Comment on Don’t Change Our Belief on Creation, the Words of Scripture Suffice by Shane Hilde.
Ken, if you haven’t read “A little-know history of Belief #6,” please take some time to look it over. Reading this along with Baldwin’s article might give you a better understanding as to why the church thinks it important to make the wording more specific. Here is the link http://bit.ly/d14uuU
Shane Hilde Also Commented
Don’t Change Our Belief on Creation, the Words of Scripture Suffice
@John: The only problem I’ve had with GRI has been Ben Clausen. I believe what he has stated publicly does more damage than an evolutionist at one of our universities.
There are a number of creation models out there, so to claim there isn’t one is a bit naive. I think the model the Bible provides is clear enough and the only true model for creation.
Faith: True, the words of scripture SHOULD suffice
I agree. It is unfortunate educators and other thought leaders have taken advantage of the wording and ignored the obvious implied meaning. A cursory read of from Adventist literature would reveal that we have always and still do believe Genesis 1-2 to be an actual account of creation.
Recent Comments by Shane Hilde
La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
ADvindicate has also published an article about LSU and Raul Diaz that expands on a few details.
A little-known history about Belief 6
@Eddie: The Bible does not specify an age of accountability (to my knowledge), but the Israelites considered the age of 12 to be the turning point. I wouldn’t base a theology off of tradition though. Also, it’s not our place to judge what happens to those who have not been able to make a decision.
At La Sierra, Biology Faculty Affirms Importance of Teaching About Creation in Curriculum
@David Read: And perhaps not something Christ would do. I can understand your frustration though. I’ve been on the verge of quitting this whole thing many times. I’ve been guilty of letting that frustration control and influence things I shouldn’t have said.
I have to remind myself to look at the big picture. In the end all those who are not supposed to be in the church will be sifted out. I pray I am not one of them.
Board of Trustees Addresses Curriculum Proposal
I know from talking to a couple of reporters from Press Enterprise and Inside Higher Ed that Randal Wisbey was effective in shutting down communication between any outsiders and the biology faculty. It appears he made himself the only channel of communication between the board and biology faculty.
I emailed Larry Becker about what bylaw the board members broke that was worthy of dismissal, and I have yet to hear a response from him.
I would also note that board members at other universities appear to be free to talk to the faculty.
Another interesting point. He removes three board members for trying to work on the problem and come up with a solution, and then turns around sort of embraces what they’re doing. He can’t publicly condemn it because everyone can see, whether you agree with what they wrote or not, that it’s a significant step for the faculty to be speaking to the church.
Did he forbid the document from being published? No. If you’re really excited about seeing the biology department making advancements in solving the issue, why are you removing the people who are making that happen. He never did anything like that.
What has Wisbey done to address and fix this issue? Nothing. He’s dragged it out, lied about what’s been happening, and told everyone involved to shut up or get in trouble. What on earth is he trying to do?
Who knows, he might even be a part of the underground movement to sever LSU from the church by using WASC as the big hammer. It’s obvious from one former board member, there was interest in using WASC to manipulate the situation.