Comment on LSU responds to Adventist Review article by BobRyan.
Though I have given my initial response here –
The LSU response exposes more of what is going on behind the scenes there – the more you take time to stop and look at what they are saying about themselves.
Larry Becker is so busy providing clues as to the real problem at LSU one can hardly tell if he is in favor of the current LSU policies or opposed to them.
1. In his first few paragraphs Becker tells the reader that instead of finding that LSU needs to be reprimanded for underminging the Adventist doctrine on origins (specifically creation week) the LSU board of directors chose “In November 2009 and again in February 2010 the Board affirmed the universityâ€™s support for the Adventist view of creation.”
But then “innexplicably” Larry tells us that the board that is issuing a statement of “affirmation” for LSU’s stand on origins has “instructed the University to implement the statement and is monitoring progress“!??
How does one “implement” a statement of “affirmation”?
How does one “monitor affirmation”??
It is as IF Becker is trying to tell the reader “and by affirmation we mean severely reprimand and demand immediate changes be made to rectify the situation”. I.e. some “corrective action” that must be “monitored”.
As for Loui Bishop – the Review article stated –
Adventist Review said:
Caught in the crossfire has been Louie Bishop, a La Sierra student who also showed promise as a professional golfer before his commitment to the seventh-day Sabbath intervened (see Adventist Review, Sept. 17, 2009, http://bit.ly/dpiW1j). Bishop said he was placed on â€œcitizenship probationâ€ by the school for circulating letters opposing the teaching of evolutionary concepts and for posting notes of a professorâ€™s lecture online, despite a verbal agreement that Bishop would not do so without consulting the teacher.
In a Jan. 25 interview, Bishop said he â€œthought a lot about that before I did that and I talked to a lot of people because I was wrestling with certain things and the administration issued me this status of citizenship probation. From U.S. copyright law I understand the university doesnâ€™t have the right to do anything if I am posting a lecture online for academic critique. There is nothing wrong with reproducing that.”
Despite Bishopâ€™s individual case, about which the school is reluctant to comment citing federal student privacy laws, La Sierraâ€™s Becker said the school is trying to move beyond the Web-fueled controversy.
hmm – in the Review article Loui Bishop’s concern seems to be the gigantic issue of the heresy of evolutionism undermining the core of Christian values in one of our schools. (Something Ellen White calls “the WORST form of infidelity” in 3SG 90-91). An issue so large and significant that Bishop sees the need to provide “real evidence” in the form of actual public statements made in class by a specific professor.
But in the Review article the reader is lead to believe that LSU’s is blind to the BIG picture issue of the cancer of evolutionism, and instead settles for the “public university” style focus of merely bickering about whether a professor’s lecture notes and comments are “copyrighted”.
Well that Review article certainly did place LSU in a bad light by claiming that that was the highest value for LSU in such a case.
But then LSU’s own Larry Becker proceeds to issue what looks like a “public confession” that LSU is in fact responding at no higher level of discernment and insight in the Loui Bishop case, other than bickering over “copyright” nits as we see in Becker’s comments below –
Larry Bekcker said:
When a student is reported to have committed an infraction against a specific policy, it is investigated and, if necessary, he or she is heard before a judicial committee.
Furthermore, the article conveyed the studentâ€™s opinion on U.S. copyright law as pertains to posting online a professorâ€™s intellectual property, such as lecture notes and slides. The article did not make clear whether the studentâ€™s opinion is based on appropriate legal counsel or is his own interpretation. In either case, the Review article did not give the University an opportunity to share the opinion of its attorneyâ€™s perspective on the ethics and legality of unapproved selective posting of faculty intellectual property.
First of all – many thanks to Becker for admitting that what Bishop posted is in fact the real statements and slides from the real LSU class and not some made-up information to be used against LSU.
Secondly – thanks to Becker for confirming the AR article’s claim that LSU is acting with total disregard to the MASSIVE issue of evolution undermining Adventism in the Loui Bishop case, and has instead opted to simply bicker about legal issues regarding who can see “lecture notes and slides” by one of their professors.
With Larry Becker’s own public confession of LSU’s methods and short-sighted focus – can Adventist administrators continue to claim that they are ignorant of the problem or the need to take action?
Constituency meetings are pending. GC sessions are looming. Time for the Adventist membership at large to ask if leadership has an inclination to get this thing under control.
BobRyan Also Commented
LSU responds to Adventist Review article
Rich, based on that information the “do not tell others what your professor is saying in class” idea of LSU is more of a ruse — an effort to misdirect away from the larger problem.
Evolutionism undermining Adventist doctrines on origins and being taught inside a leading Adventist university, is a huge ethical violation of trust by comparison to the “student showed someone else what they were taught in class” problem that LSU seems so excited to tell us about.
4. Regardless of the claims of Becker to the contrary, the comments of Dr. Larry Blackmer (GC Vice President of Education), were not taken out of context or presented other than they were received by Dr. Blackmer. Dr. Blackmer has apologized to the editors of EducateTruth regarding his public comments suggesting that EducateTruth presented his comments in a misleading way. What actually happened is that Dr. Blackmerâ€™s comments were published exactly as he presented them. He just forgot, somehow, that he had himself made the comments that he made in the way he made them.
As far as publishing only a portion of the comments Dr. Blackmer made before a large group of educators, this was done to protect Dr. Blackmer from his own mistaken comments â€“ comments which he himself did not want published. In fact, Dr. Blackmer, even though he made his own comments before a large public forum, did not wish these comments to be published, in full, or in part, by EducateTruth. So, we agreed to remove these comments at his request even though we personally would have had no problem with publishing them in their entirety.
Dr Blackmer is now on record according to that LSU publication of being 100% behind the existing LSU program ( a program promoting evolution as the right answer on the doctrine of origins, as it turns out.)
Blackmer is at the top of chain of responsibility when it comes to the policy, focus and health of our educational system. The sign on his desk should read “the buck stops here”. He cannot allow his statements to be coopted into providing cover for evolutionism. He cannot allow his influence or his name to be hijacked in defense of evolution. He is fully enabling such tactics by not coming out decisively on this matter.
We can all pray for better days.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind