Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@Rich Constantinescu: I’m reminded of Matthew 18:6:

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

I parallel this with those who are in charge of the education of our young people. It appears some are blind to the reality that promotion of these ideas is faith destroying. And while it may not destroy the faith of every student, it certainly isn’t going to win any to Christ. There should be grave concern if even one student is caused to doubt the veracity of the Bible through being taught these ideas. Absolute academic freedom (a myth) appears to be a priority over the Adventist students who still maintain their belief in the biblical creation.

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@josh: Your thoughts would be welcome. What point are you making? You left your cut and paste job void of any commentary. Perhaps you are suggesting that what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes about origins is based on “obscure passages”?

@Dorothy Skadsheim: I get the impression many people do not know that I was a recent graduate of LSU. I know LSU is quite aware of that fact. When I sat down with Wisbey in Nov. 2009, he expressed that he was surprised that an alumnus would do such a thing as I have. I replied that I hoped any alumnus would do the same if they were concerned. Granted there are other methods, but so far the website seems to have been the most effective in bringing this problem to the attention of the world church.

@Rich Constantinescu: I’m by no means defusing the employees responsibility. LSU leadership holds the greatest responsibility though. And when the hammer falls, and I believe it will, the hardship will be more on the administration and the school than the professors.

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
@Professor Kent: Are you referring to the comments or the articles that are published here? From memory I cannot recall any articles that make ad hominem attacks, but there may very well be. You’ll have to refresh my memory.

The comments ALWAYS digress from the topic. I don’t have the energy and time to keep every thread on topic. I will say this and I dont’ think Sean will mind: I do think that Sean and I differ in what “lens” we apply to this controversy; his emphasis is more on the science and mine tends to be more theological.

PUC responds
@Ariel: We’re not advocating that students shouldn’t be taught about opinions that are not Seventh-day Adventist. Evolution should be taught. The issue is how it is taught.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: Despite how the information may be presented in other courses does not change the way in which this particular lecture. At this point the professor and PUC do not want to divulge the information on their other classes, so we’re left with the bad egg class.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: The lecture on origins was the first of a series within the class dealing with the issue, or the lecture on origins was just one class in the series of classes of different topics? As far as I’ve been told by PUC’s statement and from a student in the class, there was no mention that there would be a follow up course. This is not to say that one will not occur, but if PUC was really concerned about context I’m really surprised it failed to mention any follow up course that would have brought some context to the lecture given in isolation.

By the way, the contention has nothing to do with Dr. Ness’s faith. This is just a red herring issue. His faith, Christianity, belief in God, etc, are not on the table despite what many here may think.

I may not know as much as you about the class, so please inform me what the next lecture in the series will be in regard to origins. When did they announce in the class there would be a follow up? Why wasn’t this information made public in PUC’s statement? Strange they would leave out such important information.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: No, we’re not stating that at all. What gave you that impression? Did you read this statement, “While it is reasonable to present students with theories in science that conflict with our beliefs, how reasonable is it to just leave it at that–a string of conflicts with little, if any, resolution?”

Evolution should most definitely be taught in our schools, but within the context of what we believe to be true and the current evidence that supports those beliefs.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Professor Kent:

In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.

“And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20

Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?

Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:

The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3

The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.

In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:

“And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23

This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.

You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.