There is precedent:  The Piltdown Man hoax.  Some clever forger put together a human skullcap with a orangutan jaw, doctored them a bit (although not well enough to prevent anyone who cared to look closely from detecting the hoax), and then put them in a gravel pit along with some appropriate artifacts.  It turned out that this bogus evidence of evolution was so desperately needed by the scientific establishment of the day that the hoax just took on a life of its own, and continued decade after decade.  The hoaxer never revealed it, and the hoax remained part of the "scientific" evidence of evolution for 40 years. 

The desperation and gullibilty of the evolution crowd continues unabated to the present day. They love the darkness and hate the light.  They don't like it when people discover what they are doing, and take heroic efforts to prevent discovery, as when the administration at LaSierra claimed copyright protection for a Darwinist professor's lecture materials and disciplined a student for revealing those materials.  They constantly spread the lie that they are teaching "about" evolution when they are in fact proselytizing for evolution.  Above all, they hate that the larger Adventist world is learning about what they are doing.  And hoax or no, the cat is out of the bag now.

Erv,

I wonder how long it took you to fish those extreme comments from the Educate Truth website. Did you find many other similar postings from readers? To they represent the views of either Shane Hilde or Sean Pitman, the main individuals behind the Educate Truth project?

Is your assessment of what Hilde and Pitman are trying to accomplish objective and even handed or rather extremely one sided? Can you at least pretend to be objective?

I have read quite a bit from what they have been publishing, and your depiction of what they are doing is an clever caricature of what they in fact are attempting to do.

They have presented strong evidence to suggest that those science teachers are teaching the theory of evolution, not a theory, but as the only reasonable explanation for origins, and they are paid by a church which believes exactly the opposite. Does this make sense to you?

I believe that there is a need to either do away with fundamental belief # 6 of the church, or else alter the LSU science curriculum.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com  & www.letsfocusonlife.com

To David:

Excellent comment.  I think its time for the GC to get involved.  The pride and arrogance of the LSU administration and various faculty members reminds me of the of the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram during the time of Moses.

But of course, Erv! How could we have missed it? Educatetruth's famous and ubiquitous instinct for irony, and its self-effacing sense of humor, should have alerted us from the very beginning to the fact that it was all a big hoax - pretty much like Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al., and AGW hysteria. "How could you take us seriously? The joke is really on you." How clever!  Seriously, though, I do have a question and a couple of points.

Question: Were the quotes you referenced posted, as you assert by "those behind educatetruth", or are intoxicated Kool Aid drinkers simply allowed free rein on that site as to content, similar to what occurs here at AToday? Without knowing the answer to this question, it seems a bit unfair to claim that the statements are endorsed by the editors. Certainly it would not be fair to pull extremist statements from the AToday website and attribute them to AToday, unless they were clearly posted for attribution to the editorial staff.

Now for my points: First, you do your cause a disservice when you impute dubious positions to your opponents without reference. Example: "Those responsible for educatetruth say they are Adventists attacking an Adventist university [glad to see you have come around to calling La Sierra an Adventist university instead of merely a university "affiliated with" the Adventist Church.] because the biologists [there] are teaching about evolution in their...classrooms." I have never heard such a claim, and do not believe it is true. On multiple occasions, here at AToday, I have seen Sean Pitman and Shane Hilde painstakingly emphasize that they believe precisely the opposite. They argue that the strongest claims of evolution should be taught, but not advocated as Truth claims which trump SDA Creation science claims. A first and necessary step in credible debate is to understand and accurately represent the positions of your opponent. Otherwise, the straw men that you end up debating will cause honest minds to turn away.

Second, you call your intellectual honesty into question when you twist the position of the Review - "Adventist Review's reporting is not designed to meet the public relations need of any Church institution" - into "The Adventist Review is now, apparently, a vehicle to support attacks on Church institutions." This is a blatant and unfair distortion. The editor explicitly stated that the Review neither aligned itself with the criticisms, nor endorsed the manner in which they have been made public.

Quite frankly, I found the Review article to be the most objective and concise piece of reporting on the issue that I have read. Could it have been more balanced? Yes. Would it have been nice to see the story reference AToday or other independent forums of Adventist thought which tend to be supportive of the La Sierra biology faculty? Of course. But an "attack" on La Sierra? Come now! Somehow, I don't think you would have felt any better about the article if it had referenced what seems to be the general positions of Adventist intellectuals - that academic freedom trumps fidelity to the Church and its beliefs.

Historically, Erv, you have been a rather harsh critic of Adventist official publications for being propaganda mouthpieces for church institutions, and for covering up controversy. Why is it suddenly a problem for you that the Review is exposing the La Sierra controversy to a wider Adventist audience? Does the "speaking truth to power" thing only apply when you have the truth? Or are you concerned the the rubes in the pew might not be able to handle the truth?

I am of the opinion that the fundamental traditionalists in the Church have raised entirely legitimate questions and concerns about the scope of academic freedom in Christian SDA universities. However I think they have pressed those concerns in a divisive and destructive manner, pressing for resolutions that would undermine, if not destroy, the very institutions they ostensibly want to reform. Would their concerns, scrupulously packaged in civility and good will, addressed to the "proper authorities", have been taken seriously? Highly doubtful.

The University faculty has circled the wagons, and the holy grail of accreditation is kryptonite to the Board's ability to affect curriculum. Market, rather than mission, will ultimately resolve the issue. And educatetruth is taking its mission to market.  Win or lose, AToday, and all who treasure the cause of religious freedom and self-determination, should welcome exposure of this issue to the Adventist marketplace of ideas - a marketplace, we would hope, that is not run and guarded by the self-anointed intellectual high priests of right thinking. 

The LSU response to the Review article, which I just read, provides enlightening perspective, particularly on the degree of editorial control exercised over at educatetruth. In view of the fact that they apparently do carefully control the content of posts on their website, I think the editors have no choice but to accept reponsibility for the inflammatory vitriol which Erv has pointed out. The extremist goals of educatetruth have been evident for a long time. However, I have not been particularly impressed, until now, that there is a serious character and integrity problem with those behind the agenda. Since educatetruth censors what it finds offensive, the fact that it publishes vile rhetoric in furtherance of its mission should make its organizers and sponsors crimson with shame.  As is often the case with extremists, the odious nature of their agenda is being exposed by the rhetoric they find acceptable to advance it.

LSU expresses disappointment that the article did not contain more infomation from LSU's perspective. I suspect educate truth wishes the same thing for its side. Considering the quotidian drone of advocacy news reporting from most of the mainstream print media, I thought the Review showed remarkable restraint in not overtly siding with those who seek to have Church doctrine vindicated in our science classroms.

Nathan, I liked your posts. Well done.

THE DEMISE OF GEANNA DANE

Over the past few months, I particularly enjoyed Geanna Dane's remarks at EducateTruth. As an apparent college student, she shared a number of fascinating insights on biogeographic problems associated with a global flood, the apparent evolution of complex structures such as a rattlesnake's facial pit (literally, an eye for vision), and problems with a literal interpretation of certain portions of Genesis. I'll address several of these in a follow-up comment.

A few weeks ago, sadly, she appeared to give up on the EducateTruth crowd and, seemingly, on the Adventist church (though one could read her words differently). I was not surprised to see all the condescending remarks that followed. I made a point of saving some of them, and now that I've got a few minutes to post them, I fear they've been permanently deleted. The responses included the following:

"You’ve latched onto weaknesses in the creationist model (chiefly re: biogeography), have not treated these subjects in a helpful or constructive way, have seemed obtuse and unable to understand creationist interpretations and approaches, have refused to acknowledge weaknesses in the mainstream origins model, and have been determined to interpret and misconstrue Scripture to make it fit with mainstream scientific assumptions. It is clear that you are mainly interested in accommodating Adventism to mainstream, Darwinian science. I’ve warned you repeatedly that if you pursue this course, you will be an ideological opponent of all traditional Adventists. So please don’t be shocked and surprised when we treat you as such. Your assertion that there was a time when Adventists didn’t have a strong doctrinal structure is just as fantastical and unreal as your previous assertion that Adventists only recently became creationists. The reality of the situation–and the only explanation for the Geanna Danes of the world–is that we are LESS “focused on theology, doctrine, rules, and self-governance” than we’ve ever been in our history as a movement."  - [name withheld by moderator]

"WE were not the first loving, Gospel oriented Christians to come along. We were not the first to discover that standing up for what the Bible says in opposition to humanism and man-made-tradition is “unpopular”. We were not the first to discover the truth of Christ’s words in Matt 10 “I came not to bring peace but a sword”. Matt 10:34. Very often when someone comes along making a railing accusation against the Adventist church, they then “are offended” if inconvenient details are exposed showing that their accusation was without a factual foundation. And perhaps that is the only recourse left once the facts are on the table if one is determined not to embrace a full and balanced view that accounts for all of the details."  - [name withheld by moderator]

"It would be better to abandon Educate Truth than the Seventh-day Adventist Church. ... If a Christian cannot accept the historicity of Genesis 1-11, then on what basis can she accept the gospel as truth? I submit that there is NO rationale for believing the gospel is true if its foundation is false. Ultimately, all those who do not have a firm foundation will be shaken and their faith lost. I don’t want this to happen to anyone, especially you."  - [name withheld by moderator]

