@Geanna Dane: CONCLUSION: The two videos prove that La Sierra …

Comment on Video show LSU undermining church doctrine by Sean Pitman.

@Geanna Dane:

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.

This freshman class was advertised by LSU as a class that would address the concerns of many that LSU science professors are promoting the modern theory of evolution as the true story of origins while actively suppressing the SDA view on origins – arguing, in public forum, that this view is held by only the “lunatic fringe” within the Church (to quote the comments of long time senior professor Larry Bradley – published last year in a secular journal article).

The truth of the matter is that this class does not even present much less promote the SDA views on origins. The presenters argue that the students should be open minded to the potential to change their minds with regard to such doctrinal points of view, opening the door for acceptance of the evolutionary views of the LSU science professors… views that have been clearly published and affirmed by the professors themselves as the true story of origins as they understand things.

To make matters worse, not only does this class not present or support the SDA view on origins, but it brings in guest speakers to actually challenge, yet again, the SDA views on origins as being symbolic – not literal according to the SDA understanding.

I repeat again, no one presented the SDA view on origins in a positive manner in this class – with explanations explaining why the weight of available evidence actually supports the SDA view vs. the mainstream evolutionary views on origins… no one.

That, in a nutshell, are the problems with this new freshman class. It does not address those problems that already exist and are well-known at LSU – despite advertisements by LSU to the contrary. And, it brings in professors to undermine the SDA understanding of a literal Genesis narrative… only compounding LSU’s pre-existing problems.

As an aside, you argue that not one lecturer in the videos presented questioned the trustworthiness of the Bible…

As you know, that all depends upon what interpretation of the Bible you are considering. Warren Johns clearly challenged the literal interpretation of the Genesis account as being obviously trustworthy – suggesting that it is much more obviously symbolic; not literal. In essence, he did in fact suggest that we should “ignore or disregard” the arguments of the SDA Church for a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. The reason Johns did this is because he does in fact believe that it is not only possible, but likely that life has existed on this planet for far more than 10,000 years and was not in fact created in six literal days – but only “inaugurated” or “dedicated” over the course of seven literal days.

Do you really not understand that this argument is presented specifically to support mainstream evolutionary ideas that life did in fact evolve or change by some mechanism over vast periods of time and that this change also involved the suffering and death of billions of sentient creatures? Do you not understand this challenge?

If Johns really did believe in and support the SDA perspective on origins, there would simply be no reason to argue for the symbolic interpretation of the Bible that he proposed (i.e., his “Temple Theology”). Despite your assertion to the contrary, such ideas also strike directly at the notion that Ellen White was truly inspired by God in the manner that she herself claims…

Beyond this, your long list of observations, most of which are clearly mistaken, do not address the main point of these videos nor do they address pre-established observations regarding what is really being promoted by the LSU science professors…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
@Geanna Dane:

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.

You really don’t see how anyone who has read many of your posts would reasonably interpret much of your reply here (@Geanna Dane) as being the least bit sarcastic?

Anyway, all the best to you. Again, my father remembers you and your family fondly from your time at BMA and wishes you well. I think he even baptized you if I am remembering correctly?

I just want to say before you go that, if nothing else, you certainly got people thinking and talking on this forum. ; )

Sean


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
@Geanna Dane:

I didn’t say either, Sean.

If you agree that this issue is important and something needs to be done to correct what is being promoted at LSU, promoted as a direct attack on the clearly stated Pillars of SDA Faith, what is your recommendation to solve the problem? I’m very curious to hear what you would recommend…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
@Inge Anderson:

I think Geanna considers Shane and I to be the divisive ones. She doesn’t seem to consider that perhaps the actions of LSU are divisive. Several LSU professors in both science and religion departments have been in direct long-standing and open rebellion against the stated goals and ideals of the SDA Church. Despite the concerted efforts of many to privately address and turn the course of LSU, there has been strong resistence and even outright denials of the obvious truth of the situation. Yet, Geanna pins the blame for division, not on LSU, but on those who are striving for increased transparency from our schools and to correct the fundamental division that is already there and has been tearing the Church apart for decades…

I’m sorry Geanna, but if you really value the experience you have had in SDA schools, as compared to your public school education, you should be supporting us on this issue – not attacking us for producing increased transparency here. After all, without some sort of resistance to what is taking place in schools of ours like LSU, there would be no school for you to attend that would be significantly better than the secular schools you attended where professors were obviously scornful of your “ludicrous” beliefs in the literal Genesis narrative – to include a literal creation week.

