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.

Please follow and like us:
271
37

184 thoughts on “Perspectives from alleged LSU students

  1. Eugene Shubert: 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:

    Eugene, I’ve read many of your posts, and I’m still not sure what you are saying, besides, “you’re” all wrong and, “I’m” right. Right or wrong about what is a mystery to me. What I have seen is a steady trend of directing people away with links from this site with very little substance for those who stay. Please clarify a few things for me.

    Do you believe the Genesis account here: Genesis 1:31, the Exodus account here: Exodus 20:11 and the Revelation account here: Revelation 14:7?
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  2. Richard Sherwin: we don’t really care about the “proofs” of evolution, or “proofs” of Creation for that matt

    Richard, I guess this says it all. As long as you don’t care what the truth is, then we really have no foundation for a discussion.

    Unfortunately, our science teachers don’t have the luxury of not caring.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Here is an interesting quote copied from “The Seven Faces of Adventism”.
    Notice that the prophesy is about the “conservatives”, and notice what it says they will be doing to the “progressives, or liberals”. Could this web site be a fulfilment of this prophesy?

    The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity she will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging, forbidding circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith. And at that time the {superficial, conservative class}, {whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work}, will renounce the faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, toward whom their sympathies have long been tending. These apostates will then manifest the most bitter enmity, {doing all in their power to oppress and malign their former brethren and to excite indignation against them.} This day is just before us. The members of the church will individually be tested and proved. They will be placed in circumstances where they will be forced to bear witness for the truth. Many will be called to speak before councils and in courts of justice, perhaps separately and alone. The experience which would have helped them in this emergency they have neglected to obtain, and their souls are burdened with remorse for wasted opportunities and neglected privileges. Testimonies For the Church, Vol. 5, 463.




    0
    View Comment
  4. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

    Richard Sherwin: We want our tithes and offering supporting schools that follow the simple truths of the Bible, not the convoluted reasoning of man.

    Ron: Richard…you don’t care what the truth is…

    I hate to disagree with you, Ron, but I believe Richard Sherwin cares very much what the truth is. Now we’re wondering, do you?
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  5. Ron proofs change. That might have proved a point about Creation last year might be disproved this year. What does not change is God. Truth is the word of God, not science. You want truth? “For in six days God made the heavens the earth”. That can’t be proved by science. Proofs and truth are not always the same.




    0
    View Comment
  6. Richard Sherwin: Truth is the word of God, not science

    Well, there you have it again. We are talking about a Science class. Unfortunately, if in is not science, then the science teacher doesn’t have the luxury of teaching it.
    Until you can get scientific evidence that God created in 6 days, you can’t teach that in a science class because it isn’t science.

    Yes, all truth matters, even scientific truth.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Richard Sherwin: Eugene, are you saying that Christ was ignorant of science because He accepted the Biblical account of Creation?

    No. I’m saying that Laodicean Seventh-day Adventists are ignorant of science because they revel in blind, pharisaical presumption and willful ignorance.

    It is as the Spirit of prophecy has said:

    There are many among us who are prejudiced against the doctrines that are now being discussed. They will not come to hear, they will not calmly investigate, but they put forth their objections in the dark. They are perfectly satisfied with their position. “Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (Revelation 3:17-19).

    This scripture applies to those who live under the sound of the message, but who will not come to hear it. 1SM 413

    Creation is acceptable when it’s formulated properly? Huh? Oh ya, the Biblical account has to be reformulated to fit science.

    Creationism is to be reformulated to fit science only if the argument is that creationism is a scientifically logical and admissible possibility.

    …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.

    Many professing Seventh-day Adventists, including pastors and administrators, protect the pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists and pantheists that are now hissing and biting at true Seventh-day Adventists. If the gospel has already been compromised on the level of large-scale, faithful obedience to the prince of darkness, what is the relevance of one more soul-destroying doctrine from Satan?




    0
    View Comment
  8. But Ron the issue here is that the professors at LSU are teaching that the word of God is not truth. They are saying that the teachings of man are truth, that the Bible is incorrect and that Christ is incorrect. Their teachings invalidate the whole Bible. If they want to go over the proofs of evolution and Creation that is fine, I would expect them to. But when they teach that the proofs of evolution are truth they have crossed the line. Years ago I was taught about evolution in our schools, but I was never taught that the word of God is wrong. I was never taught that God did not Create the world in six days. I have no problem with the teaching of evolution in a science class, as long as it’s not taught as the truth.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Ron: Rich, God’s word is not the issue here. The problem is an inadequate understanding of God’s word.  

    Ron, could you please demonstrate for us how the fourth commandment could be re-written so that it could more clearly speak of a recent, six-day creation?
    (Cf. Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:8-9, 10, 11; Psalms 33:6, 9; Psalms 95:3-4, 5-6; Psalms 96:5; Psalms 104:5; Isaiah 45:11-12; Isaiah 65:17; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 19:4-5; John 1:1-2, 3; Acts 17:28; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15-16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5; Revelation 4:11; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 21:1.)
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  10. @Ron:

    Ron says:
    February 23, 2010 Here is an interesting quote ….

    “The work which the church has failed to do in a time of peace and prosperity she will have to do in a terrible crisis under most discouraging, forbidding circumstances. The warnings that worldly conformity has silenced or withheld must be given under the fiercest opposition from enemies of the faith

    Testimonies For the Church, Vol. 5, 463.

    That is certainly an instructive quote. Thanks for sharing.

    here is another.

    Ellen White — 3SG 90-91
    Chapter IX. – Disguised Infidelity

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. …{3SG 91.2}

    Now you have to admit – there are a lot of Adventists that will tend to take that subject seriously.

    And that is a huge problem for evolutionists trying to operate from inside our SDA institutions.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  11. Eugene I’ve never heard another SDA say that believing in the word of God is willful ignorance. Is this how far we have fallen that a professor in our schools openly says that belief in the Bible is willful ignorance?




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Ron:

    Rich, God’s word is not the issue here. The problem is an inadequate understanding of God’s word.

    Well again – we appear to be in agreement.

    God’s Word is not to blame here.

    It clearly says “SIX days you shall labor … for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and aLL that is in them”

    If we are to blame evolutionism on someone or something – it certainly cannot be blamed on God’s Word.

    So the question is – how in the world did someone inside the SDA church get so turned around as to have failed to read Ex 20:8-11 with a certain level of sound exegesis? Were they so married to “taking their own agenda to the Bible” that they simply missed the text of Ex 20??

    So far – no one has been able to explain their difficulty in reading that chapter. (other than the few that have dared to make the claim that to the extent that Ellen White agrees with what the Bible student finds in that text – she is wrong)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  13. I think the real question is can our church continue to allow non-Biblical, anti Christian, anti SDA teaching to continue to be taught in our schools? Are we going to uphold the Bible or the teachings of man? It’s not about interpreting the Bible. The Bible is very clear concerning a literal creation week, and all of Christian theology depends on it. Are we going to let our vulnerable young people continue to be taught the ways of Satan or not? We need to call evolution for what is is, Satan’s most perfect way of discrediting the Creator.




    0
    View Comment
  14. Erik: 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.

    I find myself in the unenviable (in this context) position of defending scholars who hold doctorates. As a scholar who is about to receive a PhD (in June), I can say with some certainty that the scholarly environment is nothing like what you just described. Rather than imbibing brainwashing, students in graduate programs are expected to think critically and make new contributions to knowledge in their fields (that is what the dissertation is). A student in an academic discipline that did nothing but conform, would certainly not receive a terminal doctoral degree.

    Erik: 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.

    Again, my above argument applies to this statement as well. Neither amateurs nor PhDs have the corner on the market for balance. Actually, balance is the problem many here have with LSU professors and others; too much balance in allowing divergent theories to be taught.

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  15. David Kendall: “I find myself in the unenviable (in this context) position of defending scholars who hold doctorates. As a scholar who is about to receive a PhD (in June), I can say with some certainty that the scholarly environment is nothing like what you just described.”

    October 19, 1512, Martin Luther received his doctorate. He survived. John Wycliffe became a doctor in 1372. Most, however, do not emit such bright light.
    God bless,

    Rich

    (Sources: Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985–93, 1:12-27; Encyclopedia Britannica)




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Eugene Shubert: Silly Shubet – A French Mathematician proved (using math) long ago that anything less than 1 / 10 to power of 20 is impossible. Only Fools will bet on mathmatically impossible odds. I take my bet against those fools and I’m sure to win .

    Oh foolish ES… when will you wake up!! God and his miracles are the only things in the known universe to contravene 2nd law of Thermo.




    0
    View Comment
  17. David: @Eugene Shubert: – A French Mathematician proved (using math) long ago that anything less than 1 / 10 to power of 20 is impossible.

    Untaught Laodiceans are so conceited. Sadly, even children know that you have been lied to. Where did you receive your degree in science? I can easily create an event less probable than 1/10^20. And average high school students of algebra understand why. It only takes flipping a coin 67 times and noting the results.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Stephen Vicaro: If you reject the Gospel, then religion is a waste.

