Shane&#032Hilde: ANN has already pulled the article from their website. …

Comment on The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist by Kevin.

ANN has already pulled the article from their website. You can view only as a cached webpage now. I have a copy saved.

I just received the email about this article (on ET) and attempted to view the ANN article, and found that it’s completely gone.

Why would they do that? Is this a positive outcome, or a negative one?

Recent Comments by Kevin

[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Please try to apply logic to this, rather than emotion.

First, Professor Kent quoted me out of context. I was asking for evidence which allowed Casey to “know for a fact” (as claimed) that the biology conflict is the root cause of the resignations, in spite of the school’s own statements.

Let’s remember that the source of the so-called “reason” or “evidence” for resignation is the one resigning, as LSU itself is not at liberty to divulge the information.

Everyone who is claiming that the evolution/creation controversy is actually the reason, is taking the word of an individual who signed his own resignation letter, over the words of the leadership of the institution.

This logically means that those making such claims are presuming the statements made by the institution are lies.

Furthermore, if the board were actually acting surreptitiously toward an underlying purpose somehow in-line with the efforts to remove supporters of teaching evolution from the university, it would not be logical for them to claim otherwise after these particular resignations.

Why? Because some of these individuals are apparently not involved in the controversy, and the ones who could be considered “primary targets” are still employed.

The most presumption that can be logically made is that the individual resigning is less likely to be a reliable source of the real reason.

Finally, it is interesting to note that one commentator here who seems to be supporting the resigned professor has referred to individuals who believe creation as “ignorant people”.


There is a constant stream of unfounded attacks on the belief in literal creation and it’s scientific accuracy, stating it cannot belong in any scientific discussion.

Would those of you who support this view please explain away all or perhaps some of what Professor Walter J. Veith (PhD, biologist, physiologist, scientist) teaches in support of literal creation and against evolution?

If you don’t want to watch, listen to or read Professor Veith’s presentations, or if you presume in advance that he can’t be right because you already know what’s right, then you are intentionally choosing a decidedly unscientific mindset (science is the examination of all available evidence), and are essentially burying your heads in the sand.

[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign

That’s garbage and you know it Shane. Although I don’t expect someone with your lack of integrity to admit it. I know for a fact that there is NO reason to fire Gary Bradley other than his support of science being attacked by ignorant people like you who made waves in the church and at LSU. They are willing to lose their WASC accreditation before they lose their SDA accreditation so they responded to the likes of you and your cult. PERIOD.

Please realize that it is entirely impossible for you to “know for a fact” that there is no other reason, unless you have direct evidence demonstrating what the reason actually is.

If you do have such evidence, please present it to us, or explain why you can’t.

If you do not have or have not seen such evidence, then your choice to believe that there could not possibly be any other reason is illogical.

We must be careful not to let our emotions drive our analysis of situations, circumstances, and personalities.

Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I’d like to learn about the hierarchy of leadership, from a functional point of view. If there’s somewhere I can read thorough answers to all of these questions, I’d appreciate a link.

Who/what are the members of the board of trustees?

What gives them their authority?

Who, if anyone, has direct authority over the board, and where is that authority from?

Who reports *to* the board of trustees?

How many layers of hierarchical authority are there between anyone or any group who could be called “church leaders” and the actual deans and professors?

What entity, at the highest level, “owns” the school? Meaning the physical property.

What entity, at the highest level, operates the school?

I would hope the last two answers are the General Conference, but it could technically be separate. If that is the case, the GC could still remove all financial involvement, reassign any conference employees elsewhere, and force the school to not call itself an SDA institution.

A “Christian Agnostic”?
Some might label me a conspiracy theorist. (Well, that phrase or label has come to have an automatic negative meaning associated with it. In reality, there are very real conspiracies, rooted in the intent to destroy our very souls.)

My conspiracy is based on historical evidence, however. I believe that many of those who are claiming to be SDA, “holding on” to their membership in the church, while actively promoting ideas which are directly in contradiction to the Bible and to our fundamental beliefs, do not actually believe themselves to be SDA.


[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
In order to count oneself as a member of an established organization which defines itself and it’s members in a certain way, one must meet the definition of members thereof.

If one does not meet the definitions established by the organization for it’s members, then one is not able to accurately call oneself a member.

If one continues to call oneself a member of an organization, while not meeting it’s definitions of it’s own members, then one is lying about one’s own status as members. Possibly and likely including lying to oneself.


Less logician-sounding:

You can’t call yourself a member of a group while not being what the group defines it’s own members to be.