Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Phillip Brantley.
The interesting issue is how do we minister to those members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who are ignorant about science and the relationship between science and religion. These are possible approaches to take:
1. We can resist harboring the assumption that these Church members are unteachable. I regret that I have until now chosen to ignore Faith and her intemperate comments under the assumption that she doesn’t have a mind that can grasp what I am talking about.
What persuades me that this approach is untenable is that as Seventh-day Adventists we have an obligation to witness to others. Jesus ministered tirelessly to everyone. And to assume that someone is inherently incapable of understanding something is uncharitable and dismissive. I post this comment in recognition, albeit untimely, of my responsibilities (even though, as I suggested yesterday, I need to attend to other things).
2. We can be diligent in correcting misunderstandings. The comments posted by Faith reflect that she misunderstands my views.
I believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood. I believe in the Seventh-day Adventist method for doing theology. (Faith may not understand that we do have a method for doing theology). By seeking recognition of the fact that Intelligent Design is not science, I am in no way denigrating Intelligent Design, which is theological/philosophical by nature and in many ways compatible with the biblical account of creation. There is no offense intended by placing Intelligent Design in the theological/philosophical realm where it belongs. Indeed, I believe that truth lies in the theological/philosophical realm rather than in science.
I do not believe that evolution theory is compatible with the biblical worldview. But I recognize, as I must, that evolution theory is at present mainstream science. What Faith may not understand is that there is not to my knowledge one Church leader or theologian who disagrees with me on this point.
I may not have addressed all of Faith’s misunderstandings, but I have tried.
3. The third approach that may be helpful is to request a Church leader or theologian whom everyone respects to carefully explain the issues. Faith does not know me well enough to place any trust in what I say, but she might have some trust for particular Church leaders such as Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Clifford Goldstein, Dan Jackson, Doug Batchelor, etc.
I remember as a young boy sitting in Pioneer Memorial Church listening to Roland Hegstad carefully explain that the world is not under the control of the Illuminati. A lot of people were whipped up into a frenzy about the Illuminati thirty years ago, just like many are whipped up into a frenzy about science today. Because of the audience’s respect for Elder Hegstad, they deferred to his judgment. And the controversy came swiftly to an end in the insular community of Berrien County, Michigan.
I urge all Church leaders and theologians to help bring healing to the Church.
4. The fourth approach is to be longsuffering and patient with these church members. It is not difficult to properly teach an Adventist university student about science and the relationship between science and theology. But to teach 16 million Church members is a vast undertaking that will take time.
5 The fifth approach is to emphasize the probative value regarding what the Bible says about origins. Not only should there be increased study of the biblical account of creation but also the hermeneutical approach to Scripture formally endorsed by the Church in 1986.
I hazard a guess that less than one percent of all Church members understands the chiastic structure of the Genesis creation and fall narrative. Less than one percent of all Church members understands the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation that informs our understanding of the relationship between science and theology.
If greater education were provided in these areas, the hysteria and confusion about what is happening in Adventist university science classrooms would be greatly minimized.
There may be other suggestions that can be offered. And we should be aware that despite our best efforts not everyone will fully understand. But if they do, then their understanding of the issues and their spiritual development will be greatly enhanced.
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?