This very same thing has long been taking place at LSU, especially in the upper division science classes. For decades now LSU science professors have openly scoffed at the literal SDA interpretation of the Genesis account – publicly discounting such a nonsense position as equivalent to believing in something like a “flat Earth”…

And you’re attacking us for our efforts to maintain what you admittedly value so much?!

I believe your focus and passion are misplaced…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Again, most people, including most non-Christians, consider late-term abortions (abortions within the third trimester of otherwise healthy viable babies) to be murder. There is relatively little argument about this. One doesn’t have to know the “precise point” to know that, after a certain point, abortion is clearly murder. The argument that a baby isn’t alive or really human until the moment that it is born is nonsense in my opinion.

Of course, before the third trimester, things start to get a bit more grey and unclear. Some define the beginnings of human life with the full activity of the brain’s cortex. Others define it with the earliest activity of the brain stem. Others define it as the beginnings of fetal movement or the fetal heartbeat. I might have my own opinions here, but the question I ask myself is at what point would I be willing to convict someone else of murder? – and be willing to put them in prison for it? For me, I wouldn’t be willing to do this until things are overwhelmingly clear that the baby is functioning as a full human being and is viable (which would include full brain activity).

As far as rape or incest is concerned, the resulting pregnancy should be terminated as soon as possible within the first trimester. Waiting for the third trimester is simply not an option because, at this point, it would still be murder to kill a fully-formed baby regardless of its origin…


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
I agree with you up until your last sentence. It seems very very clear to me that a baby becomes human before it takes its first breath. A baby born at 40 weeks gestation is not somehow inherently “more human” than a baby that is still inside its mother at 39 weeks gestation. At 39 weeks, such a baby is indistinguishable from a baby that has already been born. The location inside or outside of the mother makes absolutely no difference at this point in time and development.

I think, therefore, that we as Christians should avoid both obvious extremes here in this discussion. There are two very clear ditches on both sides of the road here. We should avoid claiming that a baby is not really human until it is actually born at full term, and, at the same time, we should also avoid claiming that full humanity and moral worth is instantly realized at the moment of conception…


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Most would agree with you that the baby John the Baptist, before he was born, was, at some point, a real human being who could “leap for joy” (Luke 1:44). Even most non-Christians would agree that a third-trimester abortion is murder. However, this isn’t the real problem here. We are talking about if a single cell or a simple ball of cells is fully “human” and if ending a pregnancy at such an early stage of development is truly a “murder” of a real human being. After all, when conception first takes place a single cell cannot “leap for joy” – or for any other reason. It’s just a single fertilized cell that cannot think or feel or move and has no brain or mind or intelligence of any kind. The same is true of an embryo that consists of no more than an unformed ball of cells for quite some time. Upon what basis, then, is it “murder” to end a pregnancy at this early point in embryological development?


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Then you have several different questions to explain. 1) How can a 6 month developed (but dead?), non-human being (from a human mother and father?) , being carried in it’s human mother’s womb, leap for joy because he (it?) recognized the mother of the World’s Savior? ”The dead know nothing, neither have they any more knowledge under the sun.” 2) How can anything dead even move? The opposite of alive is dead. Everything alive has life from God. Dead things don’t grow and they don’t move. Every SDA should know this. The Laws of God are not altered in order to justify killing unborn human beings that He has given life to.


Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
That’s just it. You say that, “The unborn think and feel”. However, an embryo in the earliest stages of development is just a single cell or an unformed ball of cells – with no apparent functional difference than a cluster of cells in my appendix. Such an embryo cannot think or feel or understand anything. There is no mind or intelligence at this point. If it isn’t murder to take out someone’s appendix, how then call it be truly “murder” to end a pregnancy at this point in time? How can you be so sure of yourself here? Based on what moral principle?

Also, people who are clearly “brain dead” need not be maintained indefinitely on life support. They’re just a shell of a body at this point and it is not “murder” to simply take them off the mechanical support of the empty shell of their body. This happens all the time in hospitals – and it is not considered to be “murder” at all… by most medical professionals (even most Christian ones).