    I simply reject your gospel. Here is a gospel that is better than yours:

    I also expect to find a better gospel in a hamburger bun than in what you peddle. Doesn’t Sister White say somewhere that there is more gospel in a good loaf of bread than in most sermons?




    0
    View Comment
  19. Eugene Shubert: Untaught Laodiceans are so conceited. Sadly, even children know that you have been lied to. Where did you receive your degree in science? I can easily create an event less probable than 1/10^20. And average high school students of algebra understand why. It only takes flipping a coin 67 times and noting the results.

    You clearly don’t understand the concept of predictability. The odds that some pattern will be produced by flipping a coin 67 times is 100%. The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20. Big difference.

    Remember, science is based on predictability… on the odds that your predictions will come true.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  20. Eugene, if “untaught Laodiceans” are the ones still clinging to their belief in the Bible then I will cast my lot with them and with Christ who also believed in the Bible and a literal Creation week. I do not understand how anyone can continue to call themselves Christian and yet go against the very basics of Christianity. Can you explain that to me? And can you explain to me why you quote Mrs. White and yet reject what she says about Creation? I guess Christ, EGW and people like me are just untaught, untaught to believe the teachings of man concerning the Creation.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Richard Sherwin:
    Eugene, if “untaught Laodiceans” are the ones still clinging to their belief in the Bible …

    No. Untaught Laodiceans are those who are so self-satisfied with their ignorance that they presume to understand what they have never studied (science) and have the audacity to instruct those who have the scientific training and background and really understand.

    And can you explain to me why you quote Mrs. White and yet reject what she says about Creation?

    You are greatly confused. I do not reject what Mrs. White has said about Creation.




    0
    View Comment
  22. @Sean Pitman, M.D.:

    You clearly don’t understand the concept of predictability. The odds that some pattern will be produced by flipping a coin 67 times is 100%. The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20. Big difference.

    Remember, science is based on predictability… on the odds that your predictions will come true.

    Indeed it is a rabbit trail some evolutionists like to use.

    The fact is that EVERY flip of the coin has a 50% chance of being heads. By compounding that into a sequence – every flip STILL has a 50% chance of being heads – but the sequence reduces that 50% probability down to nill as the “sequence” eventually. Which really sas that your 100 flip sequence will not REPEAT, and that is a very DIFFERENT problem than the evolutionist problem where the single flip of the coin producing “heads” is already NILL.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. Sean Pitman, M.D.:
    You clearly don’t understand the concept of predictability.

    I am clearly not discussing the concept of predictability.

    The odds that some pattern will be produced by flipping a coin 67 times is 100%.

    Correct. And in the language of mathematicians, the odds that the outcome will be the specific sequence of heads and tails that develops is less than 1/10^20.

    The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20.

    And there is no mathematical theorem which states that such a remarkable prediction couldn’t be fulfilled. Furthermore, if a chimpanzee were to pound on a keyboard long enough, he could type out—on his very first try—the complete works of Shakespeare without a single spelling error.

    Chimpanzees and popular creationists simply don’t understand the mathematical theory of probability.

    Eugene Shubert
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman/




    0
    View Comment
  24. Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God! That the theories of man are truth and that God was wrong when He told us that He created the world in six days. And if we believe in God we are ignorant. I’m starting to see possibly where the battle lines are being drawn within our denomination, those that believe in the simple truths presented in the Bible vs those who believe in the studies of mortal men. If you represent what is happening in our schools things are much worse than I could have imagined. Once again, I will gladly, and prayerfully, follow Christ and what he taught as the truth before I will follow the teachings of men and Satan.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Richard Sherwin:
    Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!

    It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

    In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).

    So grow up and stop practicing deceit.




    0
    View Comment
  26. @Sean Pitman, M.D.:

    You clearly don’t understand the concept of predictability. The odds that some pattern will be produced by flipping a coin 67 times is 100%. The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20. Big difference.

    Remember, science is based on predictability… on the odds that your predictions will come true.

    That is correct.

    The key in the slight-of-mind game that is played with the coin is to get the listener to ignore the basics in statistics which is – if you change the criteria for success – you change the probability.

    Criteria 1: Get either heads or tails on the next flip of the coin.
    Probability – nearly 100%.

    Criteria 2: Get HEADS on the next flip of the coin.
    Probability – almost 50%

    Criteria 3: Get EDGE as the next result of the next flip of the coin.
    probability – less than 1%.

    In the starting scenario of 100 flips of the coin the probability of success at every stage for the next event is always 100% because you don’t have any sequence yet “to match” so “anything is good”. Probability of failure then is always zero.

    1 – the probability of failure = probability of success. At every point in the starting condition the probability of success is 100%. Thus you will have a 100% successful 100 event sequence as well as a 100% successful 200 event sequence IF have no criteria for failure at each flip of the coin.

    It is only when you introduce the new criteria of specific-sequence that the probability of failure is introduced.

    Thus If I randomly make up a sequence in my mind of 100 flip events – your probability of reproducing that sequence with an actual coin – is nill.

    The “slight of mind” played by evolutionists is to get the listener to ignore the key points of the exercise. If they are successful at that then they can propose anything — such as “molecules suddenly expanding into the form of functioning hamster brains” – because at the worst it is “not at all likely”. But of course they would prefer their storytelling to be in the form of a long sequence of “just so” stories. Then they can give that exercise some kind of name – like “climbing mount improbable” to sell it to the public.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  27. @Eugene Shubert:

    And there is no mathematical theorem which states that such a remarkable prediction couldn’t be fulfilled. Furthermore, if a chimpanzee were to pound on a keyboard long enough, he could type out—on his very first try—the complete works of Shakespeare without a single spelling error.

    In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence” to the probability – we get “NIL”.

    In the case of the example above – “the probabiliy of a monkey typing one word correctly that happens to be the first word in Hamlet” is very unlikely – then turning that into a 2,000 word “sequence” it goes to nothing. But for evolutionists – it goes to “probable” or at least “believable”.

    Thus Colin Patterson’s claim that evolutionism seems to “convey antiknowledge” to evolutionists.

    in Christ,

    Bob




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

    I can say with some certainty that the scholarly environment is nothing like what you just described. Rather than imbibing brainwashing, students in graduate programs are expected to think critically and make new contributions to knowledge in their fields (that is what the dissertation is).

    That was the “given” that so many of us were surprised to find – being suspended on behalf of evolutionism at LSU.

    A student in an academic discipline that did nothing but conform, would certainly not receive a terminal doctoral degree.

    Would that that were still true for students of biology and religion at LSU. But the example we have seen in the case of evolution – has put that idea in significant doubt.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. Ron: Well, there you have it again. We are talking about a Science class. Unfortunately, if in is not science, then the science teacher doesn’t have the luxury of teaching it.Until you can get scientific evidence that God created in 6 days, you can’t teach that in a science class because it isn’t science.Yes, all truth matters, even scientific truth.  (Quote)

    Ron,

    You are making the presupposition that science in unbiased. Really? Is it not a presupposition to believe that there is no God? We are talking about two different worldviews. We would not hire an Islamic professor to teach Christianity in our schools. He is fundamentally incapable of doing so. Our science professors should have a Christian worldview, not an atheistic one. There are plenty of Christian PH.D.s in the Adventist church who believe in creationism. Chadwick, Roth and Yonker are a few to mention. When has the majority of society ever been right? The atheistic evolutionists laugh down their noses at Christians who claim to be evolutionists. Even they know that you can’t be both. The modern scientific consensus is wrong!




    0
    View Comment
  30. BobRyan:
    In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence” to the probability – we get “NIL”.

    You’re speaking gibberish. “NIL” means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.

    You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
    Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?




    0
    View Comment
  31. Eugene Shubert: If the gospel has already been compromised on the level of large-scale, faithful obedience to the prince of darkness, what is the relevance of one more soul-destroying doctrine from Satan?

    Eugene,

    Now we know your true ambitions! Just as I said earlier, this can only lead to a disolution of the Adventist church. Honestly, I believe that is the goal of the deist movement.

    The egyptians tried to explain the power of God as natural accourances that happened all on their own. Modern egypt is no different.

    By the way Eugene, you obviously do not agrees with Ellen White, because she was a devout creationist. So why to you keep [mis]quoting her? Do you think that you are the judge as to what parts of the Spirit of Prophecy are trustworthy, and which parts are not. You already believe you are the Bible’s judge.

    I have also noticed that you never answer our questions. Rather, you try to deter us to a rabbit trail.

    Christianity is not a philosophy. It is a religion. You cannot be a Christian and an evolutionist. The idea is paradox. If you are as intellegent as you claim (real modesty), then why can’t you understand this?




    0
    View Comment
  32. Eugene Shubert: I only reject your profound ignorance of science.

    Isn’t that an assumption. I thought that “scientists” did not make assumptions. Only the facts, right? You have never met me, and yet you think that you know about my intelligence, education, political views, spirituality, etc., even though we have never discussed any of those things. That is a lot of assuming. Your insults are a sign that you have passed the end of your logical answers.

    I joined this church 19 years ago because I believed it’s worldview to be correct. You disagree with the Adventist church worldview. I don’t understand. Why would you devote your life to an institution that you fundamentally disagree with? If I believed that evolution were true, I would dump Christianity. Logically, “scientifically,” the two do not harmonize.

    Again, I ask you, how are we saved in your world view? Please give a clear, concise statement.




    0
    View Comment
  33. Bob said –

    The key in the slight-of-mind game that is played with the coin is to get the listener to ignore the basics in statistics which is – if you change the criteria for success – you change the probability.

    Criteria 1: Get either heads or tails on the next flip of the coin.
    Probability – nearly 100%.

    Criteria 2: Get HEADS on the next flip of the coin.
    Probability – almost 50%

    Criteria 3: Get EDGE as the next result of the next flip of the coin.
    probability – less than 1%.

    In the starting scenario of 100 flips of the coin the probability of success at every stage for the next event is always 100% because you don’t have any sequence yet “to match” so “anything is good”. Probability of failure then is always zero.

    1 – the probability of failure = probability of success. At every point in the starting condition the probability of success is 100%. Thus you will have a 100% successful 100 event sequence as well as a 100% successful 200 event sequence IF have no criteria for failure at each flip of the coin.

    It is only when you introduce the new criteria of specific-sequence that the probability of failure is introduced.

    Thus If I randomly make up a sequence in my mind of 100 flip events – your probability of reproducing that sequence with an actual coin – is nill.

    The “slight of mind” played by evolutionists is to get the listener to ignore the key points of the exercise. If they are successful at that then they can propose anything — such as “molecules suddenly expanding into the form of functioning hamster brains” – because at the worst it is “not at all likely”. But of course they would prefer their storytelling to be in the form of a long sequence of “just so” stories. Then they can give that exercise some kind of name – like “climbing mount improbable” to sell it to the public.

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

    In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence” to the probability – we get “NIL”.

    In the case of the example above – “the probabiliy of a monkey typing one word correctly that happens to be the first word in Hamlet” is very unlikely – then turning that into a 2,000 word “sequence” it goes to nothing. But for evolutionists – it goes to “probable” or at least “believable”.

    Thus Colin Patterson’s claim that evolutionism seems to “convey antiknowledge” to evolutionists.

    @Eugene Shubert:

    You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of y … {obligatory nonsense insults and ranting deleted here}

    Since you have offerred no response to points raised – the point remains.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. Eugene Shubert: Sean Pitman: The odds that you will be able to predict the resulting pattern ahead of time, for fair flips of an unbiased coin, is 1 in 2^67 or 1e-20.

    Eugene Shubert:
    And there is no mathematical theorem which states that such a remarkable prediction couldn’t be fulfilled. Furthermore, if a chimpanzee were to pound on a keyboard long enough, he could type out—on his very first try—the complete works of Shakespeare without a single spelling error.

    Chimpanzees and popular creationists simply don’t understand the mathematical theory of probability.

    Ever hear of the “null hypothesis” Eugene? Upon what basis do scientists, real scientists that is, reject or accept the null hypothesis as being “most likely true”?

    What they do is accept or reject hypotheses, all of which are technically “possible”, based on statistical analysis and what level of predictive value is needed, in their own minds anyway, to accept or reject the hypothesis at hand as being “most probable” out of all the available options.

    I really can’t believe you brought up the whole “Monkey-typewriter” argument! Sure, while this scenario is technically possible, it is extremely unlikely – so unlikely that if it were to ever happen most real scientists would reject the idea that a real monkey did the job in favor of the idea that there was some higher-level intelligent cheating going on.

    Why is that? After all, it is possible that all the works of Shakespeare could be produced by a single monkey on the very first try – – right? There is actually a finite possibility of success for this scenario. The problem in science is that just about anything is possible, but not just anything is likely. Science is about determining what is most likely among many solutions which are all possible, but which are not all equally probable.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesging.com




    0
    View Comment
  35. Eugene Shubert: I simply reject your gospel. Here is a gospel that is better than yours:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7YvzrwpQxA
    I also expect to find a better gospel in a hamburger bun than in what you peddle. Doesn’t Sister White say somewhere that there is more gospel in a good loaf of bread than in most sermons?

    Eugene.

    I don’t understand. What gospel is it that I hold to that you disagree with? The Bible teaches us that God created a perfect world on His first effort, in six 24-hour days. Mankind messed everything up by choosing to follow someone other than God. That choice to sin brought death on the whole world. In order to reconcile the world to Himself again God paid the penalty for our sins by giving His perfect Son to die in our place. That is the Gospel that I hold to.

    Evolutionists are attempting to destroy that Biblical Gospel by claiming that God did not create this world perfect, and sin and death are not caused by human choices. Evolutionists claim that God is responsible for all of the evil, sin and death that has happened throughout the history of life on this earth.

    Romans 5: 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

    Romans 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Romans 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

    Do you reject the Gospel that I hold to?




    0
    View Comment
  36. Harvested between February 23-24 are the following quotations from separate posts:

    Eugene Shubert: I’m here to discuss science, of which you are profoundly ignorant.

    Eugene Shubert: I only reject your profound ignorance of science.

    Eugene Shubert: I especially reject the faction that you represent.

    Eugene Shubert: Laodicean Seventh-day Adventists are ignorant of science because they revel in blind, pharisaical presumption and willful ignorance.

    Eugene Shubert: Untaught Laodiceans are those who are so self-satisfied with their ignorance that they presume to understand what they have never studied (science) and have the audacity to instruct those who have the scientific training and background and really understand.
    You are greatly confused.

    Eugene Shubert: Chimpanzees and popular creationists simply don’t understand the mathematical theory of probability.

    Eugene Shubert: So grow up and stop practicing deceit.

    Eugene Shubert: You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity. Are you proud of being a contributing influence

    Stephen Vicaro: Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!

    Eugene Shubert: No, that part isn’t clear.

    Eugene Shubert: The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please speak with precision in a scientifically discernable form. I do not understand lowbrow diction.

    “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20

    Rick Baskett: DNFTT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  37. Eugene Shubert: No. Untaught Laodiceans are those who are so self-satisfied with their ignorance that they presume to understand what they have never studied (science) and have the audacity to instruct those who have the scientific training and background and really understand.

    Eugene.

    Again, you miss the point. You offer us a religion without faith. And by the way, science does not discredit creation. Atheistic interpretation “tries” to discredit creation. Your scientific training is biased and contrary to the faith you appear to claim. Those who taught you your worldview probably do not claim to be Christians. You don’t seem to have figured that out.




    0
    View Comment
  38. BobRyan:
    Since you have offerred no response to points raised – the point remains.in Christ,Bob  

    I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”

    Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?

    The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.




    0
    View Comment
  39. Eugene Shubert: You are greatly confused. I do not reject what Mrs. White has said about Creation.

    Eugene,

    Now you are just being dishonest. It is indisputable that EGW was a devout 6-day literal creationist. You are obviously not. She was not ignorant or confused about her own statements, and VISIONS FROM GOD. Her statements do not need your re-interpretation, and she would reject your attempts to do so.




    0
    View Comment
  40. Eugene Shubert: Furthermore, if a chimpanzee were to pound on a keyboard long enough, he could type out—on his very first try—the complete works of Shakespeare without a single spelling error.

    O.K. then. Give that a try!




    0
    View Comment
  41. Eugene I’ll be the first to admit that I really know little of science. I don’t have any fancy letters behind my name, and am in fact a college dropout from way back when. I’m just a struggling bee keeper. But you know what? I do have the ability to read and understand the Word. And when I open my Bible it is very clear to me that in six days the Creator created the earth and rested on the 7th day. If God did this over a long period of time He could and would have told us. But the Creator of the universe did not deceive us, He had no reason to. And try as you might you cannot logically refute the word of God. If the Biblical account of Creation is wrong then He lied to us. I would not presume for a second to call my Savior a liar. Adventist evolutionist (what a oxymoron) are telling us that God deceived us.

    However there is one being who would benefit from us believing in evolution and that is Satan. He is the one who would know that it is impossible to believe in evolution and be a Christian. He is the great deceiver, not God. There is only one logical end to believing in evolution and that is the dis-belief in God which is, bingo, just what Satan wants. He is the great deceiver going around like a roaring lion.

    Sir I have a favor to ask. If you can’t refute a persons post, don’t belittle them, it makes your arguments look weak and takes away from your credibility.




    0
    View Comment
  42. Shane and Sean and Richard and Stephen and Rich and Rick and Bob et. al. Isn’t enough, enough! Please, Please can’t we just ignore the troll? After all, this is not an ordinary troll. This is a false prophet troll. This is a troll who attacks everyone who ever tries to reason with him. This is a troll who spends most of his time trying to spread slanderous lies about the church. It’s bad enough that we have this controversy at LSU going on. Why do we have to offer this church attacking troll a forum for his delusionary pontifications. I repeat – Please, Please, just ignore him!

