@Karen: Present all points of view and and give …

Comment on La Sierra University Continues Deceptive Spin Tactics by Sean Pitman.

@Karen:

Present all points of view and and give people the freedom of choice, and certainly the “truth” shall prevail.

Please do present one example of any institution or organization that teaches all points of view without bias…

Also, your idea that it is always an easy thing for our youth to separate truth from error is mistaken. It is quite easy to trick young inexperienced minds with very convincing arguments that seem logically, even scientifically, sound, but which are mistaken and will ultimately result in harm to the individual.

Beyond this, why should the SDA Church spend time and money presenting, on an equal footing, all points of view? No organization that believes in a particular mission, goal or ideal presents all points of view without any indication of preference. If you believe that one particular pathway is the most ideal pathway, why wouldn’t you want to share this with your friends so that they can experience the very best instead of having to wade through all the other stuff to discover the best the hard way?

Also, the mere presenting of a particular opinion doesn’t remove a person’s freedom of choice. A person can always choose to reject the opinion presented by the Church and consider others. Also, no one is forced to teach or preach in or attend an SDA institution. Yet, the SDA Church does indeed support particular opinions. It does not present, on an equal footing, all opinions. This is why the SDA Church has a unique set of “fundamental” doctrinal positions that define it as a unique entity or organization.

This is why the SDA Church calls itself the Seventh-day Adventist Church – because it has a particular perspective to promote that is unique from all others. Your notion that all people should always present all perspectives on equal footing is itself a promotion of a particular opinion to the exclusion of other opinions. This is the biggest reason why your postmodern argument just doesn’t work. It is inherently self-contradictory. There simply is no argument until one actually has a biased opinion on the topic at hand – and you certainly have a biased opinion on the topic at hand…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

La Sierra University Continues Deceptive Spin Tactics
Liberty Works Both Ways

@Ken:

Dear Sean

If you cherish the truth and freedom you should not attempt to shackle academic freedom. As long as La Sierra fairly presents both sides of the issue then it remains objective. Once it starts ramming one version of origins down the throats of inquiring young minds it cloaks itself in the strait jacket of dogma. There is no problem with teaching six day creation as religious belief as well as evolution in the classroom. In fact the juxtaposition of both is important for students to experience to decide on the issue for themselves. But when institutions become dogmatic and inflexible in fields of learning they lose pedagogical objectivity.

Best Regards
Ken

First off, LSU is not presenting “both sides” in this creation/evolution debate in the science classrooms. The science professors at LSU are being very dogmatic in their promotion of the modern mainstream evolutionary perspective as the true story of origins in their classes. There simply is no support at all given for the SDA position of a literal 6-day creation week in LSU science classrooms. On the contrary, the concept of a literal six-day creation week is actively derided and scoffed at by many of LSU science professors as “lunacy” – both within the classroom and in other public forums.

Beyond this, the notion of pure “academic freedom” is nonsense. Not even public universities would tolerate a biology professor promoting intelligent design or creationists theories as viable alternate scientific theories in his/her classroom. The same thing is true for pastors in our churches. A pastor would be let go if he got up into the pulpit and said, “I don’t want to be ‘dogmatic’ here so I’m simply going to give you guys several competing theories regarding a few doctrinal ideas, like the “Virgin” birth, and let you all make up your own minds without letting my own opinions influence your decision…”

The fact of the matter is that there would be no point in the SDA Church hiring pastors or teachers if these pastors and teachers went around undermining what they were hired to support from the pulpit and classroom. The SDA Church has a particular perspective on many doctrinal issues that are not necessarily popular. If it simply went with the popular view, paying pastors and teacher to teach and preach whatever they wanted independent of the view of the Church as an organized body of believers, the Church would soon collapse into irrelevance.

Viable organizations simply do not work like you are suggesting. Viable organizations stand for something and maintain internal control over paid representatives – letting those go who no longer support the stated goals and ideals of the organization.

Is this a restriction of “liberty”? Not really. You are always free and go elsewhere to get paid by those who actually wish to pay you for your ideas. Remember, liberty works both ways. The people who pay your salary are also free to not pay your salary if you are no longer providing the product that they wish to buy…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If you understood how these vaccines actually work, you would understand that they are part of helping to preserve life and health – part of ending all the death and suffering that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is causing on this planet.

