@Glenn Orin Clifford Stansal:

As I stated on a posting regarding this matter on anther provided site, it seems to me that at least one of the most important issues needing to be addressed is that this institution is claiming to be one of ‘higher learning’. At least I would imagine this is the case. It behooves LSU, then, to follow a mandate of true ‘academic freedom’, regarding what is presented to students; that is, that all courses be taught in an impartial manner, and that the choice of what to believe is left to the student, based upon personal conviction and research.

That idea would never have launched a single institution of higher learning by this denomination. IF the church had stated the goals and vision for education as you just did and then had to weigh spending time and resources on building more impartial – neutral (read “public universities in theory not in practice” ) or else staying 100% focused on just spreading the Gospel — the Gospel would have won that decision tree exercise hands-down! (Obviously public universities are not neutral at all – but are heavily biased for evolutionism so technically they don’t even qualify – but in theory they should have qualified for this example)

If we had started with the goal of “impartial” education that did not in the least promote Adventist doctrines as even being correct – but merely taught evolution’s doctrines on origins and said “you are free to believe it or not” — (as if our job was done at that point) – we would have ZERO Adventist tithe, offering and tuition dollars diverted to such a pointless exercise.

But the “actual” goal was to teach health, sciences and religion in a way that stressed the distinct Advantages in all of those areas that is available within the Adventist world view. Makes for a horrible “public university model” but works well as an Adventist method for promoting the Gospel and the benefits of the truth given to this end-time people of God.

It would seem to me to be professional incompetence, or at least abrogation of duty, to promote one philosophy or ‘explanation’ of our origins as the professor’s personal pick, while then making a mere pretension of the statement that BOTH choices are being presented impartially.

I agree that Adventist professors should not claim to be neutral on this subject. They should tell students up front that they think God actually has credibility and that His Word is to be trusted and that they affirm the Adventist 28 Fundamental Beliefs as they apply to the subject of origins.

And guess what! – -you do not see “origins” (abiogensis) under a microscope. Neither do you see “birds coming from reptiles” there.

So those Adventist science professors never need to give credibiliyt to the hype and fear that a student will see abiogensis or will see birds coming from reptiles. It is pure fiction on the part of hopeful evolutionists and nothing more.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 1  0

As I stated on a posting regarding this matter on anther provided site, it seems to me that at least one of the most important issues needing to be addressed is that this institution is claiming to be one of ‘higher learning’. At least I would imagine this is the case. It behooves LSU, then, to follow a mandate of true ‘academic freedom’, regarding what is presented to students; that is, that all courses be taught in an impartial manner, and that the choice of what to believe is left to the student, based upon personal conviction and research. It would seem to me to be professional incompetence, or at least abrogation of duty, to promote one philosophy or ‘explanation’ of our origins as the professor’s personal pick, while then making a mere pretension of the statement that BOTH choices are being presented impartially. The appropriate facility for the promotion of one of these ‘explanations’ would be the campus church (assuming there is one on campus), and, for the other explanation, an off-campus forum for discussion or promotion.  (Quote)

i find it interesting and also disturbing that the comment that is probably the best advice on this whole board got a bunch of dislike votes, but i realize that most people who visit this site, are the people who are conservative people who do not understand the new generation of adventists, and their wish for an honest portrayal of all the different views, so that they can make their own choice.

Like or Dislike: 1  3

For Steve Billiter:

Bias:

Strong love is a bias upon the thoughts. –South. [1913 Webster]

“Strong love is a bias upon the thoughts; and for a man to love earnestly, and not think almost continually of what he loves, is as impossible as for him to live and not breathe.”

- Sermons Preached, by Robert South ( Link )

A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind indifferent; bent; inclination. [1913 Webster]

Morality influences men’s lives, and gives a bias to all their actions. –Locke. [1913 Webster]

http://www.dictionary.net/bias

His bias toward the Christian religion is evident… – PJC [1913 Webster]

____________________________________

Ok, one last time Steve:

Consider the sermon thought of Robert South noted above. Is it not possible and very clear in the context of this passage, to be able to place the name of Jesus in this text? to say,

“Strong love is a bias upon the thoughts; and for Jesus to love earnestly, and not think almost continually of what he loves, is as impossible as for him to live and not breathe (or to live and not be God).

Clearly then, the concept of bias can be used to work both ways – to describe the good and the bad predispositions of a person. This is part of the English understanding of and cultural background and boundaries surrounding this term. In context, the idea of a bias is not required to have a negative meaning in English. And, as I have used this term, my context has always been extremely clear.

The passages you quote from Ellen White use the term “bias” in a negative context that is made quite clear from the passage itself. It is quite clear then that the intended or evident meaning of a word must be considered in the context in which it is used.

You seem to have a marked difficulty judging context. Several times now you have taken my words out of their otherwise clear context and intended meaning. You seem to have tried, deliberately tried, to apply evil interpretations to statements of mine that are clear to the vast majority of people in the SDA Church as obvious statements for the good and in keeping with the fundamental ideals of the SDA Church. You also quote the Bible and Mrs. White against ideas with which they do not actually oppose. In other words, you take the words of Inspiration out of context as well in your attacks on those who are clearly innocent.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  2

@Glenn Orin Clifford Stansal: @Glenn Orin Clifford Stansal:

*****************************

“Academic Freedom” does NOT include heresy–and in an SDA school which bases it’s whole reason for existing on a firm belief that God’s Word is absolute there is no room for a “freedom” that goes contrary to this belief.

God has granted every human being the “Academic Freedom” to believe what he/she wants to believe but that does NOT include the “freedom” to go teach heresy in one of our schools and lead our young people into error.

Let those who choose to believe in evolution go teach in a school that also believes in it. Teaching this in a school that is supported by the tithe of Adventist parents and grandparents is reprehensible! It is not “Academic Freedom”–it is grossly dishonest and should not be tolerated! Why we have put up with it for so many years is a mystery to me!

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  2

Steve Billiter: The word ”biased’ should never be applied to the Saviour.

A child may receive sound religious instruction; but if parents, teachers, or guardians permit his character to be biased by a wrong habit, that habit, if not overcome, will become a predominant power, and the child is lost. {CG 201.2}

Steve,

You evidently do not understand that words in the English language system can mean different things in different contexts. The word “biased” doesn’t necessarily have a “bad” meaning in English in certain contexts. One can be biased for the good…

Come on now… Do you really not understand that a person can be biased for the good? – in favor of the truth just as God is biased in favor of the Truth? Bias is not always a bad thing – as I already explained here in this thread. The definitions of “bias” include a “bent” or “tendency” or “an inclination of temperament or outlook.”

God most certainly has a very predictable inclination of temperament or outlook when it comes to standing for what is right… for Truth. In other words, God has a bias toward Truth. Contrary to the suggestion of some in this forum, God does not present all ideas with equal weight to leave it up to the individual to decide which ideas are true and which ones are false. God biases the individual toward what God knows is truth. In comparison, Satan has a bias toward evil, lies and deception.

Again, contrary to the advice of some in this forum, teachers and pastors who claim to represent and who take a paycheck from the SDA Church should not simply present a host of ideas to their students in a “unbiased manner” to leave it up to the students to decide, free of the biasing influence of the teacher, what is right and what is wrong. A bias for the right is a good thing!

You seem to have a very predictable bias toward deliberately trying to misquote people and take statements out of their obvious context. That is a form of lying Steve. That’s wrong. You need to apologize for this and repent of such activity…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Well-liked: 11  1

Sean Pitman, M.D.: Even Jesus was biased and indoctrinated his own disciples into his own unique world view – quite effectively. Remember the advice to “train of a child in the way he should go…”

The word ”biased’ should never be applied to the Saviour.

A child may receive sound religious instruction; but if parents, teachers, or guardians permit his character to be biased by a wrong habit, that habit, if not overcome, will become a predominant power, and the child is lost. {CG 201.2}

Possible to Be Conscientiously Wrong.–The idea is entertained by many that a man may practice anything that he conscientiously believes to be right. But the question is, Has the man a well-instructed, good conscience, or is it biased and warped by his own preconceived opinions? Conscience is not to take the place of “Thus saith the Lord.” Consciences do not all harmonize and are not all inspired alike. Some consciences are dead, seared as with a hot iron. Men may be conscientiously wrong as well as conscientiously right. Paul did not believe in Jesus of Nazareth, and he hunted the Christians from city to city, verily believing that he was doing service to God.–Lt 4, 1889. {1MCP 322.4}

The more room one shall give for the entrance of the Word of God, the more he is enriched intellectually as well as spiritually. He will have a clearer and less biased judgment and his views will be more comprehensive. His estimates of spiritual things will be more correct. His understanding, under the working power of the Holy Spirit, is exercised to digest the truth by making it a personal benefit by the strengthening of the soul to do self-denying works. {HP 139.4}

Like or Dislike: 5  3

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Propaganda typically takes the form of “appearing to have substance” when really nothing more than “POV designed to manipulate the reader/viewer” is present in the material. Thus marketecture or marketeering rather then reporting substantive facts that support the perceived claims being made.

An easy example “Doctor’s recommend CREST” or “Doctors prefer Crest” – simply says that more than one doctor was found that would admit to recommending or prefering Crest — but is stated in a way to “appear” to claim that Doctors do not prefer anything but Crest in general. Critical thinking is needed to discern reality vs spin-doctoring.

Thus Colin Patterson responds to the “suggestion” that he include an artist’s drawing of an imagined intermediate form – in his book on evolution, was that he could not find a way to do so without misleading the reader.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 2  1

colin campbell: I think critical thinking is a lot about detecting bias and neutralizing, or a least minimizing it, so that one can make objective judgments.

The idea that “critical thinking” is useful or even possible is itself a form of bias. What is the “right” way to “think critically”? There are many different opinions on this you know…

It is simply impossible to avoid bias. Any time you have an opinion on any topic, you have a bias that is not known or knowable as being absolutely true or even objective. You can’t be “critical” of everything if you actually have opinions or beliefs which you believe to be “true”. Upon what basis did you decide what was or wasn’t “true”?

The SDA Church has a certain position on what is and isn’t true. It is the goal of the Church to present the reason for its position from both the pulpit and classroom. It is not the goal of the Church to present all opinions with equal weight, but to guide the world toward its own view of what is truly valuable.

The biblical authors, and even Jesus himself, did the same thing. They spoke with power and authority as to what was and was not true. They did not present the Gospel Message as simply one of many different options with equal weight to let their readers or listeners decide all by themselves as to what message, among many many options, was actually true. They gave the weight of their own influence for what they thought was right and their reasons for their personal bias for the truth…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  1

Like or Dislike: 2  0