Larry Blackmer says: April 5, 2010 I have decided to respond to …

Comment on LSU’s public relations man calls Educate Truth ‘attack website’ by Sean Pitman, M.D..

Larry Blackmer says:
April 5, 2010

I have decided to respond to one issue. I will not bother trying to correct the other misinformation.

I want to respond to the issues involving WASC accreditation.

WASC accreditation was never really the issue with your public comments. Rather, it is your various public and private mischaracterizations of the efforts of Educate Truth and other individuals striving for increased transparency within our schools that is the problem (despite indications on your part that you would correct certain mischaracterizations and misstatements on your part regarding how Educate Truth has handled your statements). Also, the continued proselytizing on your watch for theistic evolution at LSU (a problem that has been ongoing for decades) should be very problematic for someone in your position.

As one responsible for the quality of SDA education in our schools, I’ve very surprised that you do not find the current state of affairs at LSU extremely concerning and have not done deeper investigation into the reality of what Educate Truth is bringing forward regarding the long-standing active and continued promotion of theistic evolution at LSU by the significant majority of its science professors…

Will you not be held accountable for your silence and tacit support of what is taking place on your watch? – before God?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

LSU’s public relations man calls Educate Truth ‘attack website’

Shane Hilde says:
April 10, 2010

@Sean Pitman, M.D.: I concur with your comments. I would also add that Blackmer’s LONG comment was removed because of all the private drama he was throwing in which we had previously worked through privately.

Indeed. What is also ironic is that the LSU website would never post commentary of their articles from the likes of you or me. I dare say that Educate Truth is far far more open to publishing opposing opinions than is LSU…

Really, we are all about transparency here at EdTruth. We simply don’t need to sequester information from the opposition. The more of it the better actually. We are grateful for the significant opposition we’ve received to date because without it this issue would never have gone as far as it has. Erv Taylor and Larry Becker have contributed more than most to the success of the main goals of EdTruth – to the significant transparency on these issues that has been generated over this past year at LSU. For that we are most appreciative 🙂

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU’s public relations man calls Educate Truth ‘attack website’
Educate Truth Blocks Posts in Support of LSU?

On April 8th, 2010 Nathan Schilt says (at Adventist Today):
http://www.atoday.com/content/educate-truth-perhaps-elaborate-spoof-turned-ugly

The LSU response to the Review article, which I just read, provides enlightening perspective, particularly on the degree of editorial control exercised over at educatetruth. In view of the fact that they apparently do carefully control the content of posts on their website, I think the editors have no choice but to accept reponsibility for the inflammatory vitriol which Erv has pointed out. The extremist goals of educatetruth have been evident for a long time. However, I have not been particularly impressed, until now, that there is a serious character and integrity problem with those behind the agenda. Since educatetruth censors what it finds offensive, the fact that it publishes vile rhetoric in furtherance of its mission should make its organizers and sponsors crimson with shame. As is often the case with extremists, the odious nature of their agenda is being exposed by the rhetoric they find acceptable to advance it.

You take the statements of LSU’s PR guy, Larry Becker, at face value. The truth is, as far as I’m aware at least, that there is very little editing of the comments of posters to Educate Truth aside from those automated edits for language (swear words and the like), length, spam, etc. Contrary to Becker’s assertions, EdTruth does not edit comments just because they are supportive of LSU. In fact, EdTruth welcomes such comments and there have been many such comments posted – to include those of Erv Taylor and Becker himself on many occasions.

In short, I have no idea where Becker got his ideas from regarding the editing of EdTruth, because he is way off base – to the point of deliberate slander for political purposes.

Also, neither Shane or I support many of the comments posted on EdTruth by various commenters. In fact, I personally find many of them quite appalling – on both sides of this issue. Yet, as with the postings on the Adventist Today website, we feel it important to allow freedom of expression for those with wide-ranging opinions on the issues at hand to be expressed in the comment sections of EdTruth.

What is somewhat ironic here is that, so far, I have been blocked from responding to the latest Erv Taylor tabloid-style article by the Adventist Today moderators on the Atoday website (listed above).

LSU expresses disappointment that the article did not contain more infomation from LSU’s perspective. I suspect educate truth wishes the same thing for its side.

This also isn’t true. Shane and I are very happy with the response of the Adventist Review and think they did a very fine job reporting this issue in a very even-handed and succinct manner. I personally think it very courageous of the AR to publish such an article. I was very surprised when I read it for the first time – shocked actually. David Asscherick told me that he felt the same way when he read the article for the first time. I might even have to start subscribing to the AR if they are going to start publishing relevant articles like this instead of the usual milk-toast stuff. 😉

Considering the quotidian drone of advocacy news reporting from most of the mainstream print media, I thought the Review showed remarkable restraint in not overtly siding with those who seek to have Church doctrine vindicated in our science classrooms.

I think you miss the point of the AR article…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU’s public relations man calls Educate Truth ‘attack website’
Barking Up the Wrong Tree

From: Sean Pitman, Arthur Chadwick, Earl Aagaard, and Warren Ashworth
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:39 PM

Dear Elder Blackmer,

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. You say that you support La Sierra University and argue that there are many God-fearing men and women there who are helping students find God – that LSU is not a “hotbed of liberal anti-Biblical philosophy”.

While it is true that LSU is doing many good things, to include mission projects and much community service, it is not true that LSU is remotely supportive of all of the “fundamental” SDA doctrines nor does it strive to develop faith in students regarding certain particular SDA ideals. It is a well-known fact, at least now, that the significant majority of the professors in the science department are decidedly against the notion of a literal creation week and go out of their way to explain to their students why this idea is clearly false if not downright ludicrous. The same thing is true of the religion department at LSU. Most of even the theology professors at LSU are decidedly “liberal” and teach against the reality or at least the importance or need for the SDA doctrine of a literal creation week. If you think otherwise, you simply are not well informed about what is really taking place at LSU.

So, while faith is indeed promoted at LSU, it isn’t a faith in certain key fundamental SDA pillars of faith – that’s for sure.

You point out that our SDA universities must teach students about the theory of evolution, but bring them back home at the end of the day, to quote Jan Paulsen. And, I agree. The problem is that one cannot possibly hope to get professors who do not believe in the SDA fundamental doctrine on a literal creation week to be supportive of such. The new freshman class that LSU set up to introduce science students to faith in science is actually being used by the theistic evolutionist professors at LSU to promote theistic evolutionary ideas, and discount the literal SDA interpretation of Genesis, even further. There is no one speaking in support of the SDA stand on origins in this introductory class or in any of the other upper division science classes at LSU – – and not even in the religion departments either.

This wouldn’t be so bad if it was actually being made clear to parents, students, and the church membership at large that LSU has decided to pretty much exclusively promote theistic evolution as the true story of origins. However, as it currently stands, LSU is trying to cover up this fact with slick advertisements that gloss over this theistic evolutionary emphasis and suggest full support of SDA ideals. This is false advertising and essential robbery of parents, students, and the SDA Church at large and should not be tolerated. This has been going on for decades at LSU and should not have to be tolerated any longer.

You call this a “throwing of grenades” and a “cannibalizing” of our own. This isn’t remotely correct. What we are doing is simply calling for transparency regarding a very long standing issue that many have tired to deal with privately over the course of decades – literally. Nothing has changed except that the active promotion of theistic evolution at LSU has continued to increase and the professors to become ever bolder in their defiance and dismissal of the stated fundamental positions of the SDA Church while still thinking to carry the title of “SDA”. LSU is also putting extreme pressure on students who want to stand up for the stated SDA fundamentals within the classroom – bringing them up before committees who threaten them with permanent negative comments on their transcripts for trying to make public what is being done and said behind closed classroom doors. For some reason, the professors at LSU don’t want what they are teaching to be made generally known to the SDA Church membership – despite the fact that this is our school. And so they threaten students with censure, expulsion, permanent negative comments on their transcripts, and lack of letters of recommendation upon graduation – – simply because they strove for transparency in the classroom?

You invoke Mrs. White to suggest that we are doing wrong in presenting this problem publicly for general evaluation. Don’t think for a minute, however, that if Mrs. White were alive today that she would tolerate what is happening at LSU in silence. You know as well as I do that she would call for immediate action to correct this serious problem at an institution that thinks to carry the name SDA while boldly undermining at least one of its most cherished and fundamental of all of the pillars of the SDA faith. You evidently forget that it was James White and John Loughborough who first suggest and started issuing “cards of commendation” only to those paid representatives who accurately reflected the ideals and goals of the early SDA Church. Many didn’t like this governmental control and discipline and fought very hard against the early Church because of this. However, according to White and Loughborough, such internal government control was vital to avoid fracturing and ultimate chaos within the church.

After much effort behind closed doors over many years, enough is enough. It is time for the leadership to stand up and draw a line in the sand and re-establish some sort of actual government within the SDA Church – on one side or the other. Where does the SDA Church really stand on what it claims are its “fundamental” pillars of faith? Many feel like I do within the Church – and we deserve to know, at the very least, the truth as to what is really going on in our schools and to see more transparency within our schools and churches.

It is time to take a clear and decided stand one way or the other. Which side are you on?

Sincerely,

Sean Pitman, M.D.
Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D. (SWAU)
Earl Aagaard, Ph.D. (SAU – retired)
Warren Ashworth, Ph.D., M.Div. (PUC – retired)

www.DetectingDesign.com


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.