Comment on LSU responds to Adventist Review article by David Read.
If I had written the story, I also would have left out those 8 points Larry Becker mentions. The story is about the controversy, and Becker’s 8 points are nothing but an attempted defense of the University’s position, and a pathetically weak defense at that. Let’s see:
1) The board has examined the situation and wants to monitor progress. Yawn.
2) The AACU recognized the church’s lack of initiative in bringing together faculty to discuss the integration of faith and science. Not true! The faith and science conferences of 2002-2004 were a major church initiative to discuss these issues:
http://news.adventist.org/2002/09/special-report-avetist-scholars-a-leae….
The AACU voted to establish an ad hoc committee (including Randal Wisbey(!) a fox guarding the henhouse). Double yawn.
3) The association of college and university chaplains issued a meaningless, vanilla statement. Triple yawn.
4) La Sierra University has begun teaching a new class for all freshmen biology students to “help prepare them to navigate issues of faith and science.” I’d like to see the syllabus for that, and interview the students who took it. From the summary provided, there’s no way to know whether or not LaSierra has created an additional problem, an additional opportunity to proselytize for Charlie Darwin, and without knowing more, I wouldn’t have included it in the article either.
5) LaSierra is threatening legal action against Louis Bishop for copyright infringement!! Really? Oh, you bet I would have included that, if only to show what incredibly heavy-handed lengths LaSierra is willing to go to prevent the Adventist world from finding out what they are teaching in their classrooms.
6) Reaction in the secular media has been limited. Why should the secular media care about an intramural Adventist dispute? The fact that there was even one story in the secular media is pretty remarkable, and deserved comment in the Review piece.
7) The reporter interviewed Wisbey but didn’t use a quote from the interview. I’d be shocked if Wisbey said anything worth quoting. In reality, the author of the Review article mischaracterized Wisbey’s May, 2009, letter in a way favorable to Wisbey and LaSierra. In the letter, Wisbey didn’t deny that Darwinism was being taught, only that “atheistic” evolution was being taught. The implication was that they are teaching theistic evolution. The Review article saw fit to pass over that.
8) Educate Truth posted a quote from Larry Blackmer and then removed it almost immediately when Blackmer told them it was out of context. Yawn.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by David Read
The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.
The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:
“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”
So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.
The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.
As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.
