Comment on NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science by Sean Pitman.
Even a 5-year-old would recognize the moral distinction between someone who publicly engages in name-calling and bullying versus someone who defends the ones who called names and bullied. Yet Dr. Pitman, with his advanced degrees, chooses to obfuscate.
Where have I engaged in “name calling” against anyone? Please do reference where I have done so…
What I see myself as having done is very much the same as what I’m sure you see yourself as doing – publicly defending those who have had no defense. I’m defending Adventist students and parents against the ardent and persistent attacks, by LSU professors of both science and religion, against the primary goals and ideals of the Adventist Church. I have no need for name calling or personal attacks. I’m simply presenting the facts as they really are and pointing out that this situation is not in line with the fundamental Adventist position on origins. I do this, yet again, in defense of those who have been defenseless for decades at LSU, who have had no voice, who have been overpowered and bullied by professors who hold their futures, their careers, in their hands.
Through many years prior to making this issue public, I spoke directly at LSU trying to encourage changes to take place there. I wrote numerous letters to and had several phone and personal conversations with the leadership of LSU as well as with the leaders of the local conference, union, division, and even to the General Conference President about these issues – all without any effect. Finally, I saw no further option but to warn parents and students and the church body alike of what has been happening at LSU for decades. All deserve to know. There is simply no reason why our young people should not be defended against such strong internal attacks by some very public method – just as you see yourself doing here with your public attacks against what you see as some kind of grievous wrong.
So now Dr. Pitman conviently dismisses PRINCIPLE and proclaims innocence by declaring POLICY, much like one would expect of a 5-year-old name-calling bully. Where in scripture or in Ellen White’s writings does one see an attempt by Jesus or the prophetess to shame others publicly and behind their backs, in front of believers and unbelievers alike, to harm their reputations and enforce behavioral change?
Where have I done anything behind anyone’s back? As far as I know, I’ve been very upfront and open about what I’m doing and what my concerns are for our schools.
Mrs. White was just as open and forthright over her concerns with the rebellious schools of her day, such as Battle Creek. She publicly warned parents not to send their children there. Regarding the education at Battle Creek she wrote, in no uncertain terms:
I was shown that it is Satan’s purpose to prevent the attainment of the very object for which the college was established. Hindered by his devices, its managers reason after the manner of the world and copy its plans and imitate its customs. But in thus doing, they will not meet the mind of the Spirit of God. – EGW, 5T, p. 22-23
And, as already noted, Jesus used very strong language, in public forum, to address the attacks on the church of his day from those leaders on the inside (Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:33, John 8:42-44, etc)…
Consider also the founding fathers of the early Christian church (St. Paul minced no words in this regard). The early church fathers publicly called out those who were attacking the church as a warning to all not to follow their advice or example. Along these lines consider also, yet again, the passages found in 1 Timothy 5:19-21 and Ephesians 5:11,12
Also, consider the reformed Christian church and what the fathers of the Christian reformation called out in public as wrongs against the people of God (as in Martin Luther’s 95 theses being publicly nailed to the castle church doors in Wittenberg).
The official SDA leadership will never stoop to Educate Truth’s tactics, and all SDAs should be proud of that.
I happen to know that a number of the leaders of the SDA Church regularly refer to the information on this website and have used this information to act, in a positive manner, to address the problems at LSU that have long been swept entirely under the rug…
While things may not be happening at the pace that many would like, positive things have happened and are happening which would never have happened without the impetus initiated by this website.
Of course, if you know how things could/can be done better, I’m all ears…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
@MiddleGround:
Again, I agree that the public confrontation of this website is not the most ideal method given any other more private method that would have actually worked. However, what else would you have done that has not already been tried to substantively address the long-standing and entrenched problem at LSU? I’d really like to hear some other reasonable approach to this problem that has not already been tried without any effect…
I’m sorry, but you guys seem to me to be more concerned about the reputation of teachers and institutions than you seem to be over the undermining of the faith of the youth of our church or the very long standing and determined attacks on various fundamental goals and ideals of the SDA Church – the SDA position on origins in particular.
Again, I ask you, why is it such a problem to publicly declare, in no uncertain terms, what parents and students can expect from our own schools? – especially given the great personal cost involved for most parents who send their children to our schools? Shouldn’t our primary concern be for them? How can such an effort to inform parents, students, and the church membership at large rationally be referred to as a “scorched earth policy”?
If our schools cannot proudly and publicly proclaim the honest truth of what they are teaching our young people, we obviously have a real problem. I don’t think it is right for individuals or institutions to hide behind arguments for Adventist privacy over what we actually teach in our schools while they attack the very fundamentals of Adventism, on the Church’s dime, for decades. It’s time for this sort of thing to stop.
If you have a better idea on how to get this done, I’m all ears…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
@Sterling:
As I’ve explained many times before, the maintenance of church order and government (i.e., only hiring those paid representatives who will actually represent what they are being paid to represent) has nothing to do with salvation.
These are not moral judgments. These are practical judgments regarding the maintenance of church order and government. One does not have to be SDA to be saved you know. However, one does need to be SDA to be an effective leader or paid representative of the SDA Church.
If you don’t believe in the SDA message, that Ok, just don’t expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church while you go about undermining the basic goals and ideals of the church. Try working for an employer who has goals and ideals more in line with your own.
Also, no one is arguing for the exclusion of anyone from basic attendance and worship with us in our churches. Anyone who actually wants to fellowship with us is welcome. Many of my best friends are not members of the SDA Church, a number are even agnostic and a few are pretty ardent atheists. Yet, we get along just fine and occasionally these same friends of mine come to my church with me to support something I’m doing.
You see, the problem here isn’t over basic socialization or diversity in worship. The problem is over paid representatives of our church attacking the church on the church’s dime. That’s the main issue here. No organization of any kind can long tolerate such subversive activity coming from within…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science
@Christina:
I actually agree with you on one level. I most certainly agree that a public forum is not the most ideal place to air any form of the church’s dirty laundry. However, at some point for certain important issues one is left with little choice but to use less than ideal methods to address very important issues within the church. For example, I’m sure Martin Luther wished there were some less public way to effectively address the significant problems of the church of his day rather than to nail his 95 Theses to the most public forum available – the front door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. Likewise, I very much wish there were some much more private and inconspicuous way to effectively address the active and long-standing attack on the church from within one of our own universities. Unfortunately, I was unable to think of any other way (which had not already been tried).
If you know of another way, by all means do share it with me…
You’ll have your reward one day.
You certainly sound gracious and Christlike to me 😉
How about at least giving me the benefit of the doubt as far as my motive and possible ignorance is concerned before passing moral judgment? How about at least pardoning me as far as Jesus did when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”? – Luke 23:34
But, perhaps, I’m beyond all hope? My doom is sealed? – for trying to protect Adventist young people in our own schools from the unending attacks on Adventism from within – from our own hired professors?
Oh, and by the way, while I get many anonymous E-mails and even hand written letters on occasion (which I do not read unless they are signed) I’ve only been privately contacted by a handful of individuals who’ve identified themselves and who’ve expressed concerns about the effect of this website. As far as the one’s who’ve actually identified themselves, all have been male (as far as I recall). So, I assume your private message must have been anonymous?
Also, you should know as well as anyone (and should explain to your friend in case she is not aware) that public comments to the articles posted to any discussion website like this do not necessarily represent the perspective and/or goals of the managers/owners of this website. The attitudes of many commenters certainly do not reflect my own positions or attitudes. What then should I do? – block all comments with which I personally disagree? – including yours?
Also, you’ve failed to respond to my most sincere question as to how the issue at LSU should have been dealt with? How would you have dealt with the problem? What, specifically, would you have done? I’m really interested in any useful advice along these lines…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.
Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.
In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. Her estimated net worth today is ~$51 Million (Link). Clearly, she’s done very well for herself…
It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor E.L. has also written (FB Post) an excellent explanation in defense of the affirmation statement and our denomination’s position on vaccines.
“The assumedly troublesome wording commonly highlighted concerning this issue is a misreading of intent in context, without trying to understand the sense in which it can be understood as harmonious with the rest of the statement which strongly affirms individual conscience. A charitable reading first attempts to understand what someone says in a sense that is harmonious, rather than immediately assuming they intend to contradict themselves.
The trajectory of the context in the Reaffirmation Statement suggests that when it asserts, “Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities,” this is likely because the church has not established a doctrinal position on vaccines that would require uniform adherence among its members. If it had, such a stance would then necessitate the church to defend it as a matter of religious liberty.
The issue of vaccination is multifaceted, and adopting a definitive for or against position within church doctrine would infringe on the rights of those who hold opposing views. Instead, the document consistently emphasizes that this is a matter of individual conscience and underscores the church’s support for such personal discernment. Accordingly, it states: “We recognize that at times our members will have personal concerns and even conscientious convictions that go beyond the teachings and positions of the Church. In these cases, the Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis, not as a Church position, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others.”
In essence, while the church has not elevated this issue to a doctrinal level requiring institutional defense, it remains committed to supporting individual religious convictions to the greatest extent possible. Personal convictions are respected and defended, even though the church as a whole has not taken—and could not reasonably be expected to take—a uniform doctrinal position on the matter.
To draw an analogy, Seventh-day Adventists could not argue that wearing head coverings in the workplace is a religious liberty issue because it is not a doctrinal requirement within the SDA faith, even though it is mentioned in the Bible. Instead, they could only frame it as a matter of personal conviction if they interpret the biblical instruction as still applicable today. While individual SDAs who support head coverings may personally view it as a religious liberty concern, the distinction lies in the fact that religious liberty claims are typically based on doctrines that a religion universally requires of all its adherents.
In contrast, Muslims can assert that head coverings are a doctrinal religious liberty matter because it is a doctrinally mandated practice within Islam. This highlights the difference between personal convictions and doctrines that are formally upheld by a religious institution when speaking of “religious liberty.”
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor Wyatt Allen (one of the founders of the Liberty & Health Alliance) wrote in a FB Comment:
Two things your article lacks are compassion and understanding. The first would lead to the second. Should I have more time tomorrow, I’ll try to be more specific and why I make this claim. Though anybody reading it would see the lack of compassion. I think the lack of understanding essentially boils down to misrepresenting what we’re saying. COVID and the mandates might be passed. But unless we learn from our mistakes during this time (do you say the church made no mistakes?) we will be unprepared to help in the next crisis. And when we are unprepared to help in a meaningful way, it really does hurt people. Actual people. As a minister of the gospel, I have seen the tears, I have heard the pleas, I have witnessed the freedom being ripped away. We can theorize and write articles all day long about Liberty. But until we actually stand up for it, all that comes across is coldness.
My response:
You seem to suggest that I’m opposed to religious liberty and that I don’t care for those who suffered. How can you know this? I mean, I am a strong supporter of religious liberty and have experienced personal serious attacks on my own religious convictions. While in the army I was brought up for court martial twice for refusing orders to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought were opposed to God’s commands regarding the Sabbath. I was threatened with jail time, the loss of my career, and financial damages. So, you see, I’m very much aware of how it feels to be personally threated for my own religious convictions. I also understand why someone who is opposed to vaccines would blame the Church for a lack of support during the vaccine mandates.
It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that I think that such efforts to blame the Church and the Vaccine Statements are misdirected since these Vaccine Statements repeatedly and specifically support individual choice in this matter. Recommendations regarding medical interventions, like vaccines, do not undermine personal religious liberties or the Church’s support for such liberties. The claims of the Liberty & Health Alliance to the contrary simply do not make sense to me. Even if the Church had no vaccine statements at all, I fail to see how this would have helped anyone during the vaccine mandates.