"So let me get this straight. You enter into dialogue with Adventist creationist strangers on a forum containing heated debate over a broiling controversy. The creationsts admonish you (sometimes kindly, sometimes not so kindly) to believe the world-wide Adventist perspective on the biblical creation account. You refuse their admonishments and then declare yourself a martyr that is leaving the Adventist church...You can of course find another ‘home’ where Christians are more ‘loving.’ You can find a church that is not concerned about doctrine, or theology, or rules or governance. You can find a fellowship that says, ‘It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you believe – as long as you love Jesus.’ There are such churches. Love cares enough to admonish and correct – not just enable. When I got tired of my earthly father’s discipline I ran away from home and disowned him. When I finally accepted Christ, at 30 years of age, I returned to him and confessed his wisdom and my foolishness."  - [name withheld by moderator]

"It seems like Geanna and Bravus want to be with Seventh-day Adventists, want to be accepted as Christians and do not like when some SDAs want to stick to a plain “thus saith the Lord.” ... Are we unchristian to believe the Bible? Should we encourage false teachings and call that love? ... The mystery of iniquity does indeed work. What a day has come upon us! Suddenly the people who want to stick to the clear and simple and plain words of God are now villains! Have mercy! ... If Geanna and company are wounded, then we pray it will be to their healing."  - [name withheld by moderator]

In my opinion, the reactions to Geanna Dane confirm that most EducateTruthers have little concern about the salvation of one's soul, or one's personal experience with Jesus (in my opinion); their overriding interest is conformity to their narrow views on Adventism. No one other than Bravus, a brave soul repeatedly attacked for expressing his sometimes divergent but always respectful views, offered anything like, "God accepts you for who you are, Geanna, whether you're an Adventist or not. He loves you dearly and offers free salvation to you if only you ask." To me, the lack of love shown to Geanna was absolutely amazing.

The LSU response to the Review article, which I just read, provides enlightening perspective, particularly on the degree of editorial control exercised over at educatetruth. In view of the fact that they apparently do carefully control the content of posts on their website, I think the editors have no choice but to accept reponsibility for the inflammatory vitriol which Erv has pointed out. The extremist goals of educatetruth have been evident for a long time. However, I have not been particularly impressed, until now, that there is a serious character and integrity problem with those behind the agenda. Since educatetruth censors what it finds offensive, the fact that it publishes vile rhetoric in furtherance of its mission should make its organizers and sponsors crimson with shame.  As is often the case with extremists, the odious nature of their agenda is being exposed by the rhetoric they find acceptable to advance it.

You take the statements of LSU's PR guy, Larry Becker, at face value.  The truth is, as far as I'm aware at least, that there is very little editing of the comments of posters to Educate Truth aside from those automated edits for language (swear words and the like), length, spam, etc.  Contrary to Becker's assertions, EdTruth does not edit comments just because they are supportive of LSU.  In fact, EdTruth welcomes such comments and there have been many such comments posted - to include those of Becker himself on many occasions.  

In short, I have no idea where Becker got his ideas from regarding the editing of EdTruth, because he is way off base - to the point of deliberate slander.

Also, neither Shane nor I support most of the comments posted on EdTruth by various commenters.  In fact, I personally find many of them quite appalling - on both sides of this issue.  Yet, as with the postings here on Adventist Today, we feel it important to allow freedom of expression for those with wide-ranging opinions on the issues at hand to be expressed in the comment sections of EdTruth - even those that we by no means endorse (to include the notable examples listed by Erv Taylor - certainly not endorsed by EdTruth). 

If you wish to know what positions are specifically endorsed by EdTruth, you need to read those comments specifically posed by either Shane Hilde or myself. Why doesn't Erv think to quote such comments instead of going directly to the most inflammatory comments of visitors to EdTruth?  Could not the very same thing be done to mischaracterize AToday? - by referencing the most inflammatory comments posted here by general commentators on Atoday?

Why does Erv feel the need to resort to such strawman tactics?  Why not deal with the real issues being presented instead of resorting to such bold-faced mischaracterizations?  Larry Becker is just as guilty as Erv in this regard...

This also isn't true.  Shane and I are very happy with the Adventist Review and think they did a very fine job reporting this issue in a very even-handed and succinct manner.  I personally think it very courageous of the AR to publish such an article.  I was very surprised when I read it for the first time - shocked actually.  I might even have to start subscribing to the AR if they are going to start publishing relevant articles like this instead of the usual milk-toast stuff ; ) 

Considering the quotidian drone of advocacy news reporting from most of the mainstream print media, I thought the Review showed remarkable restraint in not overtly siding with those who seek to have Church doctrine vindicated in our science classroms.

I think you miss the point of the AR article...

 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

THE DEMISE OF GEANNA DANE

Over the past few months, I particularly enjoyed Geanna Dane's remarks at EducateTruth. As an apparent college student, she shared a number of fascinating insights on biogeographic problems associated with a global flood, the apparent evolution of complex structures such as a rattlesnake's facial pit (literally, an eye for vision), and problems with a literal interpretation of certain portions of Genesis. I'll address several of these in a follow-up comment.

Take note Nathan.  This is a fine example of the "censorship" of the EdTruth's moderation of comments.  Geanna Dane posted many comments over the past several months strongly opposing the stated purpose of EdTruth against the active promotion of and proselytizing for theistic evolution at LSU.  Yet, surprise surprise, none of her comments were blocked.  Although neither Shane Hilde nor I agreed with Geanna, she expressed herself well and her thoughts contributed a great deal to the desired discussion of the relevant issues at EdTruth.

So, again, upon what basis does Larry Becker accuse EdTruth of blocking comments in support of the activities of LSU on these issues?  Such accusations are completely unfounded as demonstrated by Geanna Dane in particular.

 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

The LSU response to the Review article, which I just read, provides enlightening perspective, particularly on the degree of editorial control exercised over at educatetruth.

 

Note also that none of Erv Taylors comments on EdTruth have been blocked.   Why not try posting on EdTruth yourself and see what happens? 

Perhaps it would be wise of you to take the PR comments coming from LSU with a large grain of salt.  They are acting just a bit desperate here.  They're playing all the angles they know how to play.  Methinks they protest just a little too much...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

I am convinced that Shane Hilde has done an excellent job of drawng attention to the teaching of evolution at LSU. Would Erv like to give us the specific references for the alleged remarks by readers on EducateTruth?  Without that we cannot independently confirm his allegations.

Does anything about the SDA church please Erv? Is he an SDA? This organization is going to have a booth at the GC Session? What a calamity for true believers.

Truth Seeker

Funny thing is, I read all of Geanna's posts and I don't believe that she was "mainly interested in accommodating Adventism to mainstream, Darwinian science." I don't believe she asserted "there was a time when Adventists didn’t have a strong doctrinal structure," or that "Adventists only recently became creationists" (these strike me as rather far-flung characterizations). Few, if any, of her commments could be construed as an "accusation...without a factual foundation." She certainly did not challenge "the historicity of Genesis 1-11," as she focused her concerns on overinterpretation of a few key words. She never expressed an interest in joining a Church that subscribes to the view, "It doesn’t really matter what you do or what you believe – as long as you love Jesus." All of these gross distortions of her, in my opinion, are constructed to alleviate conscience.

So what did Geanna Dane have to say? Her positions, really, were very basic: let's not make unwarranted conclusions about the meaning of every single word from Genesis; and let's try to understand the apparent shortcomings of the creation and flood models used by many Adventists today. Here were some of her specific points:

1 - Present-day biogeography creates an ENORMOUS problem for explaining how the vast majority of animals got from the ark to where they are today. She offered numerous examples of large animal groups found entirely in the New World, with not one representative anywhere near Mt. Ararat, much less in the Old World. These included, among others (it took me some searching to find her posts), 400 species of plethodontid salamanders and 100 species of leptodactylid frogs that occur only in the new world and were unlikely to hop or swim from Ararat to here. Further, she asked how 300 species of trochilids (hummingbirds), 500 species of tyranids (flycatchers), and 300 species of funariids (ovenbirds, woodcreepers) could all have flied to or evolved in the New World without any remaining in the Old World. Unfathomable! Could they survive the flood somehow, or were they magically guided both to and from the ark? If the only surviving amphibians and birds survived the flood and a few representatives made it to the New World, did all these species evolve in a mere 4,000 years? Tough questions!

Based on the latter issue, she further observed that speciation--which is macroevolution and often overlooked as such by creationists--must occur at rates thousands of times faster than the most fanatical evolutionists would ever consider. Some commenters at EducateTruth, including David Read (surprise!), conceded that Adventists and other creationists who believe the flood wiped out everything a mere 4,000 years are, in fact, EXTREME EVOLUTIONISTS. And they use Ellen White to support their concession that evolution happens much faster than evolutionists actually claim. Amazing!