    Is this not enough of a reminder:
    “…my credentials really are unbelievable. By faith and prophetic understanding, I suppose that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Miller’s dream… The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by me…”

    “I believe that I had a revelatory experience somewhat comparable to the Apostle Paul and William Miller… At the end of those 3 incredible weeks I had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out… I was supernaturally driven to study the book of Daniel and was in a constant state of being continually overwhelmed by revelation. At the end of it I was a Bible scholar that had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out.”

    “I can not be accused of bias. For those who understand my notes I think it’s obvious that the conclusions I came to were given to me by God… God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism:…” – Eugene Shubert ‘The New William Miller’




    0
    View Comment
  43. @BobRyan:

    The points I raised were about graduate education in general, in response to a post that made a blanket assumption about PhDs. LSU does not offer the doctorate in religion or the sciences, but only in education. At lower levels such as the baccalaureate and masters, students are required to demonstrate a synthesis of relevant material in their respective fields (high school is similar, just with a broader focus). In this sense only could students be thought of as conforming to their professors. This is as it should be, especially in the case of Adventist seminaries or schools of religion that offer the MDiv, where a certain amount of conformity is desired to ensure a relative homogeneity among pastors graduating from such institutions (at least as far as their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and general principles of pastoral care and counseling, etc.). Besides, conformity seems to be what is desired by many here; conformity to the principle of a literal six-day creation.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  44. David because our schools are there to support the church and vice versa there has to be a conformity of doctrinal principles. Without it our church will fracture into so many pieces. The conformity has to go beyond just our MDiv and religion students. Music students don’t have to have the same appreciation for all types of music, nor do physic students need to have the same views of physics but on the core of who we are as a church we need to be taught the same view, which is the Biblical view.




    0
    View Comment
  45. @Richard Sherwin:

    Richard Sherwin, I would guess you are one good bee keeper! Degrees aren’t everything as you demonstrate very well. Jesus bypassed the “degreed” people of His day and picked the disciples because they could see and recognize the truth as it was in Jesus, something the “degreed” people never could do.

    Our beloved remnant movement was started with no degrees, just honest laymen/women who believed God’s word.

    Richard, I just wanted to tell you I think you wrote a great response!




    0
    View Comment
  46. RE: Neptunnus

    It this poster is indeed representative of LSU, then I would suggest the entire school be closed immediately and not another precious church dollar be spent there. Neptunnus is clearly in rebellion against God and His word and I see no need to keep a school open just for him. He would be much better served and happier in a public school of higher learning.

    His post is one of the saddest bits of news I have ever seen from a SDA institution.




    0
    View Comment
  47. 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.




    0
    View Comment
  48. @David Read:

    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.”

    A couple of observations in that regard.

    1. These students are not helping their evolutionist masters as much as they might have at first imagined – because they are exposing for all the world to see – the first hand eye witness handiwork of LSU in pushing evolutionism onto unsuspecting students and parents.

    2. They demonstrate that the LSU evolutionists are employing a “foxhole mentality” among their student devotees – convincing them that it is “us against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creation”.

    No doubt the evolution cancer infecting LSU has invaded some local churches conferences and administrators to some degree – but it is not yet the fatal (to Bible creation) picture that evolutionists inside LSU are painting for their students.

    There is still plenty of room for God to take action.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  49. @Doug Carlson, Pastor:

    RE: Neptunnus

    It this poster is indeed representative of LSU, then I would suggest the entire school be closed immediately and not another precious church dollar be spent there. Neptunnus is clearly in rebellion against God and His word and I see no need to keep a school open just for him. He would be much better served and happier in a public school of higher learning.

    His post is one of the saddest bits of news I have ever seen from a SDA institution.

    Indeed – we have other SDA universities – not so married to “atheist-friendly evolutionism instead of the Bible” on the doctrine of origins.

    However getting to the critical significance of your position above –

    I found this interesting regarding Battle Creek before it burned down.

    5T 186
    The influence exerted by some who have long been connected with the work of God is fatal to spirituality and devotion. These gospel-hardened youth have surrounded themselves with an atmosphere of worldliness, irreverence, and infidelity. Dare you risk the effect of such associations upon your children? It would be better for them never to obtain an education than to acquire it at the sacrifice of principle and the blessing of God. {5T 186.1}

    Among the youth who come to Battle Creek there are some who maintain their fidelity to God in the midst of temptation, but the number is small. Many who come here with confidence in the truth, in the Bible, and in religion have been led astray by irreligious associates and have returned to their homes doubting every truth which we as a people hold dear. {5T 186.2}

    Let all our brethren who contemplate removing to Battle Creek, or sending their children here, consider the matter well before taking this step. Unless the forces at this great center are keeping the fort, unless the faith and devotion of the church are proportioned to her privileges and opportunities, this is the most dangerous position which you can choose. I have seen the condition of this church as angels look upon it. There is a spiritual deception upon both the people and the watchmen. They maintain the forms of religion, but lack the abiding principles of righteousness. Unless there is a decided change, a marked transformation in this church, <b.the school here should be removed to some other locality. {5T 186.3}

    Had the youth who have lived here for years improved their privileges, several who are now skeptics would have devoted themselves to the work of the ministry. But they have considered it an evidence of intellectual superiority to doubt the truth and have been proud of their independence in cherishing infidelity. They have done despite to the Spirit of grace and have trampled upon the blood of Christ. {5T 186.4}

    Where are the missionaries who should be raised up at the heart of the work? From twenty to fifty should be sent out from Battle Creek every year to carry the truth to those who sit in darkness. But piety is at so low an ebb, the spirit of devotion is so weak, worldliness and selfishness so prevalent, that the moral atmosphere begets a lethargy fatal to missionary zeal. {5T 187.1}
    …
    Shake off your spiritual lethargy. Work with all your might to save your own souls and the souls of others. It is no time now to cry, “Peace and safety.” It is not silver-tongued orators that are needed to give this message. The truth in all its pointed severity must be spoken. Men of action are needed –men who will labor with earnest, ceaseless energy for the purifying of the church and the warning of the world. {5T 187.3}

    A great work is to be accomplished; broader plans must be laid; a voice must go forth to arouse the nations. Men whose faith is weak and wavering are not the ones to carry forward the work at this important crisis. We need the courage of heroes and the faith of martyrs. {5T 187.4}

    So that was the case at Battle Creek back in 1882.

    An exercise for the reader:

    Imagine if their professors were promoting evolutionism instead of the Bible, and the gay agenda instead of the Bible – how might this instruction have been “different”?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  50. BobRyan:
    … the LSU evolutionists are employing a “foxhole mentality” among their student devotees – convincing them that it is “us against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creation”.

    That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.




    0
    View Comment
  51. “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” [“Shane Hilde”? – page header]

    I believe that these quotes are indeed misrepresentations of the type of faith formed at LSU. The quotes were not directed or posted originally on the Educate Truth site (but rather here: http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/11/07/seventh-day-creationists-petition-the-teaching-of-reality-hopefully-la-sierra-will-evolve-into-a-real-university/#comment-1221).
    The two students do not identify themselves, except as LSU students, so we can not tell much about their backgrounds or current affiliations (hence the “alleged” disclaimer in the thread title). Despite michael’s comment that this view is representative of the majority of students on campus, I seriously doubt that claim and no proof is given. Again, this is two students out of a population of 1850, representing a minuscule fraction of possible viewpoints, just as Louie Bishop and Carlos Cerna represent an equally minuscule fraction. This is hardly cause for such drastic measures as some are suggesting, though many are making assumptions (for which I have not seen definitive proof) about the prevalence of such attitudes at LSU.

    Doug Carlson, Pastor: It this poster is indeed representative of LSU, then I would suggest the entire school be closed immediately and not another precious church dollar be spent there. Neptunnus is clearly in rebellion against God and His word and I see no need to keep a school open just for him. He would be much better served and happier in a public school of higher learning.

    Pastor,

    I am certain that you would not consider closing your local church if you had a number of youth members (or other members) in “open rebellion against God.” I am afraid that this may be what drives many youth from the church. Rebellion (of different kinds) is a hallmark of the teen years, and I will remind everyone that a large number of our students are still in their teens. What better place could we desire than an Adventist institution (church or educational) in which students may safely ask questions and wrestle with difficult issues? If we were to close these institutions, we could then send our children to “the world,” where we can be confident that the answers to their questions would not have anything to do with God. We need to keep the school open for just such individuals.

    If the counter-argument follows that the students have become like this as a result of their enrollment at LSU, I would dispute that argument. Attitudes among teens and early adults are fairly common along the lines seen above. I also teach at an Adventist academy (Loma Linda Academy) and hear conversations and language that I do not approve of. However, would we prefer that the students remain in this environment where committed Adventist Christian teachers can have a positive influence, or move to secular schools where such influences are muted?

