Comment on The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop by Sean Pitman.

1] Do you think there should be a particular standard for a University in terms of its curriculum?

Sure, but a university should not be limited to presenting only this minimum standard. A university should be free to go above and beyond this minimum standard. Adventist universities, in particular, should present the minimum standard and then go on to present the unique Adventist perspective on the various topics in question . . . to include rational reasons why one should consider the Adventist perspective on origins.

2] Do you think a University should educate students in what is most likely not false?

An Adventist university should educate students as to what various opinions of “truth” one might expect to see within popular cultures – to include the popular opinions of the majority of the scientific community. However, an Adventist university need not support or promote popular opinions as “most likely true”. An Adventist university should be free to challenge the popular opinions of the day with its own unique perspective and interpretation of the available evidence at hand.

Why try to shield students from the Adventist perspective or arguments in favor of it? If it is so obviously “false”, why not let the students be the judge? Why only present them with arguments from popular culture? Why not at least let them compare arguments from different perspectives presented by those who actually believe in and subscribe to the Adventist perspective?

3] For science what is your criteria for determining content based on your assumptions and the way you practice medicine? Is there a Christian science and a secular science?

Science is based on a very simple logical argument or set of arguments which attempt to predict the future with the use of testable potentially falsifiable hypotheses. If a proposed hypothesis resists falsification upon testing, it gains predictive value. If not, it loses predictive value. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter if a scientific hypothesis happens to suggest the activity of a God or God-like entity that matches the Christian paradigm. Such is not an automatic exclusion of scientific investigations (outside of Ia priori philosophical assumptions that are not based on science). All that matters is if the hypothesis is able to establish a useful degree of predictive value. That’s it.

4] Should traditional and historically accepted ideas like Phrenology, Animal Magnetism, Dianetics, Homeopathy, Astrology and Alchemy be taught within the science curriculum?

These are falsified theories from the mainstream scientific perspective and are also outside of the Adventist perspective. So no, I see no need to present these theories outside of historical interest. However, your implication that the Adventist perspective on origins is in the same boat as phrenology or astrology is nonsense. There is a great deal of very good evidence favoring the Adventist perspective on origins as well as a great deal of very good evidence calling into question the fundamental claims of neo-Darwinism – evidence which you yourself admittedly cannot dispute (nor can anyone else from the neo-Darwinian perspective). This evidence should be presented in our own schools.

5] Should methodical naturalism be assumed as the biological basis of medicine?

Only as far as it can be supported by scientific methodologies. The problem with the notion that only mindless natural mechanisms must be proposed to explain any and all observations is that this notion isn’t scientific. Scientific methodologies are not limited to only proposing mindless mechanisms to explain observations. All that limits a scientific hypothesis is that it be testable in a potentially falsifiable manner and that it have the ability to gain predictive power upon testing. That’s it. Anything beyond this isn’t science, but philosophy or a form of blind-faith religion that cannot be tested or falsified.

6] Should methodical naturalism be the basis of science.

This is a repeat of the same question asked above. Useful medicine is based on science… as are all forms of useful endeavors – to include useful religions. Again, for all of these science and faith must walk hand-in-hand if one wishes to go beyond mere wishful thinking or just-so story telling.

7] Do you agree that under the assumptions of science ie methodological naturalism; the origin of species by natural process is not the most likely explanation for the diversity we see around us?

Based on the empirical evidence in hand, the theory of the origin and diversity of species via mindless naturalistic mechanisms alone is not rationally tenable. The most rational scientific conclusion for the origin and diversity of life, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity, must include the input of a very high level of intelligence and creative power that is not readily distinguishable from a God or God-like intelligence. In my opinion, that is the most rational scientific conclusion that the empirical evidence supports.

8] You have already previously conceded that the vast majority of the genetic diversity that differentiates species within kinds has arisen by natural process albeit on a time frame which has negligible observational support.

Again, it’s not quantity, but quality that is important here. And, there is overwhelming observational support to explain rapid diversity at low levels of functional complexity. The problem is that there is no observational support to explain diversity beyond low levels of functional complexity without appealing to high level intelligent design.

I have never been to LSU and know little about it but I have heard people from there speak and preach and I do not think what they say would be at all confused with the ethos of a secular institution. I suspect that Fundamentalism and a University are ideas that cannot mesh and I think Bishops experience illustrates this well. I think LSU are doing the best they can in delivering a Christian education that is at University standard. Your contention that LSU is a waste of time and you would be better off at a secular institution is indeed consistent with your stated position

“…if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well”

http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/

Which I interpret as a very brittle faith with which I as a committed follower of Christ personally could never live.

You’re only a limited follower of Christ. You don’t believe everything that Jesus said or taught. You claim that His teachings were altered over time regarding various doctrinal claims and concepts. You don’t believe what Jesus (and the prophets) said regarding the Genesis account of origins or even life after death. You don’t believe in carbon-based life without the existence of a cycle of life and death for sentient creatures. You claim that death really isn’t so bad for sentient creatures – to include human beings. In short, you seem to be a very limited believer in what Jesus is quoted as teaching. You take that which you want and discard the rest at your own whim. No wonder your faith is so robust. It can withstand whatever comes along because it seems to be entirely internal to yourself – i.e., a self-generated faith where you worship an image of your own creation.

Now, I do think you take on certain Christian ethical principles and I’m sure your motives are pure and that, if so, you are in a saving relationship with God. However, this is not enough to qualify one as an Adventist. Adventism goes beyond the promotion of Christian ethics and social interactions. Adventism also promotes certain doctrinal concepts regarding the reality of the “Good News” of the Gospel message – which includes doctrines such as the literal creation week and the physical resurrection of the dead, etc.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman