The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

Posted by Sean Pitman

Early morning of May 5, 2011
.
 

On April 27, 2011 the Adventist News Network published an article detailing the thrilling exploits of Dr. Lee Grismer, an evolutionary biologist from La Sierra University, who has “discovered 80 new species of reptiles and amphibians during his 15-year career” at LSU.  The article goes on to twice describe Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist.” (Read the Article)

Notice: This article has apparently been pulled from the ANN website as of the afternoon of May 5, 2011 and is no longer available.

While there is no doubt that Dr. Grismer’s work is very exciting and thrilling indeed, I personally feel it unwise for the ANN to promote Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist” when he is one of several LSU professors who are ardently undermining the Seventh-day Adventist position on origins – in no uncertain terms.  Dr. Grismer is in fact an ardent evolutionist who believes and teaches his students at LSU that life has existed and evolved on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over the course of hundreds of millions of years.  He teaches his students that the SDA position on origins, the literal six-day creation week in particular, is scientifically ludicrous and even morally dangerous…

In February of 2009, I gave an impromptu presentation at LSU on the topic of creation/evolution.  The very next week Drs. Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. Dr. Grismer in particular derided students who questioned his evolutionary view on origins, suggesting that those who hold outdated literal creationist beliefs are the same ones who “fly airplanes into buildings”.

Such statements are nothing new for Dr. Grismer who, according to former LSU students, really enjoys “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” ( Link )

This is right in line with the public comments of long-time LSU professor, Dr. Gary Bradley, who declared that the SDA view on a literal creation week is held by the “lunatic fringe” and that he is not about to get up in front of his class and say that mainstream science is a bunch of “bs” – to quote Dr. Bradley in his interview in 2009 with Inside Higher Ed.

Such events and comments formed the basis for the rising concern over the promotion of mainstream evolutionary theories in our classrooms. This concern has increased dramatically over the past two years that this issue has gained a degree of public attention within the SDA Church at large. And yet, the ANN sees fit to present such professors as models of Adventist education?  the very same professors who have long been deliberately undermining the most basic of SDA fundamental goals and ideals in their classrooms?

Is this not equivalent of the ANN shooting itself in the foot? – promoting LSU’s science department by highlighting the truly thrilling work of one of its evolutionary biologists while failing to explain that this very same man is also boldly attacking the Church’s position on origins as a paid representative of the Church?  Does it matter how good and exciting the work may be of any pastor or teacher if this individual is, at the same time, attacking the foundational pillars of the Church?  Does the good truly outweigh the negative influence of such individuals when it comes to the primary goals and ideals of the Church as an organization? – or does the good simply act as capsule that helps one swallow the poison a bit more easily?

Please follow and like us:
37

392 thoughts on “The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

  1. Shane Hilde: God’s grace does not = leaving people in positions of leadership who are undermining truth.

    Exactly Shane. Progressives focus on grace to the exclusion of anything else, including a “little” alcohol, an “occasional steak”– Smuts van Rooyan being the best (or worst) example of this I have ever seen.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. LSU Alum: Also I really hate the discussion about other people having to accept SDA beliefs, we need to focus on showing God’s character to others not trying to change their religion. If we show the true nature of God then it is hard for others to deny the truth.

    God’s character is part of our beliefs but not the whole thing. So, we should toss out our “Fundamental Beliefs?”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. No but any fundamental beliefs that say don’t eat meat and don’t drink alcohol are not fundamental beliefs based on Biblical teachings. They are made up my human’s and to think someone’s character is based on there legalism according to EGW’s rules is ridiculous. Being a vegetarian does not get you into heaven, drinking alcohol does not keep you out of heaven, at least I hope not because I would love to talk to Noah and the disciples ect

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. LSU Alum: They are made up my human’s and to think someone’s character is based on there legalism according to EGW’s rules is ridiculous.

    Seventh-day Adventists believe otherwise. There is ample evidence from scripture about alcohol.

    Whether you believe it’s a sin or not though really doesn’t matter. LSU has a policy that states employees are not to drink alcohol.They were aware of it, and it appears did it habitually. As leaders at one of our instituations they were clearly in violation of their contract and received just action.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. LSU Alum: No but any fundamental beliefs that say don’t eat meat and don’t drink alcohol are not fundamental beliefs based on Biblical teachings. They are made up my human’s and to think someone’s character is based on there legalism according to EGW’s rules is ridiculous. Being a vegetarian does not get you into heaven, drinking alcohol does not keep you out of heaven, at least I hope not because I would love to talk to Noah and the disciples ect

    Yes, drinking a “small” alcoholic beverage may not keep you out of heaven, (although drunkedness could) but,according to the LSU bylaws, it can get you kicked out of LSU!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Kent your “spin doctoring” may be subtle at time – but possible not as subtle as you may have at first imagined.

    In this quote – you say

    Kent said
    Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views. Eventually, the Church adopted its current position, which embraces the trinity, and is a part of “present truth.”

    Thus positioning the subject in the 1800’s context “AS IF” they were talking about a voted or published Fundamental Belief of the church against the Trinity – and demonstrating the idea that nobody was really asked to believe those beliefs to the point of declaring them to be “expelled” from the church for not believing them.

    (A reference to your idea of including evolutionism in the church today).

    You craft the statement to lead the reader to “suppose” that one of the real published statements of beliefs for the church in the 1800’s actually said there was no trinity or that Christ was created or that Christ was begotten (came into being) before his incarnation instead of being eternally self-existant etc etc.

    So I simply exposed that flaw in your spin doctored revisionist history.

    BobRyan: Hint – NO statement of beliefs published by the Adventists in the 1800′s (and yes those published statements go back to the 1870′s and even before that) ever made any statement against the Trinity.

    Not a single one stated that Christ was created and not a single one stated that the Holy Spirit was not a person or not the Third Person of the Godhead or that the Godhead did not consist of three persons.
    Thus this latest canard you are trying fails as do the ones you have offerred prior to this one – “in the details”.

    Professor&#032Kent: If you don’t believe the Church at one time sanctioned anti-trinitarian views, I suggest you read the details for yourself (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7) and pick an argument with the author of the very well referenced Ministry magazine article, rather than with me. You can quarrel with them over the semantics of “pre-existant,” “begotten,” and “created.”

    Your own link exposes the flaw in your argument. Instead of the claim that our published set of beliefs in the 1800’s stated that we did not accept the trinity or stated that Adventists claimed that Christ was created – we have this.

    Up to 1890: Antitrinitarian period
    Until near the turn of the twentieth century, Seventh-day Adventist literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. During the earlier years, some even held the view that Christ was created. It is very important to understand that Adventist views were not homogeneous. Theological tension within Adventism began during the Millerite movement and is illustrated by the two principal leaders, William Miller and Joshua V. Himes.

    Miller, being a Baptist, was a trinitarian. He wrote, “I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead. . . . The three persons of the Triune God are connected.”

    So while there were opinions among various members on a great many different subjects, the actual stated set of beliefs for the entire group was under the management of God himself.

    Hence – this bit of inconvenient history for the story you are trying to tell.

    A summary of our “25 Beliefs” was first published in 1872.

    No mention of Christ being created. No mention of anything against the Trinity.

    That holds true in the 1889 year book summary and in all other summary statements – to this very day.

    Your implied accusation that the prior statements of our Fundamental beliefs were in error, were not binding, or evolved from error to truth (etc) is not supported in historic fact (no not even in your own linked source).

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. We see that “moral perfection” is the essence of bible Adventism and the final purpose of the cross.

    Forgiveness of sin is worthless unless it works a complete and final work of transformation of character. And such is a fitness for heaven.

    And never have I suggested, nor EGW for that matter, that anyone can merit heaven by their good works.

    Moral perfection is not meriting heaven. Jesus alone merited heaven, and His merit must be added to our works. None the less, we obtain heaven by following the example of Jesus as we “work out our own salvation by fear and trembling……”

    Confusion seems to the essence of modern Adventism. In many ways, the bible is convoluted beyond recognition by modern scholars who “worship, they know not what.”

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. Faith: I know it seems harsh, but the fact is that even one cherished sin can keep you out of the Kingdom. Even one.

    I’m pretty sure that most of us who end up in the Kingdom will have many cherished sins. That’s why Jesus died on our behalf, and why God judges Jesus instead of us. It’s called righteousness by faith.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. Faith: Prof Kent said:”There are some here who talk incessantly of the liberal/conservative divide, and the desire to divide the Church by removing all those on the liberal side. So what is it–do we want to divide ourselves or remain united?”What you seem to be overlooking here is that the liberals are the dividing factor. They are causing the rift themselves. In order to avoid that rift there must be common agreement. There can never be peace as long as there are two camps in our church. The church is based on the doctrines God gave us. That is what defines the SDA church and the reason for its existance. If they don’t subscribe to this set of beliefs, they don’t belong. Simple. It isn’t rocket science. And it isn’t the fault of the conservatives; it is a choice the liberals make. But they cannot be allowed to come into a church and change it to suit their own tastes. If the SDA church is not to their taste then they should find one that is. It is not our right as human beings to change God’s rules. Period. We are in this church to worship Him, and to prepare ourselves for His coming. We don’t worship ourselves, the world or each other. Anyone who does this, doesn’t belong. I make no apologies for this stance. If you read my post to Eddie above, you will understand why. Frankly I am getting a little tired of the humanistic approach that seems to keep cropping up here. When judgment day comes, we won’t be standing at the judgment bar before our peers–and certainly not before the ones who don’t want to even follow the church doctrines–we stand before God. And we will all be quaking in our boots then, wishing we had adhered to His laws more carefully. But all have sinned and come short of the law. Thank God there is a Mediator for us on that day…that is, if we choose to follow Him now. Those who deny Him now, He will deny then. A serious thought–don’t you think?

    You’re absolutely correct. The liberals and progressives want to stay IN our SDA Church so they can lead us down the secular humanistic spiral. They want to remain “in” the Church so they can keep causing problems such as we see at LSU.

    Otherwise, they would leave and form their own “SDA Church of the Real Truth” and die a slow miserable death, along with the rest of the denominations that have adopted a similar philosophy.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. Steve&#032Billiter: My position is as always; if any Adventist church member denies any one of our Biblically sound 28 beliefs persistently so, then that person should be removed from the church rolls and invited to join another church that’s more comparable with his/her beliefs.

    Faith: Anyone who then blatantly contradicts these beliefs does not belong in the church and should be disfellowshiped.

    What if there is no other church that is closer to their beliefs? For example, if a person believes in all of the fundamental beliefs except for fundamental belief 24 (Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary), which church would you recommend that they join? Would you tell that person that he/she can no longer consider him/herself SDA and cannot enter a SDA church building?

    If those who do not accept one or more fundamental beliefs are to be disfellowshipped, what evidence would be required? The testimony of a witness? More than one witness? A jury trial?

    How would you be able to determine whether everybody you worship with actually accepts all 28 fundamental beliefs? Should every church member sign an oath affirming their acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs? If so, what happens if they change their mind? Should the oath be signed every year?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Prof Kent said:”There are some here who talk incessantly of the liberal/conservative divide, and the desire to divide the Church by removing all those on the liberal side. So what is it–do we want to divide ourselves or remain united?”

    What you seem to be overlooking here is that the liberals are the dividing factor. They are causing the rift themselves. In order to avoid that rift there must be common agreement. There can never be peace as long as there are two camps in our church. The church is based on the doctrines God gave us. That is what defines the SDA church and the reason for its existance. If they don’t subscribe to this set of beliefs, they don’t belong. Simple. It isn’t rocket science. And it isn’t the fault of the conservatives; it is a choice the liberals make. But they cannot be allowed to come into a church and change it to suit their own tastes. If the SDA church is not to their taste then they should find one that is. It is not our right as human beings to change God’s rules. Period. We are in this church to worship Him, and to prepare ourselves for His coming. We don’t worship ourselves, the world or each other. Anyone who does this, doesn’t belong. I make no apologies for this stance. If you read my post to Eddie above, you will understand why. Frankly I am getting a little tired of the humanistic approach that seems to keep cropping up here. When judgment day comes, we won’t be standing at the judgment bar before our peers–and certainly not before the ones who don’t want to even follow the church doctrines–we stand before God. And we will all be quaking in our boots then, wishing we had adhered to His laws more carefully. But all have sinned and come short of the law. Thank God there is a Mediator for us on that day…that is, if we choose to follow Him now. Those who deny Him now, He will deny then. A serious thought–don’t you think?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Professor Kent stated…..

    “I’m pretty sure that most of us who end up in the Kingdom will have many cherished sins. That’s why Jesus died on our behalf, and why God judges Jesus instead of us. It’s called righteousness by faith.”

    What you have described, Professor Kent, is “unrighteousness by faith”.

    There will be no “cherished sin” in heaven. Jesus said, “Ye must be born again.”

    The whole process of conversion is to change the mind of the sinner to love God and hate sin.

    In this life we struggle continually with the desires of the flesh against the spirit, but there will be no such conflict in heaven. The world, the flesh, and the devil will have no influence nor power in that heavenly kingdom.

    Today, we “fight the good fight of faith”. But this will not be necessary in heaven. And this is one primary reason all true believers long for the coming of Jesus.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. Professor Kent said…..

    “”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

    There are some here who talk incessantly of the liberal/conservative divide, and the desire to divide the Church by removing all those on the liberal side. So what is it–do we want to divide ourselves or remain united?”

    I personally don’t subscribe to some “witch hunt” to determine who can remain a church member and who must be put out.

    People are on various levels of understanding of the historic SDA bible message. But if and when any individual begins to attack any fundamental church doctrine and undermine the concensus agreement of the church in general, then they should be dealt with in no uncertain terms.

    To claim you are not certain and don’t know is one thing. But to claim you have carefully considered any given issue and are convinced it is wrong is something else altogether.

    Historic Seventh-day Adventism is a “system of truth” that is made up of several unifying concepts. Each concept agrees with the others and compliments and impliments the whole system.

    The pioneers did not sit down and discover first one idea and then another and finally say, “Hey, let’s start a church.” It is not a bunch of helter-skelter ideas that are unrelated to each other. We must understand that in the end, to deny one concept is to deny the whole.

    Everything they discovered, was in light of the Investigative Judgment and the 1844 prophetic time line. So, they found….

    1. The Sabbath.
    2. State of the dead.
    3. The thousands years are not on earth but in heaven after the second coming.
    4. The close of probation preceeds the 7 last plagues.
    5. And many other related issues that all tie together to make up a perfect whole.

    No issue can be denied without destroying the whole. They are all solid immoveable parts found in the bible.

    All these issues can be discussed with the purpose of learning and more clearly defining the application and its meaning for the church community. But to attack some aspect of this system of truth is to attack the whole of it.

    We should be able to see clearly, that anyone who attacks the IJ will eventually give up the 7th day Sabbath.

    But we should not throw people out of the church just because they do not know exactly how and why the IJ is important. But, again, if they claim they have carefully studied all the issues and reject them and use their influence to undermine church doctrines, they should be dealt with.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. Prof Kent:

    Label me as you wish; you can get in line with David Read, Bob Ryan, Sean Pitman, and others who seem to delight in proclaiming that I’m not really an Adventist after all, and am just a cowardly liar with blind, circular reasoning who is actually a theistic evolutionist who applauds its teaching in our schools. That’s what this website seems to be all about–those who reflect the “moral image of God” telling others how wrong and dangerous and immoral useless their faith and beliefs are, and why they should just shut up and leave the Church.

    This isn’t about labelling anyone–this is about the truth and making sure it returns to our classrooms. I know you and Eddie can’t see why I and others here want to hold the members to their baptismal vows or surrender their membership, but as far as I can see this is the only way to put an end to this whole thing.

    In most of today’s society, it is all about allowing people to “be their own person” and hold their own opinions. This isn’t about opinions. This is about truth and error.

    I have no problem if you hold your own opinions on anything that doesn’t contradict our doctrines. But the doctrines are not up for discussion. They were given to us by God and we either adhere to them, or we break our baptismal vows…a position that is quite widespread among SDAs today.

    The professors who teach evolution–even theistic evolution (or perhaps especially theistic evolution because it is more dangerous as it doesn’t openly declare it is in direct opposition to God and His word when it actually is)–are taking the word of man over the word of God. To me, that is incredibly foolish, and I would expect better of educated people.

    Worse yet, these professors and teachers seem to be bent on spreading this teaching far and wide in our institutions. I reluctantly declare that the persons so deceived should not be in positions of trust or be members in good standing in our churches. I get no enjoyment from this declaration. I wish we were all of one accord. But I tend to look at things logically and to me, if someone doesn’t hold to the truths the church stands for they are in the wrong place.

    The term “theistic evolution” is an oxymoron as you can either believe in God and His creation or you can believe in evolution. The two are diametrically opposed.

    I fail to see how people who have been so highly educated cannot see this. The principles of evolution are so far away from anything God stands for, surely you must see that.

    Remember this: if we do not fall on the
    Rock and be broken, the Rock will fall on us and crush us. We can be wrong, albeit sincerely wrong and lose out on eternal life. As for the so-called evidences for evolution, remember that Ellen White said in the end times we will not be able to believe our senses. This is because Satan is allowed to use more and more of his power to deceive us as the Spirit of God is withdrawn from the earth. Don’t be fooled. Please, please, give up this nonsense and return to the fold. That is my prayer for all of you in this position. The opinion of your peers–especially the worldly ones–is certainly not worth losing out on eternal life.

    As for perfection, I don’t know anyone who claims to be perfect. I know I am not. But we have to keep trying to be. We need to follow Christ so closely we will become like Him. That is the only hope for all of us.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. Shane&#032Hilde: Even Abraham, when commanded by God to sacrifice his only son, relied on his faith in God’s Word, which was based on evidence.

    Of course there was evidence; but the evidence God asks his people (including Abraham) to dwell on is not that obtained through potentially falsifiable repeatable empirical data derived from the scientific process that appeals to the rational candid mind (which Sean Pitman insists we cannot form a useful faith without), but from personal experience with the Creator himself. God desires us to test his word by communing with him, and applying our experience to what we can learn from God’s word. Re-read what Ellen White said about the “evidence” Abraham took to heart: it was evidence from…none other than…God’s word (fancy that). And it came in the strict context of his personal relationship with God.

    God’s desire is for us to evaluate all evidence in the context of a personal relationship with him, which transcends anything that can be measured by mass spectrometers, Geiger counters, and gene sequencers. If we can but experience Jesus, what evidence could be more powerful, meaningful, or beneficial?

    Why label the evidence of a personal relationship as “useless as faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” Sean once retorted to me something to the effect that I can’t speak face to face with Jesus. Right.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Eddie asked: “Should every church member sign an oath affirming their acceptance of all 28 fundamental beliefs? If so, what happens if they change their mind? Should the oath be signed every year?”

    The answer to that is basically Yes…it is called the Baptismal vow all SDAs take. I know it would be lovely to have everyone saved, but that is not the reality. This is serious stuff. You only get one lifetime to figure it all out and sometimes that is cut short, courtesy of the devil.

    Here’s what I see happening in our church: We have become a people that worship ourselves and our own opinions. Thus people have come to believe that they can shape the church to their way of thinking instead of realizing that the church is established by God and that He makes the rules. Where our choice lies is in the fact that we can choose whether or not to accept these beliefs and follow God by joining His church. If you really think about it, it is the height of gall to think that we can tell God what to do in His own church.

    I know it seems harsh, but the fact is that even one cherished sin can keep you out of the Kingdom. Even one. And there is a good reason for this. If the line is not drawn there, then where? Do you think, Eddie, that it would be acceptable to allow 1 sin each as a criterium for heaven? No? Why not? Because then sin is not erradicated from the universe as God has promised it would be. Then Heaven would not be Heaven.

    In a small way, the earthly church is in a similar situation. If we allow people into the church who refuse to believe as we do, do you think they will keep silent? Uh-uh. They will infect others with their error. Do you think their presence will cause harmony or disunion? What is happening now with our church–why it is in such disarray–is a perfect example of the results of not holding the line.

    Jesus prayed that we should all be one. Is that happening in our church today–no. Some say one thing, some say another. So you think it is harsh to disfellowship these people who refuse to “come into line” as the angel in Ellen’s vision commanded? How so? Don’t forget it is their choice. The church has its doctrines laid out for all to study. God established these doctrines. We have the choice to accept or reject them. But if we reject them we make ourselves unfit to commune with God’s people.

    If these people change their minds and want to return to the church no one is stopping them. In fact we would welcome them and rejoice in their decision.

    And please don’t try to villify the church or the members who are calling for this solution to our problem. It is the only viable solution there is, which is why God made provision for it in the first place. Study the book of Exodus and see how God handled the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. God did that, not because He is a harsh judge, but because He saw that He had to sacrifice the rebellious ones to save the rest of the congregation.

    What is happening in our church today is much the same. It is a widespread rebellion against God and His word. If you (the generic you)don’t believe in God as your Creator, you don’t believe His word. And if you don’t believe His word, what are you doing in His church to begin with? What could you possibly want with such a fellowship? The basis of all Christianity is to be a disciple of Christ…that is what Christians are supposed to be. If you don’t believe in Him or His word, you cannot be a Christian.

    The church is not just a social club. Joining God’s church is a serious life-and-death decision…actually an eternal-life-and-eternal-death decision. God has a right to expect that the members of His church believe in His doctrines. And when we get to the bottom line, when He comes to take His children home, they will all be the ones who are in harmony with Him, no ifs, ands, or buts, else there would be no harmony in Heaven.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. And by the way, Professor Kent, God does not “judge Jesus instead of us” in the investigative judgment.

    The IJ is to determine who has been “born again” and keeps the law of God. It is a judgment of all professed believers claims to being a Christian.

    Jesus was “judged for us on the cross”. But this is not the final judgment of the professing Christian community.

    I know that many hold your opinion in the church today, but it is a superficial view at best and heretical at worst. And it is one of the main reasons we have such a liberal church today.

    It is assumed we can not overcome sin, so Jesus simply inserts Himself in our place when our name comes up for judgment. There is not a shred of evidence in the bible or spirit of prophecy for such a faulty view.

    That Jesus stands with us in judgment is biblical. Christ and the believer are judged together as a single unit like husband and wife. I don’t stand alone, but neither does Jesus simply stand in my place. The record of my life and the merits of Christ are both required to pass the final judgment.

    Hope everyone has a blessed Sabbath. The final and perfect sign of faith and works.
    The final atonement in action.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. Hi Bill

    What do you think of Harold Camping’s biblical interpretation?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    I admit, Ken, that I don’t know all the details of Camping’s philosophy. I understand he has set a certain year that Jesus will come.

    I don’t subscribe to such an idea. We have no prophetic time line to vindicate such speculation. 1844 is the last date we can prove by bible prophecy. And as we know, that was not the second coming as many thought it was.

    We are in “the time of the end” since that date. The present time is the time of the final restoration of God’s people as the “first fruits” of the mature community of believers that God purposed from the beginning.

    The theme of the bible is restoration. And down through history, God’s people have asked again and again “When will the kingdom be restored?” Acts. 1:6

    Simply put, when the church on earth reflects the church in of heaven that reflects Jesus and the kingdom of God, then Jesus will come and take His people home. So that the church on earth and the church in heaven are one and the same.

    In this context, it is far more important for us to know and believe we are members of that heavenly church than any particular church structure on earth.

    Every time God has raised up a visible church on earth as a means of grace to advance God’s kingdom, Satan has infiltrated it, corrupted it, until it became the antichrist movement in this world. The Jews, the early church, modern Protestantism and possibly modern Adventism in the present day.

    Has Adventism committed the “unpardonable sin” as a visible church by departing from the bible? I don’t know. I do know that much of the evidence points to the fact that the SDA church is at least in the process of doing just that.

    Can the visible church finally succeed as God’s instrumentality to reflect the church of heaven? I say, yes. But only and if people come to realize there is no “unconditional election” of any church and unless we truly “repent” and accept our obligation and responsibility to demand accountability of ourselves individually and the church corporately, there is no hope for the SDA denomination.

    The devil loves to have people think the church can not and will not fail. This allows them to ignore their accountability and responsibility and assume that somehow God will make it all come out OK.

    What I am saying is this, the church can succeed only if people accept the fact the church can fail. Any other spirituality is false and self destructive.

    Church leaders love to sell church infallibility. This allows them essentially to do as they please with threats and intimidation of church members to “remain loyal” no matter what the condition is or will be. It is nothing but superstition. It has nothing to do with the bible.

    By the way, we see that people generally love to believe it, and this is one reason it is so popular.

    So, a Baptist may become a SDA and state, “Boy am I glad I found the true church. I thought I was in it before, but I know I am in the true church now.”

    He may be no better off spiritually now, than he was then. He has simply moved his loyalty from one visible church to another and still not be a member of the church of heaven.

    A true bible student is always wary of any church that claims or even implies it is the one infallible final church that can not or will not fail. With such a philosophy, it not only can fail, but has declared a spirituality that dooms it to failure.

    People love sensationalism. So I would suspect Dr. Camping has a rather large following. And what do you think of his presentation?

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. Faith said: I know it seems harsh, but the fact is that even one cherished sin can keep you out of the Kingdom. Even one.

    Kent said
    I’m pretty sure that most of us who end up in the Kingdom will have many cherished sins.

    Hmmm the “I’m pretty sure translation” of the bible being quoted again.

    Interesting how often that version comes up in some places.

    Kent said –
    God judges Jesus instead of us. It’s called righteousness by faith.

    hmm I’m guessing we are getting another snippet from the “I’m pretty sure” translation.

    Or maybe that is the regular Bible but without the use of H-G to render the text — 😉

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. Adventist&#032kid: From the ANN stylebook and information packet [http://goo.gl/TSb1Q]:The list of staff at ANN is on this page: http://goo.gl/7EmG6The article in question was written by Elizabeth Lechleitner, a 2006 communications graduate of Andrews University.

    Again, I will ask–have these people been living “under a rock” for the past several years?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. 5-15-11

    Bill Sorensen said: (5-11-11)

    “If you read enough posts, Lydian, on all the SDA forums, you soon see how impossible it is for the “carnal mind” to perceive the word of God and its meaning.”

    ************

    Bill,

    Sorry to be so slow getting an answer back to you but we have been through several really rough times here lately. (A prime example took place a week or so ago when a real “killer” of several tornados tore through our area leaving behind many destroyed homes and businesses–and many deaths and serious injuries. Neither the home we live in nor the one our oldest daughter lives in or our oldest son lives in were damaged. (Our other two children don’t live in the area so were never in harm’s way ) None of us were injured in any way although many trees, power lines, and other devastated homes were around Kathy and her husband’s home–including those of some very dear friends. While our hearts ache for those so affected we are very grateful for our blessings.

    In some respects I do agree with you 100%! It IS impossible for the CARNAL mind to perceive the Word of God and it’s meaning. But Jesus did not come to this world to suffer and die–then return to heaven without doing anything to lift us out of the pit in which we as sinners are in. His life and death made it possible for us to be changed–He came that we might be changed into His likeness. He came that we might have a new heart and a new mind! And, with the help of the Holy Spirit, it is more than possible that we, as totally unworthy sinners, can be changed into His image and CAN have a new heart and a new mind!

    Yes, there are portions of the Bible that ARE difficult (if not impossible) to understand on our own–but there is an abundance we CAN understand and accept with the help of the Holy Spirit–even those of us who aren’t as brilliant as we wish we were! So, in the end, we really have no excuse for not knowing enough to help us understands what God expects of His children–and living up to it!. If that is not the truth, then Jesus lived and died in vain–and I don’t think that is an acceptable conclusion. (But I am really looking forward to some day–after I’ve been with Jesus and my wonderful Father–sitting at the feet of Daniel and John as they discuss the two books they wrote–as well as Moses and the rest of the authors!) I supect I’ll need all of eternity in order to grasp it all!

    But listen to what God has said, Bill::

    “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I WILL TAKE THE STONY HEART OUT OF THEIR FLESH, AND WILL GIVE THEM AN HEART OF FLESH: THAT THEY MAY WALK IN MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES, AND DO THEM: AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD. But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.”
    “Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
    “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
    “Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
    “Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
    “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
    “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
    “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ezekiel 18:25-32 (KJV)

    “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” Ezekiel 36:26 KJV
    (How could God have said it any plainer than this–and what excuse can we possibly have for not understanding Him?)

    It is true that these particular verses were originally given for the Israelites at that particular time when they were captives in Babylon–but the God of the Israelites is the God of all time and all flesh. He never changes so the “new spirit” and the “new heart” are ever available to any one and every one who turns to Him in faith. In our own strength we can do nothing to merit salvation–or a true understanding of the Bible–and it is very possible for us to get so wrapped up in “minors” that we ignore the “majors!”

    We are all born with “carnal minds”, Bill, but Jesus came to this world to make it possible for us to get rid of out carnal minds and have His mind!.

    He did not come to this earth to die that we may live and then return to heaven leaving us in the same state we were in before He came. He came to give us all the resources we need to shed our “carnal minds” and accept the mind of Jesus so we can understand and avail ourselves of all the help we need to obtain eternal salvation. All is available to the repentant sinner who truly seeks Him. God can and will give all the help necessary to such a one. It is our own stubborn, rebellious spirit that keeps us from understanding the way to eternal salvation. At the bar of judgment none can give any excuse for not being ready to meet Jesus when He returns–and I truly believe that time is nearer than we think.

    This website was established to call attention to a real problem in our church and to make our great concern known. This issue at LSU–and probably other schools as well–is extremely important but it is very possible for us (who, after all, are on the “sidelines”) to get so heated up and so completely sidetracked that we become simply a bunch of quarreling children. We lose track of what the issues really are, what is really important– and we get immersed in hurling opinions back and forth that are completely “off the track!” and absolutely nothing is said or done that solves any problems–or draws any of us closer to Christ. (Was it Shakespear who said, “What fools we mortals be!” If not, whoever ssid it was right on track!)

    And I am not excusing myself and just blaming others. Believe me, I do not consider myself an “example’ of what being a true Christian is all about! I mean well but I often–very often–find myself as one of the “chief of sinners” for I have learned so much, been helped in so many ways by so many wonderful Christian friends so much better and more committed than I am–yet–after all these many years–I still find myself at times doing things I know I should not do, saying thing I know I should not say, and thinking things I know I should not think! But I take courage from my Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy and struggle on. God has been wonderful to me in spite of all of my often not-so-obedient-life

    Hope all of you have had a wonderful Sabbath!

    Lydian

    PS: I hope I don’t confuse anyone by my use of the KJV. It is the Bible I grew up with and which I am most familiar. I’ve tried relearning verses in the newer versions but end up not being able to quote either one correctly. Old habits die hard!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. Bill&#032Sorensen: It is assumed we can not overcome sin, so Jesus simply inserts Himself in our place when our name comes up for judgment. There is not a shred of evidence in the bible or spirit of prophecy for such a faulty view. … The record of my life and the merits of Christ are both required to pass the final judgment.

