My recollection of “Planet the Apes” (the original 1968 version …

Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by David Read.

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.

David Read Also Commented

Perspectives from alleged LSU students
I will second what Pastor Carlson has written. These posts by Neptunnus and Michael are very sad, and very discouraging if you believe that LaSierra exists in part to further the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

It is sad that Neptunnus considers that concerned Adventists who feel they have an interest in LaSierra are “outsiders” and are “meddling.” Any Adventist should be considered part of the extended family of all Adventist colleges, even if they aren’t alumni. But Adventists from southern or southeastern California, and that includes me, Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde, are part of the Adventist constituency that directly supports LaSierra. We are not “outsiders” and we are not “meddling.”

The conflict between creationism and Darwinism is not a conflict between the “ignorant” (a term Neptunnus uses twice) and the knowledgeable. There are many Ph.D. and M.D. scientists on each side of the issue, and as well as many extremely knowledgeable lay people, like me. The conflict is ultimately between those who want to see Adventist doctrine supported at an Adventist institution and those who don’t want that, and even want to see Adventist doctrine undermined.

It is interesting that Neptunnus sets up a false dichotomy: either teach evolution as fact or “banish” it from the institution. Of course, the third way advocated by me and others who post here is to teach the theory of evolution as what non-believers have come up with to explain the creation, but teach creationism as the true history of our origins.

The statement “Intelligent design is just not backed up by scientific evidence” is interesting for two reasons. First, it indicates that for Neptunnus, creationism, traditionally understood by Adventists to be our true origins, is not even on the table. It is not even an option. The options are Darwinism and Intelligent Design. But ID is very minimally theistic, and without religious content. It does not posit that the earth was created in six literal days and destroyed in a worldwide flood, as the Bible teaches and as Adventists believe. Intelligent Design, by itself and without more, is NOT the Adventist view of origins. Yet for Neptunnus, it is the only alternative to the Darwinism he is being taught as truth. And he has rejected it, anyway.

Second, Neptunnus’ statement that ID isn’t “backed up by scientific evidence” indicates that he probably doesn’t understand the primary philosophical disagreement between ID scientists like Stephen Meyer and Darwinist scientists, to wit, whether science must be naturalistic or whether it may legitimately hypothesize a Designer. If it is a rule of science that only naturalistic explanations are allowed, then it doesn’t matter how designed something looks, it must be only the appearance of design, not actual design. But obviously this is an outcome of a philosophical preference, not of “evidence.” That Neptunnus doesn’t seem to recognize this doesn’t speak well of the quality of his LaSierra education.

It is also interesting that Neptunnus is being taught not to “read the Bible literally,” contrary to the Adventist hermeneutic and doctrinal principles. “But, when you interpret Scripture and dig deeper, science can actually support the Bible.” Of course, Adventist believe that you can dig deeper into true science and see that it supports Scripture without having to “interpret” Scripture in a non-literal way to make it support men’s limited and false theories about origins.

For me, the most frightening thing about Neptunnus and Michael is that they have no clue that their views are in any way unorthodox or un-Adventist. They will be able to say with perfect truthfulness, “My views are Seventh-day Adventist views. I went to a Seventh-day Adventist college and was taught by Seventh-day Adventist professors, who taught me that we evolved over millions of years, and that the Bible is not to be taken literally on the issue of origins. This is what I learned from Adventist professors at an Adventist college, so don’t tell me that my views are in any way un-Adventist.”

If that doesn’t shake you to your foundations, I can’t imagine what would. That is why Pastor Carlson is basically right: if LaSierra cannot be fixed in a resonable span of time, it should be closed, or least stripped of any affiliation with the Adventist Church.

Perspectives from alleged LSU students
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.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.