    I will end this post with a personal anecdote from my Academy years in the 1990s (Thunderbird Adventist Academy in Scottsdale, Arizona). In my freshman year, our bible teacher was Elder Lee Hadley (retired pastor of the Glendale SDA church). In our class we had a number of disruptive students (as any class of 14-year olds will invariably have), but one boy was particularly difficult, constantly mocking the material and the teacher. After nearly every class, I begged Pastor Hadley to kick the boy out of class, arguing that he didn’t belong there, that he disrespected Christ and the academy. Pastor Hadley always told me that, though he was indeed frustrated, he wanted the boy to stay in the hopes that he would absorb the material and come to a knowledge of Christ, and to know that he was always accepted and valued in the bible class, despite his behavior. I have striven to emulate this Godly attitude (and have failed on occasion) in my own teaching career. I have no idea where this boy is now, but when a time in his life comes when he wonders about eternal things, I hope he remembers not my efforts to have him kicked out the class, but the mercy and kindness shown him by Pastor Hadley at an Adventist school. This is not a perfect analogy to the current situation (analogies never are perfect), but I hope it illustrates the need for safe educational institutions where we can shepherd young people.

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  52. Doug “mid-night hiker” Carlson, thanks for the kind words.

    My fear is that the teaching of evolution is spreading. I have heard that the professors in other schools are coming very near to teaching evolution as fact. And why shouldn’t they since nothing is being done at LSU about it.

    Does anyone remember the World Wide Church of God? It was a Sabbath believing church founded by Herbert Armstrong. It is now 1/2 the size it was because they rejected certain doctrines, including the Sabbath. This is my fear for our church. If we let this cancer grow, what is next? Of course all of our doctrines are dependent on a literal creation week.

    David, it is not the students who are in rebellion against God that concern me since we will always have those. It is the leadership of LSU that are rebellion against God that concerns me. It is the leadership of our whole denomination that are in rebellions against God that concerns me, for indeed if this cancer is not removed by our church then our church leadership shares in the responsibility of leading people to believe in a anti-Christian view.




    0
    View Comment
  53. I believe there are a few things that could get missed here.

    1. The two posters claiming to be LSU students have shown no indication at all that they are angry with the school or that they wish to change the school in any way. They are posting as 100% devotees of their school, their professors and evolutionism.

    So whatever this is – it is not presented in the form of “we are radicals at LSU and we want to change our school”.

    2. The two posters present statements that indicate they “believe” they have the full support of their biology professors and religion department. They appear to “believe” that no one in authority inside the school – is in any way objecting to the views they are presenting. In fact they appear to believe that LSU leadership is 100% in their corner on this one.

    3. Comparing this to a radical in Academy that is kicking at the doors and lashing out or acting out against teachers and fellow students is to do a study “in contrasts”.

    If indeed these are real students – they are saying as much about the environment, faculty and course work at LSU – and what this is designed to produce in the students – as they are about their own personal choices and inclination not to question evolutionist propaganda.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. David Kendall, BMus, MA: Pastor,
    I am certain that you would not consider closing your local church if you had a number of youth members (or other members) in “open rebellion against God.” I am afraid that this may be what drives many youth from the church. Rebellion (of different kinds) is a hallmark of the teen years, and I will remind everyone that a large number of our students are still in their teens. What better place could we desire than an Adventist institution (church or educational) in which students may safely ask questions and wrestle with difficult issues? If we were to close these institutions, we could then send our children to “the world,” where we can be confident that the answers to their questions would not have anything to do with God. We need to keep the school open for just such

    I have had a few churches I could not serve very well for some of the reasons we are discussing. When I had sincere, new interests contact me about coming to some of those churches, I have sent them off to other area churches to protect them from certain influences. The end concern is souls saved, not membership, or attendance. And one thing should be understood, no cngregation has the right to move itself in any direction it wants to go, and certainly no true pastor would try to appease such a congregation.

    Also, No one is paying high tuition dollars to send themselves to a local church. Innocent youth are not left abandoned with corrupt worldlings and apostate professors at a local church, either. Good elders and true mothers in Isreal can ride herd on local youth when they need to. And, though it is never admitted to, sometimes churches are improved when certain personalities go stomping off in anger. They take with them the storm so a calm can return and growth can happen.

    And indeed, in the past some conferences have actually padlocked some churches whose congregations had moved into open rebellion to protect those properties from misuse and from allowing wayward congregations from misusing our church name and misleading the innocent.

    Do not for a moment think all pastors have been feminized by a miscoception of what real tolerance is. There are still a few warriors amoung us who are ready to fight the Lord’s battles, who do not believe every insult to our church, every act of rebellion is to be met with a surrendering smile of pained acceptance. Sometimes true love is strong like iron. Better to lose a few than many.

    And yes, I am the same mid-night walker you once hiked with, Richard. I am so proud of you right now. On a personal note I have had a cancer battle going on this year. drop me an email sometime.

    And I am the associate pastor at the Battle Creek Tab and know well its history and I am familar with the quotes shared above re conditions at the college in Battle Creek long ago. They apply fully to conditions now at LSU and a few other of our univeristies. I know a number of SDA pastors who quietly no longer can encourage SDA youth to attend any of our major colleges. Let conditions slip too far out of line with SDA beliefs and there may not be any teaching positions at LSU as wordlings start going where they really want to be and the religious turn to alternatives.

    These are serious times.




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Doug Carlson, Pastor:

    And I am the associate pastor at the Battle Creek Tab and know well its history and I am familar with the quotes shared above re conditions at the college in Battle Creek long ago. They apply fully to conditions now at LSU and a few other of our univeristies. I know a number of SDA pastors who quietly no longer can encourage SDA youth to attend any of our major colleges. Let conditions slip too far out of line with SDA beliefs and there may not be any teaching positions at LSU as wordlings start going where they really want to be and the religious turn to alternatives.

    These are serious times.

    I posted this section from 5T regarding Battle Creek because I was lead to this text over the past few weeks.

    @BobRyan:

    I am not one of those who has actually read all of the Testimonies nor even all of Volume 5, I have used the books mostly as a spot reference as the need came up. But in this case – random reading of the book lead to one of the many sections that I have not taken the time to read in the past. In that particular case – it was a divine appointment.

    Pastor Carlson – I sense a degree of sorrow in your post that indicates more than a few years dealing with these issues. On the one hand it pains me to read it and to think of what you must have seen in years past – on the other hand it is encouraging to know that men of faith have been watching and praying over this problem.

    Who knows but that God may have brought this group together – for such a time as this.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. Bob, I do not know if I am as storng as I sound, but thank-you for your reply. I have known many brave pastors who have stood in the line of fire and inspired me as I was growing up in the church. I hope I can stand like they did in their time. I am now 61. I will say your reply has given me a fresh drink of courage tonight. I am on a drug to check a cancer problem. I should be ok in the end, but I do sometimes get tired.
    Enough for now.

    Yours in Christ, yes!!

    -Pastor Carlson




    0
    View Comment
  57. David Kendall, BMus, MA: I will end this post with a personal anecdote from my Academy years in the 1990s (Thunderbird Adventist Academy in Scottsdale, Arizona). In my freshman year, our bible teacher was Elder Lee Hadley (retired pastor of the Glendale SDA church). In our class we had a number of disruptive students (as any class of 14-year olds will invariably have), but one boy was particularly difficult, constantly mocking the material and the teacher. After nearly every class, I begged Pastor Hadley to kick the boy out of class, arguing that he didn’t belong there, that he disrespected Christ and the academy. Pastor Hadley always told me that, though he was indeed frustrated, he wanted the boy to stay in the hopes that he would absorb the material and come to a knowledge of Christ, and to know that he was always accepted and valued in the bible class, despite his behavior. I have striven to emulate this Godly attitude (and have failed on occasion) in my own teaching career. I have no idea where this boy is now, but when a time in his life comes when he wonders about eternal things, I hope he remembers not my efforts to have him kicked out the class, but the mercy and kindness shown him by Pastor Hadley at an Adventist school. This is not a perfect analogy to the current situation (analogies never are perfect), but I hope it illustrates the need for safe educational institutions where we can shepherd young people.

    I went to bed last night thinking about this testimony. The practice of using personal stories like this is used more and more by political parties to emphasize the need for whatever bill they are pushing. Democrcats right now are using a lot of personal stories as exhibit A in their call for a national health bill.

    However, Mr. Kendall’s illustration, though very personal, is not the final answer. I can bring forward a number of former SDAs who were sent off to academy or college by their parents who, at great cost, hoped to save their son or daughter from the world and tip them towards Jesus in a Chrisitan enviroment, but instead these young people were befriended by the “wrong crowd” and completely lost their way at one of our schools and never recovered. The number that fall into this group is a very large number. So we try to save one wayward youth who should not be in our schools and in the process we lose a dozen or more. Not very good evangelism.

    Actually, stats would suggest we are losing much more than that. Across NA the percentage of our young people who remain SDAs after attending our academies and colleges is ever declining. Can we claim even 45% of our youth are still faithful church members after attending these institutions? If all we are trying to do is educate young people for a job, it is time to close our schools and invest our money elsewhere.

    -Pastor Carlson




    0
    View Comment
  58. Brothers and sisters,

    I would like to remind us that this issue is not about rebellious students. It is about rebellious professors. The students are only reflecting the knowledge and attitude of their professors at LSU. This matter could greatly be held in check by firing teachers and pastors who refuse to keep their promise to uphold the beliefs of the SDA church. Get rid of these teachers, then the students will have a chance to learn truth and hopefully take hold of the mission to bring the everlasting gospel to the world.




