The Reptile King
Bob Ryan, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You accuse me of arguing that the Bible is “nonsense” and “lunacy.” Aren’t you concerned that people might think you’re a bit out of touch with reality for making that accusation?

And you claim that I conflate hermeneutics with epistemology. Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If the study of hermeneutics is too difficult for you to understand, as it obviously appears to be, let me encapsulate everything in a nutshell for you:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Accordingly, the Church’s hermeneutics, its interpretation of and regard for the sacred text, and its method of doing theology, demand consistency with that presupposition. To that end, the Church in 1986 formally rejected the hermeneutic of criticism, knowing very well that such criticism is inconsistent with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

To everyone’s regret, you and other Educate Truth proponents together with the theistic evolutionists have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism regarding Scripture’s relationship with external science data. I can see that you are confused and are not fully aware of what you are doing. I do not want to be harsh with you but merely point out the inherent flaws of your methodology, which is unacceptable to Seventh-day Adventists.

I have otherwise enjoyed this discussion, which I think has run its course. This concludes my participation for the time being.

The Reptile King
EMK, I invite you to read T. Joe Willey’s May 20, 2011 essay on the Spectrum Blog about the data compiled from the student surveys at La Sierra. His essay cites the raw data, which you can examine for yourself. I think you will conclude that despite press accounts to the contrary there is not much there that is disturbing.

I have seen little to no evidence that La Sierra science teachers are promoting theistic evolution, although I accept Professor Kent’s representation that such may have occurred in the past. I do not think that any of us should assume the role of prosecutor or defender of the science teachers at La Sierra. This role is best assumed by Adventist Accreditation Association, which is in the best position to gather evidence, interview people, and work in a constructive way with the La Sierra science teachers. I believe that AAA is entitled to deference.

Notwithstanding the deference I give AAA, I do opine that AAA has stumbled in effecting a resolution to the controversy. When you see the AAA site committee composed of Ted Wilson-quality conservatives recommend a full term of accreditation and the AAA board by secret vote reject that recommendation, then confusion predominates to everyone’s detriment.

I believe our limited role is to discuss what an Adventist science teacher should teach in science class and what faith-affirming steps can be undertaken on behalf of science students.

That Adventist science teachers should teach mainstream science and accord it factual validity to the degree warranted by the natural evidence is not an open issue. What is an open issue, something that someone with your experience can address, is what faith-affirming steps can be undertaken on behalf of students who study science.

The reason there is so much hysteria is that many Seventh-day Adventists are uneducated, under-educated, and mis-educated about the relationship between science and religion. This is dramatically illustrated by the posted article in which a perfectly appropriate lesson about what science tells us about the origin of birds is erroneously represented to constitute the promotion of theistic evolution.

The Reptile King
Charles, I believe the best interpretation of the days of creation is that they are literal 24-hour days that follow each other in a consecutive and contiguous manner to form one literal week.

I have not seen an alternative interpretation that I find persuasive.

You are still missing the point about what we are discussing. So allow me to ask you some Socratic questions:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

2. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is one at liberty to criticize (put to the test, question, critique, seek to validate, seek to invalidate) it through the lenses of external science data?

3. In other words, do you accept biblical data at face value on faith or do you require that the biblical data be validated by external science data? For example, are you willing to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus based solely on the sacred text or would your belief require that there be science data that proves that a person can be born in this fashion? Do you believe that Jesus was not born of a virgin because absence of external science data but that the biblical description of His birth is merely metaphorical or symbolic?

If you are able to understand that how one interprets the sacred text is inextricably connected to how one regards the sacred text, then you already have a much more advanced and correct understanding of hermeneutics than Bob Ryan.

Think about these three questions in a dispassionate manner. Set aside your emotions. And then ask yourself this:

If Seventh-day Adventists believe that external science data has no evidentiary basis concerning one’s interpretation of and regard for the sacred text [The Presupposition]…

is it consistent with this hermeneutical presupposition to allege that the teaching of mainstream science undermines belief in the biblical account of creation?

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.

[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]

Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []

Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.

Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.

Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.

I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.

Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.

It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.

In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.

Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.

La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.

Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?