Comment on The SECC stands for something by BobRyan.
3SG 90-91 identifies the problem of theistic evolutionism as “the worst kind of infidelity”.
The Bible exposes evolutionism as “dead wrong” in the way that Ex 20:8-11 summarizes the chronological sequence of Gen 1-2:3.
Professor Bradley openly publishes the fact that LSU is engaged in that very deed – evangelizing for evolutionism!
LSU’s own students, prior faculty, parents of students, course documentation (etc etc) confirm that the problem is just as real as the evidence suggests.
So then what is the less-than-insightful response from evolutionism’s devotees to evolutionist dogma??
On May 29, Spectrum reported on a web site attacking La Sierra University for employing faculty members who teach naturalistic evolution. Today, three months after the story broke, we now know that the website, â€œEducate Truthâ€ originally created anonymously, is owned and operated by Shane Hilde, a high school English teacher,
Now that part was just riveting wouldn’t you say??
Eric continues –
(Shane) who attended both LSU and Weimar and who lives near Loma Linda.
Clearly, Shane Hilde and those allied with the Educate Truth website intend to stop at nothing short of forcing the firing of La Sierra University faculty members. This despite the efforts of President Jan Paulsen to put out the embers of controversy with an article reiterating the churchâ€™s stance on the issue of origins. Undeterred by both union and world leadership caution, Educate Truth has sought to push the issue, funneling old self-supporting and traditionalist fears about church change toward the La Sierra University Biology Department. As has happened in the past â€“ from Glacier View to Southern to Walla Walla â€“ when academics are attacked, the personal becomes all too political.
Where is the “substance” in that article??
Is the argument “evolutionism should be taught in our schools because it is not nice to fire evolutionists?”
Is that the level of “content” that the author is offering??
Or are we “supposed to imagine” that Jan Paulsen’s comment that our schools need to be creationist should be a sign for anyone awakened by the problem at LSU to “go back to sleep and ignore the problem — it will surely go away now that Paulsen has suggested that LSU reconsider”.
The latest episode involves La Sierra student Carlos Cerna. Cerna attempted to insert Young Earth Creationist views in a capstone biology course final paper. When Cerna was told that his paper was inadequate for the objectives of the course, he accused professors of grading him harshly
Hint: for actual Seventh-day Adventists a paper on origins would not “insert creationist views” it would be BASED IN creationist views – and then someone could well try to “insert evolutionist fiction” in the middle of it – with an appeal to junk-science combined with some liberal “storytelling” —
But in a public university – that would be viewed as “inserting young earth creationism into an otherwise all-for-atheist-doctrine evolutionist course”.
The author of the article has apparently flipped over to the public university “context” right in the middle of an article supposedly intended for Seventh-day ADventists about a Seventh-day Adventist university!
Cerna exchanged emails with his professors, but did not get the response he wanted. His paper was given a â€œCâ€ grade, which Cerna felt was reprisal for his Young Earth Creationist views. Cerna then leaked his email correspondence with Gary Bradley and Lee Greerâ€“who co-taught the courseâ€“on the Educate Truth site.
Inside Higher Ed, a prominent news site, wrote about Cernaâ€™s interactions with his professors and about the contents of Educate Truth in an article entitled Creating Controversy. The article included statements from Bradley and Cerna. When Spectrum contacted the reporter requesting comment on how the story was initiated, he demurred, saying only that the information was in the public domain.
Hold the phone!!
Is this where the author simply choked when it came time for “factually reporting” Bradley’s –down with the Bible– and –all for evolutionism– public position to the press, and also the Greer-Bradley -evolutionism is all that exists- theme hammered into their coursework! Or is this where “Bradley commented at some point” is found to be the most substantive insight that the author could muster to address the salient point of the discussion?
How instructive for the unbiased objective reader that Eric simply glosses over details inconvenient to his story.
As usual – evolutionists can’t help telling the world just how unreliable their methods are – if given enough rope.
BobRyan Also Commented
Itâ€™s amazing the SECC is taking such a strong and public stand for this issue, yet has remained silent about La Sierra promotion of the theory of evolution as the truth.
In the article one of the accusations against Pastor Batchelor is that he has failed to respect Church authority by upholding the voted statement of two GC sessions on the subject of ordaining women pastors.
Regardless of which side of the women’s ordination as pastors issue that you are on – it would still be a stretch-wrench-bend of logic to claim that upholding the stated GC session vote is an act of defiance against Church authority.
Irish: This conversation started with the observation of the alacrity with which SECC pounced on pastor Dougâ€™s sermon, while they have been mute regarding the attack on a fundamental teaching of Adventism, and a foundational concept undergirding all of scripture. This is a very important issue for the credibility of the SECC administration. In fact I would suggest that a similar issue of their relationship to the word of God vs contemporary thought is the underlying cause. The same hermeneutic that accomodates the rejection of the biblical gender based roles and also the Deistic evolutionary or even Darwinistic evolutionary hypothesis.
Is it mere “coincidence” that the SECC based “theologian in residence” at LSU – who has been there to project an extension of the Seminary at Andrews – “just so happens” to endorse all the agendas listed above and now “predictably” so also does the SECC leadership appear to support those same agendas?
Some would view it as a tree producing fruit consistent with the tree itself.
The SECC stands for something
So Two years ago – Bradley’s statement that he did not consider evolution to be junk and would not toss it out the window just because SDA doctrine rejects evolution – was the “sign” that Bradley and the entire LSU biology department were no longer following his stated position and in fact had just turned a corner on that point?
I find Kent’s logic illusive just then.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind