MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU

In a recent letter to President Randal Wisbey of La Sierra University, David Lara said, “I want you to know I now will do my best to discourage any student I have contact with from attending La Sierra.”

What students is he talking about?

David is the safety director at Monterey Bay Academy in California. He has been working in the Adventist school system for 27 years, the last 21 years at MBA. David’s personal connection with LSU has been his two daughters, who attended there.

David believes God will lead in whatever manner He deems necessary to help solve this issue; however, this doesn’t mean sitting on his hands while he continues to wait on church leaders. David made it clear to Wisbey why he intends to discourage kids from attending LSU. “Because of your inability to handle the situation,” he said.

Leadership seems unwilling to pluck the eye that offends, so one man is attempting to make a difference with his influence.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

64 thoughts on “MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU

  1. Amen!

    When a problem surfaces of this magnitude it does no good at all to simply sweep it under the rug “as if” it really was not all that important or different than the everyday problems all SDA universities must face.

    The impact on lives that “the worst kind of infidelity” can inflict – is a matter to be taken seriously.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  2. The position that it is of no consequence what men believe, is one of Satan’s most successful deceptions. He knows that the truth, received in the love of it, sanctifies the soul of the receiver; therefore he is constantly seeking to substitute false theories, fables, another gospel. From the beginning, the servants of God have contended against false teachers, not merely as vicious men, but as inculcators of falsehoods that were fatal to the soul. Elijah, Jeremiah, Paul, firmly and fearlessly opposed those who were turning men from the Word of God. That liberality which regards a correct religious faith as unimportant, found no favor with these holy defenders of the truth. – GC88 520.2

    Such a crisis demanded a man of firmness, decision, and unflinching courage; one who held the honor of God above popular favor, personal safety, or life itself. But the present leader of Israel was not of this character. Aaron feebly remonstrated with the people, but his wavering and timidity at the critical moment only rendered them the more determined. The tumult increased. A blind, unreasoning frenzy seemed to take possession of the multitude. There were some who remained true to their covenant with God, but the greater part of the people joined in the apostasy. A few who ventured to denounce the proposed image making as idolatry, were set upon and roughly treated, and in the confusion and excitement they finally lost their lives.
    Aaron feared for his own safety; and instead of nobly standing up for the honor of God, he yielded to the demands of the multitude. – PP 316.2-3.

    When Moses, on returning to the camp, confronted the rebels, his severe rebukes and the indignation he displayed in breaking the sacred tables of the law were contrasted by the people with his brother’s pleasant speech and dignified demeanor, and their sympathies were with Aaron. To justify himself, Aaron endeavored to make the people responsible for his weakness in yielding to their demand; but notwithstanding this, they were filled with admiration of his gentleness and patience. But God seeth not as man sees. Aaron’s yielding spirit and his desire to please had blinded his eyes to the enormity of the crime he was sanctioning. His course in giving his influence to sin in Israel cost the life of thousands. In what contrast with this was the course of Moses, who, while faithfully executing God’s judgments, showed that the welfare of Israel was dearer to him than prosperity or honor or life.
    Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do evil. God would have His servants prove their loyalty by faithfully rebuking transgression, however painful the act may be. Those who are honored with a divine commission are not to be weak, pliant time-servers. They are not to aim at self-exaltation, or to shun disagreeable duties, but to perform God’s work with unswerving fidelity. – PP 323.2-3.

    In rejecting the truth, men reject its Author. In trampling upon the law of God, they deny the authority of the Lawgiver. It is as easy to make an idol of false doctrines and theories as to fashion an idol of wood or stone. Satan leads men to conceive of God in a false character, as having attributes which He does not possess. A philosophical idol is enthroned in the place of Jehovah; while the true God, as He is revealed in His Word, in Christ, and in the works of creation, is worshiped by but few. Thousands deify nature, while they deny the God of nature. Tho in a different form, idolatry exists in the Christian world today as verily as it existed among ancient Israel in the days of Elijah. The god of many professedly wise men, of philosophers, poets, politicians, journalists, the god of polished fashionable circles, of many colleges and universities, even of some theological institutions, is little better than Baal, the sun-god of Phoenicia. – ST, July 4, 1899 par. 4.

    For more information consult, Patriarchs and Prophets, Chap. 28 – “Idolatry at Sinai.”
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  3. I just had a brief telephone conversation this afternoon with someone who is on the board of LaSierra University. I have confidence that this situation is eventually going to be straightened out, but it may take quite a while. The boardmembers don’t want to act in a way that creates more problems than they solve, but they do want to get the situation corrected. Don’t write off the leadership; they are men of God trying to do the right thing. But keep the pressure on, and be prepared to continue fighting this cause for several years. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

    I am grateful to Shane Hilde, Sean Pitman and David Asscherick for taking the steps necessary to make this situation public. But because this situation was allowed to fester for the better part of two decades, our adversaries are deeply intrenched. They are counting on us losing interest over time. Do not let it happen.




    0
    View Comment
  4. David Read.

    Thanks for sharing that – but it brings up another point. What is the effective “reach” and “influence” of this web site? Are the board members watching what is actually being said here?

    I notice some pro-evolutionist proponants come here from time to time and complain that this site is messing up their plans. But I am not entirely sure how this group is affecting them.

    If we knew how it is being monitored today – we might be better able to increase the effectiveness of the content tomorrow.

    For example – if certain arguments are being introduced in favor of either delaying a fix or in favor of promoting evolution — (arguments that possibly have not been addressed here) — it would be nice to get those stumbling blocks out on the table. Even if the source contributing the suggested topics chooses to do it through some of the members already posting here.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  5. BobRyan, that is a very perceptive question. I do not know the extent to which this particular website is being monitored, but I do know that the word about LaSierra has gone out to the four corners, and the Seventh-day Darwinians are on the defensive. Here are their main strategies for deflecting and indefinitely deferring any appropriate response:

    1) They argue that students are being taught evolution for informational purposes only, not as truth. We know this is a lie. No one has any problem with evolutionary theory being taught for informational purposes, as long it is contrasted with creationist theory, which is the Adventist understanding of our true origins. The problem is that Darwinism is being taught as truth and creationism is ignored or ridiculed.

    2) They argue that evolutionary theory is a valid and acceptable option for the Christian as long as it is theistic evolution of some sort, as opposed to dogmatic naturalism. This was the deflection contained in Randal Wisbey’s first open letter on this topic back in April or May; he stated that LaSierra was not teaching “atheistic evolution.” I think they would like to have us believe that the issue is being fairly dealt with as long as some like, say, Michael Behe, William Dembski or Stephen Meyer is invited to campus to give a talk on intelligent design every once in a while.

    But this is a trap we must not fall into. Theistic evolution and progressive creation (over millions of years) are just as contrary to Seventh-day Adventism as is naturalistic or atheistic evolution. Adventists believe in a literal six-day creation in the not too distant past, and that the world was destroyed by a universal aqueous catastrophe that reshaped the surface of the globe. And we expect to find support for those views in geology and paleontology. The fight is really over geology much more than over biology. Any sort of acommodation to long-ages is comprehensively destructive to Adventism, but the ID crowd doesn’t have any issue with long-ages geology. So merely discussing ID views doesn’t cut it, but in the end, the professors who reject young earth (or young life) creationism will also reject Intelligent Design.

    These are the two main arguments this website should seek to rebut.




    0
    View Comment
  6. BobRyan: we might be better able to increase the effectiveness of the content tomorrow.

    For example – if certain arguments are being introduced in favor of either delaying a fix or in favor of promoting evolution — (arguments that possibly have not been addressed here) — it would be nice to get those stumbling blocks out on the table. Even if the source contributing the suggested topics chooses to do it through some of the members already posting here.

