Comment on Report on LSU constituency meeting by BobRyan.
The outcome of this meeting was not different than I expected, although I was praying for better results. The actions of the General Conference in Atlanta are encouraging, but we certainly arenâ€™t out of the woods yet. I was shocked to learn this about La Sierra in the first place, and even more shocked to discuss the subject with more Adventist Schools when I was at the GC. Several representatives of Adventist colleges and universities told me that they too, teach and support the science ideas from La Sierra. Apparently there is a statement than has been signed by various schools as to their support of the creation doctrine. I do not know how to access this document. It should be made public to parents that have students nearing college age. (Quote)
A number of university representatives have come to this board strongly supporing the denomination’s doctrine on origins – including SAU and Soutwestern Adventist Univ.
However as you point out – LSU may be the most visible university to encounter this problem – but they are not the only ones.
I am sure the other schools that are stuck with this problem are watching to see how it gets solved.
BobRyan Also Commented
Report on LSU constituency meeting
Geanna said –
I wish that Dr. Chadwick was man enough to apologize for the negative statement he made about the new board members: Meredith Jobe, Alvin Kwiram, Alina Sanchez, James Kyle. He said:
â€œHaving just reviewed the changes made in the LSU Board, it is apparent to me that the Board is being stacked with people who are in sympathy with the errant faculty at La Sierra.â€
Those words were unkind, prejudicial and completely uncalled for.
BobRyan replies —
We seem to have a style-over-substance game going in the above.
Is Geanna saying that Chadwick is wrong if he thinks the new LSU boardmembers are supporting the LSU professors that promote evolutionism as if it were fact?
OR Is Geanna saying that it is wrong for Chadwick to suggest promoting the work of pro-evolutionist professors at LSU would be a bad thing for LSU board members to do?
OR is Geanna saying that it is wrong for Chadwick to suggest that any professor at LSU is actually promoting evolution?
Or is the vague focus on “style over substance” supposed to be a way to get around the actual point of the controversy altogether. To complain without actually admitting to any facts?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Dear Adventist Student, There are actually others who share your sentiment. Airing dirty laundry in a very public forum and fighting over who made the mess and who should clean it up is never a good idea.
I used to think SAU was a pretty decent place but I hear that theyve become a bit fanatical about creationism to. I understand theyâ€™re halls in biology are all decorated now with creation stuff.
Wow! you must be kidding!! “Creation stuff”? — really!!??
Ok that settles it for me!
It appears that both the annonymous “AdventistStudent” and Geanna” have come out with what I consider to be a fantastic endorsement for SAU – which is — that neither of those two posters “like” SAU! (Apparently in the case above – for daring to “post creation stuff”).
And as the annonymous “AdventistStudent” pointed out – there are some people in the church that actuall work to try and avoid an Adventist education and they quickly identify SAU as providing the very thing they do not want.
Well free will being what it is – I am glad that all the cards are on the table.
I actually “prefer” having the Adventist schools that actually promote Adventist doctrines stand up “and say so”.
I am also very happy to have LSU professors declare publically what they are telling their students about Adventist doctrines on origins be the last thing in the world that those professors want to promote in class.
Though I wish those professors were not turning a blind eye to good science and sound doctrine in their efforts to reject the Adventist doctrine on origins – I am more than happy to have them tell everyone exactly what they are doing.
(Though if I read Geraty’s letter correctly – he appears to think that those LSU professors made a mistake in publishing to the world what they were doing in class. He and I would differ on that point).
In the 1950s, there was a general understanding that Adventist literature would not emphasize a 6000 year history.
Not found in Adventist literature.
Not found in Quiquinium voted documents.
So â€œgeneralâ€ as in you and a few of your closes friends?
How is that â€œgeneralâ€?
@BobRyan: The Consultant Committee on Geoscience Research was terminated and a new emphasis was instituted for staff activities.
Ok – according to your link – that is an underfunded group of less than a dozen people that at some point in the 50’s decided that 6,000 years might easily be 7000, 8000 or maybe 10,000 years, and decided from the 50’s to some time in the 60’s not to emphasize the 6,000 year limiting time.
Research tended to concentrate on selected areas where the data were most supportive of the 6,000-year biblical chronology of Bishop Ussher. Before long, the tacit policy arrived at in the 1950s during the General Conference presidency of W. H. Branson (to the effect that the 6,000-year chronology need not be emphasized in Seventh-day Adventist publications) was abandoned. (Richard Hammill, AAF Spectrum, Vol 15, No. 2 p 41)I did not know Dr Hammill personally, so, no, this wasnâ€™t cooked up among my closest friends. (Quote)
Hereâ€™s a link for Hammillâ€™s interesting report:
So what we have is a short-lived policy of stepping back from 6,000 years as a limit (but in the context of something like 7,000 or 10,000 yeas as the alternative – still with a literal 7 day creation week) – by a small underfunded research/consulting group.
Your own linked document indicates that at the time they were looking into this topic – they were not getting consensus or agreement by any stretch of the imagination from other Adventist teaching institutions on stepping back from the 6,000 year number. The entire context at the time was still one of a very conservative Adventist Educational and Theological environment.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind