Comment on [6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign by BobRyan.
BobRyan: Obivously the Inside Higher Education article did a more “complete” job of explaining the problem to the world. You on the other hand – are predictably devoted to “spin doctoring”.
Neither Inside Higher Education nor you listened to the conversation. I did. I’m speaking from facts that formed my personal opinion, and you accuse me of “spin doctoring.” So what is the basis of your “spin?”
I am always facinated by the things you think I do not know or have not done.
Do you really enjoy just making stuff up to that extent? On what basis are you making such wild claims?
BobRyan Also Commented
[6/17/11 UPDATE] Two administrators, one biology professor, and one board member resign
An interesting addition to the note above –
Mark Bruno: I see that they were told that if they did not resign, their comments would be shared with the board. What’s so bad about that? If these comments were actually harmless and trivial, why would they care if the board heard them. I suspect that the comments were probably quite damaging and perhaps actionable. It was their choice to resign. In the end, they have reaped what they have sown.
Professor Kent: I socialize with many SDAs, non-SDA Christians, and non-Christians, and I have to say the conversation closely resembled a very normal conversation among very ordinary (albeit frustrated) SDAs.
That statement says a lot about Prof Kent.
I can’t believe he said that out loud given that even Inside Higher Ed admits to the vulgar content on the tape (in the context of supposedly Christian college).
SATBGIRL: And remember, the University system was, itself, designed by the Christian church, as a way to encourage and expand our understanding of the universe
Point well taken – we should go back and look at just why the SDA church decided to divert tithe, gifts, offering money to establish a university at all.
Why not just funnel all of those resources into more Gospel evangelism and leave the teaching of evolution to the existing schools of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s?
Was it because Adventists were bent on promoting belief in evolutionism even though 3SG 90-91 identifies it as the “worst form of infidelity”??
Is that why we created these institutions?
Was it because we had the gospel mission of “better calculus… better physics… more devotion to evolution” and we were dissappointed in the failed efforts of other universities to provide those benefits to mankind?
How wonderful to have a Math Physics Chem department at LSU where professors can model the blend of science and religion without compromising either.
How sad that the LSU biology and religion departments could not master that same level of accomplishment.
You rightly argue that we should look at our founding mission and goals when we created our schools.
By contrast a number of complainers have come to EducateTruth and insisted that we NOT go back to the original purpose and mission for schools like LSU. Their arguments are effectively insisting that our new mission should be “to be the best public university that SDA tithe, tuition and offering dollars can buy”.
Your post exemplifies the high goals of such a public university. Turns out the world already has them. No need to divert SDA tithe, offering and tuition dollars to create more.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.
No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Obviously the references abov
I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.
But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.