Both Jonathan and Sean make valid points. I agree …

Comment on Open letter to General Conference by David Read.

Both Jonathan and Sean make valid points.

I agree with Sean that: “A belief in an error is not, in and of itself, a sin. Evolutionists are not wicked just because they believe in a false theory.”

But I also agree with Jonathan that we are not here discussing non-Adventist professors in a secular university, who have no obligation to be familiar with Adventist teachings or creationist arguments. We are discussing people who are employed by an Adventist institution, who know what the Adventist doctrine is, who know what Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 say, who know what Ellen White has stated on this topic, and who know what Adventists expect to be taught at an Adventist school. Moral condemnation DOES attach to them for teaching Darwinism as truth in this context. In fact, Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman have pointed out repeatedly, in multiple forums, that it is dishonest and unethical for these people to act in this way, comparing it to people employed by Nike promoting Reebok. This is not an issue of innocent ignorance. This is a case of contumacious rebellion.

“The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.