Not all science is bad. Most of the discoveries of science are actually good – especially when it can be tested and observed in real-time. True scientific knowledge and medical advancements are a gift of God to ease the pain of humanity in this fallen world…


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know when Novavax will be approved? Here’s the latest on their clinical trials: Link


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I don’t know what is happening in Orange County, but I do know that the vaccines have not been approved for anyone under 16-years-of-age. And certainly, any medical procedure done on a child or a minor should first be approved by the parents…

That being said, I would certainly have my own two boys (9 and 11) vaccinated as soon as the mRNA vaccine is available for children.

Again, the evidence is very very clear that the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines are far far outweighed by the risks associated with getting the actual live COVID-19 infection where up to 1/3 of children sustain long-term/permanent injuries – not to mention the risk of passing it on to others who may also be die or be permanently injured.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
If that makes you more comfortable, that’s fine. However, when it comes to the mRNA vaccines, in particular, there really are no more remaining questions of any real seriousness to be answered. The technology has been around and studied for over 30 years now and the vaccine trials were a great success, demonstrating amazing efficacy as well as safety. The same has been true of the general rollout around the world. Those countries with the highest percentage of vaccinations are doing the best regarding a reduction in death rates and injuries from the COVID-19 virus. The longer you wait, the greater your personal risk and the risk to others around you.


Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche

Can you talk about the blood clot side affect — the rash side affect — and the other side affects listed in the VAERS document? Are these deaths and suffering are just “ho-hum” dispensable humans to the cause of good for all?

I talk about VAERS here (Link). The Herpes Zoster rash happens in a low percentage of immunocompromised people who have previously been infected with the Herpes virus (Link). While certainly uncomfortable, it’s not life-threatening and it isn’t a risk for most people. The blood clot risk is a very rare risk (about 1 in a million for young women) for the DNA vaccines, possibly related to the adenoviral vector used for the vaccines. I talk about this here (Link). There is also a very rare risk for severe immune thrombocytopenia (Link). Note that for all of these risks for the vaccines, the very same risks are much much much higher when it comes to being infected by the live COVID-19 virus. So, if you want to reduce your risk as much as possible, the best way to do that is to get vaccinated.

What is happening to cause so many side affects? How is one to know if there is a chance of dangerous side affects of the vaccine for a person?

The thing about risk is that it is impossible to know, ahead of time, exactly how a particular person will react. That’s just the nature of the concept of “risk”…

Are vaccinated women who get the vaccine during pregnancy, or get pregnant and give birth having any side affects among their babies?

No. I talk about this rumor here (Link).

Also, have your children been vaccinated? What is your opinion of elementary or high schools requiring the vaccine for school children? Which childhood conditions need to be studied before administering the vaccine to children with these conditions?

The mRNA vaccines are not approved for children under the age of 16. They are currently in the trial phase of testing for younger children. My own boys are 9 and 11 years of age, so no, they haven’t been vaccinated yet. However, once approved, I would be getting them vaccinated since even children are at risk for long-term injury and sickness from COVID-19 (30% of children get Long-Hauler’s following even asymptomatic infections with COVID-19). As far as childhood “conditions”, I know of no common childhood conditions which would preclude vaccination…

What “empirical evidence” is there that mRNA vaccines do not cause any side affects “a year or two or three down the line”? Is there a study I can read – link?

As I’ve already mentioned, the evidence for this is the very long history that we’ve had with vaccines and understanding how they work with the human immune system. When complications arise, they do so within the first few months for large populations (Link). It is extremely unlikely that something brand new and unexpected will come to light years down the line (Link). Also, by that time, millions will have been killed and permanently injured by the very real and very well-known risks of the COVID-19 virus itself.

Yes, your glowing recommendation is convincing with several issues not addressed in the glow.

I have addressed most of your questions already in other posts on this topic…

Do you recommend a yearly booster vaccine like now is being developed? I think big Pharma announced a flu/covid combo vaccine coming out for next fall. What is your opinion please?

For now, it seems likely to me that the mRNA vaccines will produce immunity lasting more than a year, likely several years. However, as with most viruses, the COVID-19 virus mutates. If a new mutant strain comes along that “breaks through” the immunity provided by the original vaccine(s), then yes, a booster would be necessary. However, if enough people would get vaccinated quickly, it would make the odds of such breakthrough mutations less likely.

Thanks for your help in understanding the full spectrum of topics about these mRNA vaccines.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.