@Michael Prewitt: It is a myth and poor policy that …

Comment on La Sierra University Continues Deceptive Spin Tactics by BobRyan.

@Michael Prewitt:

It is a myth and poor policy that our schools should be academic neutral zones where students will hear all sides and make up their own minds from a neutral context

True – but what if “the MISSION” in all Adventist universities world wide was in fact no higher than “be the BEST neutral public university that Adventist tithe, tuition and gift dollars can buy”?

Have you considered how wonderful it would be to divert Gospel outreach and soul-winning evangelism funds and resources to a “best netural public university” mission?

Suppose for example that the real reason for the existence of Adventist universities was

1 – to find a place where Adventists can marry each other


2 – to correct the lousy state of science ( biology, chemistry, calculus, physics etc) teaching going on in other public universities – and show the right way that a public university should be run!


3. To provide a money-well for excess Adventist funds – so that all that extra money that clutters Adventist homes and businesses can be swept out clean.


4. To so severly challenge SDA young people to dump their bibles and embrace evolutionism “instead” – that if they should “survive” our science education and still choose the Bible over the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism — well then they would be “battle hardened” and ready for anything the real world might throw at them – because they have already survived “the worst”. (the “worst” being disguised infidelity were actual Adventist leaders, instructors, professors actively and sincerely promote total compromise with the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.)

Surely such an imaginary world would finally provide support for what LSU is trying to do in their biology and religion departments.

But if we contrast that to the “real world” — then LSU “has a problem”.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

La Sierra University Continues Deceptive Spin Tactics

I am confused on the “spin tactic” claim. If LSU is educating their students about evolution so they can be familiar with the material, why is it to imperative for all the faculty to have a belief in a literal six day creation? In science, are we not to have an impartial look at the facts? Isn’t it the faculty’s job to present the information impartially while abiding by school policy? No one is forcing the students to believe in evolution and no one has called it fact or truth. So I am confused, what is the conflict here?

Robert – you are missing some “details”.

1. All of our colleges and universities teach “About” evolutionism. Not all of them are ‘in the tank’ for evolutionism as we see at LSU however.

2. LSU’s biology Professor Bradley did make a statement to the press stating that he did not consider the Bible view on origins to be anything other than trash – and that evolutionisms doctrine on origins is in fact the correct belief that he presents in his classroom.

3. Evolutionism is non-science, worse it is junk-science and poor religion as even atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural history admits to the distinctively religious nature regarding the argument for evolutionism based on stories from the fossil record about how one thing came from another “stories easy enough to make up” (in Patterson’s words) “but they are NOT science since there is no way of putting them to the test”.

The widespread myth and fiction that “belief in evolutionism” is inexpelicably ok to refer to as “science”, is a testament to the effectiveness of evolutionist propaganda.

Dawkins’ totally flummoxed response of “dead silence” in a video taped interview when he was asked for even ONE example of new coding gene information being added to a genome in real life – shows the extent to which “the emperor has no clothes”. He ended that long period of silence — staring at the ceiling and finally coming up with the brilliant science response to that evolutionism 101 softball lob – saying “stop the tape”.

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