WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy
@Bill Sorensen:

Bill Sorensen says:
August 22, 2010 David Grams said…..

“Maybe those of us who contribute to this site should emphasize a bit more often that indeed there are top-notch believing professors who fully support the Genesis Creation Story and who teach at La Sierra University.”

We might wonder, David, why these “top-notch believing professors” are not demanding accountability of those who do not teach the biblical creation account? Have we come to the place where “Am I my brothers keeper?” has now become the norm so we can shirk our responsibility to demand accountability?

Curious that they do not come here and voice their concern about evolutionism being taught at LSU.

Recall that in the evolutionism defense league there is more than just diehard evolutionists. There are also people who “prefer” to believe in the actual Bible account – but who also believe that evolutionists professors are equally entitled to evolutionist doctrines for origins instead of the Bible and nobody should make evolutionists feel “less than” for strictly promoting their own faith at SDA teaching institutions instead of the Bible.

And there self-titled “creationsts” who do not believe the Bible is actually the “Word of God” but rather is the Word of “man” (ignorant and living in a non-science culture) borrowing ideas from Egyptians when it comes to key doctrines and trying to give their own spin on what God may may not have said – with the result being “the Bible”. And they are often unhappy with our Fundamental Beliefs as voted doctrine – preferring to refer to them as “descriptive” – as in a News Paper story about “a culture” at some point in time — rather than an affirmation that doctrine of that sort is actually correct.

There are self-styled creationists of the Kent variety who think that science SHOULD always present belief in evolutionism as if it were proven fact – because for them – by definition -belief in evolutionism IS science and believing FSM cultural myths is just a personnal choice in conflict with science – believe it “if you like”.

Bill – in your statement above – you appear to refer to faculty at LSU that would be conservative to the point of believing the Bible as the Word of God, believing that neither the bible nor the Fundamental Beliefs cannot be bent to support doctrines on origins found in evolutionism, and then “silent” as they support their faith in spite of the host of variations above that oppose them at LSU. (Much like many of the Bible-believing SDA students who unwittingly selected that campus without knowing what they were getting in to. I.e those 300 students that complained in 1998).

I too am wondering if that segment exists at LSU and if so – do they feel so threatened by the pro-evolutionist and also the protect-evolution crowd at LSU that they dare not speak out?

in Christ,

Bob

---

WASC considers outside efforts ‘threatening’ to LSU’s autonomy
#1. LSU is not even remotely an autonomous institution from the Seventh-day Adventist church. In fact the religion department and deans of students are paid directly from Church tithes.

2. Those who have sent gifts to LSU have done so under the pretense that this is an actual Seventh-day Adventist institution rather than an independant ministry or organization. If they try to make the claim that LSU has not been an SDA institution for as long as WASC has been approving accreditation – there are going to be some financial records and legal agreements to be resovled.

3. The SDA church has a number of other teaching institutions in that same area including LLU and PUC. The same requirement to support Fundamental Belief #6 is applicable there as well. Legal documents will show that these schools did not start up as independant ministries. If charters have changed such that they are now considered autonomous and no longer a part of the Adventist Church – someone needs to let Seventh-day Adventists know about it.

I am wondering if maybe WASC is not being “played” by someone who wants to bluff their way through the problem at hand.

4. On the other hand – if the WASC is in fact trying to tell LSU and LLU and PUC that they need to look for another accreditation body that is willing to allow for the concept of a privately held University that is owned and operated by a specific denomination – then so beit. Maybe now is a good time to start looking.

in Christ,

Bob

---

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

---