From the article I, (name of signatory), … do hereby …

Comment on Strumming the Attached Strings by BobRyan.

from the article

I, (name of signatory), … do hereby certify that: … the …coursework used to teach secular subjects [wk-i.e., real science; Genesis 1 is legally pseudoscience and sectarian] is neutral with respect to religion and … is typical of that provided in nonreligious institutions for higher education [wk-but that’s why our SDA schools were established, to not be typical]. …no bond proceeds will be used to finance any facility… to be used for sectarian [wk-that’s doctrinal Adventism] instruction,…in connection with any…department of theology…that includes instruction … that promotes … a particular religion or religious beliefs.

That is the crux of the matter.

LSU — Sold for thirty pieces of Silver in a sellout for government funding.

So now the big question — is it a “conflict of interest” to have the same guys that sold out the school – deciding just how much “Adventism” they are going to allow back into those science class rooms?

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:

Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.

That was not news right?

in Christ,


Strumming the Attached Strings

Phillip Brantley: Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments.

As someone here has already pointed out – by that logic – we do not expect Brantly to fully understand the Bible. SDA doctrine, the subject at hand (the article at the top of this thread), or the reason that a school like LSU was put in place to start with. []

in Christ,


Strumming the Attached Strings

George Hilton: At this point I can’t help commenting. I have long feared that there aren’t many minds being changed by this and its opposing blog sites. Nonetheless, I think it’s appropriate to say a few things that might at least clarify the debate.

First, I think this web site needs to rethink its fundamental argument: “employees need to espouse what their employer has hired them to represent.” Let me say that I fervently agree with this point of view. However, the question is “who hires the faculty of LSU?” Unfortunately, the world SDA church does NOT do the hiring. After following this for years (I taught at LSU in the 80s) I think the sad fact is that the professors in question ARE for the most part representing their employers.

You make a good point.

However for the sake of context – Tithe money pays for a good chunk of the religion department salary at LSU. So no matter how far off the reservation that the LSU administrators are going – that Tithe money is not their’s to do with as they please. Anyone accepting Tithe money owes their service and allegiance to the SDA denomination itself.

2. So far no Biology dept at any SDA university has gone rogue on the subject of creation vs evolution without the religion department providing cover for them by teaching against Bible creation in the school of religion.

So “again” – the tithe going to the religion department should have solved the problem to some extent.

3. Your point ignores the extent to which LSU was funded and founded by the SDA denomination and by sponsors who would view it as a breach of trust to simply turn LSU into “the best public university that Adventist gifts, tuition and tithe dollars can buy”.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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