PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?

By Educate Truth

Prof. Bryan Ness

On October 28, 2010, Dr. Bryan Ness, a biology professor at Pacific Union College since 1989, gave a lecture to a class of theology majors during a colloquium. Throughout his lecture Dr. Ness presents numerous challenges from mainstream science for the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood (seeming to favor a local flood). He references evidence for a local Black Sea Flood around 4,500 years ago along with a complete lack of scientific evidence for a worldwide deluge as Seventh-day Adventists have historically believed and taught. He also presents questions regarding the importance of the literal 6-day creation week to Adventist theology.

[The video has been pulled until we are confident it complies with copyright laws.]

Dr. Ness has research interests in plant systematics and genetics and an advisory role at PUC in the areas of biology, natural science, veterinary medicine, medical radiography and occupational therapy.

Per report, Dr. Ranzolin, head of the theology department, and Dr. Jean Sheldon were also present in the room during this lecture.

Note that PUC has recently responded to this video clip arguing that Dr. Ness was simply role-playing or playing Devil’s advocate; not actually promoting the definite bias he seemed to be supporting in his lecture against the position of the SDA Church on origins (Link). Many others have commented below that Dr. Ness is a rather outspoken advocate of the SDA stand on a literal 6-day creation week – which is encouraging.

However, as Dr. Ness himself notes in the comments below regarding a worldwide Noachian Flood, “As it stands now I have an open mind on the subject (and I would hope you and others could respect me for that). I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.”

While admirably honest, we find that statement rather disheartening coming from a well-respected and much-loved SDA professor in one of our schools of higher learning. We wish Dr. Ness and all other professors teaching our youth would be able to present evidence for why the SDA position on origins, to include a worldwide Noachian Flood, is a very rational position from an empirical perspective that goes beyond blind faith. Our students need reasons to believe – not just a long list of tough questions without any answers provided by those who are in the best position to know at least a few good answers and competing evidences to give to our youth. Our youth are earnestly searching for good reasons to view the Bible as credible and the basis of the Gospel Message as rational.

After all, the SDA Church has officially asked (at the most recent GC session and prior) for all of its educators to promote the Church’s position on origins. Consider the following request from the General Conference Executive Committee of 2004:

We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html

Now, we take the word “all” to actually mean “all”. Of course, Dr. Ness did in fact educate his students in his lecture regarding the competing philosophies of origins that dominate contemporary science. However, Dr. Ness did not offer anything to counter or even buffer these interpretations of the evidence. In this particular lecture, he did not even hint at “a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation” or the “global nature” of the Flood.

We certainly welcome him to do this if this is in fact his true goal in the education of our youth. We’d gladly post any video clip or personal statement along these lines that he is willing to submit (in addition to those already posted). Such a statement would go a very long way to clearly putting the video clip presented above into much clearer context. However, the students leaving this one particular lecture would have had to leave with serious doubts in their minds as to the solid credibility of the Biblical accounts as well as the SDA position on origins. That, in our mind, is not the goal of Adventist education.

UPDATE 11/5/2010: Ness’s reference to the formerly lax language of FB#6 (courtesy of Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty) in his lecture is no longer valid and should never have been a valid argument for professors in our own schools to see themselves free to undermine the credibility and fundamental importance of the historical SDA position on a literal creation week and worldwide Noachian Flood. But, since many of our professors have in fact been hiding behind the claimed ambiguity in the wording of FB#6, this language has now been more clearly defined, as of this latest GC session (and even as far back as the GC’s executive committee statement of 2004), to include the word “literal” when referencing the creation week.

Now, there may indeed be many who consider our posting of Dr. Ness’s lecture, to be uncalled for; but the word should be out by now to SDA professors at large that they are not free to teach whatever they want in our own schools without any question or general knowledge as to what they are really teaching our youth by the Church membership at large. We all have a right to know what and how our own young people are being taught in our own schools – and to have a say in this process.

UPDATE 11/6/2010: In fact, the following is an audio clip from a talk he gave for a colloquy at PUC on October 22, 2009 (see: link to PUC website), in which he seems to strongly support the literal creation week:

UPDATE 11/7/2010: Below is a short clip of relevant excerpts from Dr. Ness’s discussion with PUC’s theology majors (originally over 42 minutes long):

UPDATE 11/8/2010: From a comment posted by a former PUC student @Benjamin Burkhardt regarding what Dr. Ness taught him when he was at PUC between 2004 to 2006, regarding a local vs. a global Noachian Flood:

In REGARDS TO NOAH’S FLOOD some minor issues came up for me. I did not quite understand what Dr. Ness was trying to say about it, but I didn’t like a point that was made. So, I asked him about the matter after class and he explained to me that perhaps the flood could have been a more local event, and the authors of the Bible were reporting it merely as they had perceived it.

This is not some minor point. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history. It is an argument that is directly in support of the idea that life has existed and evolved on this planet far longer than the SDA belief that all life on Earth is very young and that death did not exist here, for any sentient form of life, until the Fall of man.

Dr. Ness may not consciously realize it, but his teaching on this particular topic of a local vs. a worldwide Flood is a big problem for an SDA institution like PUC.

419 thoughts on “PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?

  1. Even though I believe firmly in a recent 6-day creation, I find your tactics against Dr. Ness as despicable.

    The dishonesty of posting a video without one’s consent, grossly out of context and therefore, false, is not worthy of a website that portends to defend Seventh-Day Adventism.

    For those who think EGW is behind such tactics, you should know that she would abhor such dishonesty:

    “It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honour the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny.” (Evangelism 166).

    This post is shameful and will only bring disgrace to the SDA Church.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. Dear fellow PUC Students/Alumni,

    You have made me so proud to have chosen PUC as my school for my bachelors education.

    PUC has, is, and will continue to be a place where well rounded and educated students are produced. Students that can continue on to live full enriched and spiritually fulfilled lives thanks to the administration and professors at PUC.

    I an heartened to see so many PUC supporters stepping up to make a public defense of Bryan and give context to a manipulated situation. I also thank those for giving their full names and not being afraid of creating a open discussion.

    Furthermore I feel that it is impossible for us to limit our dissuasion to simply the issue of this one 40 minute lecture. Context is what makes any event relevant.

    It would be wrong to limit some event to just one part. If history was foolish enough to only present one event without context we would look at individuals such as Ghandi as nothing more than a man who broke British law, Martin Luther as a blasphemer who dared to manipulate the doctrine of the church, and even Jesus Christ as a disturber of Roman peace.

    I hope that with continued dissuasion we will be able to discern a holistic view of this video.

    -Scott Brizendine

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. Sean, Shane.

    Sadly I think you are not looking for actual discussion, but rather are like a 5 year old who has something personal to hide and is screaming his head off at anyone/everyone else to divert attention from his own problems.

    Instead of coming here occasionally to see what may or may not be happening at SDA schools I will no longer waste time or energy on your digital temper-tantrum.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Inge Anderson wrote: “I wonder if some of the many PUC students who have posted in support of Dr Ness can honestly testify that Dr Ness teaches that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin, even if science cannot “prove” it.”

    You apparently overlooked my earlier post in which I asked “So where is the video of Dr. Ness standing in front of the entire college at Colloquy last year, talking about what happened on each of the six days of creation, which he defended as being literally true?” I can honestly testify that Dr. Ness stood in front of the entire college community–not just a classroom with a few dozen students–and preached a sermon about the six literal days of creation. In what way does this fall short from your expectations of a SDA biology professor? Why is it that Educate Truthers tend to focus on negative aspects of SDA education and ignore the positive?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Sean Pitman wrote: “However, the SDA Church is also welcome to its own opinion as to what is and is not true. And, just as importantly, it is free to hire only those who accurately represent what it thinks is true – regardless of if you think the Church is completely nuts.”

    If you would be willing to answer the following questions I would be most grateful:

    1) Can you remind me which fundamental belief of the church or which page of the church manual states that only those who believe that the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation should be allowed to teach science in a SDA institution?

    2) Do you honestly believe that most SDAs believe the weight of scientific evidence supports special creation?

    3) Can you name any SDA science professors who actually believe that the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation?

    4) How do you define scientific evidence?

    5) Do you honestly believe that >50% of the data published on Earth history in scientific journals support traditional SDA beliefs of Earth history more than those of atheistic evolutionists? Or do you selectively cherry pick only the data that support your views as “scientific” and discard the rest as being “non-scientific”?

    6) If you believe that Dr. Ness should resign because he does not believe that the majority of scientific evidence supports a worldwide flood, can you name a potential candidate who is suitably qualified to replace him?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. There is a MAJOR issue that seems to be totally ignored by these progressive thinkers and teachers – the evidence they present is horribly slanted.

    When I went to Union College I too was faced with a science teacher who promoted ideas that seemed contrary to the biblical model (actually Prof. Ness is far more rational and balanced and I would be happy for him to teach my kids). My professor seemed to favor the students who dismissed the literal creation story and even marked me wrong on a test with an added comment about my ignorance when I stated that I had faith in the Bible over what science claims. To be fair, one of the evolutionist students could possibly have been his grader.

    What I haven’t heard from these (I believe well meaning) science professors is that the “scientific evidence” for a non-global flood and macro-evolution is so biased that it is unreliable. Of course the preponderance of the evidence points against a biblical model. It would make no sense if that were not the case based on the preconceived notions of those that present the “evidence” and the methods and interpretive tools they use to view the world. If 99%+ of the scientists instead believed in a literal creation week that happened thousands of years ago then the overwhelming weight of evidence would point that direction.

    We saw scientific bias used to try to prove the inferiority of many races to justify seizing land, persecution and slavery. They believed these races were lesser so they sought biological proof and published findings that supported their prejudices. We see tobacco companies, oil companies, and many others employing scientists to filter evidence and create “sound reasoning” based on biases that favor their companies. Lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense bring expert scientists to show their arguments are correct.

    Macro-evolution is a theory and a faith with thousands of biased scientists using billions of dollars to prove this is the origin of life. So, when the experiment shows a different result they will retest because those findings can’t be right. When evidence points towards a young earth the test must have contaminated. When dating tests reveal wide dating differences from the same sample, the one that comes closest to what they expected must be the accurate test and the rest are faulty.

    Again, the “evidence of origins” would be dramatically different if the same number of scientists and resources had been employed with a bias towards creationism.

    These professors in our universities did not themselves create the evidence they are sharing; they are looking at the work of a biased scientific community. But when it is shared with statements like, “there is room for diversity,” I ask how diverse is the scientific community? How much time, effort and resources do they spend exploring the possibilities of other origin theories? How do they treat scientists, professors and teachers who teach creationism? From what I have seen and heard the scientific community is much more dogmatic about macro-evolution than Adventists about creationism. My academy aged kids have all been exposed to the theory of evolution, but in state run schools like I attended creationism is not allowed to be taught.

    I stand on the Bible’s account of the flood and creation first on faith then on evidence. Just as the vast majority of the scientific community stands on their beliefs first on faith then on evidence.

    Professors seeking to share a balanced scientific view need to realize there is no such thing.

    God bless!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. @Eddie:

    If you would be willing to answer the following questions I would be most grateful:

    1) Can you remind me which fundamental belief of the church or which page of the church manual states that only those who believe that the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation should be allowed to teach science in a SDA institution?

    The Church has official asked (at the most recent GC session and prior) for all of its educators to promote the Church’s position on origins. Consider the following request from the General Conference Executive Committee of 2004:

    We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.

    “We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

    http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html

    Now, I don’t know about you, but I take the word “all” to actually mean “all” – don’t you? Dr. Ness did in fact educate his students in his lecture regarding the competing philosophies of origins that dominate contemporary science. However, Dr. Ness did not offer anything to counter or even buffer these interpretations of the evidence. In this particular lecture, he did not offer “a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.” – or the “global nature” of the Flood.

    I certainly welcome him to do this if this is in fact his true goal in the education of our youth. I’d gladly post any video clip or personal statement along these lines that he is willing to submit…

    2) Do you honestly believe that most SDAs believe the weight of scientific evidence supports special creation?

    If you don’t believe that the weight of empirical evidence supports the credibility of the Bible, why are you a Christian much less a Seventh-day Adventist Christian?

    3) Can you name any SDA science professors who actually believe that the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation?

    Arthur Chadwick, Arial Roth, Leonard Brand, Tim Standish, Christina R. Harris, etc. Even Dr. Ness believes in that the scientific evidence favors the need for Special Creation of life.

    4) How do you define scientific evidence?

    Hypotheses or theories based on empirical evidence/data – hypotheses/theories which are testable and potentially falsifiable and are able to produce predictive value over random guesswork.

    5) Do you honestly believe that >50% of the data published on Earth history in scientific journals support traditional SDA beliefs of Earth history more than those of atheistic evolutionists? Or do you selectively cherry pick only the data that support your views as “scientific” and discard the rest as being “non-scientific”?

    I do indeed believe that the significant weight of currently available published data strongly favors the SDA position on origins – to include the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood within recent history and its role in the formation of much of the geologic column and fossil records.

    6) If you believe that Dr. Ness should resign because he does not believe that the majority of scientific evidence supports a worldwide flood, can you name a potential candidate who is suitably qualified to replace him?

