Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Ruth deGraaff.
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.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Ruth deGraaff
LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
I know for a fact that Walla Walla is still teaching evolution, as is Avondale College. Their reps proudly told me so at the GC in Atlanta. The letter of apology is encouraging, but it isn’t over until it’s over! God bless everyone that is standing up for God’s truth in these tumultuous times! We must be firm and not waver. If our students decide they no longer believe the Bible account of creation they have plenty of options open to them. They do not need this opportunity at the churches expense.
LSU student petition surfaces
I am so proud of the 78 students and professors that signed this petition. It is sad that they weren’t heard until now. Why did we wait six year to validate their concerns? We probably shouldn’t wait for this again. Unless the teaching at the university is different, we probably won’t get this kind of response again. Students are probably convinced by now that evolution is what the church teaches.
AAA to examine LSU
From the comments I assume that the accreditation team is hard at work by now. For those of you that have never served on such a team, the purpose of an accreditation is not to evaluate the school, BUT to evaluate the school in light of what the school says it is doing. So this issue would be part of the evaluation if in fact LSU says it is an Adventist institution, and teaches creation science in the biology department. If it doesn’t make these claims either in its handbook or on its website or in publications about the school then it probably would not be within the scope of the work of the committee. Since LSU has already mentioned the issue in their self-study, then it is safe to assume that it will be included. We all need to pray for this committee.
As to the other comments about being Christlike and polite–sometimes when we are standing for what it right it is very difficult to be polite. Check out history–the reformers weren’t always polite either!
PUC responds
to Johnny Vance, Nov. 3
You are absolutely right. There are more Adventist universities teaching this philosophy of science in addition to La Sierra. When I was at the GC I spoke to some representatives of different schools, and asked about their biology departments. More than one told me,”We are teaching inline with La Sierra.” This whole issue is a lot bigger than any of us have imagined.
LSU student petition criticizes curriculum
It seems obvious that the LSU Biology Department has no plans to change any time soon. I think the original function of this website was to inform the average Adventist of the concerns at La Sierra. Perhaps, now that that has been accomplished (if indeed it has) a shift in focus is in order. Perhaps it could become a site for sharing information that is helpful to creationists when confronted with evolution where ever they find it. It could include geological evidence, biological evidence and even evidence from outer space. We live in awesome times: new scientific material is being discovered daily. Just for example explore http://hubblesite.org and see all the beautiful pictures of stars, planets and space the Hubble Space Telescope sends to earth daily. There are so many fantastic discoveries, perhaps we could use the site better in a different way. Just a suggestion. I’ve really appreciated what has been accomplished through this site. Still it is easier to be “against” something than “for” something.
