@Professor Kent: While this is a conspiracy, it is not …

Comment on The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account by Shane Hilde.

@Professor Kent: While this is a conspiracy, it is not a conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no reason based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU that the information in the article is reliable and true.* This person was in the fray of it all. This isn’t someone who merely researched this, thus the ‘eye-witness account.’

*I have absolutely no reason, based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU, that the information in the article is unreliable or false.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Bill Sorensen: Indeed, prophecy is a powerful affirmation of the veracity of the Bible. I think we both agree then that God has given us abundant testimony that his Word is truthful.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Sean write that we all have an inherent knowledge of love and truth, but here’s what I do know for certain. God has revealed himself through nature too despite it being mared by sin. Here is what Paul said:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Notice that God revealed the invisible things about himself through his creation. The attributes of God can be understood through the things he has made, even his eternal power and Godhead. No one is without any excuse. Many will be saved who do not know the name of Christ.

Granted there are limitations to what nature reveals, and so we have God’s divine revelation, which for the believer is our ultimate standard of truth. For those who do not yet believe this God has made a available other avenues to arrive at truth such as the laws of logic and observation of the natural world. Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is continually working on our hearts, especially those who are seeking after truth. The Holy Spirit also reveals truth.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Bill Sorensen: Sean and I have discussed some of the ideas that have been going back and forth here in regard to evidence and faith etc. I haven’t been able to put my finger on it yet, but I believe I’m getting closer to understanding what the big difference is between what Sean is saying and a few others. I believe you are speaking from the perspective of someone who already assumes the Bible to be true–a divine revelation of God’s will to man. Sean on the other hand is speaking from the perspective of those who do not share that view, of which there are many in our church.

I think all he’s been trying to communicate is that if there is no way to validate the claims of the Bible, then on what basis can we claim that it’s any more authoritative than the Koran or Book of Mormon? Anything that validates the Bible can be considered evidence.

Do you not agree with what Ellen White said, “God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant” (MR No. 724).

Spiritual truths are grounded in physical realities. If we cannot show the Bible to be true in some form, than on what basis can we claim the spiritual claims of the Bible are true? Does that help clear things up? I think the circles you guys have been going in have been somewhat pointless, because I don’t believe you guys fundamentally disagree. Two things are causing the confusion: perspective and semantics.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Professor Kent:

I’m afraid that most EducateTruthers think only in terms of a top-down solution: let’s force administrators to get rid of the “offenders.” The reality is that the situation will only improve when bottom-up strategies are discussed with seriousness: how do we get some high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks?

I agree that some attention should be paid to how we can get “high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks.”

Who, in your opinion, qualifies as an “EducateTruther”? Someone who comments here? Someone who agrees with our stated goals and purpose?

Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?

Defining just how we learn and how we teach, especially in the field of science at this institution is important. ‘Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution,’ said Dr. Gary Bradley, a professor of biology and genetics at La Sierra. He explained that for most conservative Christians, the word ‘evolution’ carries the usual anti-God connotation. However, for a scientist, the word represents the process by which all kinds of alterations and modifications happen in our world. Dr. Bradley believes that the Creator God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur, and urges everyone to learn as much as they can about our Lord’s created universe. ‘There is abundant evidence that living things change. Thus evolution is well documented and well supported in the scientific world. It is unconscionable for a science student to remain ignorant of this fundamental aspect of life.’

What kind of evolution is Dr. Bradley speaking of when he says God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur? Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution, says Bradley, but he doesn’t define what he means. This is exactly the type of vague, slippery language that is used in order to cloak what these professors believe and how they’re teaching evolution at LSU.

Indeed, the word “evolution” does mean many things to many people, so it suspect when Bradley makes his observation and then makes a vague, undefined comment about what he believes. Remember this is the same Bradley who was quoted in INSIDE Higher ED”

‘It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,’ Bradley added. ‘That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.’

There is an obvious difference between what the Seventh-day Adventist Church views evolution and Bradley. LSU just doesn’t get it. Everybody already knows what’s going on there, but they continue to pretend otherwise.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777: Do mean like mainstream papers, written by evolutionists are exclusively peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Yes, I’m aware that there are creationists that write for mainstream journals and get published and perhaps there a small handful that peer-review too, but the percentage, I would guess, is very small. So small in fact that the point would be moot.

The journal is created by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so I’d be surprised if it was being peer-reviewed by evolutionists

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Alexander Carpenter: Great comment Alex! I’m trying to compare our journalism to an article you posted at Spectrum May 29, 2009, in which you, Bonnie Dwyer, and Jared Wright referred to David Asscherick as a “college dropout” twice in the same article (1). What was that all about? It was pretty obvious to your readership. A pathetic attempt to mislead and attack someone who actually supports and believes in the Seventh-day Adventist message. You then made the false assumption that he didn’t support Adventist higher education. I believe he took it upon himself to personally call you and point 10+ errors that were in the article. Do you remember that call Alex? Wow, that must have been embarrassing. Yes, we regret not contacting Dr. Ness before we posted his lecture, but at least we got the facts straight.

You’re really reaching with the old article hyperbole. I was personally aware of the article last year and I believe a few other readers here were too, because I remember it being posted in the comments. It’s particularly relevant now in light of the claims coming from PUC. Raising the “we’re creationists” flag high and mighty, when in actuality the impression these evolutionists had was quite different.

We average 32,000 hits per month. And that’s from this year. Sorry, people are still showing a very strong interest in this topic. Dwindling? Not by any amount worth clicking over here to leave a fish bowl comment. Come on Alex, you’re more connected to the church than this aren’t you? Your worldview in regard to origins is, aside from being unbiblical, a minority within the world church.

What’s ironic about the situation with PUC is that you work there and you’re not exactly a creationist. I wouldn’t be surprised if inwardly you’re ashamed to hear PUC ranting and raving about what a creationist Dr. Ness is and the rest of the biology department.

Sorry, you’re way off on this one. This issue is huge in the church and it’s not going away anytime soon. Chances are the underlying issues could cause a serious split, which is actually already occurring, in our church.

1. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/29/unravaling_witch_hunt_la_sierra_under_seige

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent: “Old news” is a bit relative in this case. Yes, this occurred two years ago, but the professors haven’t changed nor has the way they teach evolution.

Your last paragraph only proves my point. You make wild assertions about there being no evidence while ignoring the evidence being presented. For starters what do you say to the testimony of 70+ students in 2004? Or the testimony of three students in 2009? The statements from the professors themselves. The syllabi?

You baffle me Kent, you really do.

No evidence? Common on. I’d say I hope you’re joking, but you’re not. You really believe that.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
This is almost funny. The world quite easily sees how evolution is being taught in our own universities, but a small, but quite vocal group, just doesn’t get it. It seems, more often than not, that those who just don’t seem to see things for the way they are at LSU tend to be more sympathetic toward a hermeneutic that is contrary to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.