    I only believe that he should resign if he feels compelled to challenge the Church’s position on origins in class. Otherwise, it is perfectly possible to teach biology without exposing one’s bias against the Church’s goals and ideals on the topic of origins or any other of the Church’s clearly stated goals and ideals. In fact, the vast majority of biology has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life on Earth or the meaning of the geologic column or fossil records…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. It appears as though we have heard testimonies posted here from many students who have taken classes from Dr. Ness. Why is it that none of the biology students who take multiple classes from Dr. Ness are complaining about him undermining SDA beliefs by advocating abiogenesis, macroevolution, long ages for life on Earth, or that Noah’s flood was only a local flood? Is video evidence of a lecture the only way he can be exonerated (i.e., guilty until proven innocent)?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. From an outside perspective reading this article and the dialogue following it, which went far beyond informative to cynical from the authors stance, I find it hard to support the position of the article when the only person I found to discuss the issue with a Christian attitude is Dr. Ness who would have been completely justified to respond defensively. Instead, I’m finding it more than difficult to find the author’s Christianity in any of this dialogue-other than what he claims to possess as his justification of the bitter way in which he has presented what could have been informative, and has become pure criticism. I hope future posts will show the Christian attitude which Dr. Ness has been able to show, while being criticized for free speech and his words being taken out of context.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. @Eddie:

    It appears as though we have heard testimonies posted here from many students who have taken classes from Dr. Ness. Why is it that none of the biology students who take multiple classes from Dr. Ness are complaining about him undermining SDA beliefs by advocating abiogenesis, macroevolution, long ages for life on Earth, or that Noah’s flood was only a local flood? Is video evidence of a lecture the only way he can be exonerated (i.e., guilty until proven innocent)?

    A personal statement from Dr. Ness would do just fine also…

    It is interesting to note that Dr. Ness repudiated mainstream notions on abiogenesis his lecture to the theology students, but he did not do so when it came to challenging a worldwide Noachian Flood or long ages for life on Earth. He also mentioned in this particular forum that he personally recognizes no good evidence for a worldwide Flood. Of course, if he would like to present the evidence as to why he thinks a belief in a worldwide Flood is the most rational conclusion for the SDA Church given the totality of all available evidence, and/or a recent literal 6-day creation week (despite the consensus of the scientific community), that would be great…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. @Sean Pitman:

    @Sean:

    I find it troubling that you keep making references to what Dr. Ness did NOT say. For me personally I have yet to take a college class that covers every issue in a topic in a 40 minute window. I would hate to think that our anatomy and physiology classes would prepare a pre-med student to continue on to grad school after taking one class.

    So likewise in a 40 minute lecture Dr. Ness was only able to present so much information to theology students concerning the other views out there on the flood.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. I am another former student of Dr. Ness from a few years ago at PUC. I am also the product of 20 years worth of schooling in the SDA education system (1st grade through high school, 4 years of college, and 4 years at Loma Linda).

    As a life-long Adventist, I have been quite adequately engrained with the traditional SDA beliefs and interpretations on the Bible. I’m also quite certain this group of PUC theology students have no lack of knowledge on what the SDA church believes on Creation and the Flood. Once a student has reached college, the time for memorizing and regurgitating facts is over. Instead, college is a time for critical thinking, asking why, and exploring and discussing about new ideas. As a former student, I can assure everyone Dr. Ness facilitates this kind of exploration in a healthy and God-fearing manner.

    We, as Adventists, are making a huge mistake if we refuse to even consider the fact that we might not have everything all figured out. What an ego-centric view that is! Our understanding of God and his word should be, and is, always developing and evolving (yes, I said evolving). God didn’t create us as robots to simply memorize all the data, and then stop processing it. We are supposed to continue to study, ask questions, and think for ourselves. That is the essence of the idea of present truth.

    The real issue here should not be whether a teacher should be allowed to discuss these kinds of sensitive issues, but why there are so many closed-minded people who feel so threatened that it is occurring. This mentality will stifle the thinking and education of our colleges.

    As young Adventist graduates, we leave the protected bubble and enter a world where the people we interact with believe a lot of very different things. It is our responsibility to not only be educated on different views, but to be able to maturely discuss them, and not judge those people who think differently than us.

    This open-minded mentality was an extremely important thing in my college education and helped me develop the critical thinking skills I now use everyday.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. I am fascinated by those who keep speaking of how much they’ve learned about the Bible, and how to have a loving relationship with God, while at PUC. [edit] If Darwinian macro-evolution is correct, and if God is the originator and overseer of this process, who would want a relationship with a god like that?

    If God is the author of evolution, it means He is the author of pain, death, and the brutal, merciless process of natural selection. No apologist for theistic evolution or the tolerance of such teaching in the church has yet explained to me how such a worldview can be harmonized with the gospel of love, mercy, and grace as taught in the Bible.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. I applaud Dr. Ness for presenting ISSUES that arise in such topics like the flood. What I am appalled by is how such “educated” people are refuting that there are issues on BOTH sides.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. I wonder how many teachers or teachers-in-training take seriously the warning by the Apostle James: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” James 3.1|KJV

    @Inge. I have lost sleep many the night over this very verse. I’m glad you bring it up. I take the risk this verse warns of because I want to help my students navigate this very difficult topic before they have to do so alone when they are confronted with it in a purely secular realm. I am sorry if my meagre attempts during a single 40 minute discussion do not seem to indicate my concern in this area.

    It should also be mentioned that I have presented very similar talks at some of our local churches, some of them quite conservative, and was thanked profusely for my willingness to share with them so openly and clearly. I am sorry if none of this comes through in the video, but I welcome anyone to sit in on one of my classes where I teach about creation/evolution issues. Unfortunately, in order to get the full picture of what I present you would really need to attend 4-6 lectures, which is the typical time set aside to deal with these topics. Also, although I don’t have time to visit a lot of churches (because I am responsible for teaching one of the Sabbath School classes at the PUC church), I am happy to speak when I am available.

    God Bless,

    Bryan

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Thank you to all the PUC students standing up for Dr. Ness.

    To Sean/Shane/et all. I’m sorry I want the best TEACHER teaching me when I go to an sda school, not the best ADVENTIST.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. @Bryan Ness:

    Educate Truth does not question whether or not your support Adventism. Besides that being an ambiguous state, it doesn’t say much about anyone because a devote atheist could support Adventism. Neither are you being criticized for criticizing “anyone for believing as they choose to believe.” I have no reason to doubt your respect for “those who believe in a literal Genesis flood.” With all due respect these issues you brought up in your first post are irrelevant because they simply aren’t true. I don’t know where you got this information, but I don’t think it was from anything that was published on Educate Truth.

    You also claim that Educate Truth wants a “rigid doctinal adherance rather than a frank discussion of what the real issues are.” This is an odd statement considering Educate Truth has a comment feature. You’ve been the only biology professor, that I know of, that has taken the time to comment here that doesn’t appear to adhere to the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis. I really appreciate it too. LSU was effectively shut down by the powers at be, which made any sort of dialogue impossible. Trust me I tried to contact a number of them personally at the beginning.

    My primary contention with the lecture in the video was the consistent questioning without any substantive answer. Granted, not all problems have an answer, but the presentation was lacking in the affirmative for the biblical creation and worldwide flood.

    In some of your comments it appears that you presuppose some of the assumptions of evolutionary theory to be true. For example:

    1. (13:15) “There is not good geological evidence around the earth for one [worldwide flood] at that time [4500 years ago] or anytime.”

    2. (14:54) “At about 3 billion years ago fossils begin to show up. So how do you explain fossils through a few billion years of rock in terms of anything but that they were old and been there for a long long time.”

    3. (16:50) “There is actually multiple dating techniques that give pretty much the same answer.”

    4. (After 3:00) “Of course if you ask an archeologist he’s going to say there is evidence for humans in the new world that goes back tens of thousands of years.

    To date, the class you lectured in has not been given a lecture that presents the evidence for a worldwide flood, recent life on earth, etc. I hope they plan to do so. I know LSU does not offer a course in the biology department that does this. Mostly because many of the professors do not think there is any such evidence. It appears you would agree with them. But why can’t student get access to biology professors who do think there is evidence?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. I am sadden by the way WE (Christian) act toward each other. It is also sad for me as a Future pastor and PUC attendee that someone would post such an incomplete video of the class. If the video started from the beginning of the class and in its full context it would better make sense and be a non issue. This reminds me of a situation that Jesus dealt with when a woman was accused of adultery and brought to Him. Jesus said to the people that brought her, if any of you have not sin cast the first stone. Too often we are eagerly waiting for someone to fall in hopes of pointing out the specks they have in their eyes. I hope brothers and sisters if a speck is in my eye, you would show me grace and help me out, Instead of coming to me with judgment while there are 2x4s protruding out of your own eyes. Let us not get caught up in he said this and that. If you feel like there is a problem lets pray for each other.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. @D. Montanez: The video is hardly incomplete. Keep in mind the class starts at 11:00 am on Thursday and ends at 11:50. There was also about a 5 minute devotional at the end of the lecture, plus they started a few minutes late. The video features 40 minutes of solid lecture, now how is this video such an incomplete video?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. @Shane Hilde:

    @D. Montanez: The video is hardly incomplete. Keep in mind the class starts at 11:00 am on Thursday and ends at 11:50. There was also about a 5 minute devotional at the end of the lecture, plus they started a few minutes late. The video features 40 minutes of solid lecture, now how is this video such an incomplete video?  

    Because as numerous people have said the part explaining why and for what purpose Dr. Ness was giving the lecture was left out. Context Context Context.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. An SDA school is not set up simply to present all sides of an issue without any bias in favor of the SDA perspective. After all, what’s the point in having an SDA school if the SDA position on the topic at hand is not favored by the professors who are presenting the topic?

    The “point” of having an SDA school, Sean, is to provide a safe place for SDA youth to learn (and debate) the whole (read: complete) truth as it pertains to both their faith and their world, not simply to serve as a place of blind indoctrination. Implying that professors should always favor the SDA position on any topic they present leads me to believe that you are completely missing the “point” of education, SDA or otherwise.

    If our schools are not clearly supportive of the unique SDA goals and ideals, there really is no point in having our schools vs. sending our young people to a non-denominational Christian school or even a public university in some cases…

    Allow me to swiftly dispel you of the notion that PUC and other non-dogmatic SDA schools are no more of an asset to the SDA student than non-denominational or secular schools, or that they are driving young people away from the Church; if anything they are helping us stay put. In fact, attending PUC was the single contributing factor to my decision to remain a Seventh-Day Adventist, and had I chosen to attend a different university I likely would have left the Church a long time ago on the basis of its intolerance and narrow-mindedness. Yes, PUC has opened my eyes to a lot of conflicting ideologies, because–newsflash–college does that, but being able to turn to like-minded individuals who were going through the same inner conflicts helped me to feel less alone and ultimately convinced me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that, for me, is the “point” of attending an SDA school. I suppose one person’s testimonial means next to nothing to you, Sean, since you seem to have already made up your mind on the issue, but gross generalizations are not my style, and I am reluctant to speak for the mass of SDA college students/graduates, though I suspect that more than a few of them have had similar experiences in our schools.

    I see some here using the term “believe in creation” a loosely. Just because someone says he/she believes in creation doesn’t mean she/he believes that God created all the original animals and us within six-days.

    Heaven forbid that someone should allow for the possibility of symbolic truth in the Bible. Can I ask, Shane, what makes the literal six-day creation week so paramount to one’s faith in Christ? Is your faith so weak that you must dwell in the minutia in order for your life to make sense? I honestly cannot understand some people’s obsession with literal truth, especially in light of all the Biblical symbolism that has been revealed and accepted by Adventism since our Church’s inception. Why is it not enough to believe in God AS WELL as in evolution? Why does that make me less of an Adventist?

    I think there is something seriously wrong because the man is clearly biased in this video, leaving little room for the student’s to decide for themselves.

    Wow, Lisa, you must have little to no faith (no pun intended) in the intellect of the average PUC student if you really think one man’s lecture is going to drastically sway an entire group of them into believing as you think he does. Perhaps you are confusing PUC students with their much younger counterparts raised in the Adventist system who are too young and naive to question what they are told, but I assure you that PUC professors do not resort to that particular brand of primary Sabbath-school tactics.

    Remember, one only realizes that he or she was in the clouds of deception when such deception has passed.

    Funny, that’s exactly the realization I came to in a single year at PUC regarding my staunch Adventist upbringing.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. @Shane Hilde

    The video is incomplete because it skips the prelude and context given at the beginning of the lecture. Via PUC press release:

    “At the start of the class, religion professor and Ministry Colloquium coordinator Myron Widmer provided the context for the upcoming discussion before Dr. Ness stepped up to the podium. But the posted video does not include this introduction; for unknown reasons, this important frame of reference was left out.”

    Mr. Widmer told the class that the objective of Dr. Ness was to present information in the world of Biology that did not agree with SDA beliefs.
    If you were present at the lecture like I was, you would know this is a non issue yet you persist to try to drum of criticism that is unwarranted.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. And Shane,

    “To date, the class you lectured in has not been given a lecture that presents the evidence for a worldwide flood, recent life on earth, etc. I hope they plan to do so. I know LSU does not offer a course in the biology department that does this. Mostly because many of the professors do not think there is any such evidence. It appears you would agree with them. But why can’t student get access to biology professors who do think there is evidence?”

    1. How do you know the class has not been lectured about evidence for a worldwide flood?
    2. How do you know students cant gain access to biology professors who think there is evidence?

    You are assuming, and as a PUC student, I know first hand – something you are lacking – that evidence for worldwide flood is presented to theology students and students have all the access in the world to speak to biology professors.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. Where do I even begin…I suppose with the post that first caught my attention.
    Lisa: You refer to the teaching staff of PUC as “the problem as a whole” and specifically site the Honors program as being “rampant” with it. I honestly find it hard to believe you are really a PUC-ite with a statement like this. If you have attended PUC for any length of time at all, you should know that the teachers are some of the most spiritually well-founded people you can ever find. They have deeply-founded beliefs and are always willing to talk to their students about whatever issue may arise in their classes. They do sometimes teach views that oppose the Bible and the Adventist church; that is true. Does this mean they are advocating them or encouraging students to leave the church/become atheists? No it does not. It means that they are encouraging THOUGHT. I’m sure that something to this effect has already been said here, but it is impossible for faith to grow properly without being opposed, tested, shaken, and otherwise challenged. Having true faith means more than simply knowing what you believe or what you have been told. It means knowing WHY you believe what you do and being able to stand firm despite opposition. The teachers of PUC know this–because they have experienced it for themselves–and are striving to provide essential stimulus to encourage students to find their own reasons for believing. Simply because they teach a concept contrary to the doctrine, it does not mean they “believe in their own intellectual ability over the Bible”. God gave us minds for a reason; we were meant to use our intellectual ability to understand and internalize His teachings so they can become a part of who we are, not merely something we are told.

    Second, I want to address all who have been decrying this teacher, this school, this community as being a cause of lost faith: What would you have them do? Would you have all Adventist schools simply be mouthpieces of the church? Would you have them barricade our institutions against all secular influence? Several have made the point–with which I agree–that an Adventist establishment should promote the Adventist viewpoint. But I cannot abide the concept that that should be ALL they are allowed to present. Teaching is not about simply repeating a specific set of facts or concepts; it is about facilitating understanding. Understanding is brought about through analysis and discussion of all available information. If there is only one viewpoint presented, there cannot possibly be understanding and if it does not bring understanding it means it is not teaching. What good are our teachers if they are not allowed to teach? How can they facilitate understanding if they have to edit their lessons around anything that might not fit into the prescribed frame? As for this process of teaching causing students to loose their faith: If something like this is enough to break a student’s foundation, it means that they never had the chance to build confidence in their belief. And if they truly have never had their faith challenged before, is it not best that it happen in a safe environment? Should they not have a chance to create a truly solid foundation before being thrust into the world? If this process cannot take place in our schools, where can it take place?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. It’s clear that Shane is missing the point about the contextual truth of this video. As the statement by PUC makes clear, what’s missing from the video is precisely the introduction where a religion professor explains that the point of this talk was to present one side – the scientific challenges. Whomever created this video acted in poor faith by leaving that out.

    As a professor who teaches classes on Christianity and media, omitting the beginning, or not including a written note about the context, was a dishonest act. It is a significant sign of clear editorial control that the video starts right when Educate Truth is mentioned.

    As they fail to marshal the evidence, we’re seeing more and more of these sorts of desperate and sloppy moves by the Educate Truth crowd where apparently the end justifies the means, and fellow Adventists are mere collateral damage.

    It is pretty odd to see folks who don’t teach at the college level telling others who do how to do their job. That Shane and Sean both keep flogging the corporate analogy that Pepsi workers don’t promote Coke shows how little they understand academia, and other professions. Next will we see Shane demanding that judges are illegal for issuing dissenting opinions from the bench? The Educate Truth crowd is trying to impose a radical shift in Adventist academia. Instead of publishing articles in scientific circles, they are acting politically, trying to attack actual people, and intimidate professors into bending to their radical notion of learning, where students are too stupid to make up their own minds and need to be told what to believe.

    Adventist academics shouldn’t misled about what Adventist beliefs are. But Educate Truth wants to redefine that role radically. In fact, it’s strange because while telling professors how to do their job, they seem to be mixing the job of pastors and evangelists with that of professors. If these guys really want to Educate Truth, they need to get off their ‘puters and into the laboratory and Adventist classroom themselves.

    This is a classic witch hunt slipping into excess as they turn on Bryan Ness, an avowedly creationist professor who is not afraid to ask difficult questions. These are classic Christian discussions about origins that have been debated in theological classrooms for hundreds of years. But Shane and Sean have decided that we don’t get to seek truth, only educate it, because they have, without earning doctorate degrees in science, figured it out. And those who continue to ask questions will be surveilled.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. @Bryan Ness: You’ve been the only biology professor, that I know of, that has taken the time to comment here that doesn’t appear to adhere to the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis. I really appreciate it too. LSU was effectively shut down by the powers at be, which made any sort of dialogue impossible. Trust me I tried to contact a number of them personally at the beginning.

    I have said as much as I have the time or need to say on defense of myself. In spite of my own acknowledgement that I support the church’s stand on origins as outlined in fundamental belief #6 (of course, not said in so many words) and the repeated testimony of those who know me, you persist in statments such as that above. In light of such a judgemental spirit I must respectfully withdraw from further communications concerning this issue.

    In spite of the fact that the video you present on your web site was obtained in a highly unethical manner, and is certainly an illegal bootleg of the lecture I presented, I hold no malice. Rather I feel sorry for people who think that because they are so sincere and the issue is so pressing and the costs are so high, that they feel justified in using unethical and illegal methods to carry forth their campaign. I feel violated, and in spite of my graciousness in this matter continue to be judged for what I may or may not believe.

    In essence what this seems to boil down to is that you do not like my pedagogical approach, at least as taken in this 40 minute video. I can respect that. I am by no means a perfect teacher, but I still prayerfully carry on as best I know how. If others can do better, I would gladly step aside and let them do it. I only continue to lecture on origins out of a sense of duty to my church, my God and my students. Otherwise I would see no need to continue. I have no interest in indoctrinating students into either methodological materialism or Seventh-Day Adventism. I hope that they remain faithful, vibrant, trusting Christians and I hope they will continue to believe in and support the church I belong to and serve.

    I guess I am just tired of having you and a few others here at Educate Truth continue to judge my motives, personal beliefs, and my realtionship with God. I have always been a believer of the concept that actions speak louder than words. Of course, it would be difficult for you to judge me on my actions unless you spent some time in my classroom, my church or my home. By the same token, it would be unfair for me to judge your motives, personal beliefs or relationship with God.

    With that, I bid adieu. Know that you and your web site will be in my prayers. May God use you in some way to be a blessing to others. Please know that because I do not plan to respond any longer that I am not being rude if a message is directed at me and I do not respond.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. @ Sean Pitman

    [asked by Eddie] Can you name any SDA science professors who actually believe that the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation?

    [Sean Pitman’s response] Arthur Chadwick, Arial Roth, Leonard Brand, Tim Standish, Christina R. Harris, etc.

    Frankly, I don’t believe you, Sean. Until these individuals find the courage to come here and state publicly that they absolutely believe that the the weight of scientific evidence favors special creation, I will assume you are making hollow assumptions that you cannot back up. Again, I do not believe you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Sean, I find it interesting that you have not addressed my posts.

    I’ll say it more bluntly: you are a filthy liar if you insist that the weight of biological evidence favors a global flood that at one time covered every square inch of land and can’t back it up with biological evidence. And I mean filthy. If you can’t respond by admitting there is meager evidence for your view, or backing it up with solid scientific evidence, then your silence will convict you as a Seventh-day Deceiver.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. Theologically I have a problem with recording and posting this video without permission of Dr. Ness. The Bible is not a Biology text book. I believe in the Bible, in God, and creation. However, the Bible does not answer all the questions of the natural world, nor does science for that matter. This person whom I assume is a theology student has exhibited highly unethical and illegal tactics. Anyone who knows Dr. Ness and has actually had a class from him would know this is ridiculous to say he undermines the Bible and its teachings. I am extremely disappointed in this person who chose to tape and post this. They are not acting in line with the teachings of the Bible! The question is, do we want to be indoctrinated or educated?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. As a current Student Missionary representing PUC in the Philippines, and have attended PUC for the last 3 years. I Fully support the belief’s and statements my fellow PUCites have made. As a biology major I have taken two classes with Dr. Ness, and have been educated in both creation and evolutionary sides of this argument. But at no point did i ever feel that Dr. Ness has not supported the Adventist church with his teachings. Dr. Ness prepares his students by educating them on both sides of many controversial scientific beliefs like creation vs. evolution, by allowing students to hear both sides and the evidence that supports it, to enable the student to be educated on both sides so he or she can better support themselves. Dr. Ness does not force his own beliefs on his students, he opens doors for students to gather knowledge to support their own beliefs, as do all professor’s at PUC.
    As a current missionary I have a front seat, and have seen the affects of sin in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Just in my own mission we have hundreds of believers and members in our church’s, but only 60-100 of them show up. This is because sometimes individuals feel that they have to be forced to believe all the doctrines our church teaches. Yes I strongly believe in the doctrines of our church, but I also believe on doctrines alone we cannot be saved. I believe it is between us and God, our personal relationship with Him, that can saves us.
    Just this past week God taught me a lesson. I was hiking with a medical mission group to Mt. Polanza and we hiked into a small town. After our long hike i began to explore. I noticed a mother hen with her chick’s following her. There were 9 chicks in total and i noticed that two were different. Then a small breeze blew through the trees and it began to get cold. Then i noticed that the mother hen called her chick’s under her, and she protected all of them equally. Then i began to contemplate what makes people different, color, ethinicity, belief’s. Why on the basis of all these differences create such seperation in our World today? this is because sin has entered our world. God’s blood was spilt for all of us. We are all made in God’s image. God created us to think differenty so we can all share in God’s love in different ways so was can share it with others. Under God we are all the same. Our belief’s in doctrines and the bible or even any scientific belief in this article’s context does not make does not unite us. It is the fact that we all serve an all powerful God that has spilt His own blood for each of us that we all may be saved. That is what unites us. The fact that by God’s blood different people, who don’t look the same, and don’t necessarily believe the same are united as one group, one family of God, is the beauty and the blessing i receive from being a Seventh-day Adventist, and PUC has helped me realize that.
    I am proud to be student at PUC and it was an honor to be taught by Dr. Ness and all PUC professor’s, because i knew that whatever i believed in everyone one of them supported me and cared for me regardless. That is the love that PUC has shown me, and that is the love God has shown me, and i hope everyone can experience that.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. The issue with PUC is not evolution but rather their lax perspective on Adventist lifestyle choices. Our campus is rampant with a large variety of forms of affection, from students whom ‘make out’ to individuals whom are under blankets on the glass areas through out the campus. Sabbath observance is loose to say, at best – students are often found studying, working, playing video games or other activities which not acceptable for Sabbath. Other examples are abound, PUC is perhaps as liberal as LSU and it is hurting our perspective on Adventism.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. This discussion over Dr. Ness amazes and saddens me, and makes me proud to attend PUC. Though I do not wish to join a huge debate, I must say I am happy to see challenges thrown at Adventists, because eventually, I want to be able to debate both sides and show that I know what I am talking about. When we live in a bubble and the world around us is bias, what do we expect is going to happen when something about evolution is thrown at us? I would much rather know both sides, because ignorance is not flattering. Just because you know and debate both sides, doesn’t mean you stand behind all of it. Some of the ignorance shown here is discouraging to say the least. I support this little jolt that Dr. Ness has given such a large group of people.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. The election of the day before yesterday was further evidence that there are two Americas; the heartland is one kind of country, but the Northeast and West Coast are like a different America altogether, with completely different values.

    Likewise, there appear to be two Adventisms. There’s the Adventism for whom the creationist/EGW narrative of earth history is mandatory and non-negotiable, and then there is the West Coast/Northeast Adventism, which casually suggests that it is time to think seriously about substituting theistic evolution, a figurative creation “week”, and a local flood for the creationist/EGW narrative. At a minimum, this “blue state” Adventism insists on official pluralism–that there be no official Adventist narrative of earth history, and that all views are equally “Adventist.”

    I just don’t see how there is enough common ground to hold these two Adventisms together. They do not share a common respect for the prophetic authority of Ellen White, and they do not share a common biblical hermeneutic. Seriously, what is suppose to bind us together? Vege-links?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. Given that this thread started with thoughts of people being open and honest, I would like to do the same and share some observations:

    1. I have not noticed anywhere in the history of EducateTruth where Shane or Sean have ever backed down, or rethought, any of their positions, whether they be over factual matters or perspectives of other people. Dialogue often results in some modification, even if slight, of one’s position. Is it possible for Sean or Shane to modify their position on anything??? If they are not able to modify their perspectives, is this suggestive that they may not reflect the spirit of Adventism. Can they point to any position they may have modified.

    2. Dr Ness sounds like the type of person that I would like to know – someone who understands that there are issues to be canvassed, and can do this from a position of rock solid faith in God. Solidly Christian, and solidly Adventist. And intelligent to boot, too.

    3. I had a roommate at an Adventist institution that loved perfection in the Adventist church. Yawn…

    4. I think Sean should be placed in charge of an Adventist University (one not funded by my dime), charged with keeping the faith, and responsible for recruiting like minded faculty, as well as retaining academic credibility. The measure of his success would be in ensuring that the institution reflected the Adventist position (as defined by Sean) 100% of the time. And achieved in a way that was academically and economically sustainable, and did not require relocation to a third world continent. Would you accept such a position, Sean?

    5. I recall a former conference president, commenting about some righteous critics – they sit in the front row of church, avidly listening to your sermon, listening for anything they can take out of context and blast to the world. Do I want to be a part of a church like that. No I don’t. Is EducateTruth positioning themselves as the critic that sits in the front row focused on everyone else’s error?

    6. Which institution will you be targeting next?

    Sorry Sean and Shane, but I find it very difficult to get excited about your “ministry”.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. I am a current SDA student at Pacific Union College.

    Dr. Ness allowed bright and competent theology/religion students to think about how they could respond to issues in religion concerning scientific interpretations. Some students verbalized their responses, while some were silent, but not due to any sense of defeat of science over religion; instead, his lecture seemed to allow the students to personally reflect on these issues, without trying to spoon-feed them with answers or sugarcoat these widespread scientific views.

    It is no secret that science does not attempt to accommodate religion. The purpose of science is to describe the natural world by observation and experiment, but it does not presume supernatural forces because they are not “testable or potentially falsifiable.”

    “I don’t think our teachers should be telling our students that the best we have going for us is blind faith against the otherwise overwhelming weight of empirical evidence and rational scientific thought. That’s not going to impress the rational mind…”
    Sean Pitman (Nov. 2, 2010)

    You are right, Sean Pitman; this will not impress rational minds. What, then, do we do? You seem to suggest that we should assume a literal six-day creation, and then find evidence for it. This may eventually work, and it is often the method (a sort of back-solving method) religions use to justify their beliefs… but it is not how science works. Science looks for evidence first and then comes to a conclusion. I believe that both methods can work, but you must also understand that science does not have the benefit of assuming the existence of God, and it may take a longer time before it reaches any conclusion in favor of religion.

    “I wonder if some of the many PUC students who have posted in support of Dr Ness can honestly testify that Dr Ness teaches that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin, even if science cannot “prove” it.”
    Inge Anderson (Nov. 3, 2010)

    Dr. Ness’ job in a science class is to educate his students on what science informs us about the world; science has no responsibility for accommodating religion, so Dr. Ness has no responsibility in specifically affirming his beliefs about anything unscientific during class. Dr. Ness, however, graciously takes the time to point out possible discrepancies in scientific interpretations dealing with the origins of the earth, evolution, etc., and also addresses alternative nonscientific views, such as the traditional SDA view, along with their possible discrepancies.

    “Does he also teach that science cannot ‘prove’ origin by evolution any more than it can ‘prove’ origin by creation?”
    Inge Anderson (Nov. 3, 2010)

    Science cannot fully “prove” either origin (yet). There are discrepancies in both. There seems to be more evidence for evolution in the scientific community; there seems to be more evidence for creation in the Christian community.

    “Does Dr Ness help his students understand that the “science” of origins is not hard science but, rather, “historical science” which is closer to the realm of philosophy?”
    Inge Anderson (Nov. 3, 2010)

    Dr. Ness has mentioned it as a historical science as opposed to a hard science, but never, to my knowledge, talked about its association to philosophy.

    So far, not one of the persons posting in support of Dr Ness has said anything that confirms that Dr Ness actually teaches that Genesis is literally true and that such a belief is reasonable in the face of the scientific evidence.”
    Inge Anderson (Nov. 3, 2010)

    Dr. Ness teaches that both a belief in creation and evolution take a tremendous amount of faith to believe in, no matter how much evidence we have, and both are “reasonable” in the face of scientific evidence; other scientists, however, may disagree.

    “… And they’ll know we are Christians by our love.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. As a PUC student, I’m really ashamed that someone on a campus I have grown to love would seek out the opportunity to try and destroy a man’s image online. Bryan Ness while not being a teacher that I know as well as some is a great man, a kind-hearted individual and one who strongly believes in God and the Adventist church. Bryan Ness will be supported by too many for this to be something that lasts, but it is just a shame to see that their are people on this campus who will greatly modify the story, and leave pieces out to make it seem differently. A PUC class is 50 mins, some times more than 40 mins of lecture, sometimes less, simply put, if the entire lecture had been recorded this issue would not be present. Being one who wants to be understand humanity and grow in my own college education and one day be a professional, and being in a community of many whom wish to do the same, could someone please explain what this does positively for anyone? Differences of opinion and different sides of the story should be presented, even at Adventist schools dare I say.

    I just find it incredibly embarrassing that there are Adventists who would attempt to destroy a man’s reputation as a great teacher like this. Shame on you once again Educate Truth, educate what truth?, how about educating the truth that this video is NOT the complete lecture, and educate people of the truth that this post is of malicious intent.

    @Shane Hilde, Stop saying that you know what is going on, you were not present at the lecture, you don’t know when the camera started, and when the lecture began or ended, only that 40 mins were recorded, there was more said, many students can say the same, end of story. Did you ever think maybe there was an explanation for the nature of the lecture before it began? Also, Shane, did you ever consider that maybe there have been discussions in support of a flood. Please stop making references to things that you do not know, you are leading a crusade based on assumption. Yet as much as you assume, you couldn’t assume that just maybe, he also at other times has talked about the other sides to the issue?, because this is not a black and white issue.

    It deeply troubles me that your website before explaining anything says, ” La Sierra University promotes evolution” Please tell me how this is to be taken seriously, the Westboro Baptist church has a nice way of doing the same thing with some other statements, and the way I see it, why should I take you anymore seriously? I’m sure you have some answer for that too, but as you make yourself perfectly clear in your statements, you know all of what happens here.

    You embarrass me as an Adventist, but I hope you realize, you embarrass yourself.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. @D. Montanez:
    It is also sad for me as a Future pastor and PUC attendee that someone would post such an incomplete video of the class. If the video started from the beginning of the class and in its full context it would better make sense and be a non issue.

    Given that this video contains Ness’ own introduction to the topic and his on concluding statements and everything between – your comment above seems to be lacking evidence.

    However you may be referring to the idea that the person introducing Ness’ might have claimed something to the effect “Ness does not believe any of what he is about to say, he is simply playing devil’s advocate for us at our request”.

    However to his credit Dr. Ness does not claim to have been doing any such thing (nor does that “I don’t believe this” idea appear to be the case in the lecture).

    Ness said
    I take the risk this verse warns of because I want to help my students navigate this very difficult topic before they have to do so alone when they are confronted with it in a purely secular realm. …

    It should also be mentioned that I have presented very similar talks at some of our local churches, some of them quite conservative, and was thanked profusely for my willingness to share with them so openly and clearly. I am sorry if none of this comes through in the video, but I welcome anyone to sit in on one of my classes where I teach about creation/evolution issues.

    Bryan Ness says:
    November 2, 2010 Just to be clear on a few points. I have no problem at all presenting the kind of information presented in that discussion to any group of church members, and have done much the same kind of thing on many occasions. The audience in the case of this presentation was a group of religion and theology majors. I was invited to simply share with them the current issues around origins facing the church today, which I did.

    I do modify the content somewhat in different venues, and most of the time, because I am not taking such a broad sweep at the whole area of origins, do not delve into some of the individual topics. The point is that I have no problem with others seeing the video, I have nothing to hide, it’s just that some discussions are more appropriate for one group than another.

    Ness makes no claims at all to presenting false science or playing devil’s advocate. Rather he takes the high ground of trying to confront Adventists with what he believes to be the serious issue of science (confirmed facts in Ness’ view apparently) vs some of our Doctrinal statements on origins and the flood.

    From the lecture video – Ness is engaged more in a lively philosophical discussion rather than presenting actual analysis of science data, or science methods. He makes broad sweeping statements about what he believes science to be telling us in a given area and then invites discussion. Of course the religion dept students immediately bring up the problem of contradiction between what Ness is broadly claiming as the facts of science, vs what God tells us in the Bible and vs things God told Ellen White on the subjects covered by Ness (the flood and the 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago).

    Ness responds by trying to find ways that the Bible and Ellen White’s statements on these subjects might be bent or restated to fit alchemist notions about “birds coming from reptiles” or wild fictions about God promising to never send a local flood after the days of Noah. This is not the kind of response you are going to get from non-SDAs who have no appreciation of what Ellen White said about anything. This is a presentation on what to expect from SDAs who believe in evolutionism.

    Erv Taylor has made a rather telling defense of the idea of presenting evolutionism as if it were real science and the fact that someone needs to either bend the Bible to fit evolutionism or else change SDA doctrine to not be so married to the Bible when it comes to the doctrine on origins for diversity between genomes seen today.

    Ness does not appear to object at all to his efforts being characterized as Taylor has described it. That is “instructive” my friends.

    The deafining silence on the point raised above as well as the point reaised about 3SG90-91, from those who think evolutionism’s doctrines about “birds coming from reptiles” just might be the right answer for the origins of birds, – is ‘instructive’.

    Some people seem to be cautiously dancing around the point.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. Dear Brandy:

    I appreciate the candor of your thoughts, and those of all other students and alumni who have or are attending PUC. As I have noted before in this conversation, I too am an alumnus of PUC. I love the campus very much, and cherish my memories there. Even if I differ with most of the comments made by PUC participants on this forum, I am grateful so many care enough to get involved.

    You ask why so many are resistant to the idea of symbolic truth in the Bible. The fact is that no one is denying that symbolic truth exists in the pages of Scripture. Seventh-day Adventists have always believed this. The point here is that the story of creation in the book of Genesis is neither depicted in its context as symbolic, nor treated as such anywhere else in the Bible.

    You ask why you can’t believe in Christ and still believe in evolution. The answer is quite clear. Because if evolution is true, we don’t need Christ. If evolution is the correct model of natural origins, the human race is progressing onward and upward on its own, with no room for a fall as the Bible presents it, and thus no need of salvation through a Man hanging on a cross.

    Let me state yet again what I have stated ad infinitum on these forums. If evolution is true, and if God is its author, then we are attributing to God the brutal, merciless process of natural selection–making Him the originator of death and pain, as well as the source of the cruel principle that the strong must devour the weak in the name of advancement and progress. According to evolution, this is not only the norm in the saga of life, it is also the ultimate good.

    What room is there in such a system for love, mercy, or grace?

    It is for this reason that one cannot believe in the Christ of Scripture and still believe in evolution. This is why there is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for one who teaches and believes in Darwinian macro-evolution.

    A final thought to David Read: Please do not speak as if liberal and conservative politics are logically or philosophically parallel to liberal and conservative theology, respectively. There are careful thinkers in this country who are theologically conservative as well as politically liberal, and similarly careful thinkers who are theologically liberal and politically conservative. Let us keep secular politics out of the present discussion as best we can.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. @Bryan Ness said: “I am just tired of having you and a few others here at Educate Truth continue to judge my motives, personal beliefs, and my realtionship with God.”

    1. When have I judged Ness’ motives, or even his relationship with God? I don’t recall making any pronouncement of judgment on these things.

    I already addressed this earlier when I said, “Educate Truth does not question whether or not your support Adventism. Besides that being an ambiguous state, it doesn’t say much about anyone because a devote atheist could support Adventism. Neither are you being criticized for criticizing “anyone for believing as they choose to believe.” I have no reason to doubt your respect for “those who believe in a literal Genesis flood.” With all due respect these issues you brought up in your first post are irrelevant because they simply aren’t true. I don’t know where you got this information, but I don’t think it was from anything that was published on Educate Truth.”

    Ness is unwilling to admit what he believes and says that it’s none of our business. I disagree. He’s unwilling to set the record straight about his personal beliefs, but decries the evaluations of those who have seen the video and feel the lecture undermines the biblical creation/flood.

    He claims he has nothing to hide, but he hides his beliefs. An Adventist professor working at an Adventist university is hiding his beliefs on the very topic he was expounding on. So we’re left with only the video for direct evidence, and I think it’s pretty strong.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Ok that post could use some editing — maybe two-posts is the way we do it currently at EducateTruth
    =======================================================
    PUC art student says –

    I just find it incredibly embarrassing that there are Adventists who would attempt to destroy a man’s reputation as a great teacher like this. Shame on you once again Educate Truth,

    At this point – we are desperate to find some level of critical thinking by those posting in support of Ness. Notice “the facts” please (sans the strong emotions).

    1. Ness is not being accused of being mean spirited or unkind in any way shape or form at EducateTruth.

    2. Ness is being accused at EducateTruth of “Believing what he is saying” on that video. IF you have evidence that he does NOT believe his own statements on that video to be true – please provide evidence of it — so far Ness himself has been unwilling to make such a wild claim. You are free to have a crack at it if you wish. But simply engaging in the now-popular liberal-SDA past time of “bashing educateTruth” does nothing to support Ness.

    3. EducateTruth is making the claim that 7-day creation week less than 10,000 years ago, and acceptance of the real world-wide flood in Noah’s day — is historic fact, it is actually what “happened in nature” and it is the SDA doctrinal statement on origins.

    IF your complaint above is that by taking such a position EducateTruth has destroyed Ness’ reputation, or that Ness actually agrees with this stated position but is being falsely represented as not supporting it – please provide something like “facts” to support that claim.

    The practice of “simply bashing EducateTruth” is apparently tempting for some – but facts and some critical thinking on the part of those PUC sources supporting Ness would be welcomed. Anyone care to contribute in that regard?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. @a PUC art student: Unless I am mistaken, if the class starts at 11:00 at approximately 5 minutes into the video the clock on the wall appears to read 11:10 approximately. 35 minutes later the clock appears to be a tad past 11:45. So yes I do know approximately when the video started. I know some keep griping about context, but I fail to see how the suggested context changes a statement like this from Ness: (13:15) “There is not good geological evidence around the earth for one [worldwide flood] at that time [4500 years ago] or anytime.”

    (14:54) “At about 3 billion years ago fossils begin to show up. So how do you explain fossils through a few billion years of rock in terms of anything but that they were old and been there for a long long time.”

    I’m amazed that an Adventist professor appears be ignorant of even who Cain’s wife was. If a professor doesn’t even know the answer to that question, I don’t think I would expect him to be aware of the evidence for a global flood, much less recent life on earth.

    Tell me what classes you’ve taken that actually presented the evidence for recent life on earth and a worldwide flood that was presented by a scientist at PUC.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean,

    I ask this question of you then… How does this breed an authentic faith if students do not choose to believe? Is it really so dangerous to let individuals formulate their own perspective and develop a genuine faith out of choice? Or should one adopt a generic response to all controversial issues and not allow themselves to grow in their capacity to believe and reconcile the differences?

    What is the nature of truth? Are we more concerned about Truth or fact? I would argue that your organization is more concerned with the latter and that it is missing the greatest truth possible. This is not a ministry. This does not bring people closer to Christ. This organization does not foster independent thinking in our schools.

    Danny

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. @Danny Hopgood:

    I ask this question of you then… How does this breed an authentic faith if students do not choose to believe? Is it really so dangerous to let individuals formulate their own perspective and develop a genuine faith out of choice? Or should one adopt a generic response to all controversial issues and not allow themselves to grow in their capacity to believe and reconcile the differences?

    Presenting the SDA perspective within SDA schools hardly removes the power of choice from the students who freely choose to attend a SDA school. Our teachers in our own schools should be well versed in the opposing views. However, they should also be well versed in the science and appologetic arguments that strongly support the SDA position on origins and other topics of importance to the SDA Church as an organization. Our professors should not leave our students hanging without presenting good reasons, empirically-based reasons, for the hope that we have as Seventh-day Adventists in the message of the Gospel as we understand it as an organized body of believers.

    What is the nature of truth? Are we more concerned about Truth or fact? I would argue that your organization is more concerned with the latter and that it is missing the greatest truth possible. This is not a ministry. This does not bring people closer to Christ. This organization does not foster independent thinking in our schools.

    You think that a conscious understanding of “Truth” exists aside from a correct understanding of the “facts”? Of course our understanding of Truth is “progressive”. We learn as we go. However, the SDA Church, as an organization, has the temerity to believe that it has discovered certain important truths that it holds as vital for the present time.

    If you or anyone else thinks to have progressed beyond the level of the SDA Church in the understanding of Truth, more power to you. However, one who has progressed significantly beyond the SDA Church cannot be recognized by the SDA Church, as an organization, as an official paid representative. That simply isn’t practical for any viable organization. Either you can or you cannot subscribe to the stated goals and ideals of the organization. If you cannot, then why would you expect the organization to hire you as a paid representative?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. I wonder how many people posting on this website know Dr. Ness? I went to PUC and graduated with a degree in Biology in 2004. I know Dr. Ness as an educator, a person and a Christian. Not only is Dr. Ness one of the BEST educators I’ve ever had to privilege to learn from, he is absolutely one of the best Christians I have ever known. He is not the type to profess himself a Christian and then turn around and spew hatred at those that are different. He is the type of Christian who you simply SEE God in. He is a wonderful man, with a wonderful heart, a brilliant mind, and a DEEP love for God. Let me tell you something about being an SDA and a scientist; it’s not easy. There is a lot of evidence out there that seemingly supports evolution. There is also evidence to support creationism, but it is not as simple as evolution because there is a very big component of creation that is faith-based, and therefore, can never be a completely scientific issue. One of the most disturbing things you will learn about evolution if you study science is the pigheadedness and downright fanaticism people bring to their belief in evolution. There is NO alternative, and even if you show them complete, decisive proof to the contrary, they will still believe in evolution, and in some cases, perpetuate disproven studies as fact (i.e. the dead moths glued to the trees). As SDAs, and scientists, you cannot take this same approach. The best way to be left behind is to be stubborn and dig your heels in. Science is continually changing, new evidence presents itself and you cannot be static on the issues. God is steadfast and never-changing, but our imperfect planet and our pathetic brains are not on par with His greatness.

    What I find very disturbing is how much people tie a belief in the literal 7-day creation into your faith and love of God. They should not be so intermingled. I believe fully that the bible IS from God, but the bible is NOT the DIRECT WORD OF GOD. It was written and compiled by men, who are anything but perfect. Do I believe in creation? Absolutely. Look around nature and it is impossible not to. But do I believe in a literal 7-day creation week? Quite honestly, I don’t know nor do I really care. I know in my heart, and in my brain, that God created this planet for us with love. To me, how he did it, and in what time frame is like nitpicking at a beautiful painting because a different kind of brush was used. The end result is what matters; not how it was done. Now, I am not saying that it wasn’t a literal 7 days, but what I’m saying is that is not the point. Don’t get so caught up in the small details. Creation is amazing, God is amazing, and how he did it is small potatoes. If you want to take everything the bible says literally, you’d better not pick up a stick on Sabbath, or be stoned. Or, you better start believing in eternal damnation.

    In conclusion, I know Dr. Ness very well, and he is one of the best people I have ever known, in pretty much any and every way possible. Dr. Ness is one of the people that reaffirms my faith in God. When you get so stuck in your beliefs, and start mandating people follow it to the letter “or else” you go down a dangerous road. Dr. Ness can talk about these issues because his faith and love in God are not tied into literal translation of the creation story; his relationship with God is much deeper. I support Dr. Ness 100% and I am absolutely certain that God does too.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. @ Shane Hilde

    Ness is unwilling to admit what he believes and says that it’s none of our business. I disagree. He’s unwilling to set the record straight about his personal beliefs, but decries the evaluations of those who have seen the video and feel the lecture undermines the biblical creation/flood.
    He claims he has nothing to hide, but he hides his beliefs. An Adventist professor working at an Adventist university is hiding his beliefs on the very topic he was expounding on. So we’re left with only the video for direct evidence, and I think it’s pretty strong.

    Stop the bullying! He and others have stated explicityly that he believes in and defends SDA views on doctrines.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. Sean,

    You have indicated several times in this and other conversations that one need not rely on “blind faith” but that you believe that there is a preponderance of evidence in support of the official Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in a literal 6-day creation week, an Earth populated by life for only a few thousand years, and a complete global flood. I have studied some biology, geology, history and anthropology, but am by no means an expert in any of these fields. I am also extensively familiar with Adventist theology in these areas, but again, not an expert.

    As far as I was aware, enough scientific evidence exists to poke significant holes in evolutionary theory, and even some that seems to suggest an intelligent creator. But I’m not aware of any preponderance of evidence specifically in favor of the beliefs I mentioned above. If it is out there, I would like to know what it is or where to find it. Could you please explain this weight of evidence, or refer us to where it can be found? I think the scientific claims for the other side are pretty easy to find.

    If this conversation is not well-suited for an adequate reply, I’ll keep an eye on this website for you to suggest another format.

    Thanks.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. I ask this question of you then… How does this breed an authentic faith if students do not choose to believe? Is it really so dangerous to let individuals formulate their own perspective and develop a genuine faith out of choice?

    Danny,

    Students don’t go to college only to question things. We aren’t supposed to just sit down and combine our ignorance. And this idea of a difference between truth and fact is post-modern jargon; there is no difference–nor was there in the minds of the Hebrews.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. isa: You refer to the teaching staff of PUC as “the problem as a whole” and specifically site the Honors program as being “rampant” with it. I honestly find it hard to believe you are really a PUC-ite with a statement like this. If you have attended PUC for any length of time at all, you should know that the teachers are some of the most spiritually well-founded people you can ever find.

    Spencer, believe it or not, I am a graduate of the program. I was deceived once as a freshman as well though. I was ready to leave the church after just one year in the program and only realized the intellectual inconsistencies in the program ideology when I earnestly searched the scriptures, history and science for myself. There are indeed professors within the program that are godly, wonderful people. But I likely have much more experience with the program than you have yet to have. Do not be deceived my friend. Question everything with a sincere heart and God will lead you to His Truth. And before you think me ignorant, remember that I once believed just like you.

    Simply because they teach a concept contrary to the doctrine, it does not mean they “believe in their own intellectual ability over the Bible”.

    They can teach about the concept that is contrary to the Bible whenever they want on the churches dime, but when they begin to teach that it is correct and even mock those that do not believe as they do (mocking those that believe in the Adventist doctrines), it has gone too far. I’ve witnessed it more than once. God bless you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. Shane wrote: “Ness is unwilling to admit what he believes and says that it’s none of our business. I disagree. He’s unwilling to set the record straight about his personal beliefs, but decries the evaluations of those who have seen the video and feel the lecture undermines the biblical creation/flood.”

    Excuse me. Educate Truth does NOT represent the SDA Church. Educate Truth does NOT pay the salary of any SDA professor. Not one SDA administrator has ever condoned Educate Truth; to the contrary, many officials of the SDA church have been criticized on Educate Truth. The SDA Church does not resolve or condone the resolution of conflicts on internet blogs. Educate Truth does not own a single dime paid to any SDA professor and cannot demand accountability from any SDA employee. Neither Dr. Ness nor any SDA professor or administrator is ever obligated to answer any questions asked or demanded by any individual on this website. The devil’s advocate is not Dr. Ness; it is the accuser of the brethren.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Excuse me. Educate Truth does NOT represent the SDA Church. Educate Truth does NOT pay the salary of any SDA professor.

    EducateTruth is supported by 3ABN I believe, and privately, I know of several church officials that back up the site. Also, I’m a lay person and I don’t directly pay the professors either, but my tithes do. So, do I have no right to complain?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Excuse me. Educate Truth does NOT represent the SDA Church. Educate Truth does NOT pay the salary of any SDA professor.

    EducateTruth is supported by 3ABN I believe, and privately, I know of several church officials that back up the site. Also, I’m a lay person and I don’t directly pay the professors either, but my tithes do. So, do I have no right to complain?

    And by the way, my tuition paid for PUC too.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. As a biology major graduating from PUC I had the privilege to attend many lectures given by Dr. Ness. In my interactions with Dr. Ness both inside the classroom and outside the classroom I found him to be both a dedicated Adventist and a great educator. I would be honored to have my children attend his classes someday, and would gladly support him with my tuition dollars.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Inge Anderson wrote: “I wonder if some of the many PUC students who have posted in support of Dr Ness can honestly testify that Dr Ness teaches that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin, even if science cannot “prove” it.”You apparently overlooked my earlier post in which I asked “So where is the video of Dr. Ness standing in front of the entire college at Colloquy last year, talking about what happened on each of the six days of creation, which he defended as being literally true?” I can honestly testify that Dr. Ness stood in front of the entire college community–not just a classroom with a few dozen students–and preached a sermon about the six literal days of creation. In what way does this fall short from your expectations of a SDA biology professor? Why is it that Educate Truthers tend to focus on negative aspects of SDA education and ignore the positive?  

    Actually, that’s not what I was looking for. I was looking for a statement “that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin.” I was not looking for a faith statement, but a science/fact statement.

    I can still remember when I was a college student, though it was many years ago. I’m grateful to Dr Asa Thoreson and Dr Leonard Hare who were my teachers in biology at Andrews University. They taught me the difference between fact and its interpretation. They helped me realize that science is a human endeavor and therefore subject to errors.

    If I had had teachers that taught that the hard facts were in favor of the origin of life by evolution over billions of years and the same teachers avowed a strong faith in the accuracy of the biblical record nonetheless, I would have had a crisis of faith on that account. It might be very well for them, but I cannot live with such a contradiction of faith versus facts.

    It comes down to the nature and the character of God:

    Is our Creator God a god of tooth and claw, of survival of the fittest, of death by violence in order to “evolve” to a higher state of being. (Sounds more like the devil to me.)

    Is our Creator God one who asks us to “believe” in spite of the undeniable facts? (That’s what I perceive when a prof teaches billions of years of life as “facts” at the same time that he can preach a sermon on the six days of creation. Of course I may be wrong in my perceptions, but both the video and the student comments seem to support that scenario.)

    I say No to both of those questions.

    God gives us enough evidence to believe — not “proof,” because He will not compel even our reasoning powers. But He gives enough evidence. Yet He will always leave hooks on which to hang our doubts. That’s when we need to exercise faith: In the light of all He has clearly revealed, we trust Him with what He has not revealed. That applies to the question of origins as well as other natural and spiritual truths.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. I am a graduate of the biology program at PUC and now a physician in Internal Medicine. The four years I spent at PUC were unequivocally the best years of my life thus far, in large part, for the guidance, support, and inspiration of professors in the Biology Dept including Dr Ness. It is deranged websites of intellectually dishonest people like this one who would attempt to smear the name of one of the few truly devout Christians like Dr Ness that is emesis inducing. This is a shameful piece taken out of context of the life of a man who has risen above adversity that few of us will know only to selflessly dedicate his life to the service of others and his God. If difficult questions posed at a campus of higher education makes you or anyone else uneasy then perhaps their efforts would be best served with their brethren in the caves of Tora Bora.

    The work of “Satan” isn’t in learned individuals wresting with the great mysteries of the universe it is in the slander of righteous individuals who daily profess Christianity not by their words but in their deeds.

    Honestly the best thing that this website could do to honor God would be to seize and desist all activity.

    NICKOLAS W FOULADPOUR MD

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. While most students have posted highly emotional missives missing the purpose of this site, and making unfounded accusations, I am grateful for P.S.’s post which tells us that Dr Ness teaches the following:

    Science cannot fully “prove” either origin (yet). There are discrepancies in both. There seems to be more evidence for evolution in the scientific community; there seems to be more evidence for creation in the Christian community.

    Such teaching moves towards the kind of teaching some of us would like to see. It would rate a “C” on the grading scale proposed by Paul Giem in his lecture available at http://www.viddler.com/explore/educatetruth/videos/16/ (The lecture deals with what is being taught in Adventist schools regarding evolution and creation.) A “C” is not a failing grade, but it could be better.

    The problem here is that Ness does not seem to distinguish between the data of science and its interpretation. Apparently confusing interpretation with facts, he sees more evidence for evolution than for creation.

    By contrast, Sean Pitman, and from His God-centered world view, analyzes the same set of data/facts and finds “overwhelming evidence” in favor of the historicity of the Genesis account — namely a world-wide flood and creation of life some few thousands of years ago, rather than billions.

    I remember when I was hired as a teacher by a Christian school, the principal quizzed me at length to discover whether I had a truly Christian world view and whether I could teach from such a world view.

    Unfortunately, hiring practices in Adventist education systems take too much for granted and the world view of potential teachers is not generally checked. As a result it is apparent that many are not even aware that they have a world view.

    “Does Dr Ness help his students understand that the “science” of origins is not hard science but, rather, “historical science” which is closer to the realm of philosophy?”
    Inge Anderson (Nov. 3, 2010)

    Dr. Ness has mentioned it as a historical science as opposed to a hard science, but never, to my knowledge, talked about its association to philosophy.

    Again, this is a good start. It means that he can probably do a lot better by explaining the difference between hard science and historical science. That would allow students to understand that giving historical science the same credence as hard science is a big mistake, since differing paradigms will lead to totally different interpretations of the same set of data.

    Dr. Ness teaches that both a belief in creation and evolution take a tremendous amount of faith to believe in, no matter how much evidence we have, and both are “reasonable” in the face of scientific evidence; other scientists, however, may disagree.

    On the face of it, that statement would rate an “A,” according to Dr Giem’s grading scale.

    However, from the lecture I get the impression it requires more faith to believe in creation than evolution.

    By contrast, from a more biblical point of view, the tables are actually reversed. I believe it takes more faith than I can generate to believe in origin by evolution, considering the great number of fanciful “just-so” stories that need to be taken seriously in order to believe the latter.

    Dr. Ness, however, graciously takes the time to point out possible discrepancies in scientific interpretations dealing with the origins of the earth, evolution, etc., and also addresses alternative nonscientific views, such as the traditional SDA view, along with their possible discrepancies.

    Again, according to the Giem scale (which I think is very helpful), that would rate a “C” — a passing grade. To rate an “A,” it would be necessary to be very explicit in the difference between data and its interpretation, between hard science and historical science, and to help students understand that, with a biblical world view, the data clearly favors a recent creation and a world-wide flood. (Btw, omitting the teaching of evolutionary theory would not rate an “A.” Students need to understand the science that the world embraces as true.)

    Calling the “traditional SDA position” “nonscientific” is telling, because it indicates that the facts/science are on the side of the evolutionary scenario. When this type of emphasis is predominant in a course, that course rates a “D” rather than a “C,” because it causes students to believe that the evolutionary view is more likely to be true.

    P.S. also demonstrates some charming naivete when posting:

    Science looks for evidence first and then comes to a conclusion.

    I believe that’s not how modern science functions in real life, even though that’s a nice theory taught in grade school. In real life, scientists propose hypotheses (generally in harmony with the current scientific paradigm) and then either test (in hard science) whether these hypotheses are correct or calculate (in historical science) the likeliness of the correctness of their hypotheses. (The hypotheses are, of course, usually loosely based on some kind of observations.) If the hypotheses work to explain a lot of natural phenomena, they are adopted as working theories and even laws. After reaching general acceptance, they are regarded as “true,” even though other hypotheses from a different paradigm explain the natural phenomena as well or better. (And that’s precisely the current state of affairs regarding issues surrounding origins.)

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. First of all, evolution is not an opposing religion, as many of you seem to fear. Talking about it, understanding it, and recognizing its existence around us does not detract from the power, authority, or character of God. Evolution is a simply a HUMAN ATTEMPT to study nature. It’s a set of ideas trying to explain observable phenomena all around us. Is it prone to error and flaw? Of course. But are there observations made that help us better understand our world? Absolutely.

    It is quite possible and realistic to believe in God, be a devout Adventist, and still see the beautiful patterns and intricacies in nature (as described by some of the ideas of evolution). Do I agree with every theory, scientific conclusion, or assessment that’s ever been uttered under the name of “evolution?” Absolutely not! I obviously don’t believe in the radical concepts of macro-evolution. But I do accept any observable and provable assertions seen in nature. I have plenty of room in my faith system and understanding of God to accommodate these observations. There’s nothing evil about the word “evolution.” It simply means “change.” And I have no problem knowing I live in a world created by my God that is governed by His natural laws and is continually changing. Anyone who refutes that changes takes place in our world is ignorant of things occurring around them. Nature was designed to adapt to circumstances. And I believe this ability is directly from God.

    God is the one who created the patterns and laws that humans continue to attempt to study and understand. As we continue to learn more and more about the amazing concepts of the nature God created, we get to see and comprehend a bit more of the big picture. But no human has, or ever will, perfectly understand nature, the Bible, or God. All of these things leave us with a great deal of unknown, and ample room for individual interpretation. Anyone who thinks they have all this figured out is lying to themselves. God wants us to continue to study, search, and ask why. And part of that is the painful process of looking at and discussing things we don’t fully understand, as well as the evidence that challenges our fundamental beliefs.

    Maybe this continual exploration is not for some people. If it makes you uncomfortable to challenge your own belief system on a daily basis, then don’t do it. Stay grounded. But you need to recognize that for most people, exploring and learning more is a natural thing. We were created to ask questions, be skeptical until something is proven, and continue striving for greater understanding. If you aren’t one of those people, don’t stand in the way of the rest of us.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. @Lisa:

    EducateTruth is supported by 3ABN I believe, and privately, I know of several church officials that back up the site. Also, I’m a lay person and I don’t directly pay the professors either, but my tithes do. So, do I have no right to complain?

    Educate Truth is not supported or affiliated with 3ABN or any other organization affiliated or associated with the SDA Church or any other church. This website is the result of the effort of a few concerned individuals who believe that at the very least parents, students, and the SDA Church membership at large have a right to know what our youth are being taught in our own schools…

    Over the years, it is a fact that many professors in our schools have been actively undermining certain fundamental goals and ideals of the SDA Church. The most bold in this effort have been the science and a few of the religion professors at LSU. Dr. Ness’s comments are, admittedly, very mild in comparison to the efforts of many at LSU to decidedly undermine the faith of their students in the SDA position, as an organization, on the topic of origins. And, people have a right to know this… even to be able to see and hear such information with their own eyes and ears whenever possible.

    Enough of the secret indoctrination of our own youth with the biased perspective of mainstream science which is directly opposed to the SDA Church as an organization. It is time to be open and honest about what is being presented in our classrooms… without hiding behind “academic freedom” or appeals to copyright when no one is loosing any financial or academic advantage by what is being shared and discussed on these issues in forums like this one. People simply have a right to know and be given as much context as possible…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. Inge Anderson wrote: “I was looking for a statement ‘that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin.'”

    Twice previously I have written that Dr. Ness made that very statement in front of the entire PUC community at a Colloquy last year. I was there, I listened to it with my own ears. Why do you not believe me? Why are you demanding that he repeat himself here?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. I notice that Sean has greatly changed the tenor of the introduction, which is now much more benign. He includes the statement below:

    “We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.”

    “We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

    “http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html”

    With due respect, the statement declares that the flood was “global in nature,” it does not specify how much land was actually covered with water. Furthermore, there is no mention in the statement that a SDA professor must believe that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position.

    I personally know very well many SDA scientists employed by the church who strongly support the SDA position yet have honestly concluded that it is not supported by the weight of scientific evidence. If Sean has concluded that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position that is his own personal opinion. I doubt there are more than a few SDA scientists who would agree with him. Sean has no right to demand that all who are employed on the church’s dime agree with his views.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. @Eddie:

    Inge Anderson wrote: “I was looking for a statement ‘that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin.’”

    Twice previously I have written that Dr. Ness made that very statement in front of the entire PUC community at a Colloquy last year. I was there, I listened to it with my own ears. Why do you not believe me? Why are you demanding that he repeat himself here?

    It certainly would be nice for Dr. Ness to clarify his position given his evident lack of clarity regarding the scientific rationality of the SDA position on the topic of origin in this particular lecture and in comments posted by Dr. Ness in this particular forum…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. @Eddie:

    I notice that Sean has greatly changed the tenor of the introduction, which is now much more benign.

    I didn’t write the original introduction. The one who did agreed with me that it was just a little over the top and let me rewrite it shortly thereafter…

    “http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html”

    With due respect, the statement declares that the flood was “global in nature,” it does not specify how much land was actually covered with water.

    Oh please… When you say that a Flood was global, the obvious implication is that the whole globe was in fact covered with water and that is the reason why all living animals on land died…

    This argument is like saying that the six days of creation may not have really been literal days after all – even with the descriptors of “evening and morning”… etc…

    Furthermore, there is no mention in the statement that a SDA professor must believe that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position.

    No one can read someone’s heart. However, there is a very strong mention that professors need to present the scientific evidence rigorously in favor of the SDA position on origins. That’s rather hard to do if you believe in your heart that the evidence really points in the opposite direction.

    I personally know very well many SDA scientists employed by the church who strongly support the SDA position yet have honestly concluded that it is not supported by the weight of scientific evidence.

    That doesn’t mean that these individuals would help to promote the fundamental SDA position on origins in the classroom. It really isn’t helpful to the SDA cause to hire professors who can do nothing more than to tell their students that the best they can offer is the admission that the overwhelming weight of available scientific evidence is directly counter to the SDA position on origins…

    Beyond this, there are also quite a number of well-educated scientists who firmly believe and promote the SDA position on origins as the most rational scientific interpretation of the available empirical evidence…

    If Sean has concluded that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position that is his own personal opinion. I doubt there are more than a few SDA scientists who would agree with him. Sean has no right to demand that all who are employed on the church’s dime agree with his views.

    I demand no such thing. It is up to the Church, as an organization, to decide what it wants to do about who it does and does not hire. However, we all have a right to know what are youth are and are not being taught in our own classrooms. That much is clear and simply unarguable…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Sean wrote: “However, there is a very strong mention that professors need to present the scientific evidence rigorously in favor of the SDA position on origins. That’s rather hard to do if you believe in your heart that the evidence really points in the opposite direction.”

    Sean, that is not true. I personally sat in classes with Dr. Leonard Brand, Dr. Paul Bucheim, and other SDA professors who vigorously supported the SDA position. Each provided evidence for a worldwide flood as well as evidence to the contrary, and conceded that the weight of scientific evidence did not support the SDA position. That’s right, even Dr. Brand! I know what I’m talking about because I vividly recall him explaining to me that there were very few scientists searching for data to support the SDA position and very many searching for data to oppose it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Educate Truth is not supported or affiliated with 3ABN or any other organization affiliated or associated with the SDA Church or any other church. This website is the result of the effort of a few concerned individuals who believe that at the very least parents, students, and the SDA Church membership at large have a right to know what our youth are being taught in our own schools…

    Thanks for the clarity Sean. I guess it was just hearsay or an assumption after seeing you and Asscherick on a 3ABN interview. However, as far as I see, many organization within the church definitely support the views of this website because they are none other than the views of the Seventh-day Adventist church expressed in the fundamental beliefs. Keep it up.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. @ Inge Anderson

    By contrast, Sean Pitman, and from His God-centered world view, analyzes the same set of data/facts and finds “overwhelming evidence” in favor of the historicity of the Genesis account — namely a world-wide flood and creation of life some few thousands of years ago, rather than billions.

    Bryan Ness addressed only the biological evidence of the world-wide flood. Where has Sean Pitman produced “overwhelming evidence” from biological science for a flood that covered every scrap of earth, including every one of Bob Ryan’s rabbit trails? He hasn’t produced it and he is a filthy liar to claim to maintain this position in the absence of revealing such evidence. I’ve challenged him on this and there is a reason he maintains silence.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. By the way, I happen to respect Dr. Leonard Brand as the most successful creation scientist when it comes to publishing original scientific research in peer-reviewed scientific journals that supports the SDA position on origins. I pray that you won’t do unto him what you have done unto Dr. Ness simply because he taught that the weight of scientific evidence does not support the SDA position.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. But I do accept any observable and provable assertions seen in nature. I have plenty of room in my faith system and understanding of God to accommodate these observations. There’s nothing evil about the word “evolution.” It simply means “change.” And I have no problem knowing I live in a world created by my God that is governed by His natural laws and is continually changing.

    Of course, we all agree with that kind of “evolution”!

    We do, however, object to an explanation of origin of life on this planet through billions of years of evolution.

    Though not explicitly stated, any presentation of the “facts” of billions of years of life on this planet implicitly endorses the explanation of the evolutionary origin of life over billions of years. And that is contrary to the biblical record as understood by Seventh-day Adventists.

    PS I got the chance to talk with a Communist friend at university by saying I agree with communist ideas — explaining the kind of “communism” seen in the book of Acts. As I trust you can recognize that’s a very different kind of “communism” from that embraced by China, among others.

    The difference between the various definitions of “evolution” is similar in quality.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. I think it would behoove all readers to reaquaint themselves with the chapter on Church Discipline of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. It can be found online (http://www.gcsecretariat.org/Evans_files/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf) and begins on pg. 185.

    The Church makes no pretense about the spirit in which the Church and its membership are to deal with errant individuals. Ellen White makes abundant statements as well. The bottom line is that Jesus told us clearly in Matthew 18 how to proceed. Those who have criticized Dr. Ness here have an obligation to explain exactly how they followed Christ’s instruction and the Church’s requirements, as set forth in Matthew 18 and in the Church manual. IF they have proceeded irresponsibly, they owe Dr. Ness a public and sincere apology. And the remainder of us should hold them accountable for their actions and disrespect toward the SDA Church’s policies.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Lisa,

    Thank you for your thoughtful contributions that really address the issues without an abundance of emotion.

    You appear to have a gift for saying things clearly and concisely. 🙂

    Danny,Students don’t go to college only to question things.We aren’t supposed to just sit down and combine our ignorance.And this idea of a difference between truth and fact is post-modern jargon; there is no difference–nor was there in the minds of the Hebrews.  

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. Dealing With Erring Members—“In dealing with erring church members, God’s people are carefully to follow the instruction given by the Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew.”—Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 260.

    “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15-18). – Church Manual, p. 185

    Settlement of Differences Among Members—Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere. “Contentions, strife, and lawsuits between brethren are a disgrace to the cause of truth. Those who take such a course expose the church to the ridicule of her enemies and cause the powers of darkness to triumph. They are piercing the wounds of Christ afresh and putting Him to an open shame. By ignoring the authority of the church they show contempt for God, who gave to the church its authority.”—Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 242, 243. – Church Manual, p. 191

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. With due respect, the statement declares that the flood was “global in nature,” it does not specify how much land was actually covered with water. Furthermore, there is no mention in the statement that a SDA professor must believe that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position.
    I personally know very well many SDA scientists employed by the church who strongly support the SDA position yet have honestly concluded that it is not supported by the weight of scientific evidence. If Sean has concluded that the weight of scientific evidence supports the SDA position that is his own personal opinion. I doubt there are more than a few SDA scientists who would agree with him. Sean has no right to demand that all who are employed on the church’s dime agree with his views. Eddie(Quote)

    It appears that those who wish to defend the lecture are determined not to view it and notice “the details”.

    Ness does NOT say in that lecture “I know the Bible teaches a real 7 day creation week and a real world wide flood destroying all land animals on earth and that is what I believe happened. However I struggle with the fact that I believe that we have so little evidence for it in science”.

    In fact Ness presents the view that evolutionism’s wild claims are to be accepted almost as if they are “revealed truth” and the bulk of the class interactive discussion is spent trying to find a way to bend the Bible and the statements from Ellen White so that they match the life-over-long-ages claims of evolutionists.

    Your statement above casts an almost fictional revision of the facts to the point of the extreme.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. Sean,

    I notice that you have posted several responses today without addressing my request (and I believe Professor Kent’s) for an explanation of your claims of significant scientific evidence in favor of the literal creation week, the short history of life, and the global flood. I’m a bit disappointed–I understand that if you have a wealth of information it may be a bit of a task trying to organize it all, but I would hope that you could at least address this legitimate question to assure us that you’re working on a suitable response.

    The reason I’m being a bit relentless with this request (and I really don’t mean to be rude) is that since you insist on holding Adventist science teachers to the standard of presenting the above-mentioned beliefs as tenable on scientific–not only theological–grounds, I would assume that you have ensured that this standard is possible. Based on your earlier statements, I think we can agree that it would seem a little silly to expect science teachers to teach anything other than sound science.

    Again, I understand if this comment column is not an ideal place for you to post all the scientific evidence at your disposal. In fact after my earlier post, I noticed that you had an evidence page above, and thought that I may have asked my question too hastily. Unfortunately I only found evidence against people and institutions you consider to be in error for not teaching the beliefs in their science courses.

    I suggest that another evidence page on this site might be in order, one that presents the scientific evidence that you say supports these beliefs. It would strengthen the case for your claims. Further, it would reduce the idea that this site only stands AGAINST something, rather than standing FOR something–namely, educating truth.

    I hope to see a response soon, whether you agree with this idea or not–or at least an indication whether you are making an attempt to address this legitimate concern.

    Thanks

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. “Professor Kent,” You are throwing a red herring into the discussion.

    We are not dealing with church discipline. We are not dealing with Dr Ness’s character or his belief system. No one that I know of has even suggested that he is not a good Adventist — not even those who try to make his personal beliefs an issue.

    In reality, we are dealing with what goes on in the classroom — what students take away from his teachings or the teachings of other science professors regarding the validity of Adventist beliefs regarding the age of life on this planet.

    Adventist beliefs may be wrong (I don’t think so), but that is not the issue. Teachers hired by a Seventh-day Adventist University are honor-bound to do the extra studying required to be able to examine the evidence from a God-centered world view, rather than the current “naturalistic” (i.e. atheistic) paradigm of science which posits that life on this earth developed gradually over the course of billions of years.

    I happen to know the section re church discipline in the Church Manual rather well, but it is utterly irrelevant (a red herring) to this discussion.

    I think it would behoove all readers to reaquaint themselves with the chapter on Church Discipline of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual. It can be found online (http://www.gcsecretariat.org/Evans_files/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf) and begins on pg. 185.The Church makes no pretense about the spirit in which the Church and its membership are to deal with errant individuals. Ellen White makes abundant statements as well. The bottom line is that Jesus told us clearly in Matthew 18 how to proceed. Those who have criticized Dr. Ness here have an obligation to explain exactly how they followed Christ’s instruction and the Church’s requirements, as set forth in Matthew 18 and in the Church manual. IF they have proceeded irresponsibly, they owe Dr. Ness a public and sincere apology. And the remainder of us should hold them accountable for their actions and disrespect toward the SDA Church’s policies.  

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. @ Very Curious

    I notice that you have posted several responses today without addressing my request (and I believe Professor Kent’s) for an explanation of your claims of significant scientific evidence in favor of the literal creation week, the short history of life, and the global flood.

    Sean has substantial “evidence” described at his website, though its presentation is certainly biased. He doesn’t go into equal detail describing evidence that supports a scenario different from what he believes. His theology, of course, drives his science, but he insists that his beliefs are based on science more so than faith (the latter equated to belief in the tooth fairy and flying spaghetti monster).

    I have restricted my challenge to the gist of Dr. Ness’s lecture–the biological evidence of a global flood that covered every piece of dry real estate on the planet. Dr. Pitman has condemned Dr. Ness specifically for failing to present the “overwhelming evidence” in favor of the SDA position.

    I am not a trained geologist (like Sean), so I can’t make sweeping claims about the geological evidence (unlike Sean), but I don’t believe he can conjure ANY biological evidence to support his claims of a single global flood covering the entire planet. The vast majority of biogeographical, molecular phylogenetic, taxonomic, and other biological data absolutely refute the possibility that most current land-dwelling animals dispersed from a central point on this planet. My good friend Geanna Dane and I discussed this ad nauseum here some months ago, and Dr. Ness pointed out some of the same issues.

    Personally, I am willing to believe the SDA position might hold water, but I would base it on what appears to be God’s word (though “all” in Genesis often does not mean “all”), i.e., faith, rather than so-called evidence.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. Does anyone remember when Galileo was put to death because he contended that the earth revolved around the sun? The Biblical authors of the Genesis story thought that the world was flat, if one takes everything literally then you are reading anachronistically. Why does it have to shake someones faith if science helps reveal more truth about the world that Christians believe is God’s creation. Should not Christians be excited when new possibilities emerge that may lead to a greater knowledge of truth and Gods universe?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. Again, “Professor Kent,” this is not a matter of “dealing with erring church members.”

    This site is an effort to shed some light on what goes on in the classrooms of our Seventh-day Adventist universities. Granted, it began by looking at the teachings at La Sierra, but many have come to this site to claim that other professors in other Adventist universities also support the old earth scenario which is necessitated only by the current scientific paradigm which posits that life on this earth took billions of years to evolve.

    I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes in the management of this site, but I’m guessing when someone pointed the webmaster to this video posted on the web, he saw evidence that what these posters so frequently claimed is true — that our students in other universities are also taught to believe that the old earth scenario is basically true. (Dr Ness’s lecture just happened to be a convenient illustration.) As far as I can see, that’s what any unbiased person would take away from that lecture.

    Granted, this was only one lecture, and other lectures may offset the effects of this one. If so, it would be nice to see others.

    So far, the posts of both Dr Ness himself and those who defend him have not presented convincing evidence that students in his classes are taught how to examine the scientific evidence and come to conclusions that differ from those of naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) science. There has been no evidence presented that students are taught how to evaluate the evidence from a God-centered world view, rather than the naturalistic scientific paradigm.

    This is no slur on Dr Ness’s character, but it does demonstrate a weakness in his teaching, as compared to the ideal we would expect in an Adventist university.

    Given that Dr Ness appears to be a man of principle, I trust that this will encourage him to re-examine some of his presuppositions and to do some of the necessary hard work to examine the evidence with presuppositions that are more in line with a God-centered world view.

    I trust that Dr Ness himself can view the situation a bit more objectively than so many of his students and supporters who totally missed the issues and came to attack both Shane and Sean on the mistaken assumption that they were in the process of assassinating Dr Ness — in character, if not in the flesh.

    (I have responded to one notable exception to all the emotional outcry by poster P.S., and I would be gratified to see more such posts detailing more of what students actually take away from classroom lectures.)

    I repeat: The issue is not Dr Ness’s character or his belief system. The issue concerns what students take away from classroom lectures. Do they go away with a good understanding of both evolutionary and creationist science? Are they equipped with the mental tools to examine the evidence for themselves, when they meet new arguments, so that they can form their own conclusions from a world view that differs from the prevailing “scientific” world view that posits that there is no Creator, but that this universe came to be all by itself.

    It would be nice if posters could focus on the issues, rather than taking up arms against either the owners of this site or Dr Ness.

    Dealing With Erring Members—“In dealing with erring church members, God’s people are carefully to follow the instruction given by the Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew.”—Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 260

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. @ Eddy who wrote:

    By the way, I happen to respect Dr. Leonard Brand as the most successful creation scientist when it comes to publishing original scientific research in peer-reviewed scientific journals that supports the SDA position on origins. I pray that you won’t do unto him what you have done unto Dr. Ness simply because he taught that the weight of scientific evidence does not support the SDA position.  

    Please realize that what one considers “overwhelming evidence” is a very personal matter and very much dependent on one’s world view. What one considers “overwhelming” or “convincing” might not do it for another.

    I wonder if you are really accurate in your portrayal of Dr Brand’s position. Did he really say that “the weight of scientific evidence does not support the SDA position”? (Citation?)

    As you may surmise from my posts, I believe there’s a great big difference between scientific evidence and scientific conclusions. Thus one could say that the bulk of current science (meaning conclusions) does not support the SDA position, without conceding that the evidence does not. I do suspect that Dr Brand would not make statements like Sean’s “overwhelming evidence,” but that’s likely because it takes a lot more evidence for him to consider it “overwhelming.” 😉 And it wouldn’t surprise me to concede that the evidence is not unambiguously for one viewpoint or the other.

    Now I’m going to have to hunt up Dr Brand’s book that I haven’t finished reading … Now where did I put it down …?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. The issue with PUC is not evolution but rather their lax perspective on Adventist lifestyle choices.Our campus is rampant with a large variety of forms of affection, from students whom ‘make out’ to individuals whom are under blankets on the glass areas through out the campus.Sabbath observance is loose to say, at best – students are often found studying, working, playing video games or other activities which not acceptable for Sabbath.Other examples are abound, PUC is perhaps as liberal as LSU and it is hurting our perspective on Adventism.  

    Interesting that you, Student, opinionated as you seem to be, choose to shroud your apparently low opinion of PUC in anonymity. What are you afraid of? Perhaps you think you will get into trouble with the administration for criticizing what you see as their poor leadership (for based on your purported intimate knowledge with the goings-on of the campus, I can only assume you are currently in attendance there)? Please let me assure you that PUC is not in the habit of taking disciplinary action against students for speaking their mind in a non-threatening or dangerous way, and it is certainly not the Stasi-style administration that you seem to wish it were. which ironically seems to be the core of your problem with the school. That is the core of your beef with them, isn’t it? Its failure to monitor and police the student body into making “Adventist lifestyle choices”? Perhaps you would prefer an establishment that forces its students into going to church every Sabbath or implements a strict no-touching policy (which, by the way, was the case in my Adventist boarding high school). Perhaps the job description of the dormitory RAs should be expanded to include random room invasions seeking to expose and bring to justice those students who engage in videogaming and other “unacceptable” Sabbath activities. Perhaps it would give you more conviction in your personal choices to know that they aren’t really choices at all but merely rules that must be followed. I’m just spitballing here, because I honestly don’t know what your thought process was in writing a post like that. But please do me a favor and ask yourself if any of it sounds like reasonable procedure for adult college students, SDA or otherwise.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. @Kevin Paulson:

    I appreciate your attempt to answer some of my rhetorical questions from earlier, but with all due respect, the answers you provided are not ones that I have not pondered at length–sometimes ad nauseam–myself many times before. I will not go into too much depth regarding my personal philosophies/beliefs/faith, but let’s suffice it to say that there is room in my heart and mind for the possibility of a creator God AND the scientific laws by which our world is governed almost irrefutably. The logistics of the matter are not important to me; I believe in God (on most days) and I believe that natural selection as a theory has great merit (is it not possible for an omnipotent God to have set such a process in motion? Or, since you appear to regard the process as “brutal” and “merciless”, is it not possible for it to have been just another result of sin?) Ultimately, I am personally open enough to the mysteries of the divine that “having the answers” is not at the top of my list of priorities. What can knowing the “real” duration of the creation process or the “real” age of the Earth contribute to a person’s faith in Christ? I leave the “knowing” to the experts, earthly and otherwise.

    I make no secret of the fact that my Adventism is mostly cultural rather than religious, and that in fact I find certain principles upheld by the SDA Church to be, at best, antiquated, and at worst, oppressive. Perhaps I should have led with this bit of information, so as to enable you to promptly deem me a “lost cause” and move on.

    Finally, I disagree with you on this last part:

    It is for this reason that one cannot believe in the Christ of Scripture and still believe in evolution. This is why there is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for one who teaches and believes in Darwinian macro-evolution.

    I don’t believe an institution of higher education, regardless of its denominational slant, should concern itself with the personal beliefs of its employees whatsoever, nor are said personal beliefs even relevant in a science classroom setting, whatever they are. In my opinion, a science professor is merely required to teach the science, and the fact that Dr. Ness is fair enough to present both sides of the issue at PUC (and as a former student of his, believe me, he does) is sheer graciousness on his part.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. When all the dust settles and the rhetoric subsides, the Biblical reality remains: there is no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for professors who deny the literal days of creation or the fact that the Genesis Flood covered the entire earth. (This nonsense that “global” may mean something less than water covering the entire globe shows just how far certain ones will go to twist the plainest statements of the church which disallow the legitimacy of their stance within the body of Christ.)

    Faithful leaders and laity alike must rise to this challenge, demanding accountability from professors and school administrators in all matters of faith and practice. The renewed summons by Adventist world leaders to revival and reformation must mean more than words. It must involve deeds, even painful ones. Consecration and fidelity demand no less.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. Dear Brandy:

    You’ll pardon my candor, but it would seem that not only is your Adventism merely cultural; it seems your Christianity is as well. You say you believe in God “on most days” and that you are willing to allow God to have set in motion the process of natural selection which you acknowledge to be brutal and merciless. Again, where do love, mercy, and grace fit in with such a system?

    I assume you know that the historical consequences of believing in this means of natural progress, and in applying it to the human experience, have been grotesque. Industrial brutality during the Gilded Age was justified on the basis of “survival of the fittest,” which came to be known as Social Darwinism. And none need rehearse the history of totalitarian regimes during the last century which built their notions of ethnic supremacy on this principle. (Actually, maybe it needs to be rehearsed. I continue to be appalled at how many of today’s young people know so little of the history of the great conflicts which shaped the world during that time. Sometime ago, when trying to find the DVD of a movie on the life of Benito Mussolini, I was astounded when the young person looking up the movie had no idea who Mussolini was!)

    The fluidity and chaos apparent in your worldview is precisely what happens when absolute truth is denied, and human experience and intellectual speculation are allowed to determine ultimate reality. People are left with no defense against the pressures and spirit of any given moment. This is why Rudolf Bultmann, the 20th-century theologian notorious for stripping away “myths” from the Bible, had no real grounds for rebuking his friend Martin Heidegger for collaborating with the Nazis. Once transcendent truth is dethroned, a point of which both men agreed, whatever seems workable or right at a particular moment becomes the thing to do, regardless of the cost to others or to one’s integrity–if indeed the latter has any meaning when absolute truth is deemed either non-existent or unknowable.

    Again I thank you for your frankness in the present conversation. It is clear where your ideas and perspective have led you. Such clarity only serves to further demonstrate the incompatibility of such educational methods as those you defend with the goals and purposes of authentic Adventism.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. Shane Hilde: “Educate Truth does not question whether or not your [sic] support Adventism. Ness is unwilling to admit what he believes and says that it’s none of our business. I disagree. He’s unwilling to set the record straight about his personal beliefs.”

    Inge Anderson: “I repeat: The issue is not Dr Ness’s character or his belief system. The issue concerns what students take away from classroom lectures.”

    Sean Pitman: “It certainly would be nice for Dr. Ness to clarify his position.”

    This is soooooo entertaining. Are you guys on the same page?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. Professor Kent, thank you very much for pointing out the SDA Church’s official position on settling differences among members, which I fully embrace:

    “EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO SETTLE DIFFERENCES AMONG CHURCH MEMBERS AND CONTAIN THE CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE SPHERE.”

    Note that this website address begins with “www” which stands for WORLD WIDE WEB. Sean has yet to clarify whether he ever attempted to contact Dr. Ness prior to posting the video, but he doesn’t need to, because I already know with certainty that he did not. Instead of attempting to “contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere,” Sean and Shane have instead attempted to expose the controversy to the largest possible sphere, which is a flagrant violation of the SDA Church’s official policy.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. Inge Anderson wrote: “So far, the posts of both Dr Ness himself and those who defend him have not presented convincing evidence that students in his classes are taught how to examine the scientific evidence and come to conclusions that differ from those of naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) science.”

    For the fourth time, I have heard Dr. Ness teach this publicly in front of the entire PUC community at a Colloquy within the PUC SDA Church. I have also heard him teach this in front of the classroom in a course called Scientific Revolutions. Do you enjoy listening to broken records?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. @Eddie:

    Sean wrote: “However, there is a very strong mention that professors need to present the scientific evidence rigorously in favor of the SDA position on origins. That’s rather hard to do if you believe in your heart that the evidence really points in the opposite direction.”

    Sean, that is not true. I personally sat in classes with Dr. Leonard Brand, Dr. Paul Bucheim, and other SDA professors who vigorously supported the SDA position. Each provided evidence for a worldwide flood as well as evidence to the contrary, and conceded that the weight of scientific evidence did not support the SDA position. That’s right, even Dr. Brand! I know what I’m talking about because I vividly recall him explaining to me that there were very few scientists searching for data to support the SDA position and very many searching for data to oppose it.

    You overstate Brand’s position. I happen to know Brand as well. I’ve attended several of his lectures and he has attended many of mine. As far as I understand it, his position is that the quantity of arguments favoring the mainstream position is greater, but not necessarily the quality of the arguments or the evidence supporting those arguments. He is a young-life creationist not merely because of blind faith despite the weight of evidence, but because he believes that the qualitative weight of empirical evidence clearly supports the Biblical perspective on origins and the worldwide Flood… and he’s written many essays and papers and even a book in this line of reasoning.

    For example, in chapter 7 of his book, “Faith, Reason, and Earth History” Brand argues that the difficulties of abiogenesis, combined with the overwhelming complexity of life, strongly implicates “informed intervention”, as Brand puts it, in the origin of life. Brand also supports his belief in a recent worldwide Flood as the reason for much of the geologic column and fossil records while noting, at the same time, that many questions remain unanswered…

    What Brand does not do, which Dr. Ness did do in the lecture under discussion here, is leave his students hanging at the end of a lecture thinking that there is nothing of substance to counter mainstream thinking on the topic of origins – to include a worldwide Noachian Flood. Brand always presents evidence or comments regarding the many significant weaknesses in mainstream thinking and the very good strengths that do exist for the Creationist model of origins.

    The same is true for Aurthur Chadwick from Southwestern Adventist University; and many others…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. @Eddie:

    Instead of attempting to “contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere,” Sean and Shane have instead attempted to expose the controversy to the largest possible sphere, which is a flagrant violation of the SDA Church’s official policy.

    This issue has been a growing problem in our schools, especially our universities like LSU, for decades. It has not been substantially addressed by the schools themselves or the local Church leadership or even the General Conference leadership for many years – despite my own concerted efforts to address this issue and inform leadership privately on this matter.

    After a point, such problems that affect the Church at large have to be addressed publicly. Mrs. White did the same thing on several occasions – at times publicly advising the members of the Church not to send their children to some of our own schools.

    We are following the very same course of action after many years of failed efforts to address this very public and widespread problem in any other way. There is no way that you or anyone else can seriously argue that the Church membership at large has no right to know what our own youth are being taught in our own schools. We all do have a right to this information. Pastors and professors have no right to assume that what they say before their pulpits and lecterns will be hidden from the Church membership at large – that they need not answer to all for what they say and do in their paid capacity as Church representatives…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PASTORS AND TEACHERS THE WORLD OVER BEWARE: YOU ARE MARKED!!!

    Pastors and professors have no right to assume that what they say before their pulpits and lecterns will be hidden from the Church membership at large – that they need not answer to all for what they say and do in their paid capacity as Church representatives… – Sean Pitman

    You will be held accountable, regardless of context, for anything that you speak or do, whether in private or public, so long as it is in the capacity of your employment as a Church representative. You will be subject to immediate worldwide scrutiny without any benefit of Matthew 18, which Jesus never intended to apply for Church employees.

    And not only will you be judged for anything you say, but even your private email exchanges can be made the subject of public inspection (just as Gary Bradley at La Sierra University). And it does not stop there. Every single tithe-paying Church member has a right to know your beliefs–at least on origins and flood issues. Do NOT expect your boss or your employer to protect you. Faithful Seventh-day Adventists now have the power to enforce appropriate beliefs and actions according to their own interpretation, and they will use it shrewdly.

    Kevin Paulson – do you, a paid minister, agree with Sean Pitman on this? Did Ellen White address this issue of publicly exposing pastors for disagreeable statements or positions? As a tithe-paying SDA Church member, I have a right to know what you believe about this matter, do I not?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. @Professor Kent:

    You will be held accountable, regardless of context, for anything that you speak or do, whether in private or public, so long as it is in the capacity of your employment as a Church representative. You will be subject to immediate worldwide scrutiny without any benefit of Matthew 18, which Jesus never intended to apply for Church employees.

    Did you forget the part about “pulpits and lecterns”? – I’d hardly call that private conversation or privileged communication.

    Matthew 18 is in regard to addressing private sins, not public attacks on the Church’s goals and ideals. Such public efforts to undermine the Church’s clearly stated goals and ideals must eventually be addressed publicly…

    Surely you’re not suggesting that the Church membership at large does not have any right to know what professors are teaching our own youth in our own classrooms? Come on now…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. Sean, I take it you advocate taking a disagreement to the largest sphere possible.

    What is a public? Something spoken to a large audience during a formal meeting, or even something spoken in one’s office to one or two individuals? What’s an attack? Would a discussion of hypothetical issues be an attack? If one said, “maybe SDAs should be nice to homosexuals,” would that constitute an attack?

    As for private, did not Educate Truth publish a private e-mail exchange between Dr. Bradley and a student, thereby disseminating it to the largest sphere possible? Was that also acceptable in the spirit of Matthew 18 and the Church Manual?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. Eddie, it would help if you would define “this” in your second paragraph.

    If you can’t tell that I read what you wrote earlier, neither can I tell that you read what I wrote. 😉

    Inge Anderson wrote: “So far, the posts of both Dr Ness himself and those who defend him have not presented convincing evidence that students in his classes are taught how to examine the scientific evidence and come to conclusions that differ from those of naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) science.”For the fourth time, I have heard Dr. Ness teach this publicly in front of the entire PUC community at a Colloquy within the PUC SDA Church. I have also heard him teach this in front of the classroom in a course called Scientific Revolutions. Do you enjoy listening to broken records?  

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. Dear Professor Kent:

    Ellen White is very clear in her writings that the issues covered by the formula for conflict resolution in Matthew 18:15-17 refer to matters of personal trespass, not to issues which–in her words–“threaten the prosperity of the church and of the cause” (2T 15). A more appropriate passage for dealing with public offenses against the church, according to both James and Ellen White, is I Tim. 5:20: “Then that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (2T 15).

    What I preach in the pulpit, as an employed and credentialed Seventh-day Adventist pastor, is not a private affair. It is public. What a professor teaches in an Adventist classroom is not a private affair either. It is public. And the church has both the right and the duty to carefully weigh evidence, in context and with justice, so as to determine the loyalty of its workers to the theological mission, prophetic destiny, and lifestyle witness of the great Advent movement.

    If I work for Chrysler and decide to publicly declare that Toyotas are better, Chrysler has the right to hold me accountable and relieve me of employment. If I work for President Obama’s re-election campaign and decide to publicly declare that such as Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin would make a better President, then the Obama campaign has the right to fire me and seek a loyal representative to take my place.

    This is not intolerance. It is integrity.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  91. @Professor Kent

    We’re just as much in agreement as you are with all the defenders of LaSierra and others who appear to teach evolution as fact. For the record, I don’t see Bryan Ness in the same category as some of the LaSierra instructors. However, I do seem problems in his teaching that he would do well to address.

    I would like to call everyone to focus on the issues, including you.

    I don’t see Bryan Ness’s personal belief to be the issue, per se. However, his personal beliefs become part of the issue as they impact what he says and how he says it in the classroom. I suspect that’s why Shane and Sean are calling for clarification.

    However, I personally believe it’s more productive to focus on what students actually take away from a class. I’ve known instructors who believe one thing to be so conscientious in giving due credence to the other side that what students took away was actually that “the other side” was correct. That might even be the case with Bryan Ness. Who knows? (Of course, if he chose to do so, Bryan himself could clarify. Maybe that’s why Sean is asking?)

    Shane Hilde: “Educate Truth does not question whether or not your [sic] support Adventism. Ness is unwilling to admit what he believes and says that it’s none of our business. I disagree. He’s unwilling to set the record straight about his personal beliefs.

    ”Inge Anderson: “I repeat: The issue is not Dr Ness’s character or his belief system. The issue concerns what students take away from classroom lectures.

    ”Sean Pitman: “It certainly would be nice for Dr. Ness to clarify his position.”This is soooooo entertaining. Are you guys on the same page?  

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  92. I am not a musician but I would like to propose that someone come up with a new “praise” song that would more accurately address how we present Jesus, how we present Christianity, how we present Seventh-day Adventist Christianity. The first line I can supply, the rest someone else will have figure out. Here it goes:

    They will know we are Christians by our hate by our hate. They will know we are Christians by our hate!

    At least this with this song we would be educating people to the truth.

    What is being to Dr. Ness a committed YEC is enough to make one weep!

    In the grip of grace

    Steve Moran

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  93. In response to Shane’s accustation on November 3 that Dr. Ness “doesn’t appear to adhere to the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis,” Dr. Ness wrote on November 4:

    “In spite of my own acknowledgement that I SUPPORT THE CHURCH’S STAND ON ORIGINS AS OUTLINED IN FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF #6 (of course, not said in so many words) and the repeated testimony of those who know me, you persist in statments such as that above.” [emphasis supplied]

    He has already affirmed his support for SDA beliefs here at ET. Numerous friends and colleagues who have attended his lectures have confirmed his support for SDA beliefs here at ET. Yet some of you who have never met him persist in judging his beliefs based on a single lecture in which the context at the beginning of the lecture was intentionally and dishonestly omitted. I’m just astonished–utterly astonished–that SDA Christians can treat each other in such a callous and deceitful manner. If you persist in believing that Dr. Ness is a macroevolutionist who is undermining SDA principles, your belief is based more on blind faith than evidence. If I were a gambling man–which I am not–I would wager that more than 95% of church leaders and rank-and-file members would condemn the manner in which this incident was handled by ET.

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Professor Kent Cancel reply