbrella” organization encompassing a large number of views and perspectives, or are we more doctrinaire, more tightly focused?… As for Adventism being pluralism (or pluralistic), one look at the worldwide demographic consistency of the denomination will answer a resounding yes.Pax,David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University  

    I thought there was already a catholic church?

    Does the world really need another one?

    If belief does not distinguish a religion then neither word has any meaning at all. While that may be the objective of certain advocates, it is not mine. Words have meaning, and the distinctions they express are important. Vital.

    There is a distinct difference also in teaching ABOUT evolution, and in teaching evolution. One of these ought to be a part of every students education, and one ought to be no part of any Adventist education (and I am not at all confused as to which is which).

    As for the attitude on display in the letter from “a student” – well, it is unfortunate to say the least. But I too was once young and prone to belief in my own inerrancy. Fortunately, we serve a longsuffering God, who kept me alive long enough to experience the inevitable pain of my own hubris. It is important that we pray for people so confused as to think that Christ and Belial can walk hand in hand.

    (finally, a “preview” function would be nice)




    0
    View Comment
  43. Michael seems to be missing the issue completely. The issue has nothing to do with scientific consensus. It has everything to do with the fact that he is attending a Seventh-day Adventist university that is suppose to be upholding seventh-day Adventist beliefs. If you are an Adventist, you are qualified to have an opinion on this matter. It has nothing to do with having a PHD in a science field.




    0
    View Comment
  44. So, without a PHD, we are ignorant. Neptunnus doesn’t like folks sniffing around attempting to influence what goes on his life. When he (or she) finally leaves the cocoon and faces the real world he (or she) will discover that there are plenty of influences – with authority – attempting to shape literally every aspect of his (or her) life. Arrogance, vice humility, often goes hand-in-hand with youth. It’s just a shame that myriad groups of self-sacrificing individuals saw to it that LSU and the other SDA colleges and universities continue to exist for the benefit of Neptunnus, et al. There are those of us who are alive and remain and continue to self-sacrifice who appreciate Neptunnus’ right to express his (or her) opinion regarding evolution or any other subject. However, we pray for and expect armies of educated young people to spread throughout the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the gospel of Charles Darwin. BTW, I don’t have a PHD, just an MBA and an MS.




    0
    View Comment
  45. When it’s all said and done, what makes a Ph.D.’s perspective any more credible on a religio-scientific view than that of an avid amateur in the field? Anyone with a doctorate just proves they’ve done their time imbibing the brainwashing of other conformists within their field. They know better how to follow the status quo. But what if the majority is wrong? It’s not even a matter of if. The Bible tells us the majority is wrong. There were many scientists in Noah’s day who drowned in the flood–having taken their last mocking stand against the truth.

    Indeed, the ones I might feel are more credible in the field are not the Ph.D.’s who have been teaching their doctrine for so long that they sincerely believe it to be truth, but rather some amateurs who have not been biased by such teachers, and who are more balanced as a result in their search for truth. Jesus was not trained by the Pharisees for this very reason. He was wiser than the Pharisees for having learned at home.

    Psalm 119:97-100 tells us that those who love God’s word are wiser than “the ancients” (elders), and wiser than their teachers. Truth triumphs over the proud. One can have a doctoral degree, and remain ignorant. Remember whom it was that Jesus commended for salvation? Children.

    “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3) “And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” (Matthew 21:16)

    Why didn’t Jesus preach the importance of the almighty doctoral degree instead?

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  46. Excuse me Micheal, but you are the one on the fringe on this issue, NOT we who believe what the bible says about creation. You have been duped and need to have your mind freed from the “MATRIX” of lies you have bought into.
    Ever seen the movie “Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed”? It is a documentary about the intolerance of those in academia toward anyone who even hints that there may be some truth in the intelligent design theory. It leaves you with the impression that this is as much a religion as Christianity, only with no hope for the future. And it is the same religion as was started in the French Revolution, worshipping the Godess of Reason. Is this your god, Michael? Either God or Reason is true, you can’t have it both ways. Which one do you think will win in the end? My bets are on the one who has never lied and always keeps His promises. I hope you will do the same someday.




    0
    View Comment
  47. What’s all the fuss about LSU? Theoretically and technically the Church is in no position to urge LSU to teach a recent six-day Creation, if the teachers there claim and endorse the notion that the strongest scientific evidence points to life being on the earth for millions of years. Why? The answer is simple, but disturbingly profound. The problem is not so much with LSU. The real problem lies in the present wording of Belief 6 that makes it a good, but incomplete definition of Creation as historically understood by Adventists as shown below. LSU is not teaching anything explicitly prohibited by Belief 6 which definition of Creation LSU states is the one and only definition of Creation by which LSU will be guided in its teaching of Creation on campus. This limitation of the definition of Creation acceptable to LSU is key. This fact is very important in light of the fact that LSU has not explicitly and formally affirmed through Board action LSU’s support and acceptance of the definition of Creation given in “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” This fact, combined with the present wording of Belief 6, constitutes the entire problem at LSU and places the Board in a very difficult situation.

    The wording of Belief 6 may be a description of existing beliefs in the Church. This is helpful if the Belief is describing existing historic Adventist understandings regarding Creation. However, parts of the language of Belief 6 can be theologically fatal if the Belief on Creation is so worded as to permit the Belief on Creation to be interpreted in pluralistic ways in order to accommodate pluralistic positions on Creation existing in the Adventist Church. This is particularly important in light of the commonly known, published facts, that leading, current voices of LSU articulated the basic wording of Belief 6. Consider the following four examples about the present wording of Belief 6. One: the Seventh-day Adventist Church in General Conference session, 1980, placed no language into Belief 6 regarding when the Creation week occurred. This means that this important issue is not address in the only Church definition of Creation by which LSU will be constrained. In other words, this leaves the question open whether Creation may have been recent, or whether Creation may have been millions of years in the making. Belief 6 is silent on the issue. Moreover, to add insult to injury, the official, printed list of texts supporting Belief 6 appearing in the Yearbook does not even mention one of the well-known short chronology texts such as Gen 5; 11; 1 Chron 1; Matt 1. The shocking absence of these famous passages can only be interpreted by laypersons and scholars alike as meaning that the Adventist Church does not think that these passages can be properly used to support the occurrence of a Creation a few thousand years ago. Surely, if the Church thought that the Creation is recent the Church would have said so and would have listed the biblical passages in its support. In the case of LSU, because the Church in General Conference session says nothing about when Creation occurred, nor listed any texts saying when Creation happened, and because the only formal definition of Creation which LSU says it will be guided by is Belief 6, one can properly conclude that LSU is legally not doing anything prohibited by the Church’s only formally voted, General Conference Session definition of Creation.

    Two: while Belief 6 mentions “that first week,” no language in Belief 6 describes this week as a “literal” or “historical” week. The absence of these important qualifier terms means that the week of Creation and its days mentioned in Belief 6 can be theoretically and technically interpreted as only symbolic or mythical days, or as having only some theological meaning and so on. This appears to be precisely the position favored at LSU.

    Three: when Belief 6 states that “for in six days the Lord ‘made heaven and the earth’” what is the extent of the biblical phrase “heaven and the earth”? Belief 6 does not tell us the extent. Does the phrase mean, as most creationists other than Seventh-day Adventist creationists think it means, that God created everything other than Himself, including the angels, in six literal days a few thousand years ago? Adventists do not believe that everything, but God, including the angels were created a few thousand years ago. We believe in the Great Controversy worldview in which an already existing heaven with angels existed before the six days of the Creation week. However, the present wording of Belief 6 gives the impression that we do. This needs to be fixed.

    Four: The global Flood is not mentioned in Belief 6. However, in any contemporary discussion of a Creation a few thousand years ago it is important to mention the Flood and its role in addressing the fossil-filled geologic column, thereby making a recent Creation possible. Do the leading scientists and theologians at LSU endorse a global Flood?

    Of the four key points missing in Belief 6 noted above, points 1, 2, and 4 are present in the definition of Creation provided by “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation” wisely voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 2004. Because these four points are disputed at LSU, no wonder LSU is careful to endorse explicitly and formally only Belief 6 and not the “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” The two resolutions made by the LSU Board and the explanations given concerning these separate but related resolutions help to make this point clear.

    The Church has been struggling with a good, but incomplete GC-session-voted definition of Creation for 30 years. We now see the results.

    Positive action needed: It is imperative that positive action be taken in General Conference session as soon as possible to reword Belief 6 to reflect the complete Seventh-day Adventist definition, teaching, and belief regarding Creation as is now present in “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation” which, as mentioned above, has already been voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 2004.




    0
    View Comment
  48. First off I’m nothing more than a simple bee keeper. I’m not a theologian. It is with utmost sadness that I read reports that some in our schools are teaching the ways of the world and not the Bible. The most basic beliefs of the Christian church are rooted in a literal recent 6 day Creation. Those that do not believe this are saying they have more knowledge than does God. Anyone who teaches anything other than what the Bible teaches are saying they are in fact smarter than the Creator. I love the SDA church, but I do not need it for my Salvation. If the SDA church turns it’s back on the Bible, as it is now doing by not taking action against the evolutionary professors, then I will remove my membership from the church and follow God. What is happening at LSU is anti-God and therefore immoral. These professors are doing what Satan did, they are jealous of God and His knowledge and think they should be like Him. May the Creator of the universe have mercy on their souls.




    0
    View Comment
  49. There should not be any problem over what a teacher may or may not teach in an Adventist school. When you get a paycheck from Sears, you should not, indeed could not advertise for Wal-Mart. Adventist members pay the bills for Adventist Universities and the employees should follow the church’s guidelines in every detail. If a teacher finds his views do not follow the doctrines of the church, he/she has an obligation to resign. If this is not the guiding principal then there is no reason for the Adventist educational system to exist.




    0
    View Comment
  50. 1. Macroevolutionists believe in a cruel god who does not care about the suffering that goes on within the framework of the survival of the fittest over millions of years. One has to be gullible to believe in a God who takes millions of years to achieve something and is not able to speak things into existence. By “things” I mean to include such phenomena as physical, mental, moral and spiritual awareness. I regard a god of evolution as lacking in power and not worthy of worship.

    2. Professors who shout at students when they are asked straight forward, for example, about the Sabbath not having a solid biblical basis in the light (darkness) of evolution, are no doubt suffering from a feeling of shame for being a Seventh Day Adventist, and from feelings of both inadequacy and insecurity; and as such are driven by false emotion.

    3. Having a high academic qualification does neither give one a monopoly on logic nor the right to say that he/she is the only one who can understand and interpret literature and scientific evidence.

    4. If certain educated people believe that the Adventist Church is wrong and has always been wrong in her core beliefs, I would like to know why they want to stay with this erring church. Are they hoping to persuade the majority to change ship? Surely, there are churches who would be glad to see the Adventist ship (Church) go under. If the Adventists have unity of belief other churches are in danger of losing their members; Adventist disunity is their only hope for survival!

    5. There are other core beliefs are being questioned today: Marriage between a man and a woman only; the substitutionary death of Christ; the personhood of the Holy Spirit; the Investigative Judgement; the 2300 and the 1260 days; and so forth. I would like the University teachers to come out in the open and declare precisely with which pillars of the Adventist faith they disagree.

    6. The professors in question are silent about their beliefs in evolution offering no evidence in these posts. I suppose reasons could be given for that. However, the ridiculous claim that the majority of Adventists in the USA believe that the Church is wrong about origins needs to be substantiated before it can be taken seriously.




    0
    View Comment
  51. Neptunnus said, “I’m currently a student at LSU and I know personally that a great percentage of our campus fully supports the three professors under fire”
    ME: That’s unfortunate. However, as long as OUR Tithe and Offerings support LSU, and LSU claims to be an “Adventist” School, the Adventist Church, “the body of believers” has a right to expect our schools to teach what we as a people “claim” to believe.
    Neptunnus said, “and we also DON’T like outsiders trying to influence what goes on in our classrooms”
    ME: That’s funny. I thought other Adventists were my brothers and sisters in Christ. I thought we were one big family. Now I am called an “outsider”.
    Neptunnus said, “We DON’T like how ignorant Adventists who don’t have PhD’s or other reputable qualifications criticizing what professors are teaching, who actually do have the qualifications.”
    ME: When did a PhD take the place of the Word of God in our Adventist Schools? Is not God the God of Science as well as Doctrine? I thought He was the Creator of Science. I have a question about your god. How is it possible for a God who can’t create the earth in 6 literal days to resurrect every righteous person who has ever lived in the first resurrection? Or is that just a hoax too? According to your reasoning, it will take Jesus millions of years to do that.
    What about the second resurrection? Are the righteous just going to stand around and wait while Christ takes another Billion years to resurrect the wicked at the end of the “Millenium”? The Lord of the Bible is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. I’m fine with you thinking that I am ignorant.
    In my ignorance I seem to be missing something. If evolution is the only reasonable answer, where are the “living examples” of one species becoming new species. Where are any “REAL” examples? If evolution is true, how did a simple cell become a complex cell? How did a complex cell become a human being? Why would a simple cell want to become anything other than what it was? Are you telling me that one day, a simple cell had a brainstorm and decided that it would become a complex cell just because it could? Are you sure you have the “evidence” that you think you have?
    Neptunnus said, “I find banishing the theory of evolution from our curriculum a form of brain washing.”
    ME: Who said that? All we want is for our teachers to be honest. They can NOT PROVE evolution is a fact so they shouldn’t teach it as if it were an established fact in OUR Schools. That’s the real issue here.
    Neptunnus said, “Intelligent design is just not backed up by scientific evidence. In addition, religion and science are two different methods of studying life.”
    ME: It’s funny, I use the “scientific method” to study the Bible and to define my Theology. You say Creation is “not backed up by scientific evidence”? Can you prove that claim?




    0
    View Comment
  52. Evadeane Peters: There should not be any problem over what a teacher may or may not teach in an Adventist school. When you get a paycheck from Sears, you should not, indeed could not advertise for Wal-Mart. Adventist members pay the bills for Adventist Universities and the employees should follow the church’s guidelines in every detail. If a teacher finds his views do not follow the doctrines of the church, he/she has an obligation to resign. If this is not the guiding principal then there is no reason for the Adventist educational system to exist.  

    What a shame you had to take your time and energy to say that. That is self-evident.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  53. F. Weber: The Church has been struggling with a good, but incomplete GC-session-voted definition of Creation for 30 years. We now see the results.

    Main Entry: week
    Pronunciation: ˈwēk
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English weke, from Old English wicu, wucu; akin to Old High German wehha week and perhaps to Latin vicis change, alternation, Old High German wehsal exchange
    Date: before 12th century
    1 a : any of a series of 7-day cycles used in various calendars; especially : a 7-day cycle beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday b (1) : a week beginning with a specified day or containing a specified holiday (2) : a week appointed for public recognition of some cause
    2 a : any seven consecutive days b : a series of regular working, business, or school days during each 7-day period
    3 : a time seven days before or after a specified day

    – Merriam-Webster

    How much must we define FB6 before we have to continue defining definitions? Go to common sense, Oxford or Webster to look what a week is. If it doesn’t say otherwise in common sense, the dictionary, or in the Fundamental Beliefs then it’s [drum roll …] exactly a week! It’s not difficult, at all. If FB6 is revised as, “literal week” then we have to have an addendum, “‘literal’ means such and so.” Next we’ll have to say, “such and so” must include “thus and so” to define, “such and so.” It will never end in the persuasion of those who do not want to believe. In which case those must be convinced they are at perfect liberty to leave and teach whomever has the ears to listen. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  54. Scripture says, “Better a millstone be hung around their neck” than to harm a young person. There will be much to answer for in the day of judgment by faculty who have led students into doubt and disbelief.




    0
    View Comment
  55. It has been interesting to “look over the shoulder” of those who have been commenting on this discussion regarding the teaching of evolution on the campus of LSU. Years ago when I was a conference Youth Director, I attended a leadership training event at which a professor from LSU stated that it was foolish to try to uphold the traditional Adventist beliefs of the 7 literal days of creation and of the biblical truth of investigative judgment. It struck me then as strange and unbelievable that the denomination would allow such variance from our biblical foundation to be taught in one of our Adventist universities.

    We live in a free country where we are allowed to believe as we wish. Our Creator doesn’t twist our arms either to make us believe one way or another. However, if you are hired by a Seventh-day Adventist educational institution to train and teach our young people, and you have personal beliefs contrary to the denomination’s decisive truthes, and you even include those deviant doctrines in your instruction to your students, then how can such a person honestly continue being employed by the Church’s institution?

    If an employee finds himself/herself in that situation, it seems to me the only ethical choice for that professor is to resign from the position. As a former Church educator and administrator myself (now retired), it baffles me why LSU and denominational leaders have apparently not taken a stand on this years ago to assure that our young people are truly receiving an Adventist education in which our foundational truthes are taught and upheld. While I’m not on campus there, and may not know all the details in this situation, it is a fundamental principle that if you are hired by an Adventist institution as a teacher, you should be expected to teach the unique Adventist biblical beliefs which this Church holds dear.

    My thoughts and prayers are with each professor involved, with LSU administration, and with our denominational leaders who are called upon to work through these issues, that God’s guiding hand will be with you as you seek to do His will.

    Kingsley Whitsett




    0
    View Comment
  56. Kingsley Whitsett: Years ago … a professor from LSU stated that it was foolish to try to uphold the traditional Adventist beliefs of the 7 literal days of creation and of the biblical truth of investigative judgment. It struck me then as strange and unbelievable that the denomination would allow such variance from our biblical foundation to be taught in one of our Adventist universities.

    I can understand why the vast majority of accomplished professors of science do not believe in the miracles of creation week and the flood. It is simply too great a challenge for worldly-wise scientists to believe in fantastically unlikely possibilities.

    I agree that it’s foolish to allow Seventh-day Adventist scholars to uphold the biblical truth of investigative judgment when even the best and the brightest of them really don’t know how to defend the IJ Biblically.




    0
    View Comment
  57. the foundations are being removed (or should it be “have been removed?”) Evid is overwhelming that this has been going on gor at least adecade. What should the righteous do? Hm. As evidence mounts showing that leaders are disinclined to execute their legal rights to remove the unethical instructors teaching flimflam on the people’s tithe, I am personally coming to the point where I will soon start sending my tithe to ministries in good standing with the church that are preaching the truth with clarity and power. This situation is not a matter of naive questioning as to what is being done with our tithes. This has become and out and out disgrace on us as a movement. If nothing is done @ GC this year that leads to immediate action (cancerous heads rolling out of our schools) then, I will vote with my tithe. Tithe is a sacred responsibilty. I will not long continue to squander it on a church leadership happy to do nothing in the case of an emergency. May God save His people from our ugly crimes of negligence and inattention.




    0
    View Comment
  58. F. Weber: Positive action needed: It is imperative that positive action be taken in General Conference session as soon as possible to reword Belief 6 to reflect the complete Seventh-day Adventist definition, teaching, and belief regarding Creation as is now present in “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation” which, as mentioned above, has already been voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 2004.

    If the GC Executive committee felt it important enough to vote this clarification, shouldn’t it be included as part and parcel of FB6? Revising the statements found in the Church Manual is a legitimate function that occurs at every General Conference session, and I believe there should be a recommendation from every church constituency to revise FB6 to reflect the statements found in the document voted by the GC Executive Council so that this can be voted at the GC in Atlanta.




    0
    View Comment
  59. @Evadeane Peters:
    Well said. If LSU wants to stray away from what the majority of Adventists want them to teach. Then they should become a self supporting school and allow those with simular beliefs to support them. If they feel they are doing this in the best interest of thier students then they should have no problem gaining the funding they need. As I’m sure that if this is GOD’S will for the school to support thier own doctrine, the nHe will easily provide the funding needed to allow them to continue to teach them.




    0
    View Comment
  60. Hi,

    I have been following this debate for a while and with this touch on “PhDs” professors and the like I wanted to finally step in.

    I am a PhD candidate studying health at a non-Adventist institution. Further for my field it is considered the best programme in the country. I only say that to those who feel that PhDs and securing a “reputable” education is important and adds credibility to the one speaking.

    I have many friends who have earned PhDs in biology, chemistry, physics, biochemistry, etc… who went to institutions like MIT, UCLA, Harvard, Stanford, the list goes on. Many of them after all their studies have become convinced of creation as opposed to convinced of evolution. I say this only to highlight that it is entirely possible for one to earn a PhD from a secular non-adventist institution, do WELL at that institution and still come out believing in a 7 day literal creation.

    So to those participating in this discussion, please consider that it is possible to earn a PhD and still believe in creation, to earn a PhD and have your views CHANGED to believe in creation, to have your PhD work reinforce one’s believe in creation.

    That being said, it is equally important that a university teach its students evolution (not as being the truth but as being a theory that is out there). It is important for university trained students to be taught to THINK critically. That is what a university does. It looks really bad for our church when its members are unable to answer INTELLIGENTLY the questions and challeneges posed by the secular world specifically regarding creation. There are many non-adventists and non-christians who are very very tied to a scientific / modern view of the world still (as opposed to a post-modern view). (Nothing is ever accomplished from a theological debate or from a debate of creation vs. evolution. One does not win souls for Christ by entering into that type of debate.) Let our students be taught the apparent strengths (I say apparent strengths because there does appear to be evidence for evolution that a Christian should acknowledge) and weaknesses of evolution AND creation. Let our students be able to go out into the world and interact with non-chrisitans and show they have been trained and educated. Let them be able to speak INTELLIGENTLY with their non christian counterparts. Let them be familiar with all the evidence that supports evolution. Let them acknowledge that yes this evidence taken alone does appear to support evolution. But then let them be able to continue and say but here is this evidence that contradicts evolution. Here is this evidence that supports creation. Here is this evidence that supports a world flood. Let our students be able to speak and converse with those who believe in evolution cite the evidence of evolution acknowledge its evidence but then also speak about why it doesn’t work. Too often my non christian friends earning PhDs feel that creationists come across as ignorant, unintelligent, and not having thought through all the evidence. This turns many educated individuals off to Christianity. Paul says be all things to all people. He spoke with the greeks intelligently about their faith and their gods. Let our students be able to do the same thing intelligently.

    We do not want our students to come out of Adventist education ignorant of all the strengths and evidence supporting evolution because they will be poor witnesses for our Lord. Let them be trained in ALL the strengths, evidence, etc.. of evolution (especially if they are getting a B.S.). But then let them also be trained in ALL the evidence and strength in creation let them be able to present it intelligently and let them be shown to be well-educated highly trained scientists who still believe in Creation.




    0
    View Comment
  61. I don’t need any church manual to tell me how many days God said it took him to create the world. God knew there will be scoffers, so He preempted them…
    Gen1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day. …and God saw that it was good

    I don’t need a Ph.D to tell me what is false science. Praise the Lord for my secular engineering school – where my “Probability Theory” classes taught me that evolution is impossible. Where my “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” classes taught me that everything is running down and not getting better. Einstein himself noted that Nothing in the observable universe contradicts 2nd Law. I do see biological systems contradicting 2nd Law – I call them God’s miracles.
    The foolish students that believe in PhDs blindly – I’m surprised they are still Christians -as many professors are Athetists.

    I really learned a lot from this creationists on this website. I would like to thank them for taking time to educate us.
    ps. I was nomintated top MBA graduate by Denver Business Magazine and have a Mechanical Engg degree. I guess that is not good enough for most evolutionists.




    0
    View Comment
  62. I can appreciate the student’s views shown. Many have never been taught world views and what lies behind them and so they tend to be close to and defend their beloved professors. When their authority is a Phd degree…that becomes very scary and that shows how little they really understand reality and how out of touch some become. Hopefully the honest seekers will learn in time how many are educated in world views that have little regard for revelation as authority and high regard for reason. Many of the arguments used are the very ones that can be used against them. This university is having a very strong influence on the students’ views and as one listens to these students speak or write, it is obvious they have been indoctrinated by worldly views that show little regard for the authority of revelation and little faith and understanding of the christian grid of objective truth which should form the foundation of their belief system: Creation, The Fall and Redemption. The progressive modern movement has infiltrated out higher education… many have been indoctrinated by a system of thought that is counter Christian and is heading towards some of our best minds who will follow in the footsteps of those who have lost their way. Their typical response to those who have a different view and strong concern for their direction and emphasis is to label and call names like fringe. I try to listen and remain balanced, but there is a point when one has to take a stand and speak out. The future can be bleak if God is not allowed to influence minds and hearts. Predictable is the future…based on past experience: Loss of belief in the veracity and authority of the Bible, then God, and then into full blown anti God attacks and on His followers and true believers. This university had many faithful and dedicated teachers. When we start to divide into the so called educated intellectual elites who tend towards unbelief and skepticism versus those who hold onto the time tested truths it breaks out into warfare.Not a new thing in the history of the truth being tested. Babylon is confusion about God and as the good Book says the day of judgment is nearing. We will each have to give an account. No one will avoid that moment in history. We can try to rewrite what God has revealed so that we can know something about who we are and from whence we came and our reason for being here…but in the end the Kingdom does come and He shall reign forever. Fight that truth at your own peril, PHd or not!




    0
    View Comment
  63. Michael and Neptunnus, Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here. It is obvious Michael that you have put in a lot of thought and effort in your letter. But as a teacher myself, I can’t help but point out a couple of things in your presentations of your opinions.

    Michael, You make a logical argument, and you have the right to express your opinion. But even Robert’s Rules of Order (on debates) states, “… the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”

    Of course as Christians we have even more powerful admonitions to treat each other with respect. Calling those with differing opinions “ignorant” or “fringe” is not being “well mannered,” and is not considered Christlike behavior. In James 3:6 the Bible tells us that “the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil…” It’s important to be careful in our use of words.

    I’m glad to hear that your belief in and relationship with God remain strong. I hope that you continue to grow in your walk with Christ.

    But please try to bear in mind that the SDA church ascribes to certain beliefs and that we expect that our schools will uphold and teach those beliefs. If you do not believe these things, please try to understand that we do have the right to expect this from our institutions. That doesn’t make us ignorant, or “fringe.”

    I respect the professors for being honest about what they believe. However, I wholeheartedly agree with Kingsley that an employee who finds himself in the position of believing contrary to the denomination has an ethical responsibility to resign. If they had voluntarily made that decision, perhaps the students at LSU would have been spared much undue turmoil.

    You also call us “meddling.” If you think about it, since LSU is one of our schools, we are not meddling. (Also keep in mind that many individuals outside of our church would consider some of our other beliefs, including those you probably also believe, “ignorant.”)

    Neptunnus, As a student in a university, you may have forgotten that we need to back up statements like the one you made with data.

    You said, “Quite frankly, most Adventists in the United States understand that the scientific consensus is for evolution, but the church leadership pays lip service to creationism due to conservative elements within the world church.”

    Just curious if you have any data that shows that ‘most’ Adventists believe that the church leadership only pays lip service to creationism? Being careful to only state truth requires that we take great thought before speaking or writing something as fact. Honesty requires this. (This is also integral to the practice of science. Stating opinion as fact reflects a belief in science rather than the practice of science.) The more education you have, the greater the responsibility not only to practice this, but to model it for others.

    I also noticed that you called precious souls that our Lord loves, “elements,” which implies they are less than human.

    (Also, Michael, your use of the word “fringe” implies that this is quantifiable. Do you have such data?)

    Thank you for taking the time to read my critique.

    I too have committed to pray for all involved, and that we all will remember our responsibility to be respectful and Christlike in our interactions with each other.

    Christiane Marshall




    0
    View Comment
  64. David: Praise the Lord for my secular engineering school – where my “Probability Theory” classes taught me that evolution is impossible.

    What you learned is logically incorrect. Mathematically speaking, even events of zero probability can happen.

    “A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more varied the kinds of things that it relates and the more extended the area of its applicability. Therefore classical thermodynamics has made a deep impression on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, within the areas of the applicability of its basic concepts, will never be overthrown.” — Einstein (1949)

    You can’t have creationism without violating classical thermodynamics. See, for example, The Foundation of Molecular and Quantum Creationism.




    0
    View Comment
  65. In my responsability as a conference president a few years ago, I faced a challeng that gave me great pains to confront. A pastor in my conference confronted me with the statement, ” I am now a follower of the teachings of D. Ford. What are you going to do about it?” My answer was that he needed to be an honest person and I wanted him to prove it to me. If he was an honest person he could not continue to receive his pay from the church that he did not wish to support with his preaching and teaching. If he wished to try to continue on as a pastor in the conference and hold to these different beleifs, then I must consider him as a dishonest person and we did not wish to employ any dishonest individuals here in our conference. I told him to go home and think and pray about it and call me in the next week. This he did and made the decision to be honest and represent the church in a right manner. It seems to me that the faculty and administration need to get down on thier knees and find out what a just and honest God wishes them to do about this matter. This is God’s Church and we need to find out what He thinks, not some PHD. or other person. May God have His way in this matter.




    0
    View Comment
  66. @Marilyn:

    As a parent of almost high school aged children, and alumni of LSU, we are heart broken. Where will it be safe to send our children to college? These faculty will have much to answer for. For shame!




    0
    View Comment
  67. @Eugene Shubert:

    Eugene, are you saying that the laws of science determine God’s ability? Creationism assumes an almight God who can do miraculous things. He can create something out of nothing. The human articulated laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant. God is not subject of physical restrictions. If you do not accept that premise, then you do not accept the Bible’s testimony. Do you believe in the ENTIRE Word of God, or just the parts that you can prove with non-biblical measures? Should Adventists base our believes only on what can be proved? In that case we would be “blown by every wind of doctrine.” Faith is believing what God says. Are God’s statements not trustworthy?

    Eugene, please answer the question that I have asked every theistic evolutionist that I have found on this sight, which none has been able to answer: HOW ARE PEOPLE SAVED? You won’t answer because you have no idea, do you? Herein is the problem. Theistic evolutionists are too smart to read their Bibles, pray, or surrender themselves (body, mind and soul) to God. Nor do you have an interest in resolving your delima of salvation. Please, before you comment any further, how are we saved? How is one made right with God?




    0
    View Comment
  68. Stephen Vicaro: @Eugene Shubert:
    Eugene, are you saying that the laws of science determine God’s ability?

    No. I’m not saying that and I did not say that.

    Creationism assumes an almight[y] God who can do miraculous things. He can create something out of nothing. The human articulated laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant.

    That’s the problem with traditional creationism. It is a terribly ancient and comparably unenlightened view of science. The issue here is the most exalted understanding of science ever conceptualized by the human mind. For the first step toward understanding the real science of molecular and quantum creationism, see An Irrefutable Definition of Science.

    God is not subject of physical restrictions. If you do not accept that premise, then you do not accept the Bible’s testimony.

    In the interest of maintaining a consistent reality, God has agreed to obey a fixed set of rules (the laws of physics). These are the equations of His quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers. Properly understood, the fundamental laws of physics are not relevant restrictions. As the Spirit of prophecy states, “God does not annul his laws, or work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments.” This statement by Sister White is perfectly consistent with modern quantum theory.

    Do you believe in the ENTIRE Word of God, or just the parts that you can prove with non-biblical measures?

    I believe the Bible. Do you believe in the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts?




    0
    View Comment
  69. Stephen Vicaro:
    @Eugene Shubert:
    Eugene, are you saying that the laws of science determine God’s ability?

    No. I’m not saying that and I did not say that.

    Creationism assumes an almight[y] God who can do miraculous things. He can create something out of nothing. The human articulated laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant.

    That’s the problem with traditional creationism. It is a terribly ancient and comparably unenlightened view of science. The issue here is the most exalted understanding of science ever conceptualized by the human mind. For the first step toward understanding the real science of molecular and quantum creationism, see An Irrefutable Definition of Science.

    God is not subject of physical restrictions. If you do not accept that premise, then you do not accept the Bible’s testimony.

    In the interest of maintaining a consistent reality, God has agreed to obey a fixed set of rules (the laws of physics). These are the equations of His quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers. Properly understood, the fundamental laws of physics are not relevant restrictions. As the Spirit of prophecy states, “God does not annul his laws, or work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments.” This statement by Sister White is perfectly consistent with modern quantum theory.

    Do you believe in the ENTIRE Word of God, or just the parts that you can prove with non-biblical measures?

    I believe the Bible. Do you believe in the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts?




    0
    View Comment
  70. If I were a parent choosing between LSU and a secular college I would choose the secular. There is nothing more that Satan loves than to intermingle a lot of truth is a little bit of error. I would think it better to send a child to a educational institution that is known not to honor the Creator than to a place that honors him only most of the time.




    0
    View Comment
  71. The issue at hand is not whether evolution should be taught in our campus but rather professor ridiculing the idea of a six literal day creation. I think these other “students” don’t understand the true issue at hand. It does not matter if you hold a PhD, teachers at an Adventist University should be teaching their curriculum not their own personal belief on the issue. These professors are abusing their position by choosing to deliberately impugn our most fundamental belief as Adventists. To conclude I believe La Sierra administration/board of trustees need to be more responsible to the church, students, and community.




    0
    View Comment
  72. Eugene,

    You are avoiding the issue with distractions, and you betray yourself with inconsistencies. Obviously you believe yourself to be more enlightened than the rest of us, or the Bible writers. Have you ever heard of Gnosticism? Which parts of the Bible are inspired, and which parts are not? Also obvious is that you do not believe in the spirit of prophecy which you quote, or should I say, misquote. Here is the broader context:

    “Many teach that matter possesses vital power,– that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent energy; and that the operations of nature are conducted in harmony with fixed laws, with which God himself cannot interfere. This is false science, and is not sustained by the word of God. Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul his laws, or work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active energy, that works in and through her laws.” (Christian Education, page 195)

    Consider that in the book of Joshua God stopped the rotation of the earth for an entire day. And, as a sign to Hezekiah that he would be healed, God actually reversed the rotation of the earth. “The equations of quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers” are irrelevant to the issue of our origins.

    “God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man’s narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 46)

    “The work of God in the earth is of immeasurable importance, and it is Satan’s special object to crowd it out of sight and mind, that he may make his specious devices effectual in the destruction of those for whom Christ died. It is his purpose to cause the discoveries of men to be exalted above the wisdom of God. When the mind is engrossed with the conceptions and theories of men to the exclusion of the wisdom of God, it is stamped with idolatry. Science, falsely so-called, has been exalted above God, nature above its Maker, and how can God look upon such wisdom?” (Christian Education, page 85)

    Science is a wonder, beautiful gift from God. Yet some have tried to turn it into their god. This is idolatry!

    “There is nothing more calculated to strengthen the intellect than the study of the Scriptures.” (Christian Education, page 59)

    Eugene, you should spend more time studying your Bible and the spirit of prophecy. Then you would have a correct interpretation of scientific evidence. Your understanding would be broadened beyond your humanistic, hopeless, doomed philosophy.

    You are avoiding the question of salvation. If death is not the result of sin, then there is no need for a sacrifice for sin. This leads one to conclude that the Gospel is “foolishness.” You would have to also conclude that Jesus was a liar, because He believed in creationism and the worldwide flood. Christianity is based on Jesus being our atoning sacrifice for sin. I ask you again, HOW ARE WE SAVED? Please, no more distractions this time.




    0
    View Comment
  73. @Réne Girard:

    Réne Girard says:
    February 21, 2010 Jesus did not have a PhD, nor did he ever need one.

    I feel sorry for “Neptunnus” who is obviously deceived and corrupt.

    And Michael who needs to learn that scientific consensus does create nor negate the truth

    Please understand that the student’s comments are the predictable result of the brain-wash-for-evolutionism “programming” provided by the LSU biology and religion department – courtesy of SDA tuition, tithe and offering dollars.

    We can hardly be surprised by the fact that some of the students actually believing what their LSU professors are telling them to think.

    However – what is even more fascinating is that Neptunnus has also been trained by LSU to “believe” that his behavior and beliefs are “conservative” Adventism.
    Surely this is an indication that there are SDA administrators and boards with high accountability in this case and they will ultimately have to give an account for their mismanagement.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  74. @Rick Baskett:

    Has it really gotten so bad that LSU is practically a secular school right now? I thought there was quite a bit of Adventism left in the school and the only issue was this evolution debate? Im realizing I just assumed that was the case, and it’s not based on anything I’ve read or heard. Please tell me you were just being pessimistic? or has it really gotten that bad?

    It would hardly be fair to characterized the entire university by the pro-evolutionist agenda of the biology and religion departments. However as we can see from the students opening comments here – the “predictable results” from the efforts of the biology and to some extent religion departments are anything but Adventist for some students.

    As for noticing just “where” evolutionism is a counter-religion to SDA beliefs – turns out we have a recent post that speaks to that subject.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9194

    Thus the slippery slope down which they are sliding becomes clear. And over time – that pervades the campus at some level.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  75. Stephen Vicaro: Eugene, You are avoiding the issue with distractions, and you betray yourself with inconsistencies.

    Your understanding of physical science is nicely illustrated by the Tea Party’s understanding of political science.

    Obviously you believe yourself to be more enlightened than the rest of us, or the Bible writers. Have you ever heard of Gnosticism?

    I know all about the Gnosticism of pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists.

    Also obvious is that you do not believe in the spirit of prophecy which you quote, or should I say, misquote.

    You need to question your irrational definition of “misquote.”

    “The equations of quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers” are irrelevant to the issue of our origins.

    You obviously believe that science has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate, that creationism isn’t scientific, and that you are qualified to debate modern scientific theories and the meaning of science.

    … your humanistic, hopeless, doomed philosophy.

    Why do you judge what you do not understand?




    0
    View Comment
  76. @Bob Dunn:

    Bob Dunn says:
    February 22, 2010 I can appreciate the student’s views shown. Many have never been taught world views and what lies behind them and so they tend to be close to and defend their beloved professors. When their authority is a Phd degree…that becomes very scary and that shows how little they really understand reality and how out of touch some become. Hopefully the honest seekers will learn in time how many are educated in world views that have little regard for revelation as authority and high regard for reason. Many of the arguments used are the very ones that can be used against them.

    This university is having a very strong influence on the students’ views and as one listens to these students speak or write, it is obvious they have been indoctrinated

    Exactly! That is “the” instructive point here and these students are providing the key evidence needed in support of that point.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  77. The notion expressed by LSU students that only present students and faculty with Ph D.’s in “science” are credible and all other stakeholders’ considered opinions are illegitimate meddling is naive, disingenuous, and elitist. Advice to student apologists: Ad hominem tu quoque, the hypocritical insulting of one’s opponents who hold very defensible viewpoints, however divergent from your own, causes one to run the risk of revealing damning character flaws or actions in the one making the assertion. The reason that this is fallacious is that–usually, anyway–insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one’s opponent’s arguments or assertions.

    An example: “I obviously don’t need to reply to Jones’s arguments about creationism; everyone knows that he’s a convicted felon, or even worse, doesn’t have his PhD in molecular biology.”

    As a former fully-tenured university professor, I can say that sometimes Poison-Ivy covers the hallowed halls of academia. One need only view recent events surrounding the so-called science of global warming to understand that Professors and researchers, and yes even science professors, are humans, complete with biases and ideologies that subtly nuance and even drive the selective content which they disseminate and the tenor, tone, and nuance by which that content is delivered.

    “I find banishing the theory of evolution from our curriculum a form of brain washing. Intelligent design is just not backed up by scientific evidence.” I won’t delve deep into the psychological projection of being brainwahsed, but an analogy to barbs traded between pots and kettles does come to mind.

    By the grace of God, I was one of the highest scoring medical professionals in the history of my professional school and assert that as both “Intelligent Design” and Macro-evolution are belief systems that cannot be empirically demonstrated in the lab and are dependent upon extant evidence; how one views that evidence will be determined by the world view through which it is sifted. Ergo, disbelief of a literal six-day creation calls into question the historicity of the entire Biblical account. To wit, is it easier to believe God spoke and it was, or that He , in the form of His Son, was born of a virgin, performed miracles including bringing the dead back to life, willingly lay down His own life in a vicarious propititation, arose on the third day, ascended to Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father even now? The domino effect is real and is demonstrated in so many other so-called christian (With a little “C”) churches that have discarded the Word and left themselves to wander in the wilderness of not-so-cleverly devised fables.

    Many of the world’s most eminent scientists acknowledge the difficult to dispute evidence of design consistent with a creator. LSU students and professors, are, like all of us, in process, and in their quest to know and be known need to be less sure of what they know, and more sure of what they don’t know. As one of my favorite professors used to say, “One should be open-minded not open-ended!”




    0
    View Comment
  78. With respect to a preceding comment “What you learned is logically incorrect. Mathematically speaking, even events of zero probability can happen!”

    I am a former quantitative methods professor, the probability of a given even ranges from zero to one, with one termed a “certainty” and zero an “impossibly.” While any of man’s impossilbities can become certainties with God, when one uses agreed upon terms in a public debate, they mean what they mean, not what one wishes them to be. The writer of the referenced quote is entitled to his/her own opinion, but not his own facts, terms, and definitions.




    0
    View Comment
  79. As I was reading my Bible this morning I ran across these verses–which I never remember reading before–and which I find very interesting in the light of all the discussions going on these days:

    Ecclesiastes 3:11– “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He as put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.”

    Ecclesiastes 8:16, 17– “…then I saw all the works of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he shall not be able to find it .”

    Romans 11:33–“Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”

    It appears to me that, no matter how brilliant a person may be–or how many degrees he/she may have behind his/her name there are limits on how far our feeble intellects can take us when it comes to really knowing what God did–or did not–do when He created our world! There comes a time when we just need to be still and know that(He)is God–and that He is much smarter than any or all the humans He created.

    Perhaps we humans need to say like Habakkuk “I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.” Hab.2:1

    Knowing God and getting our wisdom from Him through His Word is our only safe course in life. And this is the only safe advice we can give to our children. And anyone who teaches a different “gospel” to them should never be allowed to teach them!




    0
    View Comment
  80. I would like to add a comment to the letter I just posted on this site a short while ago.

    When I said “Anyone who teaches a different “gospel” to them should never be allowed to teach them” I did not intend to imply that those “teachers” should be treated harshly or removed from our church rosters. Whoever they may be, they are God’s children just as much as the most godly person who has ever lived is. They need our prayers and our understanding love– and we need to do all we can to let them know they have it. After all, who knows what problems they may be struggling with? But, as I see it, they should not be working with or teaching our impressionable children.

    “Deal gently with the erring, oh do thou not forget–however deeply stained with sin, he (she) is thy brother (sister)yet. Heir of the selfsame heritage, child of the selfsame God–who has but stumbled in the path that thou, in weakness, trod.”




    0
    View Comment
  81. Rick.

    A partial commitment to truth is a full commitment to falsehood. Truth is only truth if it is completely! The most dangerout form of error is when there is just enough lie to go undetected by many.




    0
    View Comment
  82. Rick, amen to that. 99% right is still 1% wrong. A little cancer has to be removed before it kills the whole body and these professors are a cancer to the church that should have been removed years ago. There should have never been the need for a site like this. This should never have risen to the point of debate within the church. The same with the gay issue. We have deceived ourselves into thinking God will conform to our logic.




    0
    View Comment
  83. Eugene, you are filibustering. HOW DOES A SINNER GET ATONEMENT FOR HIS/HER SINS?

    You speak as though the issues of the origin of sin and the atonement have nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate. This is the Seventh-day Adventist CHURCH. There is ample evidence for creationism. But that evidence has nothing to do with a person’s faith in what God has said in His Word. In fact, if a person’s faith did depend upon evidence, it would be nullified. Faith is trusting God. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

    By the way, Gnosticism was the attempted mixture of Judeo-Christian faith with Greek philosophy. It arose in the first century. The Apostles Paul and John dealt with it. Jesus mentioned it also in one of His letters in Revelation 2:15, referenced by the Nicolaitans. The word comes from the Greek, gnosis, meaning knowledge. The Gnostics, like theistic evolutionist (deists), thought that they had a special enlightenment also because of their training in philosophy.

    If you reject creationism, you reject sin. If you reject sin, you reject the need for redemption from sin. If humans do not need redemption from sin, then Christ’s death on the cross means nothing to us. Christianity would then be a pointless religion. These issues cannot be ignored. We must either accept Christ as our sacrifice, or reject the whole religion as nonsense. If there were not one thread of evidence for creationism, a person would have to decide whether he/she would believe the Gospel. If you reject the Gospel, then religion is a waste.

    If you are embarrassed by Adventism, then throw it away. But do not try to change it.

    Honestly, what do politics and the tea party movement have to do with this?




    0
    View Comment
  84. Stephen you have hit the crux of the matter, well said. Without a literal 7 day Creation week the whole Bible is rubbish. The basis for a Christians religious views stand upon the Biblical account of Creation. If we do not stop this cancer it will kill the SDA church.




    0
    View Comment
  85. Stephen Vicaro: HOW DOES A SINNER GET ATONEMENT FOR HIS/HER SINS?

    I’m not here to discuss the atonement. I’m here to discuss science, of which you are profoundly ignorant. My understanding of the atonement is presented here:

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/tdojatmolpart1.htm
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/qod.htm

    You speak as though the issues of the origin of sin and the atonement have nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.

    The connection between the science of the devil and the science of salvation is stated in the Spirit of prophecy:

    “As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths.”

    My response to pseudo-Adventism’s spiritualism and pantheism are given here:

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/pantheism.htm




    0
    View Comment
  86. You speak as though the issues of the origin of sin and the atonement have nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.

    The connection between the science of the devil and the science of salvation is stated in the Spirit of prophecy:

    “As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths.”

    My response to pseudo-Adventism’s spiritualism and pantheism are given here:

    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/pantheism.htm




    0
    View Comment
  87. Im not forgetting. My statement was a reminder to all of us, myself included that we need to look at our motivations for the things that we say and do. We can be right in the things we say, but completely wrong in the motivation for doing them.




    0
    View Comment
  88. Eugene, are you saying that Christ was ignorant of science because He accepted the Biblical account of Creation? Amazing. The professors in our own schools rejecting the intelligence of Christ.

    Creation is acceptable when it’s formulated properly? Huh? Oh ya, the Biblical account has to be reformulated to fit science. In other words scientists are once again smarter the the Being who provided the inspiration for the Bible and was in fact the Creator.

    Eugene, out here, away from academia, out here where the rubber meets the road we don’t really care about the “proofs” of evolution, or “proofs” of Creation for that matter. What we care about is that our church does not waver from the Biblical account of Creation. Out here we don’t want our young people coming from our schools with anti-Christian beliefs, much less anti-SDA beliefs. We want our tithes and offering supporting schools that follow the simple truths of the Bible, not the convoluted reasoning of man. Out here we are simple folks who can easily see that the theory of evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity. Out here we are followers of the Creator, the One who was born on this earth, taught the truth of Creation and died for our sins. Which only makes sense with a literal 7 day Creation week. Anyone who rejects a literal Creation week is also rejecting the Creator. This issue is not about the intellectual debate of Creation vs Evolution. It’s about who we are going to follow, God or Satan. It can’t be both.




    0
    View Comment
  89. Now and then someone will post on this web site stating that part of the problem we fact today – is with the wording of our belief #6.

    I have already detailed in a recent post – just how I see belief #6 being shot to pieces (along with other Fundamental Beliefs) by the counterfeit doctrines promoted by those evangelizing for evolutionism.

    See this link –
    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9194

    But here is a recent post by F. Weber where this comes up again.

    @F. Weber:

    What’s all the fuss about LSU? Theoretically and technically the Church is in no position to urge LSU to teach a recent six-day Creation, if the teachers there claim and endorse the notion that the strongest scientific evidence points to life being on the earth for millions of years. Why? The answer is simple, but disturbingly profound. The problem is not so much with LSU. The real problem lies in the present wording of Belief 6 that makes it a good, but incomplete definition of Creation as historically understood by Adventists as shown below. LSU is not teaching anything explicitly prohibited by Belief 6 which definition of Creation LSU states is the one and only definition of Creation by which LSU will be guided in its teaching of Creation on campus. This limitation of the definition of Creation acceptable to LSU is key.

    F. Weber goes on in that post to note that Belief 6 does not include a short-term chronology (less than 10,000 years for example) as part of the belief statement.

    However – as I noted at the link referenced above – Belief 6 is being contradicted by LSU evolutionists as follows –

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

    SDA 28FB Belief 6
    6. Creation:
    God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,’‘ declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

    Evolutionism denies every single point of doctrine 6 for it says;

    1. God is not the Creator of all things. At best he created the big bang and then let everything else evolve and create itself over billions and billions of years. Thus the “intelligence” of the Creator cannot be seen in a single thing in nature today unless it is done “by faith alone” believing in spite of seeing nothing.

    2. Scripture does NOT give an authentic account of anything such as the creation of all life on earth in a literal 7 day week. It is myth, poetry and storytelling.

    3. God did not rest on the 7th day of the first week of Creation — because there was no “week of creation” with a literal day in it such that God could rest in a completed work – with mankind already in Eden on day 7. Simply “no such thing” according to evolutionism.

    4. Thus God could NOT have “established the Sabbath on day 7”. No not on “Day 7” nor on the 7 Millionth year nor even the 700 Millionth year!

    5. Since the Christian God is not a violent grunting animal-eating cave-dwelling hominid – the first humans were not in the image of God nor did they even have a language complex enough to understand a 7 day creation week concept much less the notion of “keeping the 7th day holy” or seeing God as the ONE true God creator of all life..

    6. The first hominids were of such basic mind that there is no way they could have been given “charge” of the earth to “care for it”. They were lucky to even “survive” as day by day they bashed in their ration of monkey brains in their caves.

    7. Evolutionism says that by the time mankind came along – the world was ruled by the law of tooth and claw. It was a ruthless and bloody place where “creation” was achieved by virtue of starvation and predation. It was not “good” at all – and humans today should not seek to return to such a bloody death-overall origin.

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

    The bottom line is that there is NO model of evolutionism today that will admit to a full and complete creation week – a literal 7 day week with all genomes created in a single week — and then that followed by 10 million years (or even 100,000 years) of nothing more than “microevolution” —

    Certainly that model of evolution is not being taught at LSU or any other university that I know of.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.