Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Geanna Dane.
Sean Pitman wrote “By the way, you donâ€™t need statistics or a hypothesis if the facts are right before your eyes. You donâ€™t need predictive value or science in such a case to see the truth of the situationâ€¦”
Okay, here it is regarding the two videos…
HYPOTHESIS: LSU Biology faculty are currently undermining the Bible and Adventist beliefs by teaching theistic evolution, as evidenced in the fall 2009 seminar.
DATA (though not needed because its right before our eyes):
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that we should ignore or disregard the Bible: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that the Bible cannot be trusted: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that science is superior to the Bible: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that the earth is older than 6000 years: ZER0 (THOUGH IMPLICIT AS A POSSIBILITY ACCORDING TO DR. WARREN)
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that life could not have been created in six days: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that all life forms evolved: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that humans evolved: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that Darwinism is correct: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that Ellen White was uninspired: ZER0
â€“ Number of times a speaker stated that even ONE Adventist belief is WRONG: ZER0 (THOUGH ELLEN WHITE AND THE PREAMBLE TO OUR FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS STATED THIS AS A POSSIBILITY; LOOK WHO IS UNDERMINING THE CHURCH!!!)
â€“ Number of these speakers that were LSU biology faculty: ZER0
CONCLUSION: The two videos prove that La Sierra University and the biologist faculty in particular is undermining traditional Adventist believes. The data may not be there but according to Pitman we can see it before our eyes. I saw 90 minutes of the proof myself. The videos are a smoking gun indeed. Time to shut down the university.
Geanna Dane Also Commented
Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I don’t think there is anything any of you truly wish to hear from me. It doesn’t matter how nice or agreeable I am, everything gets interpreted from an extreme point of view that I am seldom able to anticipate. If I have misplaced anything, it has been my time spent here. I agree on many issues about the message, but I don’t share the personal vendetta and punitive approach that others articulate here.
I wrote a very nice, very sincere reply to Sean, thanking him for the many positive things he does for the church. There was no anger or sarcasm in the message. I don’t know why it has not been approved for posting yet, but he is welcome to treat and interpret the message as he wishes. I’ve made my peace and I am finished for good.
Thank you for your concerns about the education of Adventist young people and for trying to find solutions to save them from losing their faith. We need them and they need us.
Thank you for attempting to share with Adventists your understanding of the overwhelming evidence that supports our belief in God, the Bible, Genesis, 6 days, 6,000 years, the spirit of prophecy, the nonexistance of the flying spaghetti monster, and the like. It’s refreshing to know that faith is not enough.
Thank you for bringing the importance of “transparency” and “on the church’s dime” to our attention. Your concepts are like manna to the faithful.
Thank you for pointing out individuals and institutions by name, and making clear to us how they continue to undermine the fundamental values and beliefs of our church and how our administrators have utterly failed to correct them. They must surely be a part of the much-anticipated omega apostasy.
Thank you for taking so much time to correct those of us who disagree with you. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.
Thank you for adhering so vigorously to what you believe to be God’s will for your life. We admire your fidelity to your stated positions and family and spiritual values.
Thank you for defending the faith of those who do not understand or agree with your views but still believe in many of the same spiritual truths that you do. We can only hope that they too can find their way to the kingdom of God.
Thank you for being so patient and respectful toward those who hold to different views than you do. Your example will perhaps inspire these individuals in ways that only God can understand.
May God bless you abundantly.
So, no big deal right? Since most are not affected nothing needs to be done for those that are?
I didn’t say either, Sean. I respectfully pointed out that it was unnecessarily cruel, in my humble opinion, to shut down a university (as some have argued), ship it to Europe (as one individual suggested), or tell parents to send their children elsewhere when so many students have no exposure to the lies and theft that you have diligently brought to our attention and receive blessings from an Adventist college that are very difficult to get from a secular college.
Why is it that I can’t say even one acceptable thing here? No one should object to anything I’ve written in the past few posts above this one. Can’t you simply say, “Thank you Geanna for sharing your experiences and views. You raise some valid points.”
Recent Comments by Geanna Dane
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Professor Kent, thank you for defending me, but its not really necessary. You have been very kind to me and I have greatly appreciated the way you and your wife so generously share your faith. You have given me added confidence in the Bible and I have a better understanding of how to trust God’s word ahead of science. Thanks to your encouragement I now enjoy attending church more than ever. I have also learned that my personal experience with God is much stronger when I avoid contentious and negative websites like this one. After reading a few posts here I can’t bear the thought of reading more. Makes my stomach turn.
Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Wow, a friend gave me a phone call and sure enough, my name has come up here again.
Ken, please understand that you are seeing some of the worst of Adventism at this website. I don’t understand the mean-spirited and snarkey posts that are so common here even from clergy like Pastor Constantinescu. I can forgive their treatment of me and others as I attribute their comments to the impersonal nature of the internet. I strongly suspect that if I were casually chatting with them in the foyer after church they would be very kind and gracious, much like most other church members that I sit down with in the pews each week. I prefer to assume these men are sincere upstanding Christians and so I don’t wish to respond in kind to their remarks.
I actually have family in Michigan and fully intend to sit in on a service by Pastor Constantinescu one day. I will make a point to visit with him personally after the service and he will not know who I am (unless I decide to publicy post my impression afterwards- which I think would be uncharitable of me). He will answer to God how he has treated me and others here, and how he treats people in person. I don’t care to defend myself further. Believe whatever you wish to believe, Ken, but know that Jesus loved his enemies and we should be willing to do the same.
Wisbey talks about LSU and what he wants you to know
Wow, Sean, I didn’t intend to provoke you. Sorry about that. I did find your response insightful nevertheless.
This is the argument of those like Dawkins and Provine who argue against the practicality of believing in a God that offers no positive evidence of His existence. They rightly suggest that such a â€œfaithâ€ is equivalent to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Youâ€™ve just illustrated a basic limitation of science â€“ that nothing is absolutely provable by science. There are only degrees of certainty in science. Nothing is absolute. There isnâ€™t even absolute positive evidence in science since everything must be subjectively interpreted with potentially falsifiable theoriesâ€¦
But of course…
this does not mean that God hasnâ€™t given us abundant evidence right now â€“ scientifically viable evidence of His existence and the reliability of His Word, revealed will for our lives, and a solid scientific basis for a bright future that He has promised.
Thank you for sharing.
@myself: Of course, to say that macroevolutionary changes are possible also represents an assumption that cannot be validated by science and requires faith, but it leaves open possibilities that can be studied by scienceâ€“which contrasts sharply with the position of the macroevolution denier.
Before dissecting this statement, please bear in mind that one cannot prove a negative (other than things like a mathematical term or a chemical charge). One cannot prove that a volcano never erupted at the present-day site of the U.S. capital. One cannot prove that bigfoot (the big hairy ape of North America) does not exist today. One cannot prove that Abe Lincoln never told a lie.
While I agree with your conclusion that the original gene pool very likely had greater functional potential regarding quality and potential for diversification, your contention that much of the genome is non-functional evolutionary garbage doesnâ€™t seem to be true.
Sean, given your understanding of changes in what we view to be functional DNA, perhaps you would find agreement with the following statement from Armin Moczek (Current Topics in Developmental Biology 86:135-162, 2009): “novel traits do not require new genes or developmental pathways to come into being, but instead may arise from co-option of pre-existing developmental machinery into new contexts”.
Evolutionists have long been open to the likelihood that microevolutionary mechanisms may not be responsible for macroevolutionary change, and that a substantial disjunct (i.e. no continuum) exists between microevolution and macroevolution. Many of the mechanisms proposed for macroevolutionary change are derived from, and will continue to come from, comparative developmental biology, but they are not limited to this. As Reznick and Ricklefs point out, basic processes of diversification and extinction may be more relevant than appreciated by many (Nature 457:837-842, 2009). There is a lot we don’t know but much will be learned.
To say that macroevolutionary changes are impossible is a claim that exceeds what is known and relies strictly on faith. And that’s okay so long as one does not use science, which is far from complete on the topic, to back this claim. However tempting the argument from ignorance may be, it is simply inappropriate. Of course, to say that macroevolutionary changes are possible also represents an assumption that cannot be validated by science and requires faith, but it leaves open possibilities that can be studied by science–which contrasts sharply with the position of the macroevolution denier.
Personally, I don’t believe we will have good answers until we learn while sitting at the knee of Jesus. I can live by faith until then.