Comment on La Sierra schism widens by Sean Pitman, M.D..
The evidence you use is old, representative of only a few individuals (including at least one apparently retired and no longer at the university), and highly selective. You belittle everyone who disagrees with you, and you make accusations about those who defend these biologists, but we are not so naive or stupid to believe you have a complete understanding of every single faculty member’s statements or views.
I didn’t say that all professors at LSU are promoting theistic evolution – just that many of them are. Even one professor who is publicly undermining the Church’s clearly stated fundamental positions on the Church’s dime is one too many in my book.
Also, the available evidence is current. I have the current lectures of Lee Greer for example. These lecture materials strongly support the modern mainstream evolutionary perspective. There is no hint in these lecture notes in favor of the SDA position on origins. Also, I know quite a bit about Lee Greer and he is by no means supportive of the SDA perspective on origins. All you have to do is ask him. He’ll tell you straight up where he stands. He is unabashidly, openly, and honestly a theistic evolutionist who ardently believes in the mainstream evolutionary perspective on origins and the allegorical nature of the Genesis narriative – and promotes his views to his students.
I actually admire Lee Greer. I think he is a good guy – and very sincere. I have nothing personal against him. However, he just so happens to be working in the wrong place given that his views on origins go fundamentally against the stated views of the SDA Church as an organization (i.e., his employer). And, he is by no means alone in his views at LSU.
There is nothing hateful here. Why is it wrong for me to expect tithe monies to go in support of the actual stated positions of the SDA Church to which they are given? And, why is it considered hateful to expect LSU to be open and upfront about what all of its professors stand for and promote in their classrooms? Why is LSU trying to be so obtuse about the fact that many of its professors do in fact support and promote theistic evolutionary ideas in their classroomsand have been doing do for decades? How is this not in a very real sense a form of deliberate deception?
P.S. for those who wish references to support what is really going on at LSU, see the following Open Letter (reference section):
Also, for those who think I’m exaggerating, why not present some counter evidence of your own? You really think the majority of LSU science professors are not actually promoting theistic evolution in the classroom? Really?
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.