    0
    View Comment
  59. Stephen Vicaro: Brothers and sisters,I would like to remind us that this issue is not about rebellious students. It is about rebellious professors. The students are only reflecting the knowledge and attitude of their professors at LSU. This matter could greatly be held in check by firing teachers and pastors who refuse to keep their promise to uphold the beliefs of the SDA church. Get rid of these teachers, then the students will have a chance to learn truth and hopefully take hold of the mission to bring the everlasting gospel to the world.  (Quote)

    Maybe that is not the case. When Aaron made the golden calf he mostly was giving in to what the people wanted. I am not so sure that these professors are alone responsible. If I as a pastor held a week of prayer at one of our colleges, lets say LSU, and preached certain things that I knew Neptunnus would respond to, I could be popluar, but how SDA would my series be? Its like the old question, are politicans just the way they are and voters flock around them, or do politicans recognize what the majority view is and then join the majority declaring, “I can give you what you want- vote for me!” and have no backbone of their own? I have seen pastors that have preached to be acceptable to the world, why wouldn’t there be teachers who would seek popularity that way too?

    Of course, it could be a mutual parasitic relationship between both student and teacher- maybe they need each other. Just something to consider. I am fully aware of the mixed multitude influence upon ancient Israel. That mixed multitude did have influence with Aaron, but they had no influence with God’s real man, Moses.




    0
    View Comment
  60. Doug Carlson, Pastor: Of course, it could be a mutual parasitic relationship between both student and teacher- maybe they need each other. Just something to consider. I am fully aware of the mixed multitude influence upon ancient Israel. That mixed multitude did have influence with Aaron, but they had no influence with God’s real man, Moses.

    That is why we need teachers who are like Moses, instead of teachers who are like Aaron. God will stand with teachers who are devoted to Him.




    0
    View Comment
  61. Doug Carlson, Pastor: I went to bed last night thinking about this testimony. The practice of using personal stories like this is used more and more by political parties to emphasize the need for whatever bill they are pushing. Democrcats right now are using a lot of personal stories as exhibit A in their call for a national health bill.

    However, Mr. Kendall’s illustration, though very personal, is not the final answer.

    Pastor,

    You are certainly right, such illustrations are not the final answer, but are merely examples of the practical application of theoretical principles in real-world situations. Their use by political parties (of all persuasions, I will remind you) does not show that they are inappropriate, just that they are generally effective.

    Doug Carlson, Pastor: I can bring forward a number of former SDAs who were sent off to academy or college by their parents who, at great cost, hoped to save their son or daughter from the world and tip them towards Jesus in a Chrisitan enviroment, but instead these young people were befriended by the “wrong crowd” and completely lost their way at one of our schools and never recovered.

    The example I gave is an illustration of your point. We have no idea what happened to the boy in question; as far as we know, he was lost to the church. However, as I said, rebellion of some sort is a hallmark of the formative years in the lives of these children, whether inside or outside of the church. Parents sending their children to an academy or college for the express purpose of saving them from the world is, I am afraid, a misguided action. As parents are the leading sources of influence in the lives of their children, the “home years” (when students are living at home) are highly valuable in their character development. This is why I am not very keen on the idea of boarding academies for teenagers. At the college level however, students have generally reached adulthood (legally defined as age 18) and are eager to begin “cutting the apron strings”. At this time, it is the influence of Godly teachers, deans, campus pastors and staff that is so valuable to the formation of these young adults.

    Doug Carlson, Pastor: If all we are trying to do is educate young people for a job, it is time to close our schools and invest our money elsewhere.

    We are trying to educate young people for their future professions and vocations, by providing quality instruction and training in an Adventist Christian context. All of the professors with which I associate regularly see their work as both profession and mission. As both a graduate and as current faculty, I can attest to the effectiveness of the institution at accomplishing these goals. I can think of few better investments for the Lord’s money.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  62. If the professors who have embraced theistic evolution as an option to the fact of creation, had instead adopted the “theory of evolution” as proposed by Darwin et al, would they be accomodated by the board or would they be asked to teach differently?
    If these professors had also chosen to even go further and teach the non existence of God, would they be asked to teach differently or would they be accomodated by the board?

    If in the end the curriculum is determined by “a” body that would determine the outcome of any of the above scenarios, then such a body should make the bold decision to put an end, once and for all, as to who needs to yeild. It should not be the province of students or others…insiders or outsiders…to make the ultimate decision as to the curriculum that ought to be adopted. The board should be reflecting the values of the governing body that funds the university and such a governing body also enjoys the right as to whom it appoints to serve on the board…such “servants” one would expect, would reflect the values of those who appointed them to serve on their behalf.

    From all appearances there doesn’t seem to be a governing body that is putting any pressure on the board it appointed. If there was, it would have, at this point, taken the discussion away from individuals who would “close” the institution and others who would take the university in a even more liberal direction.

    While it is a fact that each of us has the right to each of our own individual beliefs; yet it is also a fact that our own individual beliefs must be kept to our selves; and should only be shared with those who so request it. The theory of evolution, theistic or otherwise is just that! a “theory”! and no one has the right to foist any “theory” on others…[God is not theory nor is His created works a theory]. Foisting evolutionary theories on impressionable minds is moreso even more unacceptable when “another” is a mind that can be easily influenced by those who are their “professors”.

    If two professors disagree on any of the current evoltionary theories, and if these two professors also decided on their own individual lecture material, would the university allow the competing theories to be taught?
    If they would, then the discussion should be directed away from the professors and students and directed at the decision makers, who so far have remained only absentee landlords, and silent observers, distanced from the fray.

    Action needs to be taken. And as Jesus did; chase out the “money changers” out of His Father’s house as the offending parties, members of the board and or professors, should be chased out of the “schools of the prophets”[His Schools].

    Courtney Edwards




    0
    View Comment
  63. @BobRyan:

    quoted 5T186 – 187

    The downward path for any private university is simply to slump down to the level of the “best public education that private institution dollars can buy” if they let their initial vision and mission fall by the wayside.

    That is the obvious part.

    the question is – to what extent does the warning in that post referenced above – still apply to our church.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  64. David Kendall, I really appreciate your taking the time to share your views. I am forever grateful for the education I have had and continue to gain from Adventist education. I truly doubt I’d be inthe church today if it was not for the stellar Christian examples that many of our college professors are (including those who are scientists.)




    0
    View Comment
  65. Ron, as a doctor you speak much truth and realize that the longer a cancer grows the harder it is to eradicate. It seems that in this case the “doctors” are spending their times making excuses for not operating or denying that the cancer even exists. They are fiddling while Rome burns, instead of fighting the fire. God will hold them accountable for their non actions even if the church does not.

    Doug how can I get in touch with you? BTW my nephew was on the MRT this weekend. Enjoyed the wonderful music of coyotes and watched a bald eagle fly over their campsite. I should have gone but there were duties……




    0
    View Comment
  66. My guess is that the leadership in the church is just waiting for the hub bub to die down so they can blissfully go on without having to do anything about it. Sometimes it’s easier to ignore a problem than to do anything about it with the unrealistic hope the problem with solve it’s self. It never does, it just gets worse. I do this with my vehicle and it costs big bucks in the end. But with this issue it will cost salvation for many. Sad.




    0
    View Comment
  67. David Kendall, BMus, MA: We are trying to educate young people for their future professions and vocations, by providing quality instruction and training in an Adventist Christian context. All of the professors with which I associate regularly see their work as both profession and mission. As both a graduate and as current faculty, I can attest to the effectiveness of the institution at accomplishing these goals. I can think of few better investments for the Lord’s money.
    Pax,
    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University

    David, I do sympathize with your position. You sound like an honest, god-fearing teacher at LSU. I am sure there are others. How many, I do not know, but I am sure there are others. Is it possible for the honest faculty to petition the administration for a strict abherence to denominational standards by all teachers and removal of those who wander off into, I will use the term “offshoot” teachings? A few can and are jepordizing the security of those like yourself. This site is being shared with many SDAs. They know what is going on. It is sure to have an impact on enrollment eventually.




    0
    View Comment
  68. @Doug Carlson, Pastor: my friend jim sent his son off to academy and when he met his foul mouthed, satanic music playing cigarette smoking roommate, he complained to the dean. he was told he was an alarmist and that his son would not be assigned a new roommate. as much as jim complained he was told to be quiet. he was treated as if he were the problem. the sad story is, his son got in to smoking, and then crystal meth. he got kicked out before he graduated and his mind was thouroughly messed up for quite awile. When i see posts like this about how we should allow the rebels to go unchecked in our schools it makes me sick! i watched my friend dole out huge $$ to send their son to our academy to see him get kicked out and acquire a drug problem. oh, by the way, the other rebel got kicked out too-too late for jim’s son. and no apology to jim and his wife. and how about my buddy timhey who told me about satan worship while he was in academy? he told me some really creepy stories. and yes, he was part of it. he’s no longer in the church. how spineless can we be? i believe in academic freedom but this is an adventist institution. we are not to support naturalism or evolution as truth. We could teach it as an ideology that is opposed to adventist(and all christian) belief. point out it’s strengths, and it’s glaring weaknesses. if someone wants to teach it and uphold it, let them go someplace that is more in line with their beliefs. don’t seek to infiltrate or undermine a seventh day adventist institution. funny, i just happened to turn on animal planet and they are featuring a group from la sierra in search of pit vipers. with all of their mention of evolution(and support for it) on this program, i had to check and see if there was more than one la sierra university. i grew up in the secular world and learned to mock and ridicule the bible. i was taught evolution. I have been eating crow since 1982! it takes so much faith for me to believe in evolution now, it has to be classified as a religion in my mind. anyway, i hope this can be settled in an honest, above the board, christlike manner. it may take some strong actions. be strong and of a good courage brethren!




    0
    View Comment
  69. Brian Raines, You tell a sad story, but very true. I have heard this same story before. I do believe if our young people attended a public HS or college and met these same conditions they would be more on their guard. I have never believed in the idea that our schools were reformitories for lost SDA youth. I do know that the need for tuition dollars pushes a lot of these decisions, too.




    0
    View Comment
  70. David, I do sympathize with your position. You sound like an honest, god-fearing teacher at LSU. I am sure there are others. How many, I do not know, but I am sure there are others. Is it possible for the honest faculty to petition the administration for a strict abherence to denominational standards by all teachers and removal of those who wander off into, I will use the term “offshoot” teachings? A few can and are jepordizing the security of those like yourself. This site is being shared with many SDAs. They know what is going on. It is sure to have an impact on enrollment eventually.

    Hi Pastor,

    Sorry for the long delay in answering. PhD dissertations do tend to obscure other considerations, especially when they are coming due!

    My previous post does, I believe, address your question as to the numbers of honest, God-fearing faculty at LSU; that is, all of them that I know. One of the issues that saddens me when I read many of the posts on this forum is the questioning of motives, questioning of Adventist or even Christian credentials, and putting words into the mouths (or thoughts into the minds) of many committed, mission-minded faculty members that I know and respect and who have made positive, spiritual impacts in my own life (that is my “wild claim”). I am further saddened when such reports are often received at second hand, which is why I have made it a point to attempt to correct factual errors from time to time.

    Regarding a petition to strict adherence to denominational principles (I am assuming you are referring to the 28), I tend to think that very few faculty members (though I speak only for myself) would support litmus or purity tests of that sort, due to a few reasons. One, we have (in Adventism) generally avoided prescriptive creedal statements, largely due to the negative connotations such statements have had (to us) in and from other Christian faith traditions. Two, how would we enforce such a set of standards (and what would be the proof)? And who would be tasked to enforce it? I would not even trust myself in such an position.

    Regarding job security, I did not begin teaching at LSU seven years ago for the security (and certainly not for the money!). I teach at La Sierra because I believe in the institution and the positive impacts it has on the lives (spiritual, social, professional, musical) of the students that spend four or five years in the care of our dedicated faculty, staff and administrators. That is the knowledge I have at first hand, and if any of these faculty are purged from the institution and the church (as happened at Southern, PUC and Walla Walla in recent times), it will be Adventism’s deep, deep loss.

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




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

    One of the issues that saddens me when I read many of the posts on this forum is the questioning of motives, questioning of Adventist or even Christian credentials, and putting words into the mouths (or thoughts into the minds) of many committed, mission-minded faculty members that I know and respect and who have made positive, spiritual impacts in my own life (that is my “wild claim”). I am further saddened when such reports are often received at second hand, which is why I have made it a point to attempt to correct factual errors from time to time.

    Suppose (for example) that the reports of Bradly saying that the Bible is wrong and the atheist-centric doctrines on origins found in evolutionism are the trustworthy version of origins — are all just fabricated fiction, suppose he never actually did that.

    Suppose that all the reports confirmed here by Erv Taylor and others and by the course work documented here – that LSU actually teaches evolution as the “Right answer” are all just second hand fabrications – no truth at all to them.

    Suppose all the first hand testimony from both parents and students that has been posted here about their being brushed aside when they were shocked to discover an “all-for-evolutionism” agenda at LSU — is all just “second hand fiction”.

    The WHERE is the evidence? Given that we have had LSU members posting here from time to time. Why have they not brought to light their stellar creationist, 28 FB affirming Biology program evidence. Certainly THEY should have been “aware” of it.

    Thus the – “there is no truth to the complaints” style argument never really gets off the ground.

    At best you get “it is not nice to complain about evolution being in conflict with the Bible and the 28FB”. OR maybe even “when you complain about evoutionism some here do not always put the best possible face on it”.

    If that latter form is the point you are making, then let me ask you this.

    What “face” do you see being put on the subject here? Is it “consistent” with the way it is presented by those posting on this web site?

    Ellen White — 3SG 90-91
    Chapter IX. – Disguised Infidelity

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. …{3SG 91.2}

    Shall we leave that comparison as an exercise for the reader?

    Or are you saying that in fact the 3SG example does reflect the views of many posting here – and it is that view of evolutionism that you are objecting to?

    in Christ,

    Bob




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

    That is the knowledge I have at first hand, and if any of these faculty are purged from the institution and the church (as happened at Southern, PUC and Walla Walla in recent times), it will be Adventism’s deep, deep loss.

    In the case of Walla Walla – the Union stepped in (at the direct request of the GC president to the Union president) to address a raging fire of evolutionism that had taken over both the religion department and some of the sciences.

    Neutrality in a Religious Crisis: Condemned

    In the full light of the sun, surrounded by thousands,–men of war, prophets of Baal, and the monarch of Israel,–stands the defenseless man, Elijah, apparently alone, yet not alone. The most powerful host of heaven surrounds him. Angels who excel in strength have come from heaven to shield the faithful and righteous prophet. With stern and commanding voice Elijah cries: “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” Not one in that vast assembly dared utter one word for God and show his loyalty to Jehovah. {3T 280.2}

    What astonishing deception and fearful blindness had, like a dark cloud, covered Israel! This blindness and apostasy had not closed about them suddenly; it had come upon them gradually as they had not heeded the word of reproof and warning which the Lord had sent to them because of their pride and their sins. And now, in this fearful crisis, in the presence of the idolatrous priests and the apostate king, they remained neutral. If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God. {3T 280.3}

    Principle of corporate Guilt: explained

    I saw that many souls will sink in darkness because of their covetousness. The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins. …{3T 269.2}

    Attacks on Fundamental Beliefs exposed

    Satan is now doing, through individuals like Thomas Paine, what he has been trying to do since his fall. He is, through his power and lying wonders, tearing away the foundation of the Christian’s hope and putting out the sun that is to light the narrow way to heaven. He is making the world believe that the Bible is uninspired, no better than a storybook,.. {EW 265.1}

    Attacks on Fundamental Beliefs coming from INSIDE the church

    What influence is it would lead men at this stage of our history to work in an underhand, powerful way to tear down the foundation of our faith–the foundation that was laid at the beginning of our work by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation?

    Upon this foundation we have been building for the past fifty years. Do you wonder that when I see the beginning of a work that would remove some of the pillars of our faith, I have something to say? I must obey the command, “Meet it!” . . . {1SM 207.3}

    I must bear the messages of warning that God gives me to bear, and then leave with the Lord the results. I must now present the matter in all its bearings; for the people of God must not be despoiled. {1SM 208.1}

    We are God’s commandment-keeping people. For the past fifty years every phase of heresy has been brought to bear upon us, to becloud our minds regarding the teaching of the Word–especially concerning the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the message of Heaven for these last days, as given by the angels of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation. Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.
    {1SM 208.2}

    That is the work that was belatedly done at Walla Walla.

    That is the work that will be necessary at LSU.

    When Moses came down from Sinai and saw rebellion in the camp – the first question he asked was “who is on the Lord’s side”.

    But what is fascinating is that the Levites were told to go to their relatives and close neighbors — they were not instructed to go to tribes at the far end of the camp from where they lived. Thus it was a very hard thing for them to do for it cost them personally. How much better it would have been had the priests – including Aaron – stood up to the rebellion early on and spared everyone all that pain.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  73. are all just fabricated fiction,

    are all just second hand fabrications – no truth at all to them.

    is all just “second hand fiction”.

    Hi Bob,

    The above are your own terms, I used “second hand” exclusively, without qualifiers.

    Suppose all the first hand testimony from both parents and students that has been posted here about their being brushed aside when they were shocked to discover an “all-for-evolutionism” agenda at LSU

    I do not deny that there may have been occasions in which faculty members did not respond appropriately to student complaints (I posted about that in another thread). However, if I am to take your “all for evolutionism agenda at LSU” seriously, I would need much more evidence than a couple of syllabus copies of biology classes or unsourced statements attributed to a religion professor. For such an agenda to be pervasive throughout the campus (and that would have to include me, by the way), I would need to see evidence from multiple faculty in multiple departments across the institution; and that such an agenda is pursued at the expense of all others.

