Comment on Record enrollment for LSU by Shane Hilde.
@JImmy: Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes the Bible is a divine revelation of God’s will and the creation account is trustworthy; it also believes there is good evidence that confirms the historicity of the Bible. I’m not advocating that bias is a bad thing. I believe everyone is biased; however, the difference between the position I’m advocating and LSU’s is this: LSU is only presenting one side, while I’m advocating, at the very least as a Seventh-day Adventist institution, they present both sides. I would prefer that they come down on the side of the biblical creation model.
Like you, I’m pretty close to the situation. There is no conspiracy theory being advocated by Educate Truth. I would like to challenge you to point out one incomplete fact, poor source, or downright lie that has been published by Educate Truth. Practically everything we publish comes from primary sources, so good luck. I’m human though so I might have missed something and am always happy to correct it. Call what you like, but without any evidence all you have are assertions.
Shane Hilde Also Commented
Record enrollment for LSU
Higher enrollment is always wonderful news for a university. With the surge of students coming into La Sierra, it becomes all the more important that the administration address the problem areas in their biology department in a timely manner. It’s been over a year and they still have not demonstrated any change in the curriculum of the biology courses in question. Let’s hope they can do this on their own without the intervention of the Union. I’m hopeful that LSU is still capable of addressing its own issues in house.
It would be interesting to know what type of students are being attracted to LSU, specifically in regard to their world view on origins.
Record enrollment for LSU
@JImmy: I certainly hope you are not exuding the same narrow-mindedness that many evolutionary biologists have–that the science is settled, and thus they ignore all the evidence to their settled “science.” When a scientist no longer becomes interested in looking at all the data and its implications, I think the student under his/her tutelage is endanger of receiving only a partial and un-critical educational.
You appear to making an assumption that many others have made that is the church is against having evolution taught–how wrong you are. By all means teach evolutionary theory, but it is by no means a sacred cow that should be guarded to the exclusion of all the evidence that opposes it. Is this the type of critical-thinking you are supporting? Because this is the type of education LSU is giving–narrow.
Record enrollment for LSU
@Adventist in High School: You said, “students do not want to go to a school that simply promotes church doctrine.” I agree, and God has not asked us to believe anything without first giving us the evidence upon which to base our faith. However, you jump to an unsupported conclusion as to the reason for LSU’s jump in enrollment. I could just as easily assert that the jump is a result of LSU attracting more like minded students in regard to origins. That would be a totally unfounded assertion because I have absolutely nothing to back it up with. We can speculate all we want, but until we poll all the new freshman we won’t know. So making up reasons to fit your argument in relation to enrollment do you little good.
La Sierra has payed lip service to the FB #6, but in practice they side with evolutionary biology. This can be seen in a number of their classes. Your appeal to a dissenting scientist as an authority of what is actual evidence is weak at best. It’s a straw-man and equivalent to appealing to the quality of a whole herd because of one of them is lame.
Obviously short-age-life is not mainstream, so you’re not going to find a plethora of literature in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals, but its there. By the peer-review does not guarantee the accuracy or scientific quality of a published paper. We’ll assume for now, for the sake of argument, that peer-review is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. Here are six peer-reviewed journals from a creationist worldview:
Answers Research Journal
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Journal of Creation
Occasional Papers of the BSG
Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism
Now before you get ad hominem on these journals, consider arguing against the evidence they contain first. So tell me what is so un-credible about Origins for example?
Ok, now I’m waiting for you to produce one biology class where the evidence for the opposing side is presented.
Recent Comments by Shane Hilde
An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: Despite how the information may be presented in other courses does not change the way in which this particular lecture. At this point the professor and PUC do not want to divulge the information on their other classes, so we’re left with the bad egg class.
An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: The lecture on origins was the first of a series within the class dealing with the issue, or the lecture on origins was just one class in the series of classes of different topics? As far as I’ve been told by PUC’s statement and from a student in the class, there was no mention that there would be a follow up course. This is not to say that one will not occur, but if PUC was really concerned about context I’m really surprised it failed to mention any follow up course that would have brought some context to the lecture given in isolation.
By the way, the contention has nothing to do with Dr. Ness’s faith. This is just a red herring issue. His faith, Christianity, belief in God, etc, are not on the table despite what many here may think.
I may not know as much as you about the class, so please inform me what the next lecture in the series will be in regard to origins. When did they announce in the class there would be a follow up? Why wasn’t this information made public in PUC’s statement? Strange they would leave out such important information.
An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: No, we’re not stating that at all. What gave you that impression? Did you read this statement, “While it is reasonable to present students with theories in science that conflict with our beliefs, how reasonable is it to just leave it at that–a string of conflicts with little, if any, resolution?”
Evolution should most definitely be taught in our schools, but within the context of what we believe to be true and the current evidence that supports those beliefs.
In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.
There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.
“And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20
Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?
Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:
The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3
The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.
In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:
“And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23
This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.
You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.