    Hi Bob,

    Could you clarify specifically what would be involved in getting the stumbling blocks on the table, and what is the contributing source that chooses to work through currently posting members? I am not asking this in a sarcastic or rhetorical manner; I am very interested to know your thoughts on that. Thanks.

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University




    0
    View Comment
  7. David Read: These are the two main arguments this website should seek to rebut.

    It is not the intention of this website to defend the biblical doctrine of a recent, six-day creation. The issue isn’t even up for debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Sure there are some big fish in small ponds who preach the merits of the Darwian gospel, but the church as a collective body does not question this doctrine.

    Ultimately, this issue centers in keeping church employs accountable to upholding the beliefs of the church. This issue is much simpler than creation vs. evolution. The fix may not be so simple, but the problem is. We simply have professors and administration that no longer are supportive of Adventist doctrine.

    If Greenpeace found out one of its employees (or volunteers) liked to go out on weekends and kill whales, would they just say, “That’s what he’s into and we support him”? No! He’d get fired. However, when it comes to denominational employment the naysayers end up making this issue entirely too personal.

    Real world people! If you are not doing the job your employer wants getting fired is normal.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Shane, I wish I were as sanguine as you are about what is and is not up for debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A year ago, I would have agreed with you. But just within the past year, I have been reading sites like Atoday and Spectrum. I know that alot of the folks who post there are former Adventists, but many are presently on the books of, and actively involved in, some Adventist Church or other.

    I’m thinking specifically of Ervin Taylor, Ron Osborn, Charles Scriven, and Matt Burdette, but there are many others, many of whom will not give their names on the sites. They say: “We have always been Adventists, our parents and grandparents were Adventists, we went to Adventist schools, K through 16, and we’re always going to be Adventist. We don’t believe in a literal creation week, nor in the ‘inerrancy’ of Ellen White [on origins], and since we are unquestionably Adventists, our views on the topic of origns are by definition within the spectrum of acceptable and normative Adventist views on the topic.”

    Do I think they are nuts? Of course, but let me say this definitely and with emphasis, we cannot assume that the leadership recognizes this. I’ve lived in southern California for over 12 years and I’ve seldom heard a doctrinal sermon preached, and never in the last 7 years. I have heard a pastor deliberately deny from the pulpit the Adventist view of the substitutionary atonement in favor of a variant of the moral influence theory. I’ve heard several other doctrinally suspect tidbits in Adventist sermons. I don’t think we can just assume that the leadership understands how Adventist doctrine fits with various scientific issues on origins. I don’t think we can just assume that all of our pastors understand our doctrinal structure as well as we do; in fact, that assumption is increasingly suspect.

    We can assume, however–you can bet your life on it–that our adversaries are making the arguments I enumerated in my previous post. They are bending the ears of people on the board and in leadership positions, sounding ever so reasonable, and portraying us as a vocal minority, a fringe, divisive, strident, witch hunters, right-wing radicals, etc. They’re hoping to sell the idea that the real issue is theism vs. atheism, or that the important point is that God created, not how He created or how long He took. They’re hoping to muddy the water just enough to keep decisive action at bay. And they’re pretty confidant, because they’ve successfully performed this song and dance for almost 20 years now. Why should this time be any different?

    Our adversaries are benefitting from the fact that people of our persuasion, that is, doctrinally well-grounded Adventists, find it inconceivable that anyone could try to blend Adventism and Darwinism (as Cliff Goldstein put, “Nazism’s a snugger fit”) and have a hard time beleiving that a sizable contingent of Adventists have made this their life’s work, their motivating passion. Well, we’d better start believing it. It’s happening right now, people, in the real world!




    0
    View Comment
  9. @David Kendall, BMus, MA:

    Hi Bob,

    Could you clarify specifically what would be involved in getting the stumbling blocks on the table, and what is the contributing source that chooses to work through currently posting members? I am not asking this in a sarcastic or rhetorical manner; I am very interested to know your thoughts on that. Thanks.

    David Kendall
    Adjunct Professor of Music
    La Sierra University

    David – thank you for asking.

    I have to assume that there are conscientious SDA Adminstrators today trying to deal with the problem of evangelism for evolutionism going on inside our denomination whether it be at LSU or at the local church level or on a Union or GC board of directors.

    They surely must be getting some arguments from evolutionists who are opposing the exegetically sound and scientifically honest solution to this problem. And they are probably ALSO getting objections from those who though they themselves may not be evolutionists are still blocking any solution that may be offerred, possibly in the name of Progressive “pluralism”.

    In other case – I am thinking that there is a subset of those “problems to be solved” that may be benefitted by having them discussed in some fashion on this web site.

    Now admittedly the evolutionists will also have their own list of arguments – but not all of those arguments actually stop Administrators from taking the appropriate action. I was hoping someone could help us identify the substantive obstacles that actually keep this thing dragging on and on.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  10. @David Read:

    BobRyan, that is a very perceptive question. I do not know the extent to which this particular website is being monitored, but I do know that the word about LaSierra has gone out to the four corners, and the Seventh-day Darwinians are on the defensive. Here are their main strategies for deflecting and indefinitely deferring any appropriate response:

    1) They argue that students are being taught evolution for informational purposes only, not as truth. We know this is a lie. No one has any problem with evolutionary theory being taught for informational purposes, as long it is contrasted with creationist theory, which is the Adventist understanding of our true origins. The problem is that Darwinism is being taught as truth and creationism is ignored or ridiculed.

    Well I am glad to hear that – because providing the actual evidence both through class material and eye-witness testimony is what we do see a lot of in the web pages of this site. So it is good to know that that part of the material is tailor made to help administrators in that regard.

    2) They argue that evolutionary theory is a valid and acceptable option for the Christian as long as it is theistic evolution of some sort, as opposed to dogmatic naturalism. This was the deflection contained in Randal Wisbey’s first open letter on this topic back in April or May; he stated that LaSierra was not teaching “atheistic evolution.” I think they would like to have us believe that the issue is being fairly dealt with as long as some like, say, Michael Behe, William Dembski or Stephen Meyer is invited to campus to give a talk on intelligent design every once in a while.

    Ok – in this regard they seem to be exposing their own argument in point 1 – by claiming that the subject is just “informational” and not “this is how it actually happened” — only to turn around in argument two and say “well it is how it happened – but innexplicably we get to say THEISTIC when we make that wild claim”

    But if the argument is that Ex 20:8-11 or 3SG 90-91 or Gen 1-2:3 is somehow “preaching darwinism” or is a “compatible with Darwinism” text – I have not seen them do anything other than “jump ship” whenver asked to “do the math” and to “show the class their work on the black board”.

    But this is a trap we must not fall into. Theistic evolution and progressive creation (over millions of years) are just as contrary to Seventh-day Adventism as is naturalistic or atheistic evolution.

    Indeed they are – but this is easily exposed by taking a look at the texts that the evolutionists are so anxious to run away from.

    Frankly – I have never seen even one of the evolutionist evangelists come here and dig in on the subject of Ex 20:8-11 or 3SG 90-91 AS IF they could ever make a stand there.

    Adventists believe in a literal six-day creation in the not too distant past, and that the world was destroyed by a universal aqueous catastrophe that reshaped the surface of the globe. And we expect to find support for those views in geology and paleontology. The fight is really over geology much more than over biology. Any sort of acommodation to long-ages is comprehensively destructive to Adventism, but the ID crowd doesn’t have any issue with long-ages geology.

    A couple of points to consider.

    1. Long ages rocks combined with short ages life where that life AND our present atmosphere were all created in 7 literal days less than 10,000 years ago would be very hard to fit into the current LSU evolutionist texts.

    So while Young Earth – Young Life creationists would also object – the point is that such a view has no critical mass support among evolutionists and cannot be found in any curriculumn that I know of outside of creationist material.

    The idea gets killed from both sides.

    2. I agree that ID is not creationism – but you will notice that LSU trains it’s students to oppose ID as well. (Ask Sean Pittman about his ID lecture at LSU last year).

    In my opinion ID forms a good stepping stone for actual science fact – because it brings in evolutionists that will admit to “design” that can only come from an Intelligent source – which is fatal to the atheist agenda that is really driving this subject for evolutionists though for many of those evolutionists – they are unwitting devotees to that underlying agenda.

    So merely discussing ID views doesn’t cut it, but in the end, the professors who reject young earth (or young life) creationism will also reject Intelligent Design.

    Which appears to be where LSU is at present.

    What is most facinating about that – is that ID is the “essence” of what God says in Romans 1 – is fully known by pagans/barbarians strictly from nature alone.

    It is amazing that a few among our own SDA faculty have fallen to a state where they must pretend not to see EVEN what God says a pagan/barbarian can easily see in nature.

    These are the two main arguments this website should seek to rebut.

    Thank you for that.

    As I said – I think that the first argument is getting hit square on the head by the evidence being posted on these threads.

    The second one get’s missed here because we have few-to-no evolutionsts that have ever been willing to come here and claim to show the Bible or Ellen White somehow secretly “preaching evolutionism”.

    Every time we call them to the “details” in the text that they want to bend – they run away. So the discussion “shortens”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  11. When “the Church” (Roman) supported the prevailing view held by scientists that all of the known animals had been accommodated on the ark, and someone even had built a model ark in which they all fit, it contributed to the “jump ship” dilemma that occurred when Darwin and other explorers began bringing back scores of species from the New World, proving that the ark theory had errors, as it was not longer able to accommodate them all. Thus the church of that time inadvertently boosted Darwinian theories, by creating this vacuum of possible explanations into which his theories inserted themselves.

    When our church today ignorantly misinterprets the Bible and dogmatically teaches as infallible fact that the earth, including all of its rocks, water, elements, and life, was created in just seven days about 6000 years ago, it sets itself up to support incorrect scientific theories about both science and the Bible in similar fashion.

    The Bible record is clear. The lifeless, inanimate elements, minerals, and water pre-existed creation week. No life ever existed prior to that week, however, about 6000 years ago. This is why the earth was called “empty” and “void.” Geologists may be correct that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They may not be correct on the age, but yet they are correct that the elements have been around for a very long time. As long as Creationists reject science which crosses their misconceived ideas of Creation, and as long as science rejects the Bible on the basis of those misconceptions, the debate will receive plenty of fuel upon which to continue.

    Ellen White informs us that true science and the Bible are in harmony. There are misunderstandings on both sides which, if corrected, would bring the two eyes together and the truth in sharp focus (as opposed to this double image where each eye sees its own picture).

    There are multiple “cures” which need to be employed at LSU. On one level, those who are teaching God-forsaken theories as fact should be expelled. On another level, corrections to the concept of “true science” need to be made. On yet another level, corrections to the Biblical viewpoints on creation need to be made. On a final level, recognition of scientific inadequacy at finding out all of the ways of God should prevail as “common sense” in any Christian institution. It is not wrong to be ignorant. It merely presents a challenge to learn. If all we have is a theory, there is no need to teach it as fact. Professors need not be embarrassed by ignorance.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Erik:

    Erik says:
    February 25, 2010 When “the Church” (Roman) supported the prevailing view held by scientists that all of the known animals had been accommodated on the ark, and someone even had built a model ark in which they all fit, it contributed to the “jump ship” dilemma that occurred when Darwin and other explorers began bringing back scores of species from the New World, proving that the ark theory had errors, as it was not longer able to accommodate them all. Thus the church of that time inadvertently boosted Darwinian theories, by creating this vacuum of possible explanations into which his theories inserted themselves.

    The false choice that the Catholic Churh invented was the idea that every change withing a single genome is not possible and must have come directly from the Garden of Eden. Darwin used that idea to invent schemes about finches with different beak sizes each needing to be preserved on the Ark. The faulty “imagination of man” was then used to “discredit God” as if that was “wise”.

    It would be like saying that poodles short hair and poodles long hair, and German Shepherds … etc EACH needed to be preserved on the ark because no physical change is “possible” within a genome unless it comes right from Eden.

    How much “wiser” if they had simply said – well we don’t know the answer yet – but we do know that God’s Word is accurate.

    I will grant that the rocks-older than air theory works in Genesis 1 – but the palonium halo observations by Gentry suggest that the rocks appear suddenly rather than forming and cooling over billions of years.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  13. Bob,

    Certainly, when the Bible says “kind” it does not necessarily make us correct to say “species.” We may not even have species properly defined. Many scientists argue all the time about what constitutes a species. For example, some scientists think that the “Northern Flicker” should be split into two separate species: “Yellow-Shafted Flicker” and “Red-Shafted Flicker.” Nevertheless, the splitters have lost to the lumpers, at least for now, as the general consensus currently is to put them together. The Biblical “kinds” may be nearer to Family or even Order, as opposed to species.

    Look at ants as an example: there are over 20,000 species of ants in the world, but they are all from just ONE FAMILY–Formicidae. It is quite possible that just one colony of ants populated the earth following the flood, and from which we have so many species today.

    I agree with Gentry’s work. However, it does not prove a time when the creation happened, only that it happened more or less instantly. I believe the elements were created in the same manner which most of creation was made–spoken into existence. I do not espouse the view that the earth has been cooling for millions of years from an initial lava mass. Gentry does indeed disprove that.

    Gentry’s works were published in the so-called “peer-reviewed” literature. Therefore, it is “scientific” evidence by the world’s standards, and eligible to be taught even in the secular science environment of LSU’s classrooms. However, do you think they are teaching such “creation” material?

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Erik:

    Bob,

    Certainly, when the Bible says “kind” it does not necessarily make us correct to say “species.” We may not even have species properly defined.

    Hence my preference for “Genome”.

    The Biblical “kinds” may be nearer to Family or even Order, as opposed to species.

    Look at ants as an example: there are over 20,000 species of ants in the world, but they are all from just ONE FAMILY–Formicidae. It is quite possible that just one colony of ants populated the earth following the flood, and from which we have so many species today.

    As I say – I am very happy accepting “variation within a static genome” where coding genes are basically static in a eukaryote system requiring homologous Chromosomes etc.

    I agree with Gentry’s work. However, it does not prove a time when the creation happened, only that it happened more or less instantly.

    True – but given an instantaneous formation of bedrock – how would that change even what evolutionists today posit for “time line”? It shortens it I think. But as you say – we don’t “get a number” like 10,000 or 6,000 with that information. What we have in the case of rocks is “no number”.

    Gentry’s works were published in the so-called “peer-reviewed” literature. Therefore, it is “scientific” evidence by the world’s standards, and eligible to be taught even in the secular science environment of LSU’s classrooms. However, do you think they are teaching such “creation” material?

    Isn’t that amazing!

    They have traded light in for darkness and now they are behind even what some agnostic evolutionists can still see clearly.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  15. Erik: Gentry’s works were published in the so-called “peer-reviewed” literature. Therefore, it is “scientific” evidence by the world’s standards, and eligible to be taught even in the secular science environment of LSU’s classrooms.

    Not exactly. The whole point of “peer review” is that peers review the theories and try to figure out if they are right or wrong. Unfortunately, Gentry’s conclusions haven’t stood up well to scrutiny. As such, it would be difficult to incorporate them into a science curriculum.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Very often “peer review” when speaking of the science that might not favor evolutionism – is translated “atheists approve of it”, so that when “peer review” is done by fellow creationists “well that would not please an atheist”.

    The reason that the atheist connection is deemed so valuable is that the assumption is — you must truly have “naturalism” if atheists approve of it.

    Of course when atheists like C. Patterson expose just some of the glaring weaknesses in their own arguments for evolutionism – well then that is a “bad atheist”.

    Oh well…

    What else did we expect?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Geanna Dane:

    Bob Gentry’s work has been thoroghly discredited.

    Gentry’s response to his critics is compelling.

    There is no “thoroughly discredited” board certification available – so the accusation above is itself higlhly subjective.

    The marketeering use of propaganda is intended to create statements that appear to have substance – when in fact it is little more than opinion.

    That fact that “Talkorigins” might not like a given science argument that does not favor atheist views on evolution – has never been the litmus test for what is actual science — as it turns out.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  18. In any science based effort to discover when/how something happened – the science starts off admitting to a level of guesswork (a statement about uncertainty).

    In the case of creation – the one who “did the work” actually states the time frame in Ex 20 and Genesis 1-2:3. We see that same time frame in 3SG 90-91.

    So what we have is very similar to the calculus courses we took where they had the answers to the even questions in the back of the book. You still have to “show your work”. Coming up with an “easterbunny” like answer that totally contradicts the answer in the book – is not as “successful” a strategy as many students have been inclined to imagine over the years.

    Far more “student was wrong” results in that case as compared to “book was wrong”.

    So given an Adventist Bible believing reference – the results we would expect to see – is more and more science students “doing the math” and “showing their work” – contributing to actually solving something – rather than promoting “easterbunny” after easterbunny storytelling then complaining about any actual math that tends to support the answer in the back of the book.

    Seems kinda odd – the easterbunny tactic would find any support at all in an Adventist institution.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  19. BobRyan: Gentry’s response to his critics is compelling.

    But it hasn’t been convincing enough for the following people as shown on the Geoscience Research Institute:

    Some cautions regarding the usage of creationist materials
    Overinterpretation of radiohalos

    R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster. 1988. LITERATURE REVIEW: Examining Radiohalos (Review of Creation’s Tiny Mystery) Origins 15:32-38.

    http://grisda.net/subGi/?page_id=43

    (Unfortunately, the links from that page don’t work. The book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” was written by Robert Gentry.)

    Gentry’s work with radio halos is widely acclaimed, but his attempt to prove a fiat creation by means of the halos has been soundly discredited. Gentry claimed that his halos we found in primitive granites, but examination of his specimine sites showed that they came from intrusions. Thus, they do not support his argument.




    0
    View Comment
  20. Patterson was a hard core evolutionary biologist whose remarks made to stimulate discussion continue to be laughably taken out of context by creationsts. He himself responded to the issue making clear his objection to the misquotes. If creationism can stand on its own (it can) then you hadd better leave Patterson out of it. To continue pushiing his quotes and supposed disbelieve in evolution reveals a complete lack of scholarship and a poor grasp on reality, not to mention blatant dishonesty.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Gentrys response to his critics makes clear his objection to testing alternative hypotheses. If he was an honest and open minded scientist he would encourage rather than fight every challenge to his conclusions. The people at Geoscience Research Institution had considerable courage to question the results of “one of thier own.” I applad them.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Geanna Dane has provided a badly-needed fresh voice and reality check to those who constantly misuse Patterson’s comments on this web site. As she also pointed out correctly, no serious scientist takes Gentry’s claims about “proving” instantaneous creation seriously. Not even the GRI supports him.




    0
    View Comment
  23. The Bible says,

    Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1 Corinthians 1:25-27

    God’s holy law, spoken aloud, written in stone and referenced by Christ and His apostles doesn’t leave us guessing about our origins. (Exodus 20:8-9, 10, 11)
    God bless,

    Rich

    (Cf. Isaiah 8:20; Genesis 1:31; Psalms 33:6, 9; Psalms 95:3-4, 5-6; Psalms 96:5; Psalms 104:5; Isaiah 45:11-12; Isaiah 65:17; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 19:4-5; John 1:1-2, 3; Acts 17:28; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15-16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5; Revelation 4:11; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 21:1.)




    0
    View Comment
  24. @Carl:

    Gentry’s work with radio halos is widely acclaimed, but his attempt to prove a fiat creation by means of the halos has been soundly discredited. Gentry claimed that his halos we found in primitive granites, but examination of his specimine sites showed that they came from intrusions. Thus, they do not support his argument.

    As I said – Gentry’s response to his critics deals in compelling detail with the argument about intrusions.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  25. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna Dane says:
    February 28, 2010 Patterson was a hard core evolutionary biologist

    Indeed – not only have the quotes of Patterson here – emphasized the fact that he is a hardcore atheist evolutionist – but these respeated quotes of Patterson frequently CONTRAST the frank points of honesty that he is able to state for HIS OWN belief system (as a diehard devotee to evolutionism) as compared to the less-than-factual wild claims of so-call theistic evolutionist evangelists operating from inside the Adventist church.

    (A not-so-subtle detail that is often glossed over by evolutionists here)

    whose remarks made to stimulate discussion continue to be laughably taken out of context by creationsts.

    But not at this web site.

    And not at any web site you have actually quoted — since you provide no evidence at all that your accusation has merit other than a kind of “trust me I know who to accuse” implied position.

    A form of argument that is not as compelling to the critical objective reader as you might have at first imagined.

    He himself responded to the issue making clear his objection to the misquotes.

    Actually Patterson stated explicitly that the “quotes were aCCURATE” – his ownly complaint was that Creationists were able to use them in a way that did not always flatter evolutionism. Then Patterson points out that be-that-as-it-may he needed to point to bad practices inside the evolutionist camp EVEN if doing so was adding fuel to the fire for those who constantly debunk evolutionists.

    If creationism can stand on its own (it can) then you hadd better leave Patterson out of it.

    I certainly understand why Theistic evolutionists would wish not to be continually reminded that atheist evolutoinists like Patterson are more apt to be frank and honest about the problems for evolutionist “stories easy enough to make up” – than the TE’s operating inside the Adventist church.

    That point is glarginly obvious to even the most casuar reader.

    What is not so obvious is your conclusion that Creationsist should stop pointing out that embarrassing contrast.

    At that point your logic becomes “illusive”.

    Feel free to explain if you wish.

    To continue pushiing his quotes and supposed disbelieve in evolution reveals a complete lack of scholarship and a poor grasp on reality, not to mention blatant dishonesty.

    Actually – since the not-so-subtle detail that Patterson is constantly given as an example of an atheist EVOLUTIONIST (not creationist) exposing the flaws in HIS OWN belief system – where the point of the quotes are always to show the honesty of even atheists as compared to our own insider TE’s promoting evolutionism from inside the Adventist church – the rather negative summary conclusions in your remark actually apply to those who “pretend not to notice” that Patterson is always upheld here as an example of an atheist EVOLUTIONIST speaking to the defects in HIS OWN belief system.

    Hint: Never is Patterson offerred up here as an example of a former evolutionist NOR even as an atheist evolutionist turned THEISTIC evolutionist.

    A not-so-subtle detail again – that is more apparent to the objective, critical reader than you have apparently supposed.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  26. @Ervin Taylor:

    Ervin Taylor says:
    February 28, 2010 Geanna Dane has provided a badly-needed fresh voice and reality check to those who constantly misuse Patterson’s comments on this web site.

    Congrats go to Erv Taylor for making this empty accusation and at least providing a “web site” that supposedly supports his empty accusation.

    NOW if we just could get him to quote an actual post that claims Patterson is a creationist or possibly a “former evolutionist” then he would have an accusation with something like a leg to stand on.

    Until then – we continue to find evolutionist arguments stuck in “accuse without evidence” mode.

    How odd that they should be arguing from “imagination” here – as if the reader will not notice the problem in their accusations.

    May I suggest that THIS is not the web site to try that stunt.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  27. @Carl:

    Some cautions regarding the usage of creationist materials
    Overinterpretation of radiohalos

    R. H. Brown, H. G. Coffin, L. J. Gibson, A. A. Roth, and C. L. Webster. 1988. LITERATURE REVIEW: Examining Radiohalos (Review of Creation’s Tiny Mystery) Origins 15:32-38.

    http://grisda.net/subGi/?page_id=43

    (Unfortunately, the links from that page don’t work. The book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” was written by Robert Gentry.)

    Gentry’s work with radio halos is widely acclaimed,…

    Here are links that actually do work.

    http://www.robertvgentry.com/
    http://www.creationists.org/robert-gentry.html
    http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm

    The first link shows the “kind of work” that we would expect scientists that had an ounce of understanding about the implications of what God says actually happened in the creation of this world – would be able to discover with some “attention to detail”.

    The second link provides “the kind of support” that even a non-Adventist group would have regarding Gentry’s work (all the while they are thinking SDAs are a cult – and yet Gentry’s work is sooo compelling that they cannot avoid upholding it before their readers0.

    The third link provides the “unrefuted Palonium” argument.

    I find it “instructive” that this balancing information is not coming out when certain of our fellow SDAs comment on this topic.

    Comparing the information in these links that do actually work to the links that don’t work (as suggested for the reader above) — is left as an exercise for the reader.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna Dane says:
    February 28, 2010 Gentrys response to his critics makes clear his objection to testing alternative hypotheses. If he was an honest and open minded scientist he would encourage rather than fight every challenge to his conclusions.

    I see – so “Answering critics” is not a “good thing” if you are a creationist??

    Hey wait a minute! I thought “listening to Critics” was the very method evolutionists deplored!

    Dawkins; 11 Second flummoxed response to Darwin 101 question asking for just one example of a new coding gene being added to a genome..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

    Dawkins’ response to this was that he does not ALLOW interviews with those who are not true devotees to evolutionism.

    How “instructive”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. BobRyan: As I said – Gentry’s response to his critics deals in compelling detail with the argument about intrusions.

    Bob,

    You are amazing. Can you not get beyond the fact that the evidence for the age of the earth is not what we’d like it to be? Gentry made an honest try to show the earth was young, and he failed. People as conservative as Brown, Coffin, Gibson, Roth, and Webster agree that he didn’t make his case. What we want and what we have are very different.

    I don’t know what you may have read on the subject of creation, but the way you talk sounds nothing like the writing of the people mentioned above who represent the core of credible Adventist scientists. All of them acknowledge that the scientific evidence favors a long history of the earth.

    Here are a few statements from the Geoscience Research Institute:

    http://www.grisda.org/faq/

    “4. How can creationists explain radiometric dates of many millions of years?
    Creationists do not have an adequate explanation. Some possibilities have been proposed, but they are not compelling because they do not explain why the lower layers generally give older dates than the upper layers.”

    “5. What unsolved problems about the age of the Earth are of greatest concern?
    The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers. Other questions include why radiometric dating systematically gives ages that are much older than suggested by the biblical record; an explanation for traces of activity in the geologic column; and an explanation for the long series of layers in ice cores.”

    When you can resolve these problems, you will have something important to offer. Until then, the evidence for a long history of life remains very compelling and it’s our theology that needs to be adjusted.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Bob, you assert again and again that Patterson “gets it” but you are the one does not get it. Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments:

    “I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland… Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting ‘authorities,’ which seems to be the creationists’ principal mode of argument.” (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982).

    “Chelvam asserts that ‘we are drowning’ in evidence against darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin’s special theory of mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none.” (Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, Nature 332:580, 1988).

    How “instructive”.

    You are right to defend creationism but your arrogrance and ignorance makes creationism repulsive to many. Tone it down, sir. I’ve supplied you with references. Now go ahead an attack me again. And while you are at it please use another atheist to insult me.




    0
    View Comment
  31. @Geanna Dane:

    Bob, you assert again and again that Patterson “gets it” but you are the one does not get it. Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments:

    “I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland… Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect.

    There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula.

    Now for a few “facts” to help the critical reading skills of some who simply struggle a bit too much with detail they are trying to ignore.

    1. Patterson admits that the quotes are coming directly from a verbatim tape of his remarks. Hint: No misquoting going on – or claimed by Patterson.

    2. Patterson states that he is not a creationist nor in favor of creationism – Hint: Nobody here is claiming Patterson is anything BUT an atheist evolutionist.

    3. Patterson is talking about Luther Sunderlands article and not about anything I have written. Hint: the Wild claim that Patterson has destroyed all quotes of his material as long as that quote was by a creationist – is kind of easterbunny fiction that cannot be taken seriously by the unbiased objective reader.

    In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what?

    Patterson admits that he has no concern at all for how accurately his argument is quoted – since he does not care about issues raised here – such as the CONTRAST between the upfront and frank statements by Patterson – vs the “hide it all” tactic of theistic evolutionists inside the Adventist church. This is an application for his remarks that he cares nothing about – even if they are 100% correct.

    But we can all see how one or two Adventists just might be interested in such a contrast.

    You are right to defend creationism but your arrogrance and ignorance makes creationism repulsive to many. Tone it down, sir. I’ve supplied you with references. Now go ahead an attack me again. And while you are at it please use another atheist to insult me.

    Your last comment – while still way off base – finally shows a glimmer of one tiny component in the argument at hand – which is that atheist evolutionists are found being more upfront and above board on the subject of the flaws of evolutionism – than theistic evolutionists operating from within our own denomination.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  32. I find it sad that when our very own creationists at Geoscience seek to portray the evidence honestly they are attacked by others. I believe fervently in creationism but I think we need to be honest and forthcoming about it’s weaknesses. I dont see much honesty at this website. It doesnt seem very Christian to be atacking others.




    0
    View Comment
  33. BobRyan: The third link provides the “unrefuted Palonium” argument.

    So, I followed your third link

    Earth Science Associates
    http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/index.htm

    and found this as the third item:

    “This letter is essentially a repeat of Dr. Dalrymple’s 1995 letter. It likewise mentions the unrefuted claim of the Polonium halo evidence, indicating that three years of additional research by evolutionists had still turned up absolutely nothing.”

    I followed that link
    http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/dalrymple-to-fellow-geologist-11-1995.htm

    and found this:

    “The movement is beginning to affect some college classes, too, as members of “Genesis clubs” enter classrooms with disruptive (and difficult to answer) questions. How would you answer a student who claims that the presence of Polonium halos in granite demonstrates that granite had to have formed suddenly (i.e., was specially created)?”

    Because Dalrymple asks, “How would you answer a student …” the claim is made that “ three years of additional research by evolutionists had still turned up absolutely nothing.” Give me a break. Dalrymple’s letter was a promotional for memberships, not a presentation of science.

    Here’s what a more responsible creationist site has to say:

    Answers in Creation – Bringing the Bible and Science Together Without Conflict
    http://www.answersincreation.org/polonium.htm

    “Young earth creation science advocates have made a mountain out of a molehill in their use of radioactive halos to support their cause. However, when you look at the truth behind their claims, you see major problems.”




    0
    View Comment
  34. Now for a few “facts” to help the critical reading skills of some who simply struggle a bit too much with detail they are trying to ignore.

    1. Patterson was a hard core evolutionry biologist and the “unbiased observer” READILY sees the absurdity of using his quotes to defend creationist viiews. HINT: Direct quotes of his playful challenge to evolutionary collegues has NO BEARING on whether or not evolution is factual. Obvioiusly, some creationists still fail to “get it”.

    2. The “unbiased objective reader” who has bothered to “inform” herself would recognize that Patterson has long been dead and will never object to Bob Ryan’s misuse of quotes. HINT: This inconvenient fact CONTRASTS with Bob’s disingenous retort that Patterson does not object to his statements (duh!).

    3. Bob’s last comment – while still way off base – shows brings to mind one tiny component in the argument at hand – which is that qualified Adventist scholars (at Geoscience) are more upfront and above board on the subject of the flaws of creationism – than are the lay creationists operating from within our own denomination. HINT: The “hide it all” accusations by Bob are groundless.

    Bob, why are you so mean? I’m on your side but I dont take everything you say as gospel word. Can you please put your hot poker in a cold water bath?




    0
    View Comment
  35. If one finds Bob Gentry’s defense of himself compelling while dismissing the criticism of others then one will also believe anything Ron Wyatt claims about his own breathtaking “discoveries”. I take it people here are Wyatt devotees.




    0
    View Comment
  36. @Geanna Dane:

    Now for a few “facts” to help the critical reading skills of some who simply struggle a bit too much with detail they are trying to ignore.

    1. Patterson was a hard core evolutionry biologist and the “unbiased observer” READILY sees the absurdity of using his quotes to defend creationist viiews.

    The logic behind the wild idea that a diehard atheist evolutionist (who admits to “stories easy enough to MAKE UP but they are NOT SCIENCE” being told inside the evolutionist camp in efforts to prop up evolutionism “AS IF it was REVEALED TRUTH” ) should NOT be quoted by creationists simply “because” he is “not a creationist”, is not merely hard to follow — it is “illusive”.

    HINT: Direct quotes of his playful challenge to evolutionary collegues has NO BEARING on whether or not evolution is factual. Obvioiusly,

    Hint: it DOES have direct bearing on the degree to which EVEN Atheist evolutionists will admit to the problems that theistic evolutionists operating inside the SDA denomination – try to cover up.

    Which was “the point”.

    2. The “unbiased objective reader” who has bothered to “inform” herself would recognize that Patterson has long been dead and will never object to Bob Ryan’s misuse of quotes.

    BobRyan was arguing this quotes of Patterson while Patterson was alive – as well. It has nothing to do with the point that Patterson as an atheist evolutionist is admitting to blunders in evolutionist methods and arguments that even our own theistic evolutionists are trying to hide.

    It also does nothing to support the wild claim that creationists should not quote atheist evolutionist when those evolutionists make unflattering observations about the methods used to carry forward the doctrines on evolutionism.

    This inconvenient fact CONTRASTS with Bob’s disingenous retort that Patterson does not object to his statements (duh!).

    My response was in regard to the following wild accusation

    Bob, you assert again and again that Patterson “gets it” but you are the one does not get it. Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments:

    I was simply pointing out the obvious. Patterson never said anything at all about my use of his comments.

    The point remains.

    Bob, why are you so mean? I’m on your side

    I am asking for reason and critical thinking. dealing with facts not emotions – and stating what is truth rather than the empty accusation that Patterson was claimed as a creationist in some way on this web site or that Patterson was ever mistquoted in the verbatim after verbatim quotes from his own comments that he himself admitted to being a verbatim audio record of his speech – statements are he admits to being “accurate as far as they go”.

    The false accusation that you started with – simply has no basis in fact. I have pointed to inconvenient detail after inconvenient detail in that regard – and you are now making it appear that to “notice” the lack of evidence behind your recent accusations is “mean”??

    Again – I find that logic to be illusive.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  37. Evolution AS FAITH

    Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

    A 1981 lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History

    Colin PATTERSON:

    “…I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know [u]nothing whatever about either[/u]…One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let’s call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

    “For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. “That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long…

    It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we know about it…

    about eighteen months ago…I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.”

    Turns out – we have some here who think that such observations — if made by a diehard atheist evolutionist – would be of no instructive value to a creationist.

    What say the readers here?

    Here is another example of the same kind;
    Here is a case where our atheist evolutionist friend admits to evolutionists commonly “projecting” the flaws in their own by-faith-alone argument onto Creationists.

    Patterson – again quoting Gillespie accusing that those “‘…holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'”

    Patterson countere

    “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has…we know it has taken place.'”

    “…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…

    “…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

    How “odd” that we would have creationists “imagining” that such frank and honest statements by an atheist evolutionist should not be noticed – and found “instructive” for creationists who contrast the openness seen in Patterson’s remarks above vs the “all in the tank for evolutionism” tactics of theistic evolutionists opperating from inside the Adventist church.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  38. Here is the Verbatim quote of Patterson writing to Sunderland about his book on evolutionism –

    Patterson to Sunderland –

    “ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

    You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

    In this case – there is nothing at all “playful” about Patterson’s honest statements to Sunderland.

    In fact what we have is a level of honesty on the part of this atheist evolutionist (that some here call diehard evolutionist) that is blantantly missing from the statements of our own theistic evolutionists opperating from inside the Adventist church.

    And there is more to Patterson’s letters

    Patterson – to Sunderland

    I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

    Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

    You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question.

    It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job

    Wow – IMAGINE if our LSU biologists were THAT up front and honest about the subject — even as diehard evolutionists still?? What a DIFFERENT conversation we could be having!!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  39. You still don’t understand what you’re quoting, Bob.

    You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question.

    It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. – Colin Patterson, emphasis Bob Ryan’s

    Now, actually read what is being said. Patterson is saying that it is impossible to take a particular fossil and know with certainty (including hypothesis testing, the heart of science) that it is the descendent of a particular other fossil or the ancestor of yet another fossil. That is absolutely true, as far as it goes: there is no genetic information involved in most fossils, only information about structure. Yet we see in nature today the same structures in creatures that the DNA shows us are not related in a close familial way.

    Take Patterson’s example of archaeopteryx. It was a lizard-like bird or a bird-like lizard that had wings, and something like feathers. It is possible to say quite a lot about its structure, but without its DNA it is impossible to say with certainty that it is the ancestor of all – or even any – modern birds. It may have been a complete evolutionary dead end with no descendants at all, or it may be related to some modern lizards, and so on.

    Colin Patterson’s point is that our approach to the fossil record and the Tree of Life (Darwin’s, not the one in the Garden) cannot work at the level of ‘this specific fossil is the ancestor of that specific fossil (or that modern species)’. He’s quite correct to say that if he were to simply make up such a sequence for convenience or to meet the demands of the person to whom he is writing (Sunderland?) then he would simply be story-telling in the absence of a testable hypothesis: not science.

    What he is not saying is that all of evolution is simply story-telling, not science, no matter how many times you quote him out of context to make that claim. He would (if he were here to say it) say two things:

    1. We can look in considerable detail at the genetic relationships between modern species using DNA evidence, and that evidence strongly bears out the notion of common descent.

    2. We can look at the fossil record and the geological column and know that at one stage there were only dinosaurs (including flying ones like the pterosaurs) and at a later stage there were birds. Given the DNA links as well as the structural ones it is plausible that some birds are descended from some dinosaurs: it is if we were to make claims for *particular* cases in the fossil record, such as archaeopteryx, that we would be engaged in story-telling.

    You said it yourself:

    I am asking for reason and critical thinking, dealing with facts not emotions – and stating what is truth – Bob Ryan

    Eminently laudable.




    0
    View Comment
  40. Colin Patterson died in 1998. Bob, if you were quoting him more than 12 years ago, what makes you think he would care to respond to you of all people? What has taken you so long to figure out that some people speak tongue in cheek? (By the way, perhaps you should read Patterson’s book, “Evolution,” to see what he REALLY believes)

    I can play your game by quoting others. Here is a host of qouts from a well known creationist:

    http://www.kent-hovind.com/quotes/evolution.htm

    I liked this one: “The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement right now as you are reading this. Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it.”
    Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 4 – a transcript of Kent Hovind’s early sermons circa 1996. http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind4.htm [no longer available]

    How “instructive” that creationists acuse evolutionists off murdering innocent humans to find missing links. Hovind as a widely recognized expert “gets it”. Why arnt other creationists bringing this to our attention? Clearly Evolutionists are evil and criminal. In fact what we have is a level of honesty on the part of this creationist that is blantantly missing from the statements of our own theologians and creationists opperating from inside the Adventist church.

    (The last sentence is paraphrased from a claim made by BoB Ryan. The “objective unbisaed reader” will see that I can argue anything I want from a quote of someone else regardless of whether he means it or if anyone else buys it. How laughable!)




    0
    View Comment
  41. Bob Said –
    I am asking for reason and critical thinking. dealing with facts not emotions – and stating what is truth rather than the empty accusation that Patterson was claimed as a creationist in some way on this web site or that Patterson was ever mistquoted in the verbatim after verbatim quotes from his own comments that he himself admitted to being a verbatim audio record of his speech – statements are he admits to being “accurate as far as they go”.

    The false accusation that you started with – simply has no basis in fact. I have pointed to inconvenient detail after inconvenient detail in that regard – and you are now making it appear that to “notice” the lack of evidence behind your recent accusations is “mean”??

    Again – I find that logic to be illusive.

    Bravus said –
    Eminently laudable.

    Bravus – as I recall you are one of those on this web site that liked to imagine that Patterson is being misquoted merely “because” a creationist is quoting him — even though Patterson be quoted in full and verbatim.

    This might be a place for you to help us understand your view in that regard.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. Geanna Dane said:

    Bob, you assert again and again that Patterson “gets it” but you are the one does not get it. Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments:

    Patterson has long been dead and will never object to Bob Ryan’s misuse of quotes. This inconvenient fact CONTRASTS with Bob’s disingenous retort that Patterson does not object to his statements (duh!).

    I was simply pointing out the obvious.

    1. you have still not found any quote of mine that is a misuse of anything.
    2. Patterson never objected to my quote of him — though you start with that extreme accusation for some innexplicable reason.

    The point remains.

    @Geanna Dane:

    Colin Patterson died in 1998. Bob, if you were quoting him more than 12 years ago, what makes you think he would care to respond to you of all people?

    Again – your logic in supporting your own claim that was posted here in the form “Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments — remains entirely illusive to the objective unbiased reader.

    I am not the one who claimed that Patterson ever said anyting about my quote of him.

    Please refer to your own post above – where it is you that makes that wild claim as part of your accusation.

    Thus it is up to you to find some logic to support your rather extreme accusation. If you are asking me to find some way to support your accusation – I confess I cannot.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  43. Bob, Geanna, etc: I’m going to interrupt the conversation here and ask that both of you exchange email addresses to continue this conversation in private. Colin Patterson’s quotations have absolutely nothing to do with the agenda of this website, and while some deviation does occur and is at times necessary, this discussion has no bearing on the topic of this thread at all. Please do not continue to argue on your current topic here anymore. Thank you.

    Shane Hilde




    0
    View Comment
  44. @Shane Hilde:

    Shane Hilde says:
    February 28, 2010 Bob, Geanna, etc: I’m going to interrupt the conversation here and ask that both of you exchange email addresses to continue this conversation in private. Colin Patterson’s quotations have absolutely nothing to do with the agenda of this website, and while some deviation does occur and is at times necessary, this discussion has no bearing on the topic of this thread at all. Please do not continue to argue on your current topic here anymore. Thank you.

    Shane,

    If you would like to move my response to Bravus on this subject to some other area – that is fine with me – just leave a link to it here so we know where to go.

    My point is that our own Theistic Evolutionists opperating inside the SDA church are seen to be doing something “more” than just carrying forward the argument for evolutionism inside our schools. When we compare them to to certain atheist evolutionists – we discover that they are evangelizing for evolutionism at a level that even some atheists will not stoop to doing.

    It adds evidence for the 3SG 90-91 claim that TE is an even worse form of infidelity than what we see among atheists. (Esp – TE promoted from inside the SDA church)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  45. Shane, I apologize. I’m not a theistic evolutionist (I hope I’m not labeled as such)and I think that comparisons of Theistic Evolutionists within the church (including LSU facutly) to Colin Patterson who wrote a major book on evolution are inappropriate. I agree that this has no bearing on your otherways worthwhile goals at this website and I will let this ago.




    0
    View Comment
  46. I highly doubt that David Lara, given his stagnate position at MBA, has an accurate understanding of the complexities of college level administration – specifically, all of the politics involved with handling the situation. I would like to stick Lara in a chair on LSU’s Board of Trustees, sit back, and watch how well the situation is handled. Additionally, the fact that his daughters attended LSU doesn’t make him an expert analyst for Wisbey’s performance. My dad’s a pastor; doesn’t automatically make me an expert on the dual nature of Christ.




    0
    View Comment
  47. Thanks, Shane for terminating the discussion. The SDA church teaches a literal six day Creation and that is a Biblically based belief. If profs don’t believe in we should not have to wait several years before they are terminated.

    Read may have a basis to write that it will take years to correct this situation but that should not be.Dismissal in the real world, as pointed out, can occur without such a delay when an employee no longer supports his employer’s objectives.




    0
    View Comment
  48. Thank you David Lara for having the courage to stand up for Biblical truth. This is more than I have seen from those in Administrative positions at La Sierra. My grandchildren will not be attending La Sierra even though my sons and I did. Perhaps we cannot change the current thinking but we can “vote with our feet”.




    0
    View Comment
  49. It is sad to see an important SDA institution fail and fall, but they brought it on themselves and our church needs to get back to the pillars of this faith. If a correct course is not chosen with or without accreditation lSU will cease to exist as a SDA university. that I and my son attended LSU, but if time continues long enough our grand children will only attend a SDA university that prepares them for eternity. Thanks be to the Lord and my parents that I attended SDA schools as a student full time for 26 years and taught college for 6. My wife attended for her last 10 years of schooling. Our first son attended for 17 and now is a missionary for the church in India teaching at one of our schools. Our second son attended so far for 18 years and plans to continue for at least 5 more if time lasts. All of us went through LSU and/or LLU. God will not let His last day church leave the narrow path upward, even though many former members will choose the broad road to perdition. We are starting the shaking time and all of our denominational leaders will be making clear their eternal positions for or against the creator God of the universe very soon now. LSU is at the cross roads. Freedom is to be found no where else but in the way, the truth and the life. True freedom must be taught in each of our schools otherwise there is no reason to exist. The spiritual king of the south mentioned in Dan 11:40 must be kicked out of the glorious land. Michael is about to stand up and our church is going to go through some very rough times from within and without, but light will dawn on a glorious new day. Those that stand for truth even though the heavens fall around them will still be standing through it all. Praise God. Our most effective enemies we know will be X7’s, but they will finally realize their mistake during the 6th plague when God announces the time of His return to His remnant and the X7’s only hear thunder. God is good to provide a clear road map to those who choose to follow it of how the great controversy will end.

    By God’s grace–to be in that number…

    Keep the faith and God will bless.




    0
    View Comment
  50. This website clearly reveals that LSU professors are advocating evolution and denigrating the “lunatic fringe” who believe in a literal 7-day creation. I wish that all who deplore this position of LSU would take the same stand that David Lara has taken. We should not be sending any of our young people to LSU if we want them to continue to believe the teachings of scripture regarding origins.

    In addition to acting individually in this way, concerned members of the church could encourage their local church boards to take official action discouraging Adventist young people from attending LSU. They could also urge their local church boards to officially request their local conference executive committees to take action cutting off all financial support to LSU until such time as the problem has been satisfactorily resolved. Why should church continue to support an institution that is deliberately undermining belief in scripture through the teaching of theistic evolution?




    0
    View Comment
  51. As a retired but reactived minister of the church as well as a graduate of LSU I wish to stand along side of David. It will take men and women of strength and conviction to take such a stand. There is much to be lost if we let this slip thru the cracks. Now is the time to stand for the truth we believe! If our elected administrators were doing their job this issue would have never reached this point. For many years I have promoted LSU in places where I have had an influence. My support will now stop until it is once again safe for our youth to attend LSU. We have a tremendous life saving message to give to the world. We must keep focused on the mission. LSU has a very important role in the giving of this message but not in a deluted way. Please join me in this fight to save LSU.




    0
    View Comment
  52. Where is the board in all of this? If they are Godly people, it seems they would have handled this already by removing the President, offending teachers, and anyone else involved in this. The longer this controversy lingers, the more damage will be caused. Our prayers are with those in decision-making positions.




    0
    View Comment
  53. The plain straight testimony must live int he church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. (3T269) If the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, God’s frown will be upon them, and the people of God will be held responsible for those sins. God bids us speak, and we must not be silent. If wrongs are apparent among God’s people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God, for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty. Those who engage in the solemn work of vearing the third angel’s message must move out decidedly, and in the Spirit and power of God fearlessly preach the truth and let it cut. They should elevate the standard of truth and urge the people to come up to it. It has too frequently been lowered to meet the people in their condition of darkness and sin. It is the pointed testimony that will bring them up to decide. A peaceful testimony will not do this. Our truth is as much more solemn than that of nominal professors, as the heavens are higher than the earth. (1T248-9) It is high time that we stand and if it means war, then let us go to war and fight the good fight of faith, showing forth our faith by our works. Accreditation is not a part of God’s plan for our educational system. Now we see the result of our seeking to be like the world. Have mercy on us, O Lord.




    0
    View Comment
  54. Just one of the reasons our children were home schooled and are using correspondence and local colleges, where black is black and white is white and gray is Babylon. Made in the image of Christ and his Father Almighty God. The local schools have never tried to tell my children God did anything, thus their information on origin is obviously contrary to our beliefs.

    Regards in Christ, fill those vials with prayer.




    0
    View Comment
  55. Marvella – those are good points – but the references don’t exactly match – so I am simply including the snippets with references associated here.

    I have been shown that God here (the case of Achan) illustrates how He regards sin among those who profess to be His commandment-keeping people. Those whom He has specially honored with witnessing the remarkable exhibitions of His power, as did ancient Israel, and who will even then venture to disregard His express directions, will be subjects of His wrath. He would teach His people that disobedience and sin are exceedingly offensive to Him and are not to be lightly regarded. He shows us that when His people are found in sin they should at once take decided measures to put that sin from them, that His frown may not rest upon them all. But if the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. In His dealings with His people in the past the Lord shows the necessity of purifying the church from wrongs. One sinner may diffuse darkness that will exclude the light of God from the entire congregation. When the people realize that darkness is settling upon them, and they do not know the cause, they should seek God earnestly, in great humility and self-abasement, until the wrongs which grieve His Spirit are searched out and put away. {3T 265.1}

    …

    And what of the oft repeated complaints seen here that criticism of evolutionism (Theistic Evolutionism called “the worst kind of infidelity” by Ellen White) – is too harsh, too pointed, too critical and nothing like “we are aLL the same… go to sleeep”

    The prejudice which has arisen against us because we have reproved the wrongs that God has shown me existed, and the cry that has been raised of harshness and severity, are unjust. God bids us speak, and we will not be silent. If wrongs are
    266
    apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty. In vision I have been pointed to many instances where the displeasure of God has been incurred by a neglect on the part of His servants to deal with the wrongs and sins existing among them. Those who have excused these wrongs have been thought by the people to be very amiable and lovely in disposition, simply because they shunned to discharge a plain Scriptural duty. The task was not agreeable to their feelings; therefore they avoided it. {3T 265.2}

    Do we see Church administrators seeking approval by speaking smooth things in a time of crisis – when decided action is called for but is not being taken?

    It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine if he/she can see that happening.

    …

    The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins.

    But to deal with minds is the nicest work in which men ever engaged. All are not fitted to correct the erring. They have not wisdom to deal justly, while loving mercy. They are not inclined to see the necessity of mingling love and tender
    270
    compassion with faithful reproofs. Some are ever needlessly severe, and do not feel the necessity of the injunction of the apostle: “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.” {3T 269.2}

    …

    And then we have this section that calls for the saints of God to rise up and take firm action – let the results be what they may.

    Those who engage in the solemn work of bearing the third angel’s message must move out decidedly, and in the Spirit and power of God fearlessly preach the truth and let it cut. They should elevate the standard of truth and urge the people to come up to it. It has too frequently been lowered to meet the people in their condition of darkness and sin. It is the pointed testimony that will bring them up to decide. A peaceful testimony will not do this. Our truth is as much more solemn than that of nominal professors, as the heavens are higher than the earth. (1T248-9)

    And that is why their will be a howling clammor for the “peaceful testimony” whenever a crisis calls for the “pointed testimony”.

    As Peter said “Do not be surprised when fiery trials come upon you”. It is predicted. It is the path set out for you.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. I certainly understand why godly parents would not want their children to be students on a campus where evolution or any number of errors were being taught as fact. At the same time, I believe nothing would speak so strongly to the conscience of the church as godly students on such a campus calling for clarity, revival, and reformation. And I’m not sure how that would happen if all the godly young people go somewhere else.

    I am a veteran of many years of theological struggle on and regarding Adventists campuses. I have served as a student leader on such campuses, and have thus had a platform from which to speak about issues. With the growth of the GYC movement in recent years, student leaders with similar convictions have arisen on a number of our campuses, daring to stand up and be counted when important issues have arisen.

    It is a difficult dilemma for godly students and godly parents. But one thing is certain. The demand for clarity and accountability must wax louder and louder, until church leaders remove both administrators and teachers who refuse to uphold the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy teaching regarding the origin of life on earth, as declared and duly voted in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  57. Looks like we have trouble in North America, nothing like we are seeing at Avondale in Australia. At Avondale to believe the truth is being a heretic




    0
    View Comment
  58. I am thankful for David’s statement and courage to stand
    for the truth and for the Biblical foundation of Creation
    and the literal 6 day creation week. In looking at colleges for
    my kids, I will start contacting the college presidents to make
    sure they teach Creation as truth in their Bible and science classes.
    Thank you David and thank you Shane, in a time when so many are
    out lead God’s people to the road “Destruction”




    0
    View Comment
  59. I think it’s wrong for him to blanket judge the whole LSU campus and be in the position of any from of advisement, considering his lack of training in advisement of under-age of consent Children.




    0
    View Comment
  60. I really appreciate the humble gesture of Brother David Lara. We need men like David, who stand for what is right though the heavens fall.

    As for the erring teachers and administrators of LSU/LLU, may God guide all of you always. I can only hope this situation is reversible.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.