Are we really suggesting that La Sierra would be better …

Comment on “Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU by Adventist Principal.

Are we really suggesting that La Sierra would be better off unaccredited? If you want an unaccredited school that teaches SDA beliefs, go to Hartland or Weimar. Leave La Sierra for those of us who want an Adventist campus that teaches science.

Weimar is to be accredited by the same WASC that is accrediting LSU. Nevertheless, as you have intimated in your statement above, the education received at Weimar will be of an entirely different character to that of LSU.

Adventist Principal Also Commented

“Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU
QUOTE: “Ken, yes we are all God’s children.”

I’m not sure that this statement is Biblically accurate any more than it would be accurate to say that God had specially created all of the animals on this planet, dinosaurs included. There are classes of both animals and man that have not descended from God. The Prophet John spoke to the human side of this in writing:

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Paul stated:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26)

As a self-professed “agnostic,” Ken has declared a lack of faith in God. If he has faith in God, he will be a child of God. Until then, according to the Bible, he is not. Even Jesus reserved the term “children of God” for a select group and not for everyone:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)

Not everyone is God’s child. Those who do righteousness, who have faith in God, and who are peacemakers–these are His children.

If I am not mistaken, evolution theory erodes faith in a Creator God. As such, it is engendering many children of the devil, and not children of God.

Ultimate peace can only be found in the light of truth. I applaud Educate Truth for its work in bringing truth and light to bear upon a darkened corner. Jesus, the Light of the world, was criticized and finally murdered after the spirit of Cain, yet He did not withhold the truth but preached the word of God openly. Paul says:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Romans 9:6-9)

May we all choose to be the children of God and not merely “children of the flesh!”

Recent Comments by Adventist Principal

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Here are some especially uplifting instructions from Mrs. White regarding how we should present the truth in a debate. I believe these instructions apply to each of us here who is defending God’s Word and teaching the truth.

Dwell as little as possible upon your opponents’ objections, but press in the truth, new and convincing, arguments to cut away and undermine error. Keep your own spirit ever calm, even against personal abuse. Never retaliate. Let the spirit of kindness, Christian courtesy, rule your every action. The Holy Spirit will help your infirmities. People will pass judgment upon the men. Those in error have learned that their strength is to maintain self-control, while the fires of hell may be stirring every fiber of the being. {8MR 24.1}
Your opponent will say words which will irritate a sensitive mind. Pass these by unheeded. Do not once forget that you are speaking for God’s truth. Your spirit, if kept gentle under provocation, will speak louder than any force of argument. Do not imperil the truth by an unwise word. Remember how, when provoked, Moses once spoke unadvisedly, and dishonored God. You need larger experience as a student in the school of Christ, in copying His meekness and lowliness.–Letter 9a, 1894, pp. 2, 4. (To Elder J. O. Corliss, December 8, 1894.) {8MR 24.2}
We are praying for you that the Lord may give you largely of His Holy Spirit, and that as His human agent you may represent the likeness of Christ’s character, by manifesting the practical power of the truth in the manner in which you treat your opponent. Give him not the least semblance of an excuse to become irritated over any personal thrusts that may be given in the debate. On this occasion you are representing the Author of truth. You are to show that the truth is sacred, and not to be made a scourge to those who oppose it. In handling the words of the infinite God, you are not to manifest a sharp, cruel spirit. The Lord will be your teacher and enable you to carry the controversy through with Christ-like dignity. Your opponent will seek to make the truth appear unimportant, but to many he will not be successful in this design. You are Christ’s instrumentality, and should clothe your words with sacred, reverential dignity. This attitude will not be without effect on human minds.–Letter 113, 1894, pp. 2, 3. (To Elder J. O. Corliss, December 16, 1894.) {8MR 24.3}

That last sentence reminds me of the text in Isaiah 55:11 that promises us that God’s Word will be effectual when it is presented.

An apology to PUC

EGW also makes numerous references to 6,000 years in reference to the timing of creation, a time span that was well accepted in her day. Since then, with more Biblical manuscripts available and a more careful assessment of the genologies we now know the figure is more appropiately 8-10,000 years. So, was EGW wrong when she used the 6,000 year figure. Yes, of course. Is tat relevant, no. What number would you expect someone of her day to use. Unless, of course, you think God should have set hr straight before her time. And besides, who really cares wether its 6,000 or 10,000 anyway.


Do you really not care whether it was 6,000 or 10,000 years? If so, why do you make this point? It seems silly to point out something that doesn’t matter to you while using it to support your view. Obviously, the point does matter to you, and to a great many people. For most, if Ellen White was “shown” the 6000-year figure, and we were able to prove that it was 10,000 instead, this would be a faith-breaker.

I would invite you to show from scripture, as you have claimed can be done, how it is we have exceeded 6000 years by several thousand more years. If scripture can be used to bolster this point, I am all ears. I am dubious that one can prove from scripture alone much beyond 6000 years.

Mrs. White made very clear that she was shown our earth’s history and recent creation (see 1SP 86-87). To prove that we have been here much in excess of 6000 years would be to prove her a false prophet. It is not, therefore, a matter of minor distraction to extend the time, but rather a subtle lie of the Enemy to undermine God’s message and truth.

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’

Does anyone seriously believe Jesus or Ellen White would condone a debate?  

There are certain circumstances where debate may be necessary, yes. Ellen White was clear about this. While she advocates as minimal a use of this tactic as possible, she allows for its necessity on occasion. Here are some of her statements.

Don’t Debate Minor Items–In our business meetings, it is important that precious time should not be consumed in debating points that are of small consequence. The habit of petty criticism should not be indulged; for it perplexes and confuses minds, and shrouds in mystery the things that are most plain and simple.–Gospel Workers, p. 447. {ChL 70.4}

God Is Seldom Glorified.–In some cases, it may be necessary to meet a proud boaster against the truth of God in open debate; but generally these discussions, either oral or written, result in more harm than good. –Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 213. (1872) {Ev 162.1}
Discussions cannot always be avoided. . . . People who love to see opponents combat, may clamor for discussion. Others, who have a desire to hear the evidences on both sides, may urge discussion in all honesty of motive; but whenever discussions can be avoided, they should be. . . . God is seldom glorified or the truth advanced in these combats.–Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 424. (1875) {Ev 162.2}
Opposers Must Sometimes Be Met.–There are occasions where their glaring misrepresentations will have to be met. When this is the case, it should be done promptly and briefly, and we should then pass on to our work.–Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 37. (1872) {Ev 162.3}

In Debate We Meet Satan.–Ministers who contend with opposers of the truth of God, do not have to meet men merely, but Satan and his host of evil angels. Satan watches for a chance to get the advantage of ministers who are advocating the truth, and when they cease to put their entire trust in God, and their words are not in the spirit and love of Christ, the angels of God cannot strengthen and enlighten them. They leave them to their own strength, and evil angels press in their darkness; for this reason, the opponents of the truth sometimes seem to have the advantage, and the discussion does more harm than real good.–Testimonies, vol. 3, pp. 220, 221. (1872) {Ev 165.1}

If Debate Cannot Be Avoided.–Whenever it is necessary for the advancement of the cause of truth and the glory of God, that an opponent be met, how carefully, and with what humility should they [the advocates of truth] go into the conflict. With heartsearching, confession of sin, and earnest prayer, and often fasting for a time, they should entreat that God would especially help them, and give His saving, precious truth a glorious victory, that error might appear in its true deformity, and its advocates be completely discomfited. . . . {Ev 165.2}
Never should you enter upon a discussion, where so much is at stake, relying upon your aptness to handle strong arguments. If it cannot be well avoided, enter the conflict, but enter upon it with firm trust in God, and in the spirit of humility, in the spirit of Jesus, who has bidden you learn of Him who is meek and lowly in heart.–Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 624, 626. (1867) {Ev 165.3}

Let us not forget that Jesus Himself at times answered the questions posed to Him by the Sadducees and Pharisees. On their part, the questions were presented in the spirit of debate with the intent of entrapping Him. He answered them, but with a wisdom that confounded them and which instructs us today.

An apology to PUC
Evolutionists are not immune from having to explain the distribution of such things as worms and amphibians….or even larger animals. Consider the Galapagos Islands.

Galápagos Penguin, Spheniscus mendiculus, the only living tropical penguin
Galápagos land iguanas, Conolophus spp.
Marine Iguana, Amblyrhynchus cristatus, the only iguana feeding in the sea
Several species of worms (one thought to be endemic, the others introduced)!

Regarding small invertebrates, this quote from The Darwin Foundation website is thought-provoking:

“The exact number of terrestrial invertebrates in Galapagos is still unknown. Until 2001 a total of 2289 species has been reported in the literature, but numbers of new records and newly described species are still being added to that list. As much as 51.7% of these species are today reported to be endemic to Galapagos.”

The question is, then, if what scientists claim is true and the islands literally rose up from the sea due to volcanic activity under the sea floor, then every organism in the Galapagos has migrated there from afar. How do these invertebrates get there? Swim? Fly? Vector borne? Float? All of the above?

Some look to the fact that some of these organisms, for example, earthworms in the Galapagos, were brought there by man and then try to cast doubt on any requirements for such small and apparently helpless organisms to have migrated there themselves. However, how does this prove anything? If man (farmers) wanted earthworms in Galapagos enough to import them, who is to say that the post-flood inhabitants of the earth did not do similarly? I say the migration happened via multiple modes, including through human assistance. Small children are known to transport their favorite pet insects for many miles nowadays, and I’m certain that back then would have been no different. Birds may have dropped a part of a worm after eating its other half, and as we know, chopped worms can regenerate. Insects may have found passage via a floating coconut into whose husk they had burrowed. Human minds tend to be ignorant of the thousands of ways God has for each one we can think of. Consider the myriad ways in which migrations can and do occur, and then recognize that your list still comes short of all the possibilities.

Penguins in the Galapagos? Did those come from the iguanas there, as evolutionists might prefer? or did our Creator God specially guide them there, as He did the animals into the ark, the ark-laden oxen, the quails in the wilderness, the ravens for Elijah, and so many more? However they got there, much remains unknown.

Creationist viewpoints cannot be dismissed merely for lack of evidence to prove them. We will not always have knowledge of God’s wise ways. He gives us ample evidence by which to trust Him. May we continue to seek out His wisdom and truth.

An apology to PUC

He believes that there must be solid modern scientific evidence to support the conclusions he has reached because of his religious beliefs.He is thus forced to call into question and reject the foundational conclusions of the essentially all of the scientific disciplines which deal with earth history, the fossil record, and human prehistory.I don’t think the causal reader is aware of what kind of heroic odyssey upon which Sean has embarked.He must reject all of the mainline conclusions of 99.9% of all those scientists who are involved in all isotopic dating methods, and all other types of dating methods including dendrochronology, varve dating, ice core dating, stable isotope studies of ocean cores, and on and on. The very long list of scientific conclusions he is required to reject is truly impressive.He must believe that all of the scientists involved in the study of these topics are wrong and he is right.


You are quite right in your support of the truth. It is a fact that many more people believe in evolution than in creation. It is well worth noting this, for it points clearly to which side has the truth. As Christians, we know which side must necessarily have the truth. Jesus told us this in Matthew 7:13-14. He also told us what the time of the end would be like in Matthew 24:37. Mrs. White speaks of Noah’s time as well in the following passage from “The Great Controversy.”

But the message seemed to them an idle tale, and they believed it not. Emboldened in their wickedness, they mocked the messenger of God, made light of his entreaties, and even accused him of presumption. How dare one man stand up against all the great men of the earth? If Noah’s message were true, why did not all the world see it and believe it? One man’s assertion against the wisdom of thousands! They would not credit the warning, nor would they seek shelter in the ark. {GC88 337.3}

Ervin, you were quite accurate with your figures. You claimed that Sean was up against 99.9% of scientists. If that is true, and I’m sure you must be right, then it proves the veracity of Jesus’ words! Noah, alone against thousands, represented that same figure! One in a thousand means the majority represents 99.9%, so your math and God’s math are quite parallel indeed. And you recall, of course, which percentage had the truth.

Indeed, we are living in the last days. These are the days when one can be proud to come apart from the majority and hold fast to the truth though no one join him.

In the words of one of our wisest the 99.9% figure is found again:

I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: …Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. (Ecclesiastes 7:25, 28)

Solomon found one wise man among a thousand. To be among the 999 is folly. Who will be wise in this generation?