________
Additional responses to other comments from Wyatt on FB:
Wyatt Allen: You’re also asking Charles Downing (not sure of his medical background) to explain to me that the “so-called vaccines” have too many adverse reactions. You see, right there you’re showing your hand. The reason why you’re so passionate against the Vaccine Statements of the Church is because you truly believe them to be harmful and evil. While I sympathize with why you feel this way, consider that I feel the very same way for the opposite reasons. I saw ICUs filled with the very sick and the dying during the pandemic, the significant majority of whom were the unvaccinated. Several of my own workers who refused to get vaccinated ended up in the ICU and two suffered permanent injuries so severe that they can no longer work full time. Many more from my own church and community ended up in the ICU for the same reason. More than a dozen of my own family friends died because they didn’t get vaccinated. My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult saw many many more die while holding their hands in his ICU in S. Cal – even some who were young and vegan and otherwise healthy. So, yes, we are both very passionate about this topic. It’s one of the reasons why I try to force myself to be as objective as possible when I talk about this topic.
The reason why I disagree with you and Charles here is because I think you have a misunderstanding of the risk/benefit ratio for the mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general. You don’t understand the nature of VAERS (which is maintained by the NIH and the CDC by the way) since you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The VAERS database is used to sort out this difference. The claim of Charles that the spike protein produced in response to the mRNA vaccines sends the human immune system into “overdrive” and “taxes” and “weakens” it is false. This isn’t how the human immune system works. The spike proteins are broken down into small pieces called “antigens”, which are then presented to T- and B-cells so as to educate them to know what to attack in the future. This process happens every day and does not tax or weaken the immune system in the least. I mean, consider that a C19 infection would produce far far more spike proteins throughout the entire body for a much longer period of time. The mRNA vaccines, in comparison, are self-limited and are largely localized. Charles’ claim that the vaccines have produced a 40% spike in cancer rates and “turbo cancers” is also a false claim based on the claims of conspiracy theorists. I’m an anatomic and clinical pathologist with a subspecialty in blood disorders. I diagnose cancers every day. That’s what I do. I can tell you that there has been no increase in cancers associated with the mRNA vaccines. Beyond this, there is no mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines could produce such a spike in cancer rates. As far as Charles’ claim that the vaccines were not “thoroughly studied”, this is also a false statement. The mRNA vaccines went through all of the standard steps for vaccine testing and approval – to include double-blinded placebo-controlled animal and human trials with great success. There were no increased deaths, much less “25 deaths”, and the “adverse reactions” were minor and not beyond the expected rate in the 70,000 human volunteers. Also, the mRNA technology itself is not new, but has been studied now for over 30 years. It’s just that all of the necessary technological information came together at just the right time for the mRNA vaccines to make it to the general public soon after the pandemic hit. That’s just the nature and usefulness of the mRNA technology which Charles doesn’t seem to understand.
_____________
Wyatt Allen: I’m not sure what important question(s) of yours I failed to answer? Please do point these out to me again so that I won’t inadvertently skip over something that is important to you.
Regarding your current question, of course I make mistakes all the time. In my job as a pathologist I try to be extremely careful to limit my mistakes, but mistakes do happen since we are all human and subject to error. I often wish I had a “redo” button available to me so that I could go back in time and fix some of my mistakes.
I know that you believe that your argument (regarding all vaccines I think) is based on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy – and I respect that even though I don’t agree with you here. However, you are promoting your anti-vaccine position since you have presented numerous arguments against vaccines. I think these arguments are based on mistaken concepts and ideas, but, again, this is the reason for personal and religious liberty as long as these liberties don’t interfere with those of another.
I also understand that you want to plead for those who cannot effectively plead for themselves. I’m trying to do the same thing. I think that the misinformation presented by you and many others (particularly those like Dr. Peter McCulough) have caused untold injuries and deaths to many who would have been saved by being vaccinated. I also have no doubt there were those who misused the Vaccine Statements of the Church regarding mandates. While this shouldn’t have happened, again, I fail to understand how this is the fault of the Church? The Church has published many statements that have been misused. The same is true of many of the statements and claims found in the Bible itself. Is this the fault of the Bible? Should the Bible be rewritten because some of its language is confusing and difficult to properly understand by the many who have misinterpreted and misused it?
You keep repeating that the Vaccine Statements “exalt peer-reviewed scientific literature to the level of the Bible” – and that if I don’t see it this way that I should read them again. I’ve read them dozens of times and I still don’t see how you could possibly make this amazing, even shocking, claim. None of the leaders of the SDA Church would ever think to suggest such an idea – verbally or in writing. Certainly, no Christian physician or scientist would promote such a concept either. So, where are you getting this idea? The Vaccine Statements themselves make no such claim – not even close.
_______________
Wyatt Allen: The claim that the Vaccine Statements elevate peer-review literature equal to the Bible simply isn’t true. This claim is particularly shocking to me. I’m not sure how anyone could interpret these statements in this way? These statements are not statements of Fundamental Beliefs or doctrinal statements at all. They are simply general *recommendations*, not decrees or anything like that, regarding advances in medical science. That’s it. They specifically note that they are not to be considered doctrinal or in any way binding regarding the conscience of the individual – that the final decision is and should be with the individual regarding such issues.
Yes, words do matter, but in this case, I fail to see how your claims regarding the Church’s Vaccine Statements are valid or helpful moving forward since I fail to see how these Statements undermine individual religious liberty.
________________
Weston Greenwood: One can do both you know. I also advocate for both. I strongly believe the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous gift from God that saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries. At the same time, I’m also a strong supporter of personal and religious liberty – particularly for those who disagree with me. In the same way, the Vaccine Statements promote the benefits of vaccination while, at the same time, noting that one is perfectly free to disagree – and that this decision should take precedence.
________________
Weston Greenwood: The Church did bring this to a vote via the delegates at the last GC Session. It’s just that this vote went against you.
Again, if an employer bases his/her decision to mandate vaccination on the Church’s Vaccine Statements, then that employer is misusing these statements – which isn’t the fault of the Church.
And yes, just because the Church does not stand in the way of someone who wants to get vaccinated, and even encourages this, doesn’t mean that it, therefore, stands in the way of someone who doesn’t want to get vaccinated. Claiming otherwise makes no sense to me.
________________
Wyatt Allen: You’re essentially saying that, “Any outsider who reads the ADCOM statement will see it as binding”.
If someone does read it that way, they aren’t reading it correctly because that’s not what it says. It says that while the SDA Church, as an organization, is not inherently opposed to vaccines and recognizes their usefulness, it remains with the individual and individual conscience as to the final decision to get or not to get vaccinated – that it is not an issue of morality, is not a matter of salvation, and is therefore not doctrinal. That’s what it says. Those who read it otherwise for the purposes of enforcing mandates based on such Statements are clearly misusing them. And, obviously, such misuses are not the fault of the Church.
Also, contrary to your claim, the Church has not elevated peer-reviewed literature published in scientific journals to the level of Scripture. That’s a completely false and completely unfair claim – particularly directed at medical professionals like me who recognize the usefulness of vaccines while, at the same time, recognizing the final authority of the Bible in all questions of faith. It’s just that I don’t see where the Bible speaks against vaccines anywhere in its pages. The same is true for the Spirit of Prophecy.
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I think that there can be a reasonable combination of the best of modern medicine as well as the best of healthful living and natural remedies such as exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, “forest bathing”, good sleep, vegan or at least a vegetarian diet, etc…