    The WHERE is the evidence? Given that we have had LSU members posting here from time to time. Why have they not brought to light their stellar creationist, 28 FB affirming Biology program evidence. Certainly THEY should have been “aware” of it.
    Thus the – “there is no truth to the complaints” style argument never really gets off the ground.
    At best you get “it is not nice to complain about evolution being in conflict with the Bible and the 28FB”. OR maybe even “when you complain about evoutionism some here do not always put the best possible face on it”.
    If that latter form is the point you are making, then let me ask you this.

    The fact that LSU members (I assume you mean students) have not shown overwhelming evidence of a creationist agenda is not evidence that such an agenda does not exist, or that it does (this is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” argument). I am sure the students did not assume that providing such evidence was expected of them here.

    The subsequent two arguments to which you refer is an example of a kind of combination of the straw man argument with contextomy. I did not make the arguments, but you were able to easily refute them with an extended quote. Note that I generally qualify my statements with “I speak for myself” or a similar disclaimer. My post was generally a response to specific points and questions by Pastor Carlson, and should be examined in that context (a post-modern concept!).

    Solo Deo Gratias,

    Pax,

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University

    P.S. This is as confrontational as I ever get in writing or in person (just ask my students). If we want to make any headway on this issue or others facing the church today, we must hold fast to the principle of open and kind discussion with decorum. Otherwise we will devolve into armed camps flinging slings, arrows and broadsides at one another.




    0
    View Comment
  74. Hi David –

    Bob said:
    Suppose all the first hand testimony from both parents and students that has been posted here about their being brushed aside when they were shocked to discover an “all-for-evolutionism” agenda at LSU

    David responds –

    I do not deny that there may have been occasions in which faculty members did not respond appropriately to student complaints (I posted about that in another thread). However, if I am to take your “all for evolutionism agenda at LSU” seriously, I would need much more evidence than a couple of syllabus copies of biology classes or unsourced statements attributed to a religion professor. For such an agenda to be pervasive throughout the campus. (and that would have to include me, by the way), I would need to see evidence from multiple faculty in multiple departments across the institution; and that such an agenda is pursued at the expense of all others.

    1. I agree that no one has claimed that the agenda for evolutionism has gone “throughout the campus” as in the notion that every faculty member is bought in. We have had a number of discussions here pointing out that such a thing is unlikely.

    2. As for Bradley’s “sourced” statements – they can still be found here
    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/lsu-controversy-receives-secular-media-attention/

    3. As for Fritz guys statements published and otherwise — my understanding is that you have said he is in an office very near your office. Surely your talking to him about those statements is not “out of the question”.

    Is there something specific in what I have attributed to him that you question?

    Bob said:
    Then WHERE is the evidence?

    Given that we have had LSU members posting here from time to time. Why have they not brought to light their stellar creationist, 28 FB affirming Biology program evidence. Certainly THEY should have been “aware” of it.

    Thus the – “there is no truth to the complaints” style argument never really gets off the ground.

    David responds:

    David said:
    The fact that LSU members (I assume you mean students) have not shown overwhelming evidence of a creationist agenda is not evidence that such an agenda does not exist, or that it does (this is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam or “appeal to ignorance” argument). I am sure the students did not assume that providing such evidence was expected of them here.

    Actually I was referring to faculty. For example Erv Taylor is listed as a guest speaker in one of the biology courses. He has some posts here too as it turns out.

    And we have had other faculty members and former LSU faculty members post here as well.

    There is much more coming from them about the fact that Evolutionism IS being taught as the “right answer” than anything of the form “Oh no – we teach the students that evolution is dead wrong”.

    What am I missing?

    Bob said:
    At best you get “it is not nice to complain about evolution being in conflict with the Bible and the 28FB”. OR maybe even “when you complain about evoutionism some here do not always put the best possible face on it”.

    If that latter form is the point you are making, then let me ask you this.

    And then I asked for a comparison between what we find posted on these web pages and 3SG 90-91.

    in Christ,

    Bob




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

    P.S. This is as confrontational as I ever get in writing or in person (just ask my students). If we want to make any headway on this issue or others facing the church today, we must hold fast to the principle of open and kind discussion with decorum. Otherwise we will devolve into armed camps flinging slings, arrows and broadsides at one another.

    Whoah! – no armed camps please. No slings and arrows. I am just looking for “details”. If the details are not there to support the claims that LSU promotes evolutionism as “the right answer” for a doctrine on origins – please show which of them you found to be false.

    If the details ARE there to support the claim that LSU religion and biology departments are united in teaching students that evolutionism is “dead wrong” – wonderful. Where are those “details”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. “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,.. “Neptunnus

    A fair comment…After all; you would think if they didn’t know more, re science than you; there would be nothing you need to learn from them…and hence supporting them until you have reason not to; is only reasonable.

    “…and we also DON’T like outsiders trying to influence what goes on in our classrooms….”Neptunnus

    A very unfair comment….Without the “outsiders”, there would be no funds to educate you and the “great percentage” who are trying to get the equivalent or better of the education the “outsiders” already have to their credit.

    “…. 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…..”Neptunnus

    Another unfair comment….You would think that it couldn’t be possible for “ignorant Adventists” to have thought to build and staff a unversity of such high standards; high enough ie; to have attracted such intellingencia as yourself and “the great percentage”…if in fact those Adventists were “ignorant” as you assert. May one then take the liberty to suppose that there may well be some inexperience in identifying those who may be “ignorant” given the inexperience of the one doing the identifying;
    and given also that because he/she may just now be attending an institution of higher learning that his/her “ignorant” Adventist mom or dad attended many years ago!

    “…. 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.”Neptunnus

    True….and neither is a Being called God! So your “ignorant Adventist” mom and or dad must have also “brainwashed” you to believe a fact not “backed up by scientific evidence”.
    Now; were you are were you not “brainwashed”? If you were; then don’t you think as one learned; that you must then also give others the right you enjoyed; in being yourself “brainwashed”?

    Oh! do you believe there is a God? I should not have assumed you did? afterall; it is 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…”Neptunnus

    Very perceptive….And since they don’t; which do you think should have preeminence? Science or the Creator of science? Or do you accept that science created itself? If science created itself,you then do not need religion. I will not insult your intelligence and that of the “great percentage”; in asking if you see the abscence of logic in your suggesting that science and religion are “different methods of studying life”…ie if the “religious” side of the duo[science/religion] is subordinate to science; then what need is there to bore oneself with the inferior author of religion.

    “…. But, when you interpret Scripture and dig deeper, science can actually support the Bible….”Neptunnus

    And when science doesn’t support the Bible; who then has the ascendancy?
    Science…? The Bible…? I would say the Bible….What would you say?
    If you would also say the Bible…you would now be as those “——– Adventists”. If you disclaim the Bible…you would as a result disclaim the Author of the Bible. You would then have chosen the side of science or whomever represents the side of science; and such a choice would put you and the “great percentage” as opposing the Author of the Bible.

    “… Most of us students are confused to why there is such a big controversy……………..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—.”Neptunnus

    I suppose if Jesus happened to be among the protestors(remember He would be on the side of the Bible)he couldn’t stand at all!; his not having any certificate from the unversity of Jerusalem. Would you also say that his raising a dead human and bringing that dead human to life; a feat unheard of; re it’s being able to be replicated by any known human with any number of PhDs; would you say that you would still see Jesus as unqualified to speak to the science of “cell respiration”;[the stuff re mitochondria] given that he is no scientist and has not a PhD….O!..in science!?

    “…. 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….”Neptunnus

    Really!…..I would never have guessed. For starters…a practicing Adventist is a true follower of Christ. A true follower of Christ cannot both believe that Jesus, the Lord he follows would be speaking the truth when He said “that He made all things; and nothing was made without Him” John 1:1…if such a follower of Christ also believes it impossible for Jesus to create life in an instant; and in exactly the same fashion as He recreated the dead putrefying cells of Lazarus…electrifying them into manufacturing the chemistry of life[cell respiration stuff]….AND IN AN INSTANT! Or was Lazarus never dead in the first place! Why don’t you run this one by your professors? You may be surprised at the answer from a ‘learned’ PhD! Then try an “ignorant Adventist”…Sure! you already know the answer! Well!as a practicing Adventist yourself; between the professor and the Adventist; in your estimation; which one would you say is “ignorant”?

    Courtney




    0
    View Comment
  77. It’s becoming very obvious that world view of students who come to LSU’s defense in regard to LSU’s treatment of the theory of evolution is sympathetic to the world view of the professors. The students either embrace the theory as a viable option or some other view that undermines the biblical account and the church’s position.




    0
    View Comment
  78. Shane Hilde: Shane Hilde February 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    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.

    (Quote)
    ReplyReply

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    Shane Hilde:
    It’s becoming very obvious that world view of students who come to LSU’s defense in regard to LSU’s treatment of the theory of evolution is sympathetic to the world view of the professors. The students either embrace the theory as a viable option or some other view that undermines the biblical account and the church’s position.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.