It would seem that many responding to this article are …

Comment on Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict by Blake.

It would seem that many responding to this article are under the opinion that the SDA church has discovered absolute truth. With quotations regarding how ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ and ‘not one tiddle of the scripture will change’ (these are not exact quotations, but I believe I have expressed the heart of their argument) one must assume that we have mastered the laws of our solar system and have also come to an absolutely definitive interpretation of the Bible. I was unaware of either of these being the case. Why do we as SDA member’s have schools? Why do we have these school separated into various departments? It appears as if we have forgotten the dual role of schools. One is to instruct its students in truth. The other is to progress truth. Why do universities have professors teach classes and work to publish new material? It is because part of the academic arena is to ensure that we are teaching truth. We have science departments and religion departments. Part of each of these departments roles is to learn from one another. Can science and faith coexist? I would certainly hope so. I believe in a systematic, organized, and most importantly, a law governed universe.

But where is the forum for discussion? Post after post supports the actions of the Michigan conference. Many of these post ask us to harken back to Michigan’s historical position as a key component in past church controversies. What is the relevance of that now? Am I to assume that because in the past Michigan has found itself on the right side that it once again inherently in that position. That is a non-sequiter. Where is the active discussion on this issue? I haven’t seen one post, one query, one argument to examine this issue. I haven’t heard from the teachers at La Sierra. Where are their voices? Its amazing that we as American cherish our right to dissent, our right to an opinion, and our right to a fair trial, but when we talk religion these concepts are thrown out the window. Of course this is partly natural. Our children are our most important possessions. Their eternal souls are more important than our transient lives here on earth. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. One of the earlier posts talked about God’s destruction of Lucifer, the exodus from the Garden of Eden, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The essential component of each of these situations was the action of God. We don’t live in a theocracy any more. Why are we so eager to abandon the pillars of democracy when it comes to religion? Are we scared that we will lose our place as the remnant if we give way to our intellects? Will our enquiries of the physical world in which we live cause us to lose our faith in the metaphysical world which surrounds us? Is this how poorly we consider the education of our children by their parents? Do they suddenly forget everything they have learned the moment they step into a collegiate classroom? If so, I would argue that the wrong education system is being attacked. But lets assume for a moment that they don’t, that they are able to bring their prior knowledge with them into the classroom. LSU is a university, as such its students are adults, albeit young ones. They are not defenceless. They should be prepared to counter the snares of Satan, and in doing so, perhaps help others who are struggling. College was not the first place that I encountered evolution, and I struggled with it before college. What better place to examine it, than in a classroom full of other Adventists? Of course the concern is that the teachers are teaching evolution as truth. But what kind of examination of our existence would it be if we entered the argument with the conclusion already determined. And it isn’t enough that we do this to our children, but the Michigan Conference has done it for us. Instead of waiting for the GC to convene, to discuss, and to judge this issue, it has been done by a select committee. Are we really this scared of evolution? Do we no longer believe in the triumph of truth over lies?

Of course I can’t help but to think of historical examples of this manner. The much maligned Catholic church censored the words of scientists, declaring them heretics for presenting their discoveries, well beyond the point when those discoveries were merely theories but well into when they were inconvertible fact. Let us not fall into their mould. We don’t have all the answers. Think of William Miller. A name which few adventists don’t know and respect. We are told that his death came partly because he would not have been able to accept the truth of the Sabbath. We should learn from him, we must examine the evidence as it becomes available.

Far more dangerous than honest intellectual discourse at our universities are the agendas which a select few are trying to push through our religion. So desperate are they to make a name for themselves that not only do they scour our universities trying to create problems, but they haunt these very message boards to propagate their ideology. They seem to forget the personal walk with Christ. While universities like Southern are heralded as bastions against the dark tide of secularism, schools like La Sierra are torn apart. Yet, each of us has our own walk with Christ; our own path. Strangely Southern is not the ideal for everyone. While LSU is smeared for presenting the possibility of evolution, no one mentions the gaps which can be found in many of the other SDA schools. Information is left out because it doesn’t fit the conservative right of SDA’s viewpoint. Integral theories and ideas are left out of the education rubric because they make students question. What about the student who wants to question? Who doesn’t want to accept everything spoon-fed to them by their professors? Students not only know the academic standings of the schools they choose to attend, but also the ideology which is attached to each school. Let them decide which is best for them. Are we so confident in our interpretations of things, which can only be interpretations, that we will exclude all other knowledge from our peers?