Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Phillip Brantley.
The Kitzmiller decision is not only highly relevant but dispositive regarding many of the criticisms levied against La Sierra.
1. Many critics of La Sierra assert that Creationism and Intelligent Design, which are theological/philosphical beliefs, constitute science. The Kitzmiller court carefully refutes that assertion.
2. Many critics, like David Read, believe that you can have “a different philosophy of science” in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They want La Sierra to teach something different than science while representing to students that what they are taught is science. That is like saying that you can have a different philosophy of baseball. You can have thirteen players on each side, play with hockey sticks and pucks, and determine who wins the game by whichever team hits the most triples. This is not baseball. This is a newly-invented game called David Read baseball. And when you represent that you are playing baseball when you are in reality playing David Read baseball, then you are not being honest and transparent with students.
The Kitzmiller court in its careful description of the rules of science, exposed as a fraud the bastardized form of science that the Dover School Board attempted to implement.
3. Many critics of La Sierra do not understand the difference between truth and fact, so in their confusion they allege that the teaching of mainstream science as fact undermines doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that are true. Aside from the fact that practitioners of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic reject that allegation for theological reasons, the allegation also stands rejected as a matter of science. As stated by Judge Jones, who understands that there is a difference between fact and truth, “we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” P. 64.
4. Many critics of La Sierra argue that methodological naturalism is atheistic science. A self-imposed convention of science is that it limits its search for answers to natural causes. Science does not reject the view that there may be supernatural causes but simply does not attempt to study them. The Kitzmiller court makes clear that limiting your study to natural causes does not mean that you reject that there are supernatural causes. P. 65-68.
5. The Kitzmiller opinion chronicles a political, cultural, and social movement in American society. Many of the characteristics of that movement are reflected in the political, cultural, and social movement agitated against La Sierra. There is much to be learned from studying how the Kitzmiller court resolved the issues.
I wish the critics of La Sierra would admit what they are attempting to accompish. The most charitable description of what these critics want is for our schools to stop teaching science and instead teach natural philosophy. But I think a more evident description of what they want is that our schools stop teaching science and teach natural philosophy, while representing to students that what they are being taught is science. There is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for that sort of deception.
If our students cannot have full trust that their science teachers will be honest with them, then how can they have full trust that their theology teachers will be honest with them.
The harm that Educate Truth and other critics of La Sierra have inflicted upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church is enormous. These critics do not seem to understand that if the Church is not seen as an honest broker regarding science, it will not be seen as an honest broker regarding theology.
Phillip Brantley Also Commented
My Goal for La Sierra University
Bob Ryan, I am sure you understand that Intelligent Design need not be taught exclusively by a faculty member of the theology/philosophy department. One of the science teachers could teach the course, possibly in tandem with a theologian or philosopher, and the students taking the course could receive theology/philosophy credit. Obviously, the class would be specifically targeted to science majors.
You seem to be bitter about the science community’s classification of Intelligent Design as non-science. I don’t think that an untoward motive on the part of the science community is involved. Look at all of the other non-sciences that have been voted off the island: alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, medical quackery using magical elixirs, telepathy, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, naturopathy and other alternative medicines, pyramidology, etc.
These non-sciences share a common characteristic with Creationism and Intelligent Design: with few exceptions they are theological/philosophical by nature.
My Goal for La Sierra University
Dr. Pitman, there is a difference between saying that A is classified as X and saying that you wish A was classified as X.
You can argue that you wish Intelligent Design was classified by the science community as science, but you cannot argue that Intelligent Design is presently classified by the science community as science.
We know that the science community does not classify Intelligent Design as science based in part on the following:
1. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.
2. The Kitzmiller court ruled based on expert testimony submitted that Intelligence Design is not science. This holding of the court has never been overruled or placed into question by any other court.
3. The Intelligent Design movement has not published properly peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals.
You can utter the usual arguments that the science community is prejudiced against Intelligent Design, that many scientists are atheists, and that there are bad reasons why the science community has refused to classify Intelligent Design as science.
But you cannot argue, without incurring the risk of presenting yourself as being out of touch with reality, that Intelligent Design is presently classified as science.
I think a credible effort to adhere to honesty and transparency in your argumentation requires you to concede this point.
My Goal for La Sierra University
David, the “wedge strategy” has relevance in the current discussion because it establishes that even the founders of Intelligent Design understood that Intelligent Design does not constitute science but is instead a religious and philosophical idea. Indeed, the origins of the Intelligent Design movement demonstrate that this movement is a continuation of the “creation science” movement under a different label.
Nobody is arguing that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a Seventh-day Adventist school in a theology or philosophy class. You could even teach Intelligent Design in a pop culture class. What we rightfully object to is teaching Intelligent Design in a science class.
You could argue that science students should be required to take certain theology/philosophy courses in order for them to receive a well-rounded education. I don’t think anybody is opposed to that idea, either.
Recent Comments by Phillip Brantley
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, you (or some other editor) unfairly edited my last comment and the comment that I responded to, so I am forced to wipe the dust from my shoes and leave you and others to stew in anger and confusion.
[Attacks on Shakespeare and the like are off topic and are distracting to the purpose of this website and will not be published – not even in the comment section. The same is true for other topics that many often attempt to post on this website – such as those dealing with homosexuality, abortion, women’s ordination, the personal morality of one’s opponents, etc. – ET Staff]
Strumming the Attached Strings
I appreciate the comment posted by Richard Myers, because it reflects the often-overlooked fact that a major basis for the agitation against La Sierra University is fundamentalist opposition to university education. []
Critics of La Sierra University should ponder whether their agitation is based on knowledge or the fear that accompanies ignorance. I sense a lot of fear. Fear is not conducive to cerebral thought and learning. Fear also stunts one’s self-awareness ego.
Critics of La Sierra University should adopt the meekness of a criminal defendant. You have to place trust in someone, particularly your attorney, even if you do not fully understand everything your attorney knows.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Dr. Pitman, I do not expect you to fully understand the California Supreme Court opinion or my explanatory comments. You have never learned how to think and reason like a lawyer. The law is much more mysterious to you than you realize.
I can explain a legal matter to you in all crystal clarity, but I cannot understand it for you. To respond to your last comment on the merits is fruitless, because I would just be repeating myself. I suggest that you read again the comments I have made on the various websites regarding this matter and La Sierra’s responsive statement.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Wesley Kime, you could learn something from Sean Pitman. He quotes what I wrote and does so fairly in one of his essays in which he mentions my name and discusses my views (regarding biblical hermeneutics and the relationship between Scripture and external science data). In contrast, you do not quote anything I wrote regarding the bond agreement. Instead, you misrepresent my views (in the eighth paragraph of your essay) in the strange lingo that you apparently find amusing.
It is elementary that boilerplate language has meaning that requires serious attention. The serious attention I give to the entire language of the bond agreement is evidenced by my review of the California Supreme Court opinion that explains what that language means. See, http://charitygovernance.blogs.com/charity_governance/files/california_supreme_court_2007_revenue_bond.pdf.
In your essay, you do not cite the Court’s opinion or quote and discuss the relevant language in the opinion. Instead, you invite innocent readers to surmise in their ignorance that La Sierra University is to be justly criticized for participating in the bond program.
Readers need to be reminded that the authority on California law is the California Supreme Court, not some novice who lacks appropriate feelings of embarrassment for making declarations on matters that are clearly beyond his expertise.
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.
Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?
