Comment on [6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign by BobRyan.
Here is how the LSU side of “spin doctoring” works –
I point out that in the gang-of-four incident Bradley is the only one on public record (exempting that recording of course) in the tank for evolutionism.
BobRyan said : Bradley is the only person (among the four) that clearly has a link to the sacrifice-all-for-evolutinism strategy in the LSU biology department based on his own statements to the press.
Professor Kent:
Your characterization of an entire department (and in prior posts an entire university) as “sacrifice-all-for-evolutionism†because of the views of a few individuals is nothing more than propaganda. Do you truly believe in educating truth?
I then point out that Kent is the only one trying to drag in the “entire university” as the scope of those who argue for evolutionism at LSU.
Kent gets someone to take the bait.
Greg W: Lets get facts straight. Bob Ryan once wrote
In this board action LSU has found “air cover†for continuing down their present course — awaiting for a “proposed committee†to gain time resources funding and authority “by somebody else†– before they would ever to cease and desist their “sacrifice all for evolutionism†policy in place today.
Where has Professor Kent accused the university of a sacrifice all for evolutionism policy?
Well as can be seen in Kent’s own post above – he is the one dragging out the scope of “The entire university” into this.
not me.
And if you had actually included the full quote from my post you referenced above that point would have been clear.
I note that you carefully deleted the key statement in that post.
http://www.educatetruth.com/news/lsu-board-news-release-and-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-6304
BobRyan said:
I believe this is a perfect illustration of the thinking that went into that Board Action – we should not ignore it.This thinking is precisely why a pro-evolution LSU administration would so readily propose that “somebody else†come up with an Adventist science curriculum that supports a recent 6 day creation week – because in the minds of these evolutionists (as in the mind of Richard Dawkins) there is in fact “no such thing†as a scientifically rigorous curriculum that supports the Bible doctrine on origins.
….
In this board action LSU has found “air cover†for continuing down their present course — awaiting for a “proposed committee†to gain time resources funding and authority “by somebody else†– before they would ever to cease and desist their “sacrifice all for evolutionism†policy in place today. And their back-up hope on this is that since there is “no such thing†as a “scientifically rigorous science curriculum supporting a recent, literal 6 day creation week†whatever effort might be put into the non-existent committee – would be all for naught and might even result in a conclusion allowing all SDA science programs to embrace evolutionism since the Bible facts on the origin of life are not “scientifically rigorousâ€.
My post clearly points to this as LSU administration and LSU board actions. The context simply shows that they speak for the university at that level but never does the post argue that the entire university (every man, woman and child) is in the tank for evolutionism’s defense if not its belief.
In fact I repeatedly point to the biology and religion departments as the problem areas and have repeatedly given examples of success at LSU as in my often repeat of the enlightened actions of the LSU Chemistry and Physics department during Walter Veith’s visit on campus at LSU in the past month or so.
The spin doctoring that must be engaged in to support the various problems at LSU (as if they were a good thing) is astounding.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Colin Maunder: Re the Greenland planes. How quick the pseudo SDAs are to find an explanation that defends the evolutionary view, yet how quickly they belittle real SDAs that find explanations that defend the Bible view.
Indeed their actions reveal their true colors in the matter.
in Christ,
Bob
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
david: It’s amazing how otherwise educated adults give in to, and actually believe in the false promises and other BS they are fed at church and through these websites. A pure fabrication.
Has anyone here attempted verification of any of these religious claims?
Lots of pulpit-pounding in your statement – but no actual fact is disproved or even mentioned in your post.
At some point you need to say something – at the very least – quote something and then complain or affirm it.
in Christ,
Bob
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
Colin Maunder: Re the Greenland planes. How quick the pseudo SDAs are to find an explanation that defends the evolutionary view, yet how quickly they belittle real SDAs that find explanations that defend the Bible view.
As Kent pointed out when asked about his own work in that regard — he had “no time” or interest in any effort thinking about answers in support of the Bible account.
Oh well – at least he was transparent on that point.
in
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
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.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
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”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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
