Comment on An apology to PUC by CBond.
Points well taken. Consider my assertions qualified. I am not able to identify who is writing from where, but my experience is that students emerging from Adventist schools are, by and large, ill-equipped to weigh either the strengths or weaknesses of the tenets of their faith. It appears that more ridicule is aimed at those who consider the strengths than at those who assume the weaknesses.
There is nothing wrong with leaving college with more questions than answers. But it is much easier to follow a strong personality with a big smile and a few letters after his name who declares, “The evidence conclusively shows…” and leave it at that.
Let students be given access to evidence and exposed to competent, vigorous defenders of various viewpoints and then decide for themselves. It has yet to be demonstrated that this kind of honest intellectual inquiry is happening on the Adventist campuses in question. Where are the videos of those kinds of presentations? Based on its past record, I’m certain Educate Truth would be willing to post those presentations as well.
In the meantime, there are plenty of Christian and non-Christian scientists who are actively and honestly examining these issues. Their arguments and materials are available to anyone willing to search them out.
CBond Also Commented
An apology to PUC
So far the only substantive responses by PUC defenders have been empty sarcasm and ridicule. Unfortunately, 18-year-old students eat that sort of thing up and follow anyone who has mastered tactics that mirror their favorite media characters. Educate Truth isn’t going after anyone. It is simply laying out the evidence and presentations for all to see and assess for themselves. Educate Truth doesn’t have to point out the dishonesty and the underlying problem that balanced views in science are not being respectfully presented on Adventist college campuses.
An apology to PUC
Educate Truth has not had to go after anyone. Those individuals have been indicted by their own words and actions. No apologies necessary.
Recent Comments by CBond
Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
This is heartbreaking.
McCloskey was the professor who “enlightened” me almost 25 years ago in a biology class at another Adventist institution. I left the church for several years as a result.
The worst part is that church leaders and officials have swept these issues under the rug for all these years while still hoping enough people will remain in the church, despite their doubts, to continue paying enough tithe and offerings to cover their salaries. It is mortifying! Several generations of young people have gone in and out of our schools without ever having the opportunity to consider all aspects of the creation/evolution debate and make informed decisions of their own. If professors like McCloskey really believe they hold the truth, then they shouldn’t be afraid to have their “science” scrutinized a little. Isn’t peer review what keeps scientists honest? (And they don’t get to hand-pick their peers.)
Anyone who declares, “I’m here only to teach and not to learn,” beware!
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
Dr. Ness’s comments above reveal that he has not carefully read or researched what this website states or stands forâ€”much less what has been said about him.
Why should his personal research on creation/evolution be any more thorough? One simple assertion has been made hereâ€”that Ness presented one view and one view only as being credible and supported by “scientific” evidence. He did this in the name of “intellectual honesty.” His presentation is available for all to see and assess for themselves. Educate Truth is not the arbiter of the evidence. They are the presenters.
There are many non-Christian scientists who recognize that evidence can be used to credibly support a wide variety of views. That is true in ANY discipline. (If it were not, lawyers would not have jobs and one entire political branch would be obsolete.) Evidence does NOT presuppose conclusions. Not even evolution.
Even the creators of this website are not arguing that creation should be presented as the only viable view. They are simply arguing that the potential viability of the creationist viewpoint be given at least equal attention and consideration to other viewpoints in schools that garner funds based on their claim to be doing so. In failing to do so, these schools are not just being intellectually dishonest, but just plain dishonest by anyone’s standards.
If Ness has doubts, let him have doubts. But at least open the floor to someone who can give balance to those doubts in schools that claim to be providing such balance.
The problem is that men with doubts are being given the final word.
Four new LSU board members
Kwiram is disturbing. In essence, in his article he defines intellectuals as those who have higher degrees, who are well readâ€”and who think like he does. I know plenty of highly educated, well-read, open-minded individuals who stand firmly for doctrines identified by Adventists as biblical and true.
Most “Adventist” doctrines were individually identified as biblical by other churches or individuals over the centuries before Adventists ever came along. Many were “intellectuals” in every sense of the word. Today there are many Christian intellectuals outside the Adventist church who adhere to the biblical doctrine of creation and are intelligently able to defend it with arguments that evolutionists and people like Kwiram never meet head-on. Never. Because they can’t. Instead, they meet arguments with ridicule, sarcasm, intellectual arrogance, tap dancing and Cheshire cat smiles. Never with substance.
Nevertheless, Adventist church leaders, pastors and teachers must take responsibility for letting this seep into Adventist education and calling it “good.” The evolutionists in our midsts honestly believe what they believe, for whatever reason. Church leaders and administrators have acted with cowardice, allowing themselves to be bullied into submission. It’s nothing but a high school popularity game on steroids. Deep down, evolutionists know they have nothing to lose by being dishonest, underhanded, arrogant and conniving. After all, it’s survival of the fittest. They have cornered well-meaning Adventist leaders because those leaders themselves, though they suspect the truth, are not fully and passionately convicted of it to the point of defending it with grace and dignityâ€”and to the death if need be. Meanwhile, our young people innocently and ignorantly follow after those who sport the biggest smiles.
I’m not sure which is worseâ€”the wolves among us or the cowardly sheep who have posed as shepherds.
Adventist Review defends its article
Let’s remember that the goal is to uphold truth and expose error, not nail people or institutions to the wall. There’s no reason to go after people at the Review. Educate Truth is not on an attack mission. It is on a rescue mission.
La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article
A whole lot of talk, and very little listening (on both sides). Again, the disturbing issue at LSU (which really should be a disturbing issue at any university, Adventist or otherwise), is the fact that honest scientists who actually do science and see credible evidence for the creationist view are attacked with ridicule and sarcasm. They are labeled the “lunatic fringe,” and students who ask honest questions about weaknesses in the theory of evolutionary theory are herded down the evolutionist path by professors who use the same tacticsâ€”ridicule and sarcasm. It’s politics, not science. If you want to bring a politician down, paint him out to be a caricature and an idiot. It’s the stuff of Saturday Night Live, and it’s an effective propaganda technique. That’s what scientists are doing to each other, rather than engaging in productive, respectful dialogue. How refreshing it would be to hear someone on either side admit, “There is much we do not know, and still much to learn. I am convinced that the evidence weighs on ‘such-and-such’ a side, and these are the reasons why. But I understand and respect the questions that have been raised and appreciate the opportunity to re-examine the weaknesses in my own position.”