@Eddie: I’m astounded by your consistent reference to alleged judgements …

Comment on An apology to PUC by Shane Hilde.

@Eddie: I’m astounded by your consistent reference to alleged judgements on Ness’s character. Where did I or Sean criticize his character? Please point me to the statements and I will retract. It was never my intent to address Ness’s character, but you and other’s insist that I have done so. Now show me where I have done so, and I will apologize for I did not intend to attack his character at all.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: I’m sure that the governing body would not knowingly promote evolution at PUC, and from my limited understanding of the biology department it is no where near what the biology department at LSU is like. Keep in mind that one doesn’t necessarily have to embrace the whole of evolutionary theory in order to undermine the Bible. Any time a class casts doubt on the historicity of the Bible, it is undermining the authority of it. When a professor essentially says there is no good evidence for your faith in a worldwide flood, I’m concerned. And this wasn’t done under the guise of devil’s advocate. He really meant what he said.

(13:15) “There is not good geological evidence around the earth for one [worldwide flood] at that time [4500 years ago] or anytime.”

(14:54) “At about 3 billion years ago fossils begin to show up. So how do you explain fossils through a few billion years of rock in terms of anything but that they were old and been there for a long long time.”

I don’t think I’ve said anything about the teaching motives of the school as a whole. If I have, please point me to where I said so. If Ness does “seemingly” argue for evolution and then completely dispels evolutionary ideas in other classes then I am very happy. For some reason this did not happen in the lecture we saw, nor did it happen in a lecture prior nor since then. Perhaps there are plans to do so in the future.

This silly business about At&T reception is a red herring. I didn’t say anything about an iPhone being used. A phone does not require reception in order to record video. I find it amusing that you’re arguing such a trivial point. It was a smart phone (Blackberry). That simple. It’s a moot point.

An apology to PUC
@Professor Kent: I think fundamentally the alleged lack of evidence issue is a worldview issue. For example, a creationist will present evidence for a worldwide flood; however, the evolutionist will view the evidence through his own glasses (worldview) and vice versa. In the end, most people aren’t convinced by evidence, but when their worldview is shown to be irrational. For example, there are certain things you would not expect to be true in the Bible assuming you believe a god used evolutionary mechanisms to “form” life as we see it today. Or why would you expect to experience laws of logic, objective moral truth, or uniformity in nature if evolutionary theory were true in regard to origins.

An apology to PUC
@Professor Kent:

What was Dr. Ness asked to present about? What was the purpose of his presentation that was conveyed to the audience? Was the audience told that he would be presenting some difficult science issues that they would need to think these through on their own? The problem remains: context, context, context.

There is a difference between presenting information and presenting it as if it were true minus any counter information.

The science he presents is only thorny if you assume it to be true, which he does. Ultimately, much of this controversy centers in world-views or presuppositions. I believe the Bible offers the best explanation of reality, and from what I’ve seen every other worldview is self-refuting and irrational.

Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?

Defining just how we learn and how we teach, especially in the field of science at this institution is important. ‘Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution,’ said Dr. Gary Bradley, a professor of biology and genetics at La Sierra. He explained that for most conservative Christians, the word ‘evolution’ carries the usual anti-God connotation. However, for a scientist, the word represents the process by which all kinds of alterations and modifications happen in our world. Dr. Bradley believes that the Creator God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur, and urges everyone to learn as much as they can about our Lord’s created universe. ‘There is abundant evidence that living things change. Thus evolution is well documented and well supported in the scientific world. It is unconscionable for a science student to remain ignorant of this fundamental aspect of life.’

What kind of evolution is Dr. Bradley speaking of when he says God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur? Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution, says Bradley, but he doesn’t define what he means. This is exactly the type of vague, slippery language that is used in order to cloak what these professors believe and how they’re teaching evolution at LSU.

Indeed, the word “evolution” does mean many things to many people, so it suspect when Bradley makes his observation and then makes a vague, undefined comment about what he believes. Remember this is the same Bradley who was quoted in INSIDE Higher ED”

‘It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,’ Bradley added. ‘That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.’

There is an obvious difference between what the Seventh-day Adventist Church views evolution and Bradley. LSU just doesn’t get it. Everybody already knows what’s going on there, but they continue to pretend otherwise.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777: Do mean like mainstream papers, written by evolutionists are exclusively peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Yes, I’m aware that there are creationists that write for mainstream journals and get published and perhaps there a small handful that peer-review too, but the percentage, I would guess, is very small. So small in fact that the point would be moot.

The journal is created by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so I’d be surprised if it was being peer-reviewed by evolutionists

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Alexander Carpenter: Great comment Alex! I’m trying to compare our journalism to an article you posted at Spectrum May 29, 2009, in which you, Bonnie Dwyer, and Jared Wright referred to David Asscherick as a “college dropout” twice in the same article (1). What was that all about? It was pretty obvious to your readership. A pathetic attempt to mislead and attack someone who actually supports and believes in the Seventh-day Adventist message. You then made the false assumption that he didn’t support Adventist higher education. I believe he took it upon himself to personally call you and point 10+ errors that were in the article. Do you remember that call Alex? Wow, that must have been embarrassing. Yes, we regret not contacting Dr. Ness before we posted his lecture, but at least we got the facts straight.

You’re really reaching with the old article hyperbole. I was personally aware of the article last year and I believe a few other readers here were too, because I remember it being posted in the comments. It’s particularly relevant now in light of the claims coming from PUC. Raising the “we’re creationists” flag high and mighty, when in actuality the impression these evolutionists had was quite different.

We average 32,000 hits per month. And that’s from this year. Sorry, people are still showing a very strong interest in this topic. Dwindling? Not by any amount worth clicking over here to leave a fish bowl comment. Come on Alex, you’re more connected to the church than this aren’t you? Your worldview in regard to origins is, aside from being unbiblical, a minority within the world church.

What’s ironic about the situation with PUC is that you work there and you’re not exactly a creationist. I wouldn’t be surprised if inwardly you’re ashamed to hear PUC ranting and raving about what a creationist Dr. Ness is and the rest of the biology department.

Sorry, you’re way off on this one. This issue is huge in the church and it’s not going away anytime soon. Chances are the underlying issues could cause a serious split, which is actually already occurring, in our church.

1. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/29/unravaling_witch_hunt_la_sierra_under_seige

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent: “Old news” is a bit relative in this case. Yes, this occurred two years ago, but the professors haven’t changed nor has the way they teach evolution.

Your last paragraph only proves my point. You make wild assertions about there being no evidence while ignoring the evidence being presented. For starters what do you say to the testimony of 70+ students in 2004? Or the testimony of three students in 2009? The statements from the professors themselves. The syllabi?

You baffle me Kent, you really do.

No evidence? Common on. I’d say I hope you’re joking, but you’re not. You really believe that.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
This is almost funny. The world quite easily sees how evolution is being taught in our own universities, but a small, but quite vocal group, just doesn’t get it. It seems, more often than not, that those who just don’t seem to see things for the way they are at LSU tend to be more sympathetic toward a hermeneutic that is contrary to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.