    Assumed? Whether I can overcome sin or not, I can assure you that I am failing and have little confidence that I will EVER succeed 100%. Yet I believe with total conviction that Jesus died once for my sins, that his atonement was both complete and sufficient, and that I can be saved in spite of my personal record. If God gives any weight to my own record, I will, without question, be found wanting, devoid of any merit whatsoever, and as lost as the thief on the cross until he accepted Jesus at the last hour. If I’m a heretic, I’ll die a heretic, but in Jesus’s outstretched arms.

    Bill&#032Sorensen: Hope everyone has a blessed Sabbath. The final and perfect sign of faith and works. The final atonement in action.

    Huh?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Ken: Here is a sample problem that emphasizes Dr. Pitman’s position that biblical truth be supported by empirical evidence: how can one empirically decide between the commencement of the investigative judgment in 1844 vs. siding with Desmond Ford’s position, vs. siding with Dr, Camping’s eschatology?

    I have never stated that testing the validity of the 1844 judgment is a matter of sensory experience.

    To my knowledge Sean has never stated that the 1844 Investigative Judgment is a matter of sensory experience or perception.

    Do you have a quote from him making that claim?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. Pastor&#032Ron&#032Cook: Once again I am amazed at the nativity, ignorance, or treasonous behavior of some people in high places. The very foundation of our beliefs are being eroded and we laud Dr. Lee Grismer’s thrilling exploits.Pastor Ron Cook

    Pastor Cook, I agree with you completely. ANN is a classic example of working with your “eyes wide shut” as we can see here very easily.

    Simply another terribly embarrassing example of how our SDA Church is working with their “heads in the sand,” being, as Sam Pipim states, “administrative ostriches” completely “out of it” when it comes to actually supporting our SDA bibliclal beliefs.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. Oh, BTW, now we need to see LSU “pull” Grismer and his other evolutionary cronies from La Sierra.

    Does the administration or the Board have the backbone? My guess is absolutely NOT!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. Hi folks

    I went on to ANN’s site and read its interview with Dr Jean Simmons, the Vice President of the Church who is leading the Church’s effort to develop a master plan for Adventist education.

    I thought the following excerpt from the interview was germane to the topic and would interest you:

    “ANN: How do you feel about exposing students to a variety of ideas and evidence, even if they might conflict with current official Adventist beliefs?

    Simmons: I believe that’s biblical. I’m fine with that. However, our responsibility, while exposing them to that which they may encounter when they go out into the world is to keep them focused on God’s word. We have a responsibility to say “That’s what this theory teaches us, that’s what another theory teaches us, but this is what we believe, based on the Bible.” When the two lines of thought are not congruent, such as the physical evidences we have in science, my position has been — as a teacher and a parent and now a grandparent — evidence might indicate a certain line of thought, but when the Bible indicates something different, we must continue to grow through more research and exploration in search of this truth. As we continue to grow in our understanding of the Bible, we will grow more so in our understanding of science, history and all else.”

    Query: Is Dr. Simmons taking the position that the physical evidence in science is not currently congruent with biblical creation?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. Dixie&#032Konshak: Hi,First time I have ever written on this site, but have followed all things on “Educate Truth” since it’s inception. I would like to know if Shane’s article will be sent to Ted Wilson directly.

    Welcome Dixie! We certainly need to make the truth available to the GC and directly to Ted Wilson. I believe he has been chosen to lead us because of the likelihood he will begin to actually LEAD our SDA Church and not just sit on the sidelines as others have done.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Once again I am amazed at the nativity, ignorance, or treasonous behavior of some people in high places. The very foundation of our beliefs are being eroded and we laud Dr. Lee Grismer’s thrilling exploits.

    Pastor Ron Cook

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. Lucian&#032Luca: Sean, Have you tried posting this as a comment under the published article? I think you should so that everybody that reads the article can find out who the guy really is…Lucian Luca

    I agree. I’ve already added my “two cents” over there. Others should too!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. @Steve Billiter, You’re correct in believing that those who do not believe our biblically based ideas should leave and join some other denomination.

    However, the principal concept of liberals and progressives is that they not only want to “believe” differently, they want to change the SDA Church to comply with these new revelations they have so recently discovered!

    They will not leave, but instead want to teach, preach, and espouse these ideas to our students and members.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. BobRyan: Lee Grismer isSurely we all know that in fact not a single fiction promoted within evolution was needed to “discover those 80 new species”. In other words – zoologists can discover new species all day long without having to call themselves “evolutionary biologists”. The fact that ANN is going out of its way to highlight evolution in this regard shows just how easy it is to uncritically accept various claims about evolution being necessary to discovery in nature and to science in general.in Christ,Bob

    Speciation is a totally manmade concept. Discovering new ones is not important to our discussion since most “new” species are simply small variants of those species already known.

    One can be a Creationist and “discover” new species also. Simply get a panel of “experts” to agree with you that it is “different enough” from any known species.

    ANN is probably what Stalin termed a “useful idiot” in regards to publishing this article. Hopefully, they’ve learned their lesson?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. Ken: Hi Bob
    I’d say a bigger problem than LSU, is if the Church VP in charge Adventist education is saying the physical evidence of science is not congruent with biblical creation.
    That is what many of the scientists of the GRI were saying at GC.

    Ken – I attended all the GRI sessions at the GC in their “Yes Creation!” seminar and I can tell you that all the GRI scientists and speakers were NOT claiming that observations in science are not congruent with the Bible.

    In fact many of them stated flatly that we should NOT let people get away with making those wild claims.

    But there was ONE GRI member that seemed to “only focus” on not addressing questions raised by arguments for evolution and simply tossing his hands in the air with the helpful advice of “get used to living with dissappointment”.

    That guy seems to get a lot of air time in the posts of those who are opposing the idea of working on solutions rather than pointing out challenges.

    The “rationale” for that being “helpful” is supposedly the idea that some Christians have decided to leave the Christian church once they find a problem that does not have a 5 minute answer already baked and sitting on the shelf.

    How much “better” it would have been if the all-is-lost say-nay-when-you-can group had been modeling the way that “answers are found” when the problem is more than a 5 minute fast-food problem.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. Lee Grismer is

    “an evolutionary biologist from La Sierra University, who has “discovered 80 new species of reptiles and amphibians during his 15-year career” at LSU.”

    Surely we all know that in fact not a single fiction promoted within evolution was needed to “discover those 80 new species”. In other words – zoologists can discover new species all day long without having to call themselves “evolutionary biologists”.

    The fact that ANN is going out of its way to highlight evolution in this regard shows just how easy it is to uncritically accept various claims about evolution being necessary to discovery in nature and to science in general.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. The Adventist Church’s confusion on the subject of origins is gobsmacking. It’s just not as complicated as everyone seems to believe. There are two basic origins models, the Darwinian and the Biblical creationist, and these two models have not changed, at least in their main contours, for about a century. As Adventists, our entire worldview and doctrinal structure are premised upon the truth of the biblical creationist model.

    What is the confusion about? Is it really as complicated as all that, or are Adventists just some of the stupidest people on the planet?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. Ken: Ben Clausen, in “Belief in Spite of Uncertainty: The Ongoing Faith Journey of a Scientist,” shared first his life experiences – Revelation in stories and texts; Nature; Relating Revelation and Science, “there are no short chronology scientific models;”

    Ken I will grant you that so far Clausen’s contribution to the “Solution” side of the equation has been “week” at best.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. As far as I am concerned, if the GRI guys abandon our Adventist model we are wasting our time and money supporting them; and it is high time they be removed. They do not speak for Adventism. There are many more scientists who have no problem with the creationist model, both in the church and outside of Adventism. And these non Adventist scientists are not simpletons. What would you call someone who believes that inorganic matter can become living matter? You may retort, what would you call someone who believes that a God created life? Now I say, well, let’s look at the evidence to see which is supported better, creation or evolution. And there we go again, preconceived ideas on both sides. However, putting aside preconceived ideas, the evidence supports creation more heavily than it does evolution. So does history, varied as it it. But when the majority today is on the side of evolution one can hardly argue with them. One has just to continue making one’s facts and researches known. But to tolerate our own teachers while they present views totally out of keeping with our Adventist’s views is self-defeating divisive. There are excellent DVDs printed that give great support for the creation model, these we need to purchase and share with others. Even listening to Dr. Veith, a former evolutionist, on Amazing Discoveries, is a great start.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Pastor&#032Ron&#032Cook:
    Once again I am amazed at the nativity, ignorance, or treasonous behavior of some people in high places. The very foundation of our beliefs are being eroded and we laud Dr. Lee Grismer’s thrilling exploits.

    Pastor Ron Cook

    Amen Pastor!
    My position is as always; if any Adventist church member denies any one of our Biblically sound 28 beliefs persistently so, then that person should be removed from the church rolls and invited to join another church that’s more comparable with his/her beliefs.

    It does the LORD Jesus Christ much discredit when outsiders, and or potential members see this confusion which could result in eternal loss. Ditto for any professor at any Adventist school from kindergarten through higher levels of college that does not teach according to our beliefs.

    While we can rejoice that we have a solid world church leader in Elder Wilson; unfortunately he cannot do it all and just walk into LSU and fire these offenders.

    However, in terms of the following prophecy by the LORD’s servant, Ellen White, we can know that our redemption is very close!

    Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. . . . The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy (Letter 55, 1886). {7BC 911.6}

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. Hello,

    Remember, Folks, the evidence is not the problem. It is our interpretation of the evidence that is the issue. The fossil record clearly shows that creation is on a better stance as regards origins than the evolution version of fossils. To the honest and fair researcher the evolutionary fossil record is really is actually worthless. If one believes in evolution then one has to, bound to, find fossils in the transitional forms. To date we have not found any. In fact, there should be more transitional fossil forms than complete forms as we see today. The millions of years, the gap theory, etc., make no sense whatsoever. There is nothing in the fossil record that better highlights evolution than creation. Creditable, good creation scientists have shown that evolution is just a theory. In my research I have not found the biblical data to be contrary to good science.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. Hi, Folks,
    This is what my friend Ken asks: I’d say a bigger problem than LSU, is if the Church VP in charge Adventist education is saying the physical evidence of science is not congruent with biblical creation. That is what many of the scientists of the GRI were saying at GC.

    The fact of the matter is,it is not that physical evidence is not congruent with biblical data. We miss the boat when we naively suppose that. In my research in science I have seen over and over again that any evidence can be interpreted or manipulated to testify to one’s presuppositions.

    Also interpretation of evidence is always coloured by one’s presuppositions. Objective evidence is hardly objective; so many times we have messed up in the interpretation of the evidence simply because of our worldview.

    For the SDA church to promote the findings of a so called Adventist biologist who is an evolutionist is utterly misleading and unconscionable. We have so many good scientists who do not accept evolution there is no need to promote these people as Adventists.

    They should be dwelt with in terms of their commitment and loyalty to the beliefs of the church. Not that we are against any who believes in evolution; in no way. However, if one works for the SDA church then one has, is duty bound, to subscribe to our beliefs or quit.

    That is the only honest thing to do. No one can be an evolutionist and remain an Adventist. That is a contradiction in itself. Evolution cannot harmonize with the plan of salvation; we cannot therefore harmonize ourselves with the erroneous view of evolution.

    Even the non-Adventist Christian scientists, like Ken Ham, Dr. Morris, and many others, laugh at us for such ignorant compromise. It is time for us to pull up our socks and get things fitting properly.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Ken: “The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, “Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem?” In a nutshell, his answer was “no,” but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows.
    1. When looking at the fossil record one realizes that Genesis cannot be a condensed version of time.
    2. How about the suggestion that the fossil record could precede the “special creation” of Genesis? This so-called “gap theory” of the Scofield Bible does not work because there is no point in the fossil record where living organisms appear together.
    3. What about putting the six literal days of creation millions of years ago? This won’t work because of the way the fossils are “sorted” in the record. Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.” “Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way.” “Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.”
    4. Could we consider a fourth way for long ages? Maybe God guided the process of theistic evolution. This view was unacceptable to Darwin himself. Otherwise you would have God guiding in birth defects, etc., so “a God of the gaps” approach does not seem helpful.”
    “Most of the presentations by the four GRI staff scientists were thoughtful and helpful.

    Ken – what you have described above is Jim’s hard and fast stand on the glaringly obvious point – that you cannot marry the Bible to the story telling for evolutionism.

    Gibson points out the fact that trying to find a way to delete out the literal 7 day week and eisegete (bend and wrench) millions of years into the text – does not work.

    Gibson is 100% correct in that regard.

    There is no way to “Bend the Bible” to fit evolutionist storytelling about life being created (evolving) over 100’s of millions of years of time.

    The choice is atheism or christianity as Gibson points out – there is no middle ground.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. Hi,
    First time I have ever written on this site, but have followed all things on “Educate Truth” since it’s inception. I would like to know if Shane’s article will be sent to Ted Wilson directly. From the moment we all prayed as one, for the General Conference to elect the man that God chose to lead this end time church, everything I have heard him speak or I have read, tells me that he is a man after God’s own heart. I pray that you would send this article that is so very clear in stating that Dr. Grismer is an “Ardent evolutionist who believes that the sixth day Creation is ludicrous”, directly to Mr. Wilson, as I have heard him speak several times how vital it is that we believe in God’s sixth day creation as the only truth that we, as Adventists, can embrace. His belief that if we call ourself Adventists, and we truly love our God, we must hold to the sixth day creation as the only truth there is about how this world came into existence. His ardent belief would lead me to think that he does not know what Dr. Grismer has really been teaching at LSU, and that when he finds out this truth, as a man of God he would have a whole lot to say about this publicly.
    God Bless All,
    Dixie

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. I think our agnostic friend Ken has correctly noted the trend at GRI, and I think it is a problem.

    As I said above, there are two basic models on origins, the mainstream scientific model (Lyellism/Darwinism), and the young earth (or young life) biblical creationist model. Creationists have long sought to do more than simply critique Darwinism; they have sought to build a biblical creationist model, i.e., do creation science.

    But now, as Ken has pointed out, the GRI people seem to be rejecting the creation science approach. Ben Clausen has done this very publicly, but some of the others seem headed more quietly down the same path.

    The problem with this approach is that the data are always given a Darwinist interpretation, and if creationists don’t give the data a creationist interpretation, then it starts to seem like “the data conflict with the Bible.” In reality, the data don’t necessarily conflict, but since there’s only a Darwinist interpretation and no creationist interpretation, it begins to seem like they do conflict.

    The GRI people are starting to say things like “believe in spite of the data,” or words to that effect, but such has not been the creationist approach for over a century, and has never been the approach of the Christian apologist during the Christian era.

    My friend Phil Brantley takes the approach that we should just believe the Bible based upon our conservative Adventist hermeneutic and do mainstream Darwinian science, and not worry about the contradiction. But this will not work for most people. What will inevitably happen is that people will start to take a very liberal hermeneutic and assume that Genesis is only poetry or allegory. This liberal Biblical hermeneutic if widely adopted in our church, would mean the end of Adventism as we know it.

    So, there simply is no workable alternative to creation science. We’ve got to do our best to make sense of the data within a Biblical model and time frame, and not have unreasonable expectations for it. It’s never, ever, going to be the case that a scientific model worked on by less than 1% of scientists will look as impressive as a model worked on by more than 99% of scientists. But that doesn’t mean we’re wrong, or that the project should be abandoned.

    That’s my thinking on the subject, and I’d be curious as to the thinking of the GRI people.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. Re Bob’s Quote

    Gibson is 100% correct in that regard.

    (From Jim Gibson’s Quote) “Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.”

    Hi Bob

    Are you sure Jim Gibson is saying science supports 6 day recent creation?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Faith,

    During the early history of the SDA Church, up until around 1890, SDA literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can you believe it? You can read the history of this in an article at Ministry magazine (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7). Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views. Eventually, the Church adopted its current position, which embraces the trinity, and is a part of “present truth.”

    Is it any more necessary to expel those with divergent views today than it was prior to 1890? If the Church vigorously excercised your position early on–to expel anyone disagreeing with the official Church position–we might to this day STILL reject the trinity, and Educate Truth might have arisen to expose trinitarians at our universities rather than theistic evolutionists! Perhaps you could give this some prayerful thought.

    Regarding theistic evolution, I am thoroughly and completely in 100% agreement that it should not be taught as fact at any SDA university. I’ve always taken this position, and from what I’ve read from Eddie, he totally agrees with you as well. You’ve asked me to “return the fold,” but I’ve never strayed from it. As I’ve declared many dozens of times at this website, I’m a lifelong young-earth creationist (based to no small extent on faith in God’s word). I don’t doubt that there are some individuals who might be evangelistic in their desire to see theistic evolution established in the Church, so I share your concern. There is a way to oppose that, but I don’t think Educate Truth’s approach (public flogging and harassment, and frequent misrepresentation of science), or the continual policing of everyone’s position (enforcing a creed which E. G. White objected to, prone to arbitrariness, and highly impractical), are the best means. I think such tactics do more harm than good. I’m not a bAdventist, as some here suggest, just because I disagree with you and others on certain issues.

    I appreciate the gentleness of your communications, and the fact that you don’t distort what I say. You have a sweet spirit.

    Blessings
    PK

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. LSU&#032Alum: They are made up my human’s and to think someone’s character is based on there legalism according to EGW’s rules is ridiculous.

    Seventh-day Adventists believe otherwise. There is ample evidence from scripture about alcohol.

    Whether you believe it’s a sin or not though really doesn’t matter. LSU has a policy that states employees are not to drink alcohol.They were aware of it, and it appears did it habitually. As leaders at one of our instituations they were clearly in violation of their contract and received just action.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. For those who are curious to know what the 13 baptismal vows on the back of my Certificate of Baptism from the 1970s state, here they are:

    1. I believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.

    2. I accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an atoning sacrifice for my sins, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty.

    3. I renounce the world and its sinful ways, and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour, and believe that God, for Christs’s sake, has forgiven my sins and given me a new heart.

    4. I accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing Him as my Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and claim His promise to strengthen me by His indwelling Spirit so that I may receive power to do His will.

    5. I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

    6. Loving the Lord with all my heart, it is my purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep God’s law of Ten Commandments, including the fourth, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord.

    7. I believe that my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that I am to honor God by caring for my body in abstaining from such things as alcoholic beverages, tobacco in all its forms, and from unclean foods.

    8. I accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts, and believe that the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church.

    9. I believe in the soon coming of Jesus as the blessed hope, and it is my settled determination to prepare to meet Him in peace, as well as to help others to get ready for His glorious appearing.

    10. I believe in church organization, and it is my purpose to support the church by my tithes and offerings, and by my personal effort and influence.

    11. I accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion, and desire to be so baptized as a public expression of my faith in Christ and in His forgiveness of my sins.

    12. Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is my purpose by the grace of God to order my life in harmony with these principles.

    13. I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church constitues God’s remnant people, and rejoice to be accepted into its membership.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. @Ken: Thanks, useful friend. We’ve become accustomed to your face. Look forward to seeing it.

    But is Adventism — alas you know only the declamations you’ve witnessed here — of any use to YOU? I mean besides bemusement and the chance to offer exemplarily courteous one-upsmanship? Well, what more can anyone ask, in this collapsing world. There IS more to ask for.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. Re Wes’s Quote

    “But is Adventism — alas you know only the declamations you’ve witnessed here — of any use to YOU? I mean besides bemusement and the chance to offer exemplarily courteous one-upsmanship? ”

    Hi Wes

    The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.

    Understand or has final judgment been rendered? 🙂

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. Shane&#032Hilde: I suggest the history of our church regarding its belief in the God Head stop here. The two of you may correspond privately about it if you wish

    Shane – I just saw that comment.

    Please consider the fact that the accusation being made against accepting our fundamental beliefs based on the false claim that we ever had a fundamental belief against the trinity – is totally lacking historic support in fact.

    Not one single summary statement of beliefs published in the 1800’s or 1900’s for the Adventist church – ever argued against the trinity.

    But IF there were such a thing – then those who want to argue for “error may still be found in our statement of Beliefs today” would have at least a historic argument support their ideas.

    Since the facts in this case strongly support our present position that the Fundamental Beliefs are binding – and that they are not in error, it would be a shame to exclude this element from the discussion.

    Just as some people have been snookered into thinking evolution is a fact of sciencce – so a great many have been mislead to suppose that the Adventist church had a published set of beliefs in the 1800’s that denied the Trinity.

    No such denial of the Trinity was ever published in the 1800’s as part of a Fundamental Beliefs statement.

    And yes we did have a published FB statement in the 1800’s starting in 1872 and it did not deny the Trinity.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Re Wes’s Quote

    “You are on to something big, Ken, our good friend; something big and exciting, a helluva lot more exciting than even blog quibbling, by far.”

