In response to this issue a lawyer, Phil Brantley wrote …

Comment on La Sierra University Responds to anti-Creation Bond Issue by Sean Pitman.

In response to this issue a lawyer, Phil Brantley wrote (ADvindicate Website):

La Sierra University is not going to teach creation science, because there is no such thing as creation science. It is not going to teach biblical science, because there is no such thing as biblical science. It is not going to teach the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s scientific views of origins, because the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not purport to have any scientific views of origins. To my knowledge, there is not one theologian or scientist in the Seventh-day Adventist Church that would claim otherwise.

David [Read] [also a lawyer] has painted himself into a corner. David is a pseudoscientist–one who argues that all science data should be interpreted in a manner that would support preconceived religious views. In all fairness, he quotes Ellen White in support of his pseudoscientific approach. As a pseudoscientist, he is upset that the bond agreement would, in his opinion, prevent the teaching of pseudoscience in the science complex. Naturally, neither David nor any other pseudoscientist is comfortable in admitting to being a pseudoscientist. But David finds himself in a corner that he has painted for himself, because if we charitably assume that what he wants taught in science class is in reality science and not pseudoscience, then there is nothing in the bond agreement that would prevent that material from being taught and no reason for his criticism of the bond agreement.

David’s criticism of the bond agreement is a self-indictment, an admission that what he wants taught in science class cannot be fairly construed to constitute science.

This opinion is dependent upon a definition of science derived from secular scientists and secular courts. It is a circular argument to say, “Science is what secular scientists say it is because they say so.”

The fact is that science can be defined without any reference to secular or religious ideologies. If, by these definitions of science the methods of science can lead one to conclude that various features of the universe seem to require the input of an extremely powerful intelligent designer or that the fossil record is likely of a far more recent origin than secular scientists would like everyone to believe, then so be it.

Of course secular scientists are going to define anything that challenges their perspective as “pseudoscience” – and Brantley has swallowed their bravado hook, line, and sinker…

Also, Brantley’s argument that no scientists within the Adventist system effectively argue for a scientific defense of the Adventist perspective on origins is mistaken. There are numerous scientists within and outside of the Adventist system who argue strongly, and quite convincingly, for a rational scientific basis for our Biblical position on origins…

As far as David Reed “painting himself into a corner”, Brantley should know better. Brantley clearly knows that the state has defined any argument for the creationists perspective on origins, or even the intelligent design perspective, as “religious” or otherwise “sectarian” positions. It therefore matters not if the state is actually right or wrong here. The bond is the state’s money and the state has already defined the Adventist position on origins as being outside of the realm of “science” and well within the realm of “religion”. Brantley actually agrees wholeheartedly with the state’s definitions in this case. Therefore, it is Brantley, not Read, who has painted himself into a corner here. To let David speak for himself:

In the context of legal documents, there’s no question that creation science is faith. The courts have ruled repeatedly that creationism and even Intelligent Design are faith positions that may not be taught in public schools.

Now, I personally believe that just as much, if not more, faith is required to believe the Darwinian origins narrative than is required to believe that we were created.

But as far as the courts are concerned, there simply is no question that creationism is a sectarian belief. This has been held over and over and over. There’s simply no question that teaching creationism or Intelligent Design in the PSC will violate the prohibited use covenant.

– David Read

In short, Brantley essentially admits what we’ve been saying all along – that LSU science teachers have only been actively promoting the neo-Darwinian perspective on origins in their classes. If they had actually been actively promoting the Adventist perspective on origins in their science classes, even Brantley would have to admit that such so-called “pseudoscience”, as he himself describes it, would be in violation of the bond agreement – according to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

La Sierra University Responds to anti-Creation Bond Issue
@John J.:

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Mainstream scientists are just as dogmatic and unbending about some of their ideas as are any group of sectarian fundamentalists.

In practice, the concept of neo-Darwinism is a religion, not a science. It cannot be tested in a falsifiable manner – even in theory. It is believed based on blind faith alone and defending by appeals to authority and bluster – not real science.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.