@Bravus: Telling the truth about modern biology means telling the …

Comment on LSU Board news release and actions by Sean Pitman M.D..


Telling the truth about modern biology means telling the truth about evolutionary theory – that it is the best explanatory framework science has for the diversity of life…

I stand by my comment that you can have a university or you can dictate the content of course – you can’t do both. Secular universities do not dictate the content of courses. They do insist that people are qualified and knowledgeable in their field. And like it or not, agree or not, in biology that means evolution.

How do you know that the theory of evolution is the “best explanatory framework” to explain life? Upon what do you base this assertion? – Do you actually know what you are talking about? Do you personally understand the creative potential of random mutation and natural selection? – and how this mechanism could reasonable produce the functional complexity and diversity of life that we see around us? If so, please do explain it to me! – because I’ve not been able to grasp it now despite intensive study of it for over 15 years.

You assume that no one knowledgeable in the biological sciences could honestly doubt the modern evolutionary synthesis view. Well, that’s simply not true. There are many who are very well educated and hold the highest level degrees in the biological sciences who honestly do not believe the modern evolutionary synthesis to be correct. Like it or not, agree or not, such biologists and geneticists would not be hired to teach their views or their doubts in a public university – despite their honesty and sincerity. In this sense, even secular universities do indeed dictate the content of their courses. No creationist, however qualified or knowledgeable, would be hired to teach at a public university as a professor within the biological sciences.

You see, you make the classic argument that anyone who disagrees with you or with mainstream evolutionary views on origins must be, by definition, dishonest or ignorant. That is how you can know who to hire or reject for employment to a position of science professor if you were in charge of a university. Those who don’t subscribe to the evolutionary doctrine you’d simply label as “dishonest”, “ignorant”, “stupid”, or “insane” – as Richard Dawkins also puts it.

This is different from my position in that I do not think to judge the honesty of a person (since only God can accurately judge motive anyway). I merely judge the views of a person as being in or out of line with the stated position of his/her employer. A professor can be as honest as can be and still be out of line with the opinions of an employer – and therefore dishonest to tell that employer that he/she could work as an effective representative. That, clearly, would be dishonest – by anyone’s definition…

One more thing, accreditation is not an issue here. It is very easy to teach about the theory of evolution to the point where students can easily pass national examinations on this topic. This should be done at all SDA institutions of higher learning. The argument here is that SDA education should not end here. SDA education should go beyond the mere presentation of the arguments behind the theory of evolution to present why these arguments are either questionable or clearly mistaken given a careful examination of all of the available evidence – as well as why the creationist perspective is best supported by the preponderance or “weight of evidence” – as Mrs. White puts it. This sort of teaching would fulfill all accreditation requirements. This is what SDA educators should be doing if they truly wish to accurately and honestly represent their employer…

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman M.D. Also Commented

LSU Board news release and actions

Carl: We seem to be arguing about two different things. I realize that the issue at LSU has been painted almost entirely as question about teaching evolution, but I am not talking directly about evolution.

What I am talking about is using a literal historical interpretation of Genesis to claim that life was created roughly as it now exists not more than about ten thousand years ago. That interpretation of Genesis leads to so many contradictions of the evidence that it leaves one no better off than believing that God does whatever He pleases whenever He pleases and then provides evidence to make everything look very old. It forces you to believe that there is no rational way to understand the earth and its life.

For many years, Adventists have been avoiding a clear examination of the evidence. For example, where in the Adventist system would a student go to get a BS in geology? There isn’t one simply because we haven’t had the courage to face the facts that exist all around us. The result is that most Adventists can’t have an informed discussion of the earth sciences because we have been biased to believe that the Devil, in the form of “infidel scientists,” is waiting to deceive us. Our fear of being deceived has sometimes left us behaving like a superstitious cult.

To me, the tragedy of Adventism is that we can’t have a rational discussion of the problem because it isn’t safe to do so. As soon as anyone challenges our traditional beliefs, a cry goes up to get them dismissed. That’s the purpose of this Website, and, as long as it’s effective, we will stay locked in our established traditions no matter how irrational our position becomes. By doing so we become completely irrelevant to the educated world, nothing more than another tourist attraction in the history of religions.

You can get a BS in geology at SAU. Arthur Chadwick is there and does a lot of good field research in geology – and is a fundamentalist SDA (in that he actually believes that life on Earth is young).

There is in fact a lot of evidence in support of the author of Genesis and his intent to write a literal narriative about real historical events. However, if you don’t recognize this evidence, why not simply leave the SDA Church and join another organization that is more in line with what you think is so obvious? Why try to be something you’re obviously not?

Sean Pitman

LSU Board news release and actions

Then do you also agree with Dr. Lawrence McCloskey that the earth must necessarily be at least 12,000 years old? You see, the sea corals are his specialty, and they add a layer each year, dating back 12,000 years. They have done core drillings on the corals to determine this. If God did not create a mature coral colony, what did God create? or do you agree with Dr. McCloskey that life on earth must be at least 12,000 years old?

I don’t agree with McCloskey’s assumption regarding the age of living coral reefs – to include his notion that corals can only add one growth layer each year. This notion simply isn’t true.

Beyond this, living coral reefs did not survive the flood. Corals reefs are very delicate and would not have survived the world-wide flood intact. While fossil corals do also exist, the fossil “reefs” that supposedly took hundreds of thousands of years to form, really aren’t reefs at all…

For further information on this topic see:


Sean Pitman

LSU Board news release and actions

Was God “deceptive” because He created a full-grown Adam and Eve, who had the appearance of age, while not being more than a day old? Should God have created just a sperm and an egg for each of them instead, in order to avoid charges of being “deceptive?”

Hi Erik. I have to agree with Carl here that you can take this argument too far. It can basically be used to argue that anything that clearly appears to be one way could actually be completely different “because God made it that way”. That basically removes any logical basis for belief in God or in the Bible beyond the pretty useless concept of blind faith.

However, Carl is also mistaken in his suggestion that no credible, well-trained scientists have any sort of viable model or basis for interpreting the data as supporting the theory of young-life on Earth and a rapid catastrophic model for the formation of the geologic and fossil records. There are many such scientists – both within and without the SDA Church. It is just that much of Carl’s thinking and understanding of the relevant data is outdated or simply mistaken…

Sean Pitman

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman M.D.

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.