“The biology course which has come under attack … we …

Comment on General Biology Seminar 111A to be revised by Sean Pitman.

“The biology course which has come under attack … we realize the first iteration of it did not really have the results we desired. So, we will be looking at that for revision,” Graham said.

The understatement of the year!

Big surprise huh? After all, they put the very same professors in charge of this class as were responsible for attacking the foundational pillars of the Church in the upper division science classes to begin with…

If you put the fox in charge of the hen house, what do you think is going to happen? If this is happening in the Freshman introductory class, what do they think is happening in the upper division science classes? All previous “iterations” of these classes have been far worse than this Freshman intro class – any revision in the offing for what started this whole thing off to begin with? Anything really substantive this time? I do understand Graham’s desire for caution and careful advancement, but it has been well over a year since this all started and absolutely nothing of any recognizable substance has changed at LSU when it comes to ending the active undermining of SDA foundational goals and ideals by the LSU science professors…

Wisbey should realize by now that despite all the good things that LSU does for the community and the students in many different areas (which is all true), that allowing professors to attack fundamental pillars of Adventism isn’t what an SDA school should be doing – period. This isn’t why the Church has developed a school system – to undermine its own fundamental goals and ideals. LSU isn’t teaching students how to think for themselves here. It is teaching students to think that there really is only one valid scientific explanation for origins – the modern mainstream evolutionary story. This story is presented without even allowing for the SDA position on origins to be presented in its most convincing manner by those who actually hold to the scientific validity of the Church’s position on origins. And, LSU putting Louie Bishop on academic probation for publicly standing up in favor of the SDA position on origins (against what these professors are promoting in class) was just the last straw…

I’m very pleased and very pleasantly surprised that the Adventist Review has taken such an interest and such a decided stand on an issue of this importance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.