    Dear Wes

    I hope you are right! Perhaps you see that far clearer than I can.

    Guilty as charged on the use of the rhetorical arsenal. Answer a question with a question – Socrates best dialectical tool. Not done in a mean spirit though, my cross examining friend.

    Ever take things on faith? Hard to predict the future unless one is Dr Camping. I do however watch for classic, Adventist, eschatological markers which may yet provide the support for the bridge between faith and empirical reality.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Dear Wes and Bob

    Perhaps a better question than why is Adventism of use to Ken, is why would an agnostic want to be of assistance to Adventism?

    I suspect Sean knows this answer.

    It is not so much what Adventists think, but why they think it, that is of great interest to me.

    My intuitive friend Wes, who is by far one of the best at ferreting out motives, suggests that he thinks I am on to ‘something something big’. Perhaps so. But Wes, do you think it is something bigger than Adventism.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. @ken: Ken, interesting thread, our present one, which, as I follow it, is: First, you again expressed your hope that, as the very winsome and gentlemanly agnostic we know you to be, “I am of some use to my Adventist friends.”

    So, presuming to speak I behalf of your Adventist friends, I asked you, “Is ADVENTISM…of any use to YOU”?

    I assume this was the question you answered by saying, “The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.”

    I didn’t expect that. Hmmm. Are you saying that your use for Adventism is focused on one individual lay Adventist, Dr. Pittman, his own focus epitomizing an Adventism you find attractive, and not simply on the brouhaha besetting him? If so you’re on to something, something big.

    Regards, Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. wesley&#032kime: I assume this was the question you answered by saying, “The answer lies in Dr. Pitman’s attempt to bridge the gap between faith and empirical reality.”
    I didn’t expect that. Hmmm. Are you saying that your use for Adventism is focused on one individual lay Adventist, Dr. Pittman, his own focus epitomizing an Adventism you find attractive, and not simply on the brouhaha besetting him? If so you’re on to something, something big

    Ken’s response is consistent with Romans 1 where we find that all mankind are without excuse simply due to the evidence in nature alone.

    Ken’s response is consistent with logic in that the “common ground” between atheism(or its agnostic form) and Christianity is — observations in nature.

    Even in the case of the appeal to Daniel’s prophetic evidence declaring the Bible to be supernatural and inspired – where over 2000 years of human history is “predicted” — we see that it is true based on our “observations in real life” – the events of actual history.

    Even the argument for ID is based on “observations in nature” as we see in the case of the “Life of the cell”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. Re spelling errors

    Sorry about those in the previous passage. I wasn’t drinking…really, just using an iPhone with a small screen. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. 🙂

    Cheers
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. Ken: Dear Wes and Bob
    Perhaps a better question than why is Adventism of use to Ken, is why would an agnostic want to be of assistance to Adventism?
    I suspect Sean knows this answer.
    It is not so much what Adventists think, but why they think it, that is of great interest to me

    Step One is to accurately understand the beliefs themselves.

    Step Two is to accurately understand just how SDAs claim to have arrived at those beliefs.

    But when you get sidetracked by theistic evolutionism’s attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism or by Kent’s attempts to declare belief in the Bible to be totally at odds with science (in his “faith not science” themes) – you are vacating your stated mission above.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. If anyone wants to see how “creation” can be gobbledegooked into oblivion, read Harold Weiss’ article “Creation in the Bible” over on Adventist Spectrum.

    Is this guy for real? Even many at Spectrum can’t fathom what he is really saying. He even admits he isn’t talking about the “biblical doctrine of creation” in one of his comments below the article!

    I say again–is he to be taken seriously?
    Is Spectrum to be taken seriously?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. Adventist&#032kid: From the ANN stylebook and information packet [http://goo.gl/TSb1Q]:The list of staff at ANN is on this page: http://goo.gl/7EmG6The article in question was written by Elizabeth Lechleitner, a 2006 communications graduate of Andrews University.

    We’re not expecting “propaganda” simply a professional job of printing the truth. It sounds like they need to regroup or get some new people who actually know what they’re doing.

    If you think I’m nuts, simply read another story on ANN in which the author proclaims pastors should be giving out condoms (with their faces (the pastors face!) on them) to encourage the sexually tempted to “be good” and not get pregnant.

    What next? SDA “pregnancy counselling” centers providing abortions?! That also would help cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. I agree. This site has absolutely no control over the hiring practices of any university. Sean and I are essentially nobodies.

    If schools have become more aware of who they are hiring as a result of the website, then that’s a good thing.

    Jeff acts as if creationist biologists are having a difficult time getting hired because of Educate Truth. I would hope the opposite is true, and it doesn’t logically follow that creationists would.

    Our schools should be much pickier then they are with hiring biology professors. I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. Ron&#032Stone&#032M&#046D&#046: Does the LSU Board even care about this deterioration in our biblical beliefs. Well, their inaction, ineptitude, and apathy in finding any solutions tell me they don’t, at least the majority who control the Board.

    A former biology professor is allegedly (according to several second-hand informants) unhappy with the administration forcing him into retirement, which he blames on his support for theistic evolution.

    Recently the LSU biology profs met with colleagues from other SDA campuses who present evidence supporting the church’s view of creationism and integrate faith and science in the classroom. Hopefully LSU’s profs will begin to do the same in the classroom.

    Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. Prof Kent:

    How do you figure that this site keeps biology profs with integrity out of LSU? Any professor that is following the Bible, supporting creation, and the SDA church has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

    When you say “quality” applicants, just how do you judge their credentials?

    As far as I am concerned, it is far more important that these professors have a firm grasp on the teachings of creation and the teachings of the Bible than any credentials the world can offer. If that had been the criteria used as a guideline for hiring, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. And that goes for all our SDA institutions.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. Eddie said:
    Faith, I just dug up my certificate of baptism from the 1970s and on the back it lists only 13 “baptismal vows.” Not one mentions a belief in a literal six-day creation week only 6000 years ago. In fact, none of the vows even mentions belief in a creator!

    I beg to differ with you, Eddie.

    Let’s look at #5 and #6–

    5. I believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.

    6. Loving the Lord with all my heart, it is my purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep God’s law of Ten Commandments, including the fourth, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord.

    I realize that in this present day of doubt and unbelief some people may think I am being nit-picky here, but I believe the Bible–the whole Bible–beginning with Genesis 1:1. Evolution in any of its ugly forms refutes the Bible as a collection of fairytales at best, and lies at worst.
    Therefore, to believe in evolution is to reject the Bible as the Truth.

    The Sabbath is based on the fact that God rested on the 7th day (from Creation, remember) and hallowed it for a memorial of Creation forever. If you believe in evolution that is all out the window. Yet–and this is extremely important–the Sabbath is the dividing line between the saved and the lost. Because by keeping the Sabbath we acknowledge the Lord as our Creator.

    So you see, Eddie, those two precepts are violated when the member begins to believe in Evolution as the truth. So, yes, the member then has broken his vows.

    I am not saying that we should bar people from attending church if they are quietly and agreeably behaving themselves, whether or not they are members. However, we are told that those that break their vows are to be disfellowshiped–their names removed from the books.

    I can’t see why this is such a big deal. Think about it. Having your name removed from the earthly books is nothing compared to what is happening in the heavenly books. You can tap dance around this issue all you want, but you aren’t fooling God with all your fancy stepping. He is the one that ultimately makes the decision as to who is and who is not His.

    Anyone who openly believes in evolution brings disgrace upon God. They are ultimately saying, “God didn’t mean what He said in His Holy Word (that He miraculously preserved all these years, by the way). Its a fairytale and not to be taken seriously. We now know (courtesy of a non-Christian man’s total imagination) that God’s story is all a myth and anyone who believes it is just plain uneducated.”

    Does that sound like loyalty to God? God says if you (the generic you) don’t acknowledge Him here on earth, He won’t acknowledge you before His Father in Heaven.

    Kind of serious stuff, don’t you think?

    Personally, I take great joy in acknowledging God as my Creator and I don’t care a fig if that makes me look like an uneducated moron to the world. The world isn’t my guideline at all. And I am sorry for anyone who even considers what the world says as more important than what God says. That is what evolutionists are doing. All their attempts at trying to marry truth and error will not avail them of salvation. And all their education isn’t going to save them in the end, either.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Ron&#032Stone&#032M&#046D&#046: If anyone wants to see how “creation” can be gobbledegooked into oblivion, read Harold Weiss’ article “Creation in the Bible” over on Adventist Spectrum.

    I believe Harold also spun that story over at Spectrum as well.

    In the “big tent model” of Spectrum all views are welcomed – err um… except for “some views”.

    😉

    And that my friends is more than a little instructive to the unbiased objective reader.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Dear Wes

    That’s right Wes, when it comes to investigations of reality all questions should have a point. Although we may seem playful there is some serious business at hand here isn’t there?

    Why people believe what they believe is insightful to the advance of human knowledge. Conclusions, and most certainly those of science , are mere fence posts along the infinite road to better understanding. What does it mean if everyone’s faith is at least slightly different, or some are guided more by their sympathetic nervous systems. Are laws of gravity fueled by adrenalin? Would those laws be different if Newton had been an Adventist? Probably not if gravity wasn’t part of the current FB#28.

    So when it comes to dramatis personae in our Adventist play our very good Dr. Pitman plays a great heroic, or quixotic role. Time will tell prioviding there is enough time. And that to all us should be of profound interest because often dramatic turns in the advance of human knowledge come through iconic individuals.

    The rest of us have our roles as well and yours, at least partially, is to call out the friendly neughbourhoid agnostic into the Adventist lion’s den. And you do it well Dr. Kime, no ironic flattery intended. Nothing like a challenge to bring out the best, or the worst, in a man/woman.

    And my role. That of the dialectic foil in the great play, or maybe … more like Touchstone, or perhaps more liklly the muschevious Puck! Every fool has his role.

    Alas Dr. Kime I don’t think the something something big is about the salvation of this fool’s soul. Can’t that cloud the agnostic gameplan, the pointed questions.

    I hope that assists you and our Adventust friends in bringing me further out if the agnostic closet. You all deserved the honest explanation lest I be mistaken for a devil in a blue dress. Just an agnostic Puck I’m afraid.

    Ontological cheers!
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. Professor&#032Kent: Never, ever has the SDA Church endorsed a statement that requires us to accept or teach a literal 6-day creation on the basis of the “weight of evidence.”

    Never has the SDA church endorsed or supported the idea that 3SG 90-91 is wrong when it says that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible as the accurate trustworthy – Word of God.

    Never has the SDA church endorsed the idea that Paul is wrong in Romans 1 when he says that observations regarding the “things that have been made” leave even the godless pagans “without excuse” in regard to the “invisible attributes of God clearly seen IN the things that have been made”.

    Never has the SDA church endorsed the idea that Paul is wrong in Romans 10 when he declares that “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” where that “Word of God” is the “voice of God heard in nature”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. Shane&#032Hilde: I agree. This site has absolutely no control over the hiring practices of any university. Sean and I are essentially nobodies.If schools have become more aware of who they are hiring as a result of the website, then that’s a good thing. Jeff acts as if creationist biologists are having a difficult time getting hired because of Educate Truth. I would hope the opposite is true, and it doesn’t logically follow that creationists would.Our schools should be much pickier then they are with hiring biology professors. I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

    Shane, If enough of us “nobodies” stepped up and demanded some accountability, I think something would be done.

    But, look at even this site. Only a few dozen individuals are posting on any regular basis! I have asked many others why they don’t participate. Their answers mainly fall into two camps.

    “I don’t really care that much about it to get involved” (mainly “nobody” church members)

    Don’t want to get my name involved. (mostly Church workers).

    Apathy and “fear” keep people from doing the “right thing.”

    Is it any wonder why this generation is called “Laodecea?” It’s enough to make me vomit,too!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. BobRyan: I believe Harold also spun that story over at Spectrum as well.In the “big tent model” of Spectrum all views are welcomed – err um… except for “some views”. And that my friends is more than a little instructive to the unbiased objective reader.in Christ,Bob

    If you think Weiss is “off his rocker” as I do, then please read T.Joe Willey’s article about the LSU problem. Willey, as I remember him from my medical school days, is a neurophysiologist who is probably retired by now (I hope!).

    According to Willey, the Board’s Committee “misinterpreted” the student data. He also says those of us here who support ET have a “curse of the cult of certainty” because we actually believe what the bible actually says! And, we should quit our “constant nagging” and leave LSU alone.

    Willey also states that the biologists should continue their “naturalistic” teaching methods (meaning “keep on truckin” with evolution as fact).

    Is it any wonder why, with guys like Weiss and Willey, our SDA institutions are being flushed down the toilet bowl?!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. BTW, in a response to Willey’s article over at Spectrum, Jeffrey Kent says, “things have absolutely changed” (over at LSU) so I guess we all should just “close shop?!”

    He also says,”Everyone loses so long as Educate Truth remains online.”

    How about it Shane? Is Kent correct? Are things all A-OK over at LSU?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Re Ron’s Quote

    “Objective evidence is hardly objective; so many times we have messed up in the interpretation of the evidence simply because of our worldview.”

    It is always great to hear from my wonderful friend Ron Henderson! It was Ron, who on a park bench in Nova Scotia four summers ago, got me introduced me in Adventism.

    Respectfully, the problem I have with Ron’s approach that science can never be empirical and most be biased. I don’t accept that.

    Doesn’t science over time continously give humanity a better understanding of reality? Can’t one simply have a neutral worldview and view science as an objective means to better understand reality? Do we really think the laws of gravity are biased because Newton happened to be a Christian? Is it only Adventist scientists that strictly adhere to FB#6 that clearly discern empirical evidence?

    These rhetorical questions are not meant to disparage faith, just differentiate it from the rational, objective empiricism of science.

    That is why I applaud Dr.Pitman’s attempt to provide empirical means to prove biblical creation. He acknowledges the problem of circuitous logic -the Bible tells me so- to prove FB#6 creation. To be credible to the modern educated mind this proposition must be supported with empirical evidence.

    Look at the comments of the GRI scientists. This is an Adventist, not a secular institute.

    Look at the comments of Dr. Jean Simmons a VP of the Church. She doesn’t work for ANN, she was just interviewed by them.

    From my outside view I opine that you have critical, institutional differences of opinion on creation that are causing credibility problems for your faith. I’m not sure, as my friend Ron Henderson suggests, that other Christian scientists are laughing at you, but I think your doctrinal leadership is in disarray.

    Respectfully
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. Re Bob’s quote

    “The “big problem” we are having at the moment is that a few of our thought leaders in the field of education have been “trained” to accept any new wild claim made on behalf of evolutionism “uncritically”. ”

    Hi Bob

    I’d say a bigger problem than LSU, is if the Church VP in charge Adventist education is saying the physical evidence of science is not congruent with biblical creation.

    That is what many of the scientists of the GRI were saying at GC.

    Is Educate Truth going to be the lone Adventist bastion for the principle that empirical scientific evidence supports recent 6 day creation? No wonder Erv Taylor said Sean if on a heroic mission if the Church won’t scientifically back creationism.

    That is why, even as an agnostic, I have great respect for Educate Truth standing up for FB#6, that supposedly the Church supports.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. Re Bob’s Quote

    “Ken – I attended all the GRI sessions at the GC in their “Yes Creation!” seminar and I can tell you that all the GRI scientists and speakers were NOT claiming that observations in science are not congruent with the Bible.”

    Hi Bob

    Thanks for your comments.

    Just wondering if you spoke to Ben Clausen, Jim Gibson, Tim Standish and Ronny Nalin of the GRI at the GC?

    As far as I can tell, none of these scientists propose the evidence supports a recent 6 day creation.(FB#6). Please see the following quotes:

    “Ronny Nalin, who does sedimentological research in Italy, chose to address a similar theme: “Dealing with Uncertainty.” He answered four key questions:

    1. Have I found the synthesis between the Bible and geology? No, just more unresolved issues. ”

    “The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, “Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem?” In a nutshell, his answer was “no,” but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows.

    1. When looking at the fossil record one realizes that Genesis cannot be a condensed version of time.
    2. How about the suggestion that the fossil record could precede the “special creation” of Genesis? This so-called “gap theory” of the Scofield Bible does not work because there is no point in the fossil record where living organisms appear together.
    3. What about putting the six literal days of creation millions of years ago? This won’t work because of the way the fossils are “sorted” in the record. Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.” “Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way.” “Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.”
    4. Could we consider a fourth way for long ages? Maybe God guided the process of theistic evolution. This view was unacceptable to Darwin himself. Otherwise you would have God guiding in birth defects, etc., so “a God of the gaps” approach does not seem helpful.”

    “Most of the presentations by the four GRI staff scientists were thoughtful and helpful. Ben Clausen, in “Belief in Spite of Uncertainty: The Ongoing Faith Journey of a Scientist,” shared first his life experiences – Revelation in stories and texts; Nature; Relating Revelation and Science, “there are no short chronology scientific models;”

    Ron, are these observations congruent with the Bible in your opinion?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. Professor&#32Kent: Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions.

    I don’t think so. I didn’t say they were applying, I said if:

    Shane&#32Hilde: I think it’s a good thing if evolutionary biologists are having difficulty getting jobs at our schools. I don’t even know why they would want to apply.

    Professor&#32Kent: The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS.

    I seriously doubt Educate Truth has anything to do with the lack of applicants. That’s very speculative. I’d prefer to see biology departments disappear than compromise by hiring professors who are not supportive of the biblical creation.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. Faith: When you say “quality” applicants, just how do you judge their credentials?

    An e-mail arrived this morning that provides exactly what I mean by “quality” applicants. I’m told there is nothing particularly secretive about this, so I’ll tell it like it is. Southern Adventist University, the flagship institution for creationism, was unable to locate two suitable “creationists” a year ago. How did they fare this year? The few suitable PhDs in the Church applied and got hired elsewhere. In the end, they had little choice but to hire an MD who was the spouse of one of the current faculty members, and an individual who has just now graduated with an MS in biology.

    Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website.

    By the way, the individual hired with the MS got their degree at a place D Fender tells us “has just as many issues as LSU does:” Loma Linda University.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. Kent – that is yet another amusing spin on one of my posts. In my post above I point out that EducateTruth did nothing to hamper SAU efforts to draw faculty.

    In fact Educate Truth has a section dedicated to promoting the work that SAU has done in regard to their support of creation.

    Your endless spinning that seeks to position EducateTruths promotion of SAU’s work as somehow damaging their ability to draw faculty remains in the factless category.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. Shane&#032Hilde: I seriously doubt Educate Truth has anything to do with the lack of applicants. That’s very speculative.

    No, it’s not speculative. I’m hearing from those in the trenches who know firsthand the applicants, their concerns, and their general mood.

    I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor. They are not inclined to go online and make accusations about other people and declare, from scant knowledge, that they can divine the heart, beliefs, and convictions of others.

    You need to accept some responsibility for what this website has created. Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. Here are some shocking facts on the stunning divergence of views that was once tolerated by Adventists (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7):

    Though James White rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, he did believe in the three great Powers in heaven reflected in his first hymnbook.6 Though opposed to the Trinity, he did not believe that Christ was inferior to the Father. In 1877 he wrote, “The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.”7

    Not all agreed with James White on the equality of Father and Son. During the 1860s, Uriah Smith, long-time editor of the Review and Herald, believed that Jesus was “the first created being.”8 By 1881, he had changed to the belief that Jesus was “begotten” and not created.9

    A selective list of Adventists who either spoke against the Trinity and/ or rejected the eternal deity of Christ include J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, D. M. Canright, J. H. Waggoner, and C. W. Stone.10 W. A. Spicer at one point told A. W. Spalding that his father, after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist (he was formerly a Seventh Day Baptist minister), “grew so offended at the antitrinitarian atmosphere in Battle Creek that he ceased preaching.”11

    Should the SDA Church today be more concerned about preaching the everlasting gospel or purifying its ranks according to an inflexible creedal statement? If we insist on purifying our ranks, how do we know that we have everything figured out with more certainty today than we did in 1888?

    May I remind readers of the prelude to our Fundamental Beliefs: “These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

    How is the Holy Spirit to lead our Church to a fuller understanding of Bible truth if we arbitrarily decide we have it all figured out now, and expel anyone who dares to think differently? Surely the Bible and our Church can withstand honest discussion of divergent viewpoints.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. Ron&#032Stone&#032M&#046D&#046: Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

    So here is what I wrote at Spectrum:

    Professor Kent – Sat, 05/14/2011 – 18:47
    Anyone who has visited Educate Truth must surely recognize that I am their chief antagonist. I oppose them vehemently, though it is more their method and tactics that I object to than their basic mission. Nevertheless, I personally feel as though I have some balance on these issues, so I will share a few thoughts for what they are worth:

    1. There is no question in my mind that some individual biology faculty at LSU were teaching theistic evolution as fact, and belittling, to some degree at least, the faith of students who chose to accept the SDA Church’s official teaching.

    I was defending the chief claim of Educate Truth, and for that I was labelled a fraud?

    BobRyan: Kent represents a signicant group opposed to the idea of exposing and fully dealing with the TE problem.

    Excuse me. I also wrote this:

    2. The university and regional Church leadership should have dealt much sooner and much better with the situation than they chose to do so. They should never have let the situation reach the point that it has.

    Ron and Bob continue to accuse me of spin. And because I don’t just give up and say, “Oh, by the way, you guys weren’t lying about my beliefs all along, we get this from the arbiter of truth:

    BobRyan: Nothing pleases them more than to complain if someone should happen to claim that their arguments show them to be TE – since this is the one point they will adamantly and consistently claim they do not hold – no matter how self-conflicted that claim when compared to their “actions”.

    The truth is, Bob, I do think it’s good that you reveal your character to others. I do want people to understand your tactics. Keep it up.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Shane said:

    “These biologists at LSU assassinated their own character by remaining at an institution they were undermining. They were being dishonest and essentially stealing from parents who thought their kids were receiving an Adventist education. They robbed us, and the administration is party to it.

    Your ludicrous accusations are the equivalent to blaming the shopper who identified a store employee slipping cash into their pocket from the register for all the problems the employee is going through.”

    Sorry, Prof Kent, but I totally agree with Shane. This website has done an invaluable service to the church by letting the members know what is going on in our church-sponsored institutions. Something we all have every right to know. Shane and Sean did not make this situation, they merely reported it. This situation has been going on for 25-30 years now and Educate Truth has not been around for more than a couple of years to the best of my knowledge. So how could this site possibly be responsible for any of this? It’s entirely illogical.

    My guess is that any Professor who wants to teach truth is avoiding LSU (and perhaps other like institutions) because they know that the faculty is corrupt, the program is corrupt, and those who try to do the right thing are often persecuted for their efforts.

    You may have noticed I am anxious for action on this rather than just rhetoric.

    I sincerely thank Educate Truth for dragging this stinking carcass out into the open so it can be dealt with for once and for all. I pray someone who has the courage will do this very soon to stop the bleed.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. Professor&#32Kent: I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor.

    You can blame Educate Truth all you want, but the reality is you’re just pointing the finger at the site who blew the whistle on the institution with a problem. This would never have happened had it not been for LSU undermining the church in its classrooms.

    La Sierra has created an atmosphere of suspicion amongst all our biology departments. They’ve effectively ruined their reputation in the Adventist church, and cast doubt on other institutions.

    Professor&#32Kent: Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

    These biologists at LSU assassinated their own character by remaining at an institution they were undermining. They were being dishonest and essentially stealing from parents who thought their kids were receiving an Adventist education. They robbed us, and the administration is party to it.

    Your ludicrous accusations are the equivalent to blaming the shopper who identified a store employee slipping cash into their pocket from the register for all the problems the employee is going through.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. Professor&#032Kent: Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website

    A bevy of false charges “again” but not much fact to back them up (as usual).

    SAU has gotten no bad press at all at this web site. In fact (to the contrary) this site promoted a statement by SAU saying that they strongly affirmed the denomination’s position on origins.

    Hint – the SDA position on origins “is no secret”. If the argument is that evolutionist storytelling is the only “popular form of biology” today – then your argument is not going to be challenged. But if the argument is that without some kind of fiction “about birds coming from reptiles – then we cannot observe basic biology in class” – then you are sorely mistaken.

    Give me an MD that knows something about critical thinking and science – over an evolutionist who thinks that birds come from reptiles (no matter the evidence gained through observations in nature “to the contrary”) — any day.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. Eddie: A former biology professor is allegedly (according to several second-hand informants) unhappy with the administration forcing him into retirement, which he blames on his support for theistic evolution.
    Recently the LSU biology profs met with colleagues from other SDA campuses who present evidence supporting the church’s view of creationism and integrate faith and science in the classroom. Hopefully LSU’s profs will begin to do the same in the classroom.
    Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit

    A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    Did the LSU T.E. profs “learn something” about biology and science that they did not know before or did they simply find a way to be less radical in their evangelism of T.E in class?

    Did the LSU religion and biology departments simply “fail” to step up to the plate when Veith came to their campus?

    Hint – the Chemistry and Physics departments had no problem at all offering extra-credit incentives to their students who attended Veith’s presentations.

    How “odd” that the biology profs were so anxious to “claim” they had no compatible Biology solution for the SDA doctrine on origins – and YET – when a biology prof comes to campus WITH THAT SOLULTION as a talking point – all they can do is whine and complain in closed door sessions with him – while not even setting up the same standard of open interest as the Chemistry and Physics depts.

    This is much more “telling” than they apparently imagine.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. Ron&#032Stone&#032M&#046D&#046: Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

    Kent represents a signicant group opposed to the idea of exposing and fully dealing with the TE problem.

    That group does not claim to be TE themselves while at the same time they also claim to have no inclination at all to work on any solution in favor the creationist model (As Kent has also stated). In fact they appear to only have time and energy and interest in upholding every loose wind of speculation offerred by well known TEs inresponse to creationism.

    Notice how they quickly resort to places like the big-left-tent and to TalkOrigins for their “research”?

    Nothing pleases them more than to complain if someone should happen to claim that their arguments show them to be TE – since this is the one point they will adamantly and consistently claim they do not hold – no matter how self-conflicted that claim when compared to their “actions”.

    It makes for a wonderful sticking point when trying to trip up creationists.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. BobRyan: Thus this latest canard you are trying fails as do the ones you have offerred prior to this one – “in the details”.

    If you don’t believe the Church at one time sanctioned anti-trinitarian views, I suggest you read the details for yourself (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7) and pick an argument with the author of the very well referenced Ministry magazine article, rather than with me. You can quarrel with them over the semantics of “pre-existant,” “begotten,” and “created.”

    By the way, you’re very talented at ridicule. It’s a well-honed skill you have that everyone recognizes. Everyone. Two questions:

    1. Is it an SDA-endorsed tactic that you employ?

    2. Is it an inherited or culturally-developed behavior on your part?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. Professor&#032Kent: During the early history of the SDA Church, up until around 1890, SDA literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can you believe it? You can read the history of this in an article at Ministry magazine (http://bit.ly/ivX9b7). Fortunately, the Church did not vigorously expel those who disagreed with the early antitrinitarian views. Eventually, the Church adopted its current position, which embraces the trinity, and is a part of “present truth.”

    Hint – NO statement of beliefs published by the Adventists in the 1800’s (and yes those published statements go back to the 1870’s and even before that) ever made any statement against the Trinity.

    Not a single one stated that Christ was created and not a single one stated that the Holy Spirit was not a person or not the Third Person of the Godhead or that the Godhead did not consist of three persons.

    Thus this latest canard you are trying fails as do the ones you have offerred prior to this one – “in the details”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. Professor&#032Kent: I expect you to be oblivious to all of this because these individuals know that dialogue with those who are judgmental, fault-finding, and devoid of charity (i.e. EducateTruthers) is a fruitless endeavor. They are not inclined to go online and make accusations about other people and declare, from scant knowledge, that they can divine the heart, beliefs, and convictions of others.
    You need to accept some responsibility for what this website has created. Do you seriously believe that the average faithful SDA biologist would want to be employed by a denomination that assumes you are a heretic until proven otherwise, and will engage in unfettered and reckless character assasination at the slightest opportunity?

    I am pretty sure the response to that was already addressed at this post.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-university-granted-window-to-show-its-faithfulness-to-church%e2%80%99s-creation-belief/comment-page-1/#comment-30417

    From that link – it appears that more accusations (apart from fact) against those who post here is not the compelling solution some have imagined.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. Faith: How do you figure that this site keeps biology profs with integrity out of LSU? Any professor that is following the Bible, supporting creation, and the SDA church has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

    I could (but won’t) name some faithful SDA biology profs who have no desire to work at an institution whose biology department is mired in controversy, even if they were paid more than what their current SDA institution pays them.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. BobRyan: Kent – that is yet another amusing spin on one of my posts. In my post above I point out that EducateTruth did nothing to hamper SAU efforts to draw faculty.In fact Educate Truth has a section dedicated to promoting the work that SAU has done in regard to their support of creation.Your endless spinning that seeks to position EducateTruths promotion of SAU’s work as somehow damaging their ability to draw faculty remains in the factless category.in Christ,Bob

    Bob, Kent is the biggest fraud I’ve seen on this website. He pretends he’s “with us” but brags over on Spectrum that he’s our greatest antagonist!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. I would consider applying to LSU if it were not for the ugly politics that surround this issue.

    Among other things, if I was employed there, I would resent folks declaring me to be a theistic evolutionist without even asking me what I believe.

    And frankly, given the way I and others have been treated here, it’s pointless even to respond to such questions because I would be declared a liar. Sorry, but few people would want to work in such an environment.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. BobRyan: [Professor Kent wrote] Sorry, Shane, but I think you’re making an uninformed assumption that evolutionary biologists are applying for these positions. The problem is the LACK OF APPLICANTS. Why aren’t they flocking to these much-heralded positions? Because they are, in fact, much-ridiculed positions–and largely because of your website

    A bevy of false charges “again” but not much fact to back them up (as usual).

    Sorry Bob, but you yourself don’t have the facts to know whether my charges are false or not.

    Here is how to find out (if you can figure out how):

    1. Call up the biology department chairperson and ask if they experienced a lack of applicants.

    2. Communicate with someone who actually knows the few job applicants personally.

    Until you acquire such knowledge, you simply have no basis for charging me with lying.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. @Lydian Belknap, Thank you for your many great posts. You certainly don’t need to be a scientist to understand science. The so-called “experts” want to intimidate others like yourself into thinking only THEY know how science works and how to intrepret it. Don’t belive it!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. Ron&#032Stone&#032M&#046D&#046: BTW, I forgot who actually wrote this article. Do you have the name, Shane? Was it some “cub” reporter like Jimmy Olsen on Superman or someone who has some experience?

    Ron – very often editors are chosen for their ability to communicate and write effectively so instead of seeing people with degrees in theology you will sometimes see people with a degree in English writing serving at that post.

    In that case it is more the reviewers of the article that are accountable for the content being theologically or even scientifically correct, than the actual writer of the article.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply