I also noticed that the ‘apology’ to PUC was simply …

Comment on An apology to PUC by Harold Bear.

I also noticed that the ‘apology’ to PUC was simply an apology that ET did not give ‘apparent warning’ to PUC before posting the video link.

Would it be ok if posted the entire text of Sean’s ‘Turtles’ book to a public website as long as I give him ‘apparent warning’ first?

It is my understanding that PUC maintains accreditation from the Accrediting Association of Seventh-day Adventist Schools, Colleges, and Universities, which is part of the Department of Education of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

That official arm of the General Conference works “to ensure the quality of the global Seventh-day Adventist educational system…” http://education.gc.adventist.org

They are tasked with ensuring that SDA institutions adhere to the “Seventh-day Adventist Educational Philosophy” which may be found at http://education.gc.adventist.org/documents/A%20Statement%20of%20Seventh-day%20Adventist%20Educational%20Philosophy%202001.doc

The process is described in this document: http://education.gc.adventist.org/documents/Accreditation%20Part%20I%202005.doc

As the accrediting body, they have the authority to examine all course syllabi, interview faculty and administration, visit classrooms, etc.

If ET believes that PUC, LSU, or any of our other SDA institutions are not meeting the standards set by the church, then they should take up their case with the organization that has been assigned the task of overseeing these schools, and not demand that institutions hand over documents and materials to ET, which has no official connection with the church.


Recent Comments by Harold Bear

LSU student petition surfaces
@D Fender,

Even the SDA church, in writing the Fundamental Beliefs allows that we don’t have it all figured out yet.

“These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”


PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
Context. That’s what’s missing in the video.

When asked to present, to upper-division religion/theology majors, some of the problems that current scientific evidence pose for the belief in the literal 6-day creation, and world-wide flood, one should not expect the presentation to provide a full treatment of both sides of the argument.

There’s not enough time in the one short presentation to also cover the evidence supporting the traditional SDA view. Think about this carefully. We do not want our theology/religion majors to be ignorant of this evidence. They are already well versed in SDA doctrine…but gaining an understanding of why others believe differently is extremely important.

I present the mainstream perspective all the time in my own lectures on the creation/evolution debate. However, I also present the evidence for the SDA model of origins to include evidence for the worldwide Noachian Flood as being responsible for much of the geologic column and fossil record that we see today.

Sean, yes, the evidence on both sides of the argument should be presented (and if you were to have video of more than just this one lecture, based on statements from current students and PUC alumni, I believe that you would certainly see presentation and discussion of the evidence supporting the official SDA stance). However, you do your audience a disservice (at the very least) if you imply in your presentations that current, credible, verifiable evidence tips in favor of the 6-day literal creation, 6000-year-old earth, and worldwide flood.

From a scientific perspective, you cannot pick and choose the evidence that you find supporting your belief and sweep under the rug those that do not. In addition, individual examples of evidence do not have equal credibility. 100 rocks on one side can certainly be overcome by 20 rocks on the other…it depends on the total mass of each collection of rocks. In other words, ‘evidence’ on both sides must be evaluated for reliability, repeatability, signs of bias, etc.

I recognize that there is bias on both sides of research in this area, and there are certainly conclusions that some evolutionists draw from the evidence that go beyond what can be determined by careful examination of the data on its own. However, whenever ‘research’ is undertaken to prove your own predetermined beliefs, which is how much of creation science research is conducted, the assumptions that shaped the conclusions of the research cannot be ignored when determining its credibility.

With that said, at this point in time, my personal beliefs align with SDA theology despite significant evidence against those beliefs. I cannot guarantee that my beliefs will not change in the future, just as ‘official’ SDA doctrine has evolved over time. God is not done revealing truth.

Finally, on a completely different note, the videotaping and public distribution of this video is clearly a violation of US Copyright law, as courts have found in multiple cases that, unless explicitly relinquished, professors retain copyright ownership over classroom lectures. Public distribution without their express permission is illegal.

In addition, the owners of this website, by embedding the link to the video (even though not hosted on their own server) are guilty of Contributory Copyright Infringement (the same laws that resulted in the shutdown of the original Napster, the music ‘sharing’ service that facilitated access to copyrighted music stored on other people’s hard drives). This is a civil violation and would require Dr. Ness to file suit, but nonetheless is illegal. I doubt Dr Ness is interested in filing suit…he stated above that he has no problems with the video being seen by others, but that does not give educatetruth.com the right to link to the unauthorized copy. They cannot claim ‘Fair use’ as that only allows for using small portions of a copyrighted work for criticism, review, teaching, etc…but not an entire lecture.

I would hope that in the future, those in control of content on educatetruth.com would refrain from violating the law to make their point.

Hmmm…looks like the video is no longer available…but it appears to have been removed from the site it was posted to, and the link to where it used to be remains on this site.