No one at EducateTruth adequately countered these problems for one simple reason: because they can't. Apparently, as one one commenter pointed out, the Geoscience Research Institute has conceded that these are serious problems for the creation/flood model advocated by EducateTruthers. I applaud the Institute's honesty. Most Adventists and other fundamentalist Christians remain blithely unaware that any "problems" exist at all in the creationist/flood model. Importantly, Geanna Dane had NOTHING WRONG with her facts and conclusions.

2 - Creationists have long claimed that complexity, including complex structures, absolutely CANNOT evolve. Yet Geanna Dane pointed out that the facial pits of pit-vipers and the labial pits of pythons serve a primary--and possibly exclusive--role in predation. These pits are very complex and function literally as eyes, allowing the snakes to "see" the three-dimensional shape of their prey in complete darkness. The envenomation system of snakes, including the venom glands, venom, ducts, and fangs, are also highly complex and serve but one function--to kill. How did these structures come about, and in such a short period of time, presumably within 6000 years? (There are many other examples of venomous creatures, some that I myself had mentioned once before at EducateTruth, that pose serious problems for our understanding of evolutionary rates. Evolutionists, for examle, believe that the 500 species of venomous cone snails evolved over millions of years. Yet many creationists insist that such evolution is impossible, and then--oops!--must concede it all occurred in a mere 6,000 years.)

Again, Geanna Dane had NOTHING WRONG with her facts and conclusions. I loved her examples! And no one at EducateTruth even touched this issue, despite considerable verbage months earlier, especially from Sean Pitman and Bob Ryan, that evolution can never create new structures or increase complexity. Never?

3 - Geanna pointed out that the language in the Noah's flood account cannot be interpreted literally as a worldwide flood that covered every inch of dry ground. She pointed out huge inconsistencies with the meaning of "all" throughout the account (and elsewhere early in Genesis). David Read saved the day but quoting Leupold, who stated that use of a double "all" ("kul") was intended by the author to render clear that water covered ALL of the earth. However, Geanna adroitly located two more examples of the double-kul (I Sam 2:22 and II Sam 3:37) that could not be interpreted as literal. She won me over on that. Geanna merely pointed out that an Adventist's faith in a global, worldwide flood required Ellen White rather than the Bible as a source.

Remarkably, NO ONE challenged Deanna on the double-kul issue, no doubt because no true EducateTruther wants to concede that the scriptures do not require belief in a worldwide flood. Belief in Ellen White's innerancy requires it, but not scripture.

In conclusion, Geanna Dane challenged Adventists to think for themselves and not pledge allegience to the popular storyline of the Church. For that, I applaud her. More importantly, I applaud the stand she took for basing one's faith on a personal experience with God rather than in the literacy of the Bible, specifically the Genesis account.

Nathan Schilt,

You are taking a lot of people's selected quotes from the general comments posted on Educate Truth that are not endorsed by Educate Truth.   Regarding the treatment of Geanna in particular, why didn't ProfNotKent post the comments from Shane or me?  Shane specifically begged Geanna to reconsider her frustration with some of the difficult posters who frequent EdTruth noting that such represent a tiny fraction of the overall SDA Church.  I also explained to Geanna that the debate over creationism within the SDA Church has nothing inherently to do with salvation.  One doesn't need to be a Seventh-day Adventist to be loved by God or to be saved.  In fact, the vast majority of those saved will not have been SDAs - shocking I know.  

Also, as I've explained in previous attempted posts to this thread (all blocked by Atoday thus far even though this thread specifically addresses EdTruth and one would think they would want some sort of response published from EdTruth...) the claims of Larry Becker that EdTruth blocks posts in support of LSU are simply untrue.  The only posts blocked are those that use swear words, are of excessive length, spam posts, and posts that have specifically been requested by the author to be removed.

It is simply unfair to characterize the opinions of the management of EdTruth with those who frequent the blog maintained by Edtruth just as it would be unfair to characterize the opinions of Atoday by selectively quoting comments submitted on its discussion threads.  To be honest I am personally appalled by many of the posted comments on EdTruth in supposed support of our efforts.  Shane Hilde feels the same way.  Yet, we allow freedom in posting comments with which we personally take strong exception for the same reason that Atoday usually allows the same range of postings with which it fundamentally disagrees...

In short, I think you'd better withhold judgment on the position and efforts of EdTruth until you do a bit more of your own personal investigation instead of simply relying on the reports of those who are so passionately opposed to what we are really doing and our true opinions that they deliberately distort our efforts and present them in the most unfavorable and unrepresentative light possible.  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Erv,

I wonder how long it took you to fish those extreme comments from the Educate Truth website. Did you find many other similar postings from readers? To they represent the views of either Shane Hilde or Sean Pitman, the main individuals behind the Educate Truth project?

The short answer to that question is no, the comments posted by Erv and others do not represent my views or the views of Shane Hilde and do not reflect the position or goals of EdTruth.

Also, as Erv very well knows, the goals of Shane and I have been very clear and simple from the very beginning - the production of increased transparency as to what is really being taught at LSU.  Despite the suggestion of Erv and others that LSU is only teaching "about" the theory of evolution, Erv very well knows that this is a lie.  The LSU science department is in full support of the truth of the modern mainstream evolutionary view on origins and is vigorously proselytizing for this philosophical position.  This effort is in direct opposition to the stated fundamental ideals and goals of the SDA Church and is thus a robbery of the Church's time and money by the LSU "science" professors.

Reporting on the truth of this situation has always been the goal of EdTruth and Erv knows it...

Also, Erv knows that the accusation of Larry Becker that EdTruth blocks comments in support of LSU is untrue since Erv himself is a fairly regular poster to EdTruth's blog pages and several extensive comments from Becker himself have been posted.

The only comments blocked are the ones usually moderated by automation, like those that contain swear words, are of excessive length, spam, or those which the author has specifically requested to be removed...  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Just another reason why college-educated young people are, and have left the church.  Brain shrinkage is required, and that they refuse to do.

I have posted on Educate Truth and followed quite a bit of the conversations there--but not all.

Anytime you get a bunch of Adventists together, you're going to get a wide spectrum of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. For example, one poster on Educate Truth believes he has received divine revelation and understands all prophecy perfectly; and argued with people on both sides of the issue. It seems he just wants to be contrary. He had a knack for throwing a discussion off on tangents--and people followed them without realizing what was happening. The tagline on his website is "The New William Miller." 

I feel that this article here at Atoday and some of the responses don't show a balanced understanding of the conversation at Educate Truth. If I walk into an Adventist Church and get accosted by what I sometimes call the "Adventist Police," I should not judge the entire church body by that person's behavior!

"Educate Truthers"--as they have been called here--are sincere in their quest for a representation in our schools of our belief in a six day literal creation. I also believe that those at LaSierra are equally sincere. But to have a true and balanced understanding of the dialog at Educate Truth, it is unfair to: (1) quote as representative only negative comments (out of the context of the conversation), or (2) take quotes out of context by inserting dot dot dot and removing the phrases that put the post in Christian context, or (3) neglect to quote something that demonstrates the sincerity of those who best represent the site's vision. 

It is difficult to get the full context of any comment if the entire conversation is not read. If Atoday wants to be fair, it should strive for its writers to take more time and care in representing a viewpoint, even in an editorial. 

Let me give you an example of an obvious bias. The demise of Geanna Dane shows several posts from Educate Truth. The post that begins "So let me get this straight" has three dots in the center where the following has been left out:

"You must know that what was said to you was said because these people sincerely think that belief in evolution can have a profoundly deliterious effect on ones spiritual condition. What they said (more often than not) was said because they cared enough in their own way to try and warn you."

This particular post was in response to Geanna expressing that she wanted to leave the church because of her experience on the website. The poster was trying to make the point that she entered into a conversation on a site with lively debates between both sides; and that despite some responses that might have hurt--the sentiments were expressed because he felt the other posters cared. 

I noticed a few more dot dot dots in other quotes too, though I haven't gone back to check on what is missing. But honestly, statements like the following seem to demonstrate caring, despite the roughness in the rest of the two posts represented:

"Ultimately, all those who do not have a firm foundation will be shaken and their faith lost, I don't want this to happen to anyone, especially you," and "If Geanna and company are wounded, then we pray it will be to their healing." (emphasis added)." 

I agree that some of the comments to Geanna were rough and unkind. The point I'm trying to make is that it is a forum and many different viewpoints are represented there. Anyone posting on a site that discusses a controversial subject should be ready to have someone contradict them. Some people can't handle controversy. Some people don't know how to say things in a kind way. And sometimes a lot is left out in communication without facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures.  I've participated in many forums. I remember being stunned more than once when I first started posting on forums. Now, I expect just about anything. 

If anyone wants to get a better sense of the sincerity of people on both sides, read an entire thread on Educate Truth. If you look for whacked Adventists, you'll find them. If you look for negative comments, you'll find them. But if you're looking for sincerity, you'll find that too. What you won't find is perfected saints. But I haven't found any of those anywhere else either.

My apologies if this response is in the wrong spot. I'm a little bit confused about how to post here. I'm responding to the poster who stated, "Since educatetruth censors what it finds offensive..."

I'm pretty sure this is not true because there is a lively discussion there with many differing opinions expressed. If the editors censored differing opinions, there would not be a debate on the site.

I can assure all that when I was posting comments some months ago at EducateTruth, some of my more critical ones were censored. Eventually, I was blocked altogether. Later, I posted under a different name (I can't recall which) and after several posts made clear who I was. I was tolerated for a while and then censored. I occasionally tried to post thereafter and was blocked from doing so. At Spectrum Magazine, Shane claimed I was blocked because I was non-SDA, but I informed him that I had been baptized and never had my membership revoked. I don't recall with certainty whether I have tried to post since (I believe I have), but I don't believe he would allow me to post there again.

I have communicated with Geanna Dane (she posted her email address there once when confronted by Shane), and she indicated that at least one of her posts was blocked. She said it had something to do with (I'm paraphrasing) "Stop arguing everyone. My head is going to explode. I hate this website!" I don't recall whether she stated that more posts were blocked, but to claim that relative innocuous but unsupportive posts are not blocked is simply educating untruth.

I think my position on EducateTruth gets lost often on Sean and others. I have no argument with their main premise. It's the method, not the message, that I have a beef with (and which makes me one of Sean's "detractors"). I think that publicly shaming and humiliating individuals and institutions is exactly what puts a smile on the face of the roaring lion who seeks to devour.

And here is one more example of how an EducateTruth staffer publicly treats a Church official, in this case NAD President Don Schneider (and I am using "..." because I am trying to save space):

"Schneider seems to confuse the need to maintain Church government and internal order with moral judgments and condemnation against those who do not support the ideals of the SDA Church organization. This simply isn’t true. ... I simply do not understand those in leadership positions who are so unwilling to take action on matters of Church government just because it will create controversy and hard feelings with some who do not agree with this or that stated stand of the SDA Church. ... When will someone grow some backbone in Church leadership?"

The full statement can be read here if the reader wants to believe that I have excised more charitable remarks: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/04/10/nad_president_discusses_womens_ordination.

I'll let readers decide for themselves how respectful the tone is.

Fair enough, Sean. I am very glad to see your perspective, and learn that my initial comment to Erv was on target, sans the subsequent qualifier. I perhaps was too gullible in assuming that intelligent people would not make an allegation (that educatetruth filters comments) which could so easily be disproven. 

Erv, the ball seems to be in your court. Sounds to me like you either owe a rebuttal or an apology for misleading attribution of calumny to the E.T. web editors.

I am disturbed, Sean, by your allegation that prior comments by you have been censored. I am unaware of any content censorship by AToday other than what is set forth in the "Comment Guidelines." 

Hi Nathan,

It seems like the moderators at AT have now posted all of my comments.   I thought there for a while that they were going to be blocked because they were not posted for 5 days.  That hasn't happened to me before at AT, so I was a bit surprised.  In any case, as of now, it seems like nothing is being blocked by AT as far as my own posts are concerned...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Hey Nathan, if I might...

From Sean:

The only comments blocked are the ones usually [Emphasis added] moderated by automation, like those that contain swear words, are of excessive length, spam, or those which the author has specifically requested to be removed...  

Sean's use of the weighty qualifier "usually" in his quasi-denial of censorship at EducateTruth hardly disproves the multiple, multiple claims that the site's moderator(s) heavily "manage" certain viewpoints, while giving wide berth and leeway to posters who fanatically cling to the "reporting" of ET and rabidly call for the heads of those accused by ET.

Sean's comparison of ET to AT is almost as laughable as the parallel recently drawn by ET staffers between Catholic Pedophile Priests and LSU professors.  ET is a single-purpose website whose "news" and editorials (and the allegedly managed comment section) are singularly agenda-driven.  AT's news, editorials, and comments are wide-ranging in scope, topic, and viewpoint.  The AT Editorial Staff, Writers, Bloggers and Board have historically featured and currently contain both traditionalists and progressives.  I'm sure Erv or any of us could somehow verbally conjure up a connection between those with whom we disagree and pedophiles or rapists or murderers or Nazis or some other morally debased group of criminals, but so far he has either deigned to do so or AT editors have disallowed it.  No such restraint is shown at ET. 

Sean may seem to be sincere in his stated purpose, but the reality is that his accusations are both broader in scope and more barbed than his frequent "who, me?" protestations would indicate.  His accusations (and by his, I mean also those found on his website) include Intellectual Dishonesty, theft of church funds, faculty abuse of students, faculty bullying of students, incompetence in the Administration, deception on the part of the Administration, and so on. 

When such accusations are flying, ET becomes the essential equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when you see someone in the back row light a cigarette. 

The site is designed and managed to incite anger and panic, not inspire change.  I think Erv was generous in suggesting otherwise (even if he was being sarcastic when he made the proposal.) 

Nick,

With regards to your last statement that we should either alter the science curriculum or do away with fundamental belief #6. Why must we do either? First science and its methodology is not determined or influenced by theology or religion. The scientific approach assumes natural causes and supernatural causes are the topics of religion and theology. I find it interesting that when a "fundamental belief" or doctrine if you will is put to the pen there is the implication that the doctrine is permanent. However, if you look carefully at the GC website there is the implication in the statements that doctrine may be subject to changes.  This idea is congruent with Lindbecks (Emeritus Prof Theology, Yale Univ) view that doctrine must be considered within an ecumenical framework (within the the body of christian churches) and in the wider intellectual context. In view of the latter wider intellectual context, why can't discoveries from science play a role in the way we may view a particular doctrine? Like it or not biological, physical and engineering sciences have influenced theology and is not going away anytime soon. The more I engage in the biomedical sciences the more I realize that natural systems self assemble which is determined by physical principles and the starting material. We can engage in a teleological discussion where design and purpose come from "God" the creator, but it is not clear that God is actually doing anything in the biological and physical world as we know it today. Maybe he did at one time but that does not appear to be the case currently. This observation that natural systems in nature do not appear to need a "creator God" has led to what has been termed "emergence theology" coming from people such as Stuart Kaufman. Here "God" is the boundless creativity of the universe. In this sense God is not some pantheistic being outside of the natural universe. I know that this type of idea may be abhorrent to believers that want and need to have a God that is somehow intimately involved in their lives.

I am not saying that as Adventists that we have to adopt Kaufmans ideas but this view that we can have an immutable theology, penned in a list of 28 (and growing) fundamental beliefs appears naive.

Nice to see your contributions!

Regards, Dr F 

Sean,

You are simply not telling the truth when you state the only posts on the Educate Truth website that are deleted or blocked are "those that contain swear words, are of excessive length, spam, or those which the author has specifically requested to be removed . . . ."

You are also not telling the truth when you state that Larry Becker's observations regarding Educate Truth blocking comments "are untrue".

How can I confidently and accurately make such statements?  Because your's and Shane's Educate Truth website deleted FIVE of MY posts under the name of 'Jim' between November 22 and 24 of last year.  Out of frustration I finally created a new account under the name of 'Jimmy', and tried for a sixth time to post my comments and questions.

After the first block by Educate Truth, I took screen shots to document the censorship that was occurring.  And then I subsequently forwarded that evidence to Larry Becker.  I just pulled up that email to confirm my memory, and yes, the screen shots still exist. 

So Larry Becker is COMPLETELY ACCURATE when he states that your web site "deleted from the site a number of comments that take issue with positions the site is attempting to promote or that have been supportive of La Sierra University".  He saw the direct evidence of this because I emailed those screen shots from your website to him.

Oh, and what horrible things was I writing to deserve such a response of outright censorship? Um, I was asking you to explain in more detail a claim that you had made in an earlier post, that you had been actively lobbying LSU on the creationism issue for several years -- and my posts had no swear words, no excessive length, no spam, and definitely no request to have them removed.

Having tried to engage you even earlier than this incident, by among other things suggesting a less strident tone might be more likely to produce the results you claim you want, I quickly learned from your response that you had no intention of trying to be charitable to anyone, certainly including myself.

Needless to say, I have no more interest in attempting to engage in any further dialogue with you on this or any other matter after the terse and belittling comments you made.

One last point: it is certainly possible you were not directly aware that my posts had been blocked, but your claims of 'no censorship' still remain untruthful, and after reading this, you can no longer even claim ignorance as an excuse.

I am confident you will keep throwing stones at anyone with whom you disagree, but realize that your glass house has been shattered for some time, and along with it, much of your credibility.

Normally I find controversy entertaining (e.g., the global warming debate), but not when it occurs among SDAs. It always disturbs me when the integrity of specific individuals is being questioned--which I sense happening quite frequently both here and at Educate Truth, despite guidelines that prohibit personal attacks. I think it would be better if we could keep the discussion focused on the TOPIC rather than the PERSON and be more polite and respectful of the views of those who we disagree with. A wise Christan can tactfully express an opinion on a controversial subject without mentioning specific students, professors, pastors, administrators, etc. If it is the SIN that you hate, why focus on the SINNER instead? I suggest loving the sinner and venting your frustration, anger or righteous indignation on the sin.

SDA Bio Prof wrote:

"It always disturbs me when the integrity of specific individuals is being questioned--which I sense happening quite frequently both here and at Educate Truth."

I totally agree with you and acknowledge the need to be more measured in my comments.

Assuming you're the same guy I once corresponded with from Educate Truth, I remember our exchange and your posts there with fondness. You always wrote good stuff--very positive and Christ-like. We need more SDAs like you!

Jim wrote:

One last point: it is certainly possible you were not directly aware that my posts had been blocked, but your claims of 'no censorship' still remain untruthful, and after reading this, you can no longer even claim ignorance as an excuse.

I am confident you will keep throwing stones at anyone with whom you disagree, but realize that your glass house has been shattered for some time, and along with it, much of your credibility.

 

You are correct.  I was not aware that your posts in particular were blocked without reasonable cause.  I have just sent an E-mail to Shane Hilde to ask him why your posts were blocked and to have them restored if indeed your posts met the stated criteria.  Also, if your posts were blocked without real cause, you have my personal appology.

Beyond this, however, it seems clear to me that posts are not blocked just because they are supportive of LSU.  That's clearly not true because Erv Taylor posts regularly to EdTruth and his posts are not blocked and many statements in support of LSU from Larry Becker himself have been posted. 

It simply isn't logical that posts would be blocked simply because they are supportive of LSU since such posts are what provide much of the basis for discussion...

Still, I will check into your particular case and get back to you...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

SDA Bio Prof wrote:

I suggest loving the sinner and venting your frustration, anger or righteous indignation on the sin. 

As far as I see it, it is not sinful to honestly and sincerely disagree with the stated fundamental ideals or pillars of the SDA faith.  However, it is mistaken to think it one's right to be paid by the SDA Church while going about actively countering those fundamental ideals and stated goals of the SDA Church on the Church's dime.  Someone who is doing this in an open public manner, despite repeated attempts to get this person to stop doing such things or to seek employment elsewhere, must, at some point, be addressed in a decided manner.

Obviously, the SECC agrees with me on this basic notion of Church government, order, and discipline since it sees no problem calling out a Church representative, and asking that action be taken against him by the Church, for what it sees as failures to accurately represent important views of the Church (even though the SECC clearly doesn't consider certain "fundamentals" too terribly important to defend against long-standing open attack for some reason).

Also, specifically when it comes to "SDA" education, potential students, parents, and the Church membership at large have a right to know what can be expected to be presented as "the truth" in our own classrooms to our own children.  In other words, we have a right to open transparency as to what is taking place in our own classrooms - at the very least.  

Because of this basic right, the efforts of LSU to cover up what is really taking place within its classrooms and to misdirect questions and other efforts to increase transparency in this regard are especially egregious in my opinion...

 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Jim wrote:

 So Larry Becker is COMPLETELY ACCURATE when he states that your web site "deleted from the site a number of comments that take issue with positions the site is attempting to promote or that have been supportive of La Sierra University".  He saw the direct evidence of this because I emailed those screen shots from your website to him.

I've discussed your particular case with Shane Hilde and he doesn't remember specifically blocking your posts.  He monitors the site by himself you know... a rather large job for one person who is working full time on top of it.

There was a time there toward the end of last year where EdTruth was being flooded by posters who had no affiliation with the SDA Church who were being directed to the site by the well-known and very outspoken atheist, PZ Meyers, in an effort to disrupt the operation of EdTruth with hundreds, even thousands, of nonsense posts.  All of those were blocked as effectively as one person can monitor such things.  Perhaps your posts were caught up in all of this during that time?  I know that many of my own posts were deleted off of EdTruth during this time as well...

However, the posts that have been blocked have not been blocked simply because they were supportive of LSU.  In fact, the individual with the most blocked posts has been Ron Stone - an individual who is strongly opposed to what LSU is doing.  Even so, his posts are the ones most commonly blocked.  At least he gets an "A" for persistence ;)

Other posters who are strongly in favor of LSU, or are at least opposed to the efforts of EdTruth, such as Geanna or Erv Taylor, are not blocked nearly as much as Dr. Stone - if at all. 

Granted, while not all off-topic or extreme posts have effectively been blocked, it is good to remember that Shane is doing the job of moderator as effectively as he can with his limited time.  It is also good to remember that the comments that are posted "on our side of this issue" often do not remotely reflect Shane's personal opinions or mine - far from it.  I often cringe when I read posts on EdTruth... such as the ones listed by Erv above.

In any case, if you are SDA or affiliated with the SDA Church and wish to contribute to the discussion why not try posting your comments again?  Or, send them to me and I'll post them for you with my responses if you wish (as I will do with this particular post)...

Oh, and what horrible things was I writing to deserve such a response of outright censorship? Um, I was asking you to explain in more detail a claim that you had made in an earlier post, that you had been actively lobbying LSU on the creationism issue for several years -- and my posts had no swear words, no excessive length, no spam, and definitely no request to have them removed.

I was initially invited, by a student group, to lecture at LSU in 2005.  At that time I was informed of the theistic evolutionism being promoted by many of the teachers at LSU and even supported by then president Lawrence Geraty as well.  In response, I wrote many letters and had several phone conversations with leaders at LSU and at various levels of the SDA Church structure.  I also had personal discussions with the students and a few of the professors involved at the time.  Usually I was told that the issue was indeed a serious one and would be investigated carefully.  I was told to remember that the Church would go through to the end even though it might have a few problems - so hang in there. 

After my first lecture, around 100 students signed a petition to have the SDA creation perspective presented in the science classrooms - to include upper division science classes. 

Of course, nothing happened and the status quo remained and still remains in effect at LSU...

Having tried to engage you even earlier than this incident, by among other things suggesting a less strident tone might be more likely to produce the results you claim you want, I quickly learned from your response that you had no intention of trying to be charitable to anyone, certainly including myself.

I don't understand why an effort to increase transparency as to what is really being promoted behind closed doors at LSU is so horrible?  Why should such efforts for increased transparency cause such a disturbance with LSU? 

Is it not the truth that most LSU science professors are in fact promoting theistic evolution over hundreds of millions of years as the true story of origins in their classrooms?  Of course it is.  So, why is one accused of "attacking" LSU when one simply points out this obvious fact and provides videos and lecture materials and personal statements from the professors themselves supporting this fact?  How is this a "throwing of stones?" or "not following the direction of Matthew 18?" - especially when such direction has been followed (despite this being a reference to private sins, not public countering of the Church's clearly stated goals and ideals on the Church's dime)?

If LSU really thought it was in the right here, why would they be at all upset by the public presentation of such facts?  Isn't it only those who feel themselves guilty of some wrongdoing who attempt to hide the facts of what they are in fact doing?  Why try to cover up or hide what you're doing if you know you are doing right?

 Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

I was initially invited, by a student group, to lecture at LSU in 2005.  At that time I was informed of the theistic evolutionism being promoted by many of the teachers at LSU and even supported by then president Lawrence Geraty as well.

If that is true, then Geraty has some explaining to do why he supported blatant apostasy and misuse of LSU funds.

Every school administrator has a sacred obligation to use school funds to promote Seventh-day Adventist Christian education, not apostasy.

" I was informed of the theistic evolutionism being promoted by many of the teachers at LSU."

When someone says he "was informed" it is a not-so subtle attempt to assume without attribution.  If this information was officially represented by the university, it would have merit.   Otherwise, it is only gossip.  The school deserves better than that.

From Sean Pitman:

I don't understand why an effort to increase transparency as to what is really being promoted behind closed doors at LSU is so horrible? 

This is the latest hands aflutter protestation in the EducateTruth defense of "If I repeat it often enough, people might believe it."  

It is a simple task for people to go to the ET site, browse the comment section, and personally witness the vitriol in the space created by, paid for, maintained, monitored, and lightly sometimes auto-moderated by Shane and promoted by Sean.  The fervor is fueled by "news articles" and commentary by EducateTruth staff that, for example, recently drew a parallel between LSU professors and child molesters within the Catholic priesthood.  Professors and Administrators are frequently referred to as thieves and liars by EducateTruth staff.  Conference and Division leaders, including NAD President Don Schneider are called spineless by EducateTruth staff, and by Sean Pitman himself (see the April 13 post from ProfessorNotKent.)  

Does AToday also display a wide variety of articles, viewpoints, blogs, and comments?  Yes, by design, the site contains info produced and edited by a diverse group of people ranging from Nash to Taylor to Douglass to Foster to Goldstein to Sahlin.  This wide scope produces comments, as well, from varied points in the intellectual and political and personal spectrum.  EducateTruth is an agenda-driven site, designed, as I've said before, to incite anger and panic as a means to end what its creators view as incorrect behavior.  I wouldn't put the two sites in the same sentence, but for to emphasize what should be a distinct divide between them.

EducateTruth is pursuing their goal of "transparency" into LSU by doing their best to burn down the institution itself.  If leadership won't fall in line, EducateTruth attacks their resolve and their personal integrity. If EducateTruth can accomplish their goal, you'll surely be able to see beyond the walls, largely because the walls will have been reduced to ashes.  Yes, Erv, it's ugly.

EducateTruth is pursuing their goal of "transparency" into LSU by doing their best to burn down the institution itself.  If leadership won't fall in line, EducateTruth attacks their resolve and their personal integrity. If EducateTruth can accomplish their goal, you'll surely be able to see beyond the walls, largely because the walls will have been reduced to ashes.  Yes, Erv, it's ugly.

Shane and I offer no apology for our opinion that SDA institutions should promote SDA fundamental ideals within the classroom and from the pulpit and hire only those persons who are effectively capable of doing so.  That is our clear position.

Do we only publish those views that support our position?  No.  We publish opposing comments from a wide variety of people as well.  Do we agree with all the comments posted against the activities of LSU?  No.  We do not - not even close.  Are we disappointed with certain of the leaders of the SDA Church regarding this issue?  Of course we are.  It seems very clear to us that some sort of action should be taken by the SDA leadership similar to that take by the SECC against Batchelor.

What is ironic here is that you see no problem with asking for the head of someone like Doug Batchelor for presenting his opinion from the pulpit because it disagrees with what you believe to be an obvious truth.  You applaud the SECC's call for censorship and restraint of Batchelor from the pulpit.  Yet, you get all upset when the very same arguments used by the SECC against someone like Batchelor are used against LSU.  How is this not a double standard in your book?  

I'm sorry, but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  At least be consistent in your calls for the internal discipline and control of church government.  

[rest deleted by moderator for not meeting guidelines]

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

 

statefarmsteve, you write:

EducateTruth is pursuing their goal of "transparency" into LSU by doing their best to burn down the institution itself.

Your claim appears as plausible as if the Vatican claimed that the uproar over pedophile priests is an attempt to burn down the Catholic Church.

But such spin is not uncommon, as when defenders of Danny Shelton repeatedly claim that concern over his cover up of pedophilia allegations is an attempt to burn down 3ABN.

The simple fact of the matter is that if LSU intends to undermine the teachings of Adventism, then there isn't much reason for it to exist as an Adventist institution when it is such in name only. But that choice ultimately is LSU's alone.

Personally, I am all for an institution--a corporation, church, university, whatever--maintaining internal order and governance. Ordinarily, it would be inappropriate for outside individuals to meddle with such private issues. Of course, when laws are broken (as in pedophilia by clergy), things are very different; public trust is lost and the organization needs to be held accountable through external pressure.

When employees or members become impatient with the "internal" aspect of order and governance, and go online in an attempt to publicly shame and humiliate an institution and its leaders into capitulating to their personal views of what order and governance should be, I think we need to recognize that it is THESE INDIVIDUALS who show the LEAST RESPECT for internal order and governance.

In the case of EducateTruth, which purports to be the loyal defenders of "internal order and governance," its staff are not employees of the Adventist Church. Regardless of whether they pay tithe or hold a local Church membership, they are showing fundamental disrespect for an organization when they attack it in a highly orchestrated, highly public manner. The situation is analagous to my organizing a hate campaign to ridicule an organization like the [insert any well-known charity], and declaring I have the right to do so WITHOUT BEING DISRESPECTFUL simply because I regularly give them a monetary donation. But no matter how I spin it, it's still, inescapably, disrespectful.

From Pickle:

Your claim appears as plausible as if the Vatican claimed that the uproar over pedophile priests is an attempt to burn down the Catholic Church.

Pickle, it seems you've bought into the recent parallel drawn by EducateTruth Staffers that somehow equates pedophilia with a scientific debate.

If you can reassure me that you are capable of distinguishing between a priest sexually assaulting and raping a young boy and a professor teaching modern scientific theory in his classroom, then I'd be happy to continue the discussion.

Outside of that, there seems to be little reason to continue the discussion.

From Sean Pitman,

What is ironic here is that you see no problem with asking for the head of someone like Doug Batchelor for presenting his opinion from the pulpit because it disagrees with what you believe to be an obvious truth.  You applaud the SECC's call for censorship and restraint of Batchelor from the pulpit.  Yet, you get all upset when the very same arguments used by the SECC against someone like Batchelor are used against LSU.  How is this not a double standard in your book?  

Sean - If your posts here are an example of how much regard you have for the truth, then EducateTruth is, indeed, a misnomer of laughable proportion.

First and foremost, I've never asked for the head of Doug Batchelor (this is a falsity both you and Nathan Schilt seem to have become fond of.)  I've gone through the trouble to find and paste my following post from March 21, 2010 from the comment thread "Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors."

Just as importantly, though, I'd like to emphasize that I support Pastor Doug's right and responsibility to preach what his studies reveal. Even if one doesn't agree with his message or the manner in which he delivers it, he was hired to study and teach, and he is doing so with vigor. 

Secondly, I'd like to emphasize that I don't have a problem with your position (I've stated before that I, too, am a Creationist;) I have a huge problem with the way you go about your business.  The SECCSDA calls for "accountability" are not calls for execution or termination; they are accompanied only by detailed, well-reasoned, and well-organized statements about their thoughts and conclusions.  You and your EducateTruth staff, however, link your opponents to pedophiles, call those who won't pick up a pitchfork and torch against these pedophile-like professors "spineless," accuse them of theft, and then invite comments, which, lo and behold, tend to be nasty. 

Sean, I say the following with all sincerity, and intend it as advice (to be taken or disregarded, whichever you prefer):  There is a distinct difference between leading men and women, and inciting a lynch mob.  The SECCSDA statement is a great example of the former, and EducateTruth is an unfortunate example of the latter.  

As someone who sits on your side of the Creation/Evolution debate, I truly wish you defended our common position with something even approaching the quality and taste exhibited by the SECCSDA in their disagreement with Pastor Batchelor.

statefarmsteve, you wrote:

"If you can reassure me that you are capable of distinguishing between a priest sexually assaulting and raping a young boy and a professor teaching modern scientific theory in his classroom, then I'd be happy to continue the discussion."

You have not described the situation accurately. We aren't talking about a professor teaching modern scientific theory in a classroom.

We are talking about teachers who claim to be Seventh-day Adventists, working for an institution that claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist institution, teaching damnable heresies that masquerade as pseudo-science, promoting one of the worst forms of infidelity, teaching evolution over long ages as fact, violating their baptismal vows in the process, and seeking to destroy the faith of our young people in the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, and the Seventh-day Adventist message.

It interesting to note one parallel that stands out: Both the priest and the infidel teacher are using their position of authority to manipulate the young person's thinking, without the parents being properly informed about what is going on.

As far as the damage that is done to the child, I would have to say that the crime of the priest appears far worse. Yet both transgressions have eternal consequences.

Pickle, thanks for your reply.

I am not of the impression that I have the spiritual authority to question your conviction regarding evolution being the most damnable of heresies.

I know many grow weary of people bringing this up, but Galileo was also accused of the same crimes of heresy and damaging the faith of others. It's also probably unnecessary to point this out, but many people of faith today believe that the earth revolves around the sun.

I know you're a frequent commenter on EducateTruth, and from the content of your posts here and there, you've made it quite clear that you believe that the 28 fundamentals punch our ticket to Heaven, or in the very least, lack of adherence to them will keep us out. If you are indeed correct, then we probably should have named the Publication "The 28 Keys to the Kingdom." Then at least people would understand the true importance of EducateTruth!

"In any case, if you are SDA or affiliated with the SDA Church and wish to contribute to the discussion why not try posting your comments again?  Or, send them to me and I'll post them for you with my responses if you wish (as I will do with this particular post)... "

Sean, I was contacted by EducateTruth and informed that the site was only for SDA members and my input was not welcome. I can certainly be described as an SDA affiliate. Actually, no effort was made by the staff to ascertain my membership. It was assumed that I was not a member. 

I have managed to continue on in life, however.

Hansen,

I saw your comment about me contacting you. I save all of my emails so I found my email to you and your reply. I've included the email I sent you below:

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Shane <shane@educatetruth.com> wrote:

From: Shane <shane@educatetruth.com>
Subject: Some thoughts
To: Glenn Hansen
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:27 PM

Dear Hansen,

It has come to our attention that almost the entirety of the thread under Kevin Paulson’s article (78 comments) has been off topic.  While the attention is flattering to the site, it’s not the type of attention we desire. You’re a brother in Christ, despite the very different beliefs we have. As a fellow Christian, I humbly ask that you refrain from posting comments that detract from our goal. I would go further and recommend that you find another place to share.

I don’t know you at all, but if you love Christ as your personal Savior, I ask that you respect this issue as belonging to only brothers and sisters within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. We serve the same God, but there are some beliefs that we each hold that are irreconcilable. Since you are not a church member, and did not grow up in the church (at least to my knowledge), I think it’s best that you refrain from commenting altogether.

We’ll agree to disagree, and leave it at that. God bless you in your efforts with your church in China.

Sincerely,

Shane Hilde

PS: I’m curious as to how you even came upon this site since you’re not Adventist. Do you have some connection with Adventists? I was also curious as whether you’ve read the Great Controversy, and you were introduced to it.

We do have a policy that asks all commenters be members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church; however, we have allowed non-Adventists to comment from time to time when they pop up. They reason that rule was put in place was to guard against the influx of atheists we were getting when P.Z. Myers was paying attention to us (we had to block traffic from his site too).

As you can see from my PS, I did ask what your connection was with Adventism, but you never answered my question. There was an effort to find out what your connection was.

If you recall, the reason you were asked not to comment any more had little to do with you being non-Adventist. Remember, you wrote me and said you had apologized to Kevin Paulson for your negativity?

Hansen wrote, "Sean, I was contacted by EducateTruth and informed that the site was only for SDA members and my input was not welcome."

If EducateTruth wanted their website and arguments to remain within the Church, they would have never gloated--as they did repeatedly--when the secular media picked up their story on at least 4 occasions. Hilde certainly did not decline to speak with the reporters, nor did he duck when the camera came out. And why let the story "slip" to the real world? Pressure. Pressure. Pressure. Unlike comments from "outsiders" posted to their website, the secular media broadcasting their story serves their purposes very well. The more humiliation they can heap on the institution, the more likely they can win their fight. And what is it really about? Control. Control. Control. (Under the calculated guise of "internal order and governance"...and "on the Church's dime.")

Statefarmsteve wrote, "Secondly, I'd like to emphasize that I don't have a problem with your position (I've stated before that I, too, am a Creationist;) I have a huge problem with the way you go about your business."

Brother Steve: as you probably recall, I see things exactly as you do. I, too, am a Creationist and I very much agree with EducateTruth's position that LSU should be supportive and respectful of the Church's doctrines. Actually, I think there are MANY like us who find sympathy in the message but detest the method, for the very reasons you so aptly stated. And yet, no matter how many times people like us seek to make this clear, our objections are quickly transmuted into sympathy for evolution (all aspects of it) and its all-out advocacy in SDA institutions. I'm not sure whether the reality of our position is simply lost on them, or if they torpedo us deliberately to help neutralize our position.

Comment has been edited - AT Moderator

When one stands up as publicly as the EducateTruth creators have, I believe they have a responsibility to lead in an admirable manner.  As I said before, there is a big difference between inciting a riot and inspiring change.

However, there is a certain ego boost that occurs when one is in a "leadership" position, whether one is at the forefront a lynch mob or a call for change, and there is a remarkable similarity in the swelling of pride when standing over the ashes of your foe and when standing at the top of a mountain.  Sometimes, especially when it's you or me, we have a tough time discerning between the two. 

Even a righteous goal can be pursued in a manner that extinguishes the very flame you are trying to fan.  Such myopia is often indicative that the thrill of the chase has overshadowed actually grasping their elusive target.

As Shane stated, it is the policy of Educatetruth to allow only SDA members to post on the website. It sounds as if the policy is selectively enforced, which, of course, is their right

I found Shane to be courteous, as his email evinces. Originally, I did not notice the postscript because it was below the screen and required scrolling to read it.  I joined the SDA church before Shane was born and was a member for more years than he has lived. I was unaware that reading the GC was a requisite for church membership. I wonder how many people who regularly post on EducateTruth have read Great Controversy in its entirety.

During the discussion, Sam Pipim appeared and asked the posters to remain on the topic. I don't recall that he made any other remarks, other than to attempt to moderate the thread with that post. At the time, I guessed that Shane was fronting for Sam.

Whatever the case, Kevin and I resolved that particular matter charitably, so I appreciate the work of Shane and others which made that possible.

Hansen,

You certainly got a nicer "please do not comment on EducateTruth.com" than I did. On September 7, 2009, shortly after I had posted several remarks expressing my dissatisfaction with the website, I received a 10-word request which included just four words more than this (including my name). I continued to post and was tolerated off-and-on over the next few months until I was blocked for good. Eventually, I was informed at Spectrum Magazine that I was blocked because I was not an SDA. In all fairness to Hilde, I never stated one way or another my membership because I didn't think it should matter.

If you really want to have a "members-only" website, you make it "members-only" access. The obvious strategy, however, is to play your point-of-view to the best of both worlds. You make it accessible to the whole world to keep up the pressure (after all, humiliation is the desired effect), and you restrict who can comment to control the content. This is, frankly, how propaganda works. Anyone with a deciphering mind readily recognizes that EducateTruth is exactly this and nothing less: propaganda.

(And I respect the fact that Adventist Today readily tolerates all views, so long as they are expressed in a civil manner.)

And now I'm feeling a bit sorry for Sean Pitman. At EducateTruth, quite a few of the faithful commenters there have turned on him, declaring him to be scripturally in error for, of all things, expressing tolerance toward those with whom they disagree!

In other words, Sean says we cannot judge motive, as many employees who have eroneous ideas sincerely believe they are right and only God can judge whether they are sinning. But the typical EducateTruther sees it differently; they insist they are qualified to point out the sin and declare these individuals evil.

My, my, my...

EDUCATETRUTH gets a dose of self-treatment

After several days of being hammered by ultra-conservatives because EducateTruth staff were unwilling to judge the motives of and declare as "evil" those who advocate evolutionary theory, links to the thread have now been removed and the comments feature has been disabled. Several individuals, one claiming to be a deacon, cited the Bible and Ellen White to make clear their opinion that the EducateTruth position was unscriptural. These individuals also criticized several other EducateTruth faithfuls for being too liberal. As one staffer lamented (in true propaganda spirit):

"In short, you will end up causing far more harm than good in this cause. I started this effort to remove those undermining the pillars of the SDA faith at LSU and we have actually made some headway here. You and your friends are not helping. I advise you to reconsider your motives and your language."

The thread, however, remains available for browsing at http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/. I've actually saved a copy of all the comments before they get wiped out.

Long ago, I pointed out that EducateTruth had opened Pandora's Box. In time, Church members with an axe to grind will duplicate the EducateTruth model and succeed in attacking various institutions, diverse issues, and a multitude of individuals within the Church. The undeniable reality is that propaganda can be extraordinarily effective. What I failed to anticipate was an attempted takeover of EducateTruth itself!

Many have already come to recognize that EducateTruth's model creates disharmony within the Church. Of course, a divided house cannot stand. My question is this: will the Church play hardball with those who unapologetically use the World Wide Web to attack its institutions, leaders, and other individuals, or will it roll over and play dead as it seems to have done so far? At some point, I predict the Church learn how to defend itself from these unChrist-like tactics, and take legal action whenever and wherever it can. I predict it will also disfellowship more frequently those who use the WWW to subvert internal order and governance, and will do so more quickly before irreparable damage accumulates.

EDIT: Upon re-reading my post, I was struck by the frank admission in the quote above: "I started this effort to remove those undermining the pillars of the SDA faith at LSU..." Could any question remain about a key goal of theirs?

Wow, Sean, have you ever been subject to verbal attack here on AToday on par with that which you received over there on EducateTruth in the thread posted by ProfNotKent in the comment above?  I ask that knowing that I have been among your harshest critics here. 

Brutal.

I may disagree with you, but you are hardly deserving of such attacks, particularly on your own bandwidth!

It is readily apparent that you are one of the original creators and pioneers of the pursuit of changes at LSU, and yet, you are shown very little courtesy on your own cyber-porch.  I applaud your attempts to be a gracious host there, but your guests have apparently eaten your Vegelinks and drank your Roma, and now they're breaking the china and stealing your silverware.

On a more serious note, I have a great appreciation for your efforts to moderate the conversation there, and for making an effort to focus on your goals of change (whether or not I agree with all of them) rather than make judgements of those who have been accused of wrongdoing.

If this tack that I have discovered is what you truly desire, and the tone I sense is the new tone of EducateTruth, then I look forward to watching your efforts bear some fruit.  But good luck with anything less than an "off with their heads" approach over there - it doesn't appear that most of the readers/posters tolerate anything less than their perception of perfection.  

For what it's worth, the latest issue of the Southwestern Union Record appeared in my mailbox today with the following listing in the Classified Ads:

"Southwestern Adventist University seeks Ph.D. prepared Biologists for fall, 2010.  Looking for two talented, committed S.D.A. creationists..."

Guess everyone at least knows what the most important qualification for teaching biology at SWAU is!

"Southwestern Adventist University seeks Ph.D. prepared Biologists for fall, 2010. Looking for two talented, committed S.D.A. creationists..."

According to an SDA biologist friend of mine (who must remain anonymous), Southwestern will be very fortunate to find two SDA applicants with PhDs, regardless of whether they are talented or committed to creationism. Apparently, the Church is in dire need of biologists as an increasing number of current faculty retire, and there are very few to be found.

My predictions:

1) Some of the better candidates out there are now frightened away by the EducateTruth-inspired witch hunt.

2) With the increased emphasis on hiring "safe" faculty, the students at our universities will be stuck with an increasing number of uninspiring faculty with poor teaching skills, some lacking PhDs--not that these qualities truly matter.

It appears that EducateTruth is no longer allowing the posting of comments on their web site.  I wonder what happened?  Could it be that those responsible for it have had second thoughts about the wisdom of fostering Adventist extremist elements?  Probably not, but the rest of us can hope they have learned something from their rash and irresponsible behavior.

Ervin,

I think you are right in that those responsible for EducateTruth have not had second thoughts about what they know to be Truth.

I believe the ultimate outcome of their rash and irresponsible behavior remains to be seen. Their goal, of course, has been to remove the lying and cheating and unethical (and evil, some would say) bAdventist biologists at our universities and replace them with "safe" ones. My understanding is that, at this very moment, Southern Adventist University is seeking to hire FOUR new biologists and Southwestern Adventist University TWO new biologists. The big question: will they succeed? Are there SIX new biologists ready to fill the void? I'm told the pickings are slim to none and that there is considerable concern about what the future holds as more and more current faculty retire in the coming years.

If EducateTruth can claim success, the following must occur:

1) Southern Adventist University will shortly hire FOUR new PhD biologists who are very conservative. We shall see!

2) Southwestern Adventist University will shortly hire TWO new PhD biologists who are very conservative. We shall see!

3) Actually, to claim ultimate success, La Sierra University must also replace at least FOUR biologists with new PhD biologists who are very conservative. Actually, the exact number is unclear; claims are variously made that "four" of their biologists, and even the "majority," are theistic evolutionists, but there are either nine or ten faculty according to their website (one is "emeritus" and presumably not teaching a full-time load), which could place the number to replace at FIVE, SIX, or even MORE. Although this has been their clearly stated goal, I am told there appears to be no firings, resignations, or hiring. Curious!

Of course, if these schools have difficulty locating suitably qualified faculty, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that EducateTruth actually inflicted harm to its cause by frightening away potentially suitable candidates.

This could prove to be very interesting in the months to come. When I get an update from my source, whom I deem highly reliable, I will be more than happy to share.

It appears that EducateTruth is no longer allowing the posting of comments on their web site.  I wonder what happened?  Could it be that those responsible for it have had second thoughts about the wisdom of fostering Adventist extremist elements? Probably not, but the rest of us can hope they have learned something from their rash and irresponsible behavior.

Shane simply didn't have time to keep up with monitoring comments at the present - especially given the large number of very off topic comments of late, which, as you very well know (despite your suggestions in your article above to the contrary), do not remotely represent the views of Shane Hilde or myself.

As far as "rash and irresponsible", what's the problem with asking for increased transparency from LSU?  It seems to me rather hard to argue that parents, potential students, and the church membership at large really don't have the right to know what they are actually paying for with their hard-earned dollars.

So, do tell me, what is the purpose for keeping what is truly being promoted at LSU, theistic evolutionism, so secretive and hidden with carefully worded PR campaigns and obfuscating language in response to simple straight-forward questions? 

You yourself personally know that LSU science professors are in fact promoting theistic evolution. You strongly support their right to do so within SDA schools.  So, what about the rights of the rest of us to actually know and present the truth about what is truly being taught to our students at our own schools?  - or do you support the double standard of the SECC on such things?...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

"So, do tell me, what is the purpose for keeping what is truly being promoted at LSU, theistic evolutionism, so secretive and hidden with carefully worded PR campaigns and obfuscating language in response to simple straight-forward questions?"

Sean, I find it interesting that you equate the EducateTruth approach with "simple straight-forward questions." Would you describe "Shock and Awe" as asking simple straight-forward questions of Saddam Hussein? Get a clue.

Maybe La Sierra is also promoting creationism, and is equally carefully worded and obfuscating about it. Maybe you guys accomplished more than you think. Personally, I don't believe they want to make you people happy by spectacularly capitulating to your tactics of public humiliation and denigration.

As there are at least two Adventist universities actively seeking biology professors, perhaps those who would eliminate the "evolution" that is now being taught, could propose instructors that would teach the Bible position.  Surely, those who are objecting should be able to offer their chosen biologists for positions, presuming there are some looking for employment.

Those interested in current happenings in Adventism should read "Seminary in Crisis" by Zimmerman, available from Concordia Publishing House. It documents the events which occurred at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, in the sixties and  seventies. These events eventualy led to a formal split in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the birth of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

The book is on closeout, so it is a convenient time to buy.  Zimmerman was deeply involved in the events. The book is obviously partisan, representing the side of the "conservative" elements in the Missouri Synod.

Being a seminary in crisis, the issues were theological rather than scientific. Higher critical theories regarding Scripture were the foundational issue; however, these theories permeated every dimension of faith, including Creation, the historicity of Adam and Eve, the Flood, prophecy, miracles, and so forth, anything requiring faith.

Of special interest are the insinuations, accusations, etc. regarding the duplicity, deception, maneuvering, campaigning, public relations stunts, and manipulation engaged in by (according to Zimmerman), the moderate/liberal" interests.

"Gospel reductionism" was an interesting aspect of the crisis. It holds that anything in the Bible which is not directly related to the death and resurrection of Jesus may be considered nonessential elements of Christian faith. This was popular among the moderate liberal/wing of the seminary faculty as well as their sympathizers.

This would be a good place to review the book, or even better, get yourself a copy and enjoy. There really is nothing new under the sun.

What's so humiliating or denigrating about telling the truth about what you're really teaching in your classrooms?  After all, if you're proud about what you're doing, what on earth would be so humiliating in letting everyone know?

The fact is that the only reason LSU is embarrassed about what its professors are in fact promoting at LSU, theistic evolutionism, is because it knows that its employer, the SDA Church, would not be pleased since it has taken a very public "fundamental" stand in favor of a literal creation week - a fundamental position that is being actively undermined by LSU.

If LSU has in fact changed and is now promoting the concept of a literal creation week in its science classrooms, it should make this fact known as well.  The truth of the situation is that the very same teachers are still proselytizing for theistic evolutionism at LSU.  The situation has not changed, I know this for a fact, and parents, future students, and SDA Church membership at large has a right to know...    

Erv Taylor's suggestions, that LSU has a right to secrecy on top of "academic freedom" regarding what is being taught at our own schools, and that those who want transparency and SDA schools to support SDA ideals are somehow evil, are just silly...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

"Erv Taylor's suggestions, that LSU has a right to secrecy on top of "academic freedom" regarding what is being taught at our own schools, and that those who want transparency and SDA schools to support SDA ideals are somehow evil, are just silly..."

Evil? Who said anything about evil? If you can't characterize Erv fairly, why should we trust your claims about LSU?

Sean,

I seriously question your facts. Today, by remarkable coincidence, I actually ran into a La Sierra freshman biology major. Hiding my shock, I could not help but ask if during her first year she felt that theistic evolution was being taught as fact and that creationism was in any way belittled. The answer to both questions was simple and straightforward: "no." This person, an SDA herself, went on to explain how the campus has a very distinct SDA atmosphere; that she was aware of a "big rumor" that they teach evolutionism as fact; and that, in her understanding, evolution was taught to prepare students for the standardized exams that many would eventually have to take.

So, if La Sierra is currently teaching evolutionism as fact and denigrating creationism, which you and Mr. Hilde have insisted, why is this young lady blithely unaware of these "facts?" Why should we believe you instead of her when you do not actually sit in her classes?

Personally, I question your ability to look at "facts" objectively.

Personally, I question your ability to look at "facts" objectively.

Why don't you ask the teachers themselves?  Why don't you look at their presentations and their own testimony about what they believe and teach as the true story of origins in their classrooms? - and even in chapel services? Please do present some real evidence that any science professor at LSU is actually promoting the literal creation week as the true story of origins. I would find such evidence most encouraging!

Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account the very next week after I was there (February 2009).  Dr. Grismer in particular derided students who questioned his evolutionary view on origins suggest that those who hold outdated literal creationist beliefs are the same ones who "fly airplanes into buildings". This is right in line with Gary Bradley's public statement that the SDA view on a literal creation week is just a "lunatic fringe" view on origins and that he is not about to get up in front of his class and say that mainstream science is a buch of "bs" - to quote Bradley.  Did the biology student you interviewed discuss such things with you?

I've been there Prof. Kent.  I've personally met with many of the students and talked to the teachers involved.  I've exchanged many letters with parents involved.  I've been personally working with this issue for over 5 years.  The one freshman student you talked to was either not well informed or was being somewhat disingenuous with you. 

As Erv Taylor very well knows, the LSU professors are not simply teaching "about" the modern ToE.  They are promoting it.  They are proselytizing for this particular view on origins. Anyone who actually looks into this matter with an honest and candid mind cannot but determine that this is the truth of the situation.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

ProfessorNotKent, I'm quite confident that theistic evolution is not being taught as fact by La Sierra biology professors, because they do not believe it to have any more scientific support than the biblical story of creation. They might claim, if pressed, to personally believe in a theistic "big bang", but only as a faith statement that certainly would have no place in a science classroom. Did you ask the young lady if her professors spent time challenging evolutionary theories with creationist claims, or if they spent time differentiating evolutionary science from evolutionary theory? 

I have personally heard too many students attest to the hostility of La Sierra biology professors to creation science claims to give the claims no credence. There is of course an easy way to put the "rumors" to rest - a course that has been assiduously avoided by the accused. Why? In my 15 years as a prosecutor, I generally found that, when someone claimed The Fifth Amendment, which is their right in criminal proceedings, it was usually is a good bet that they were guilty.

You question whether Darwinian science is being taught at La Sierra, to the exclusion of other life origin theories. But does it really matter to you? If Shane and Sean are right about what has been taught in the biology classrooms - and I'm very confident they are - would you see a problem? I doubt it.  

Sean and Nathan,

I don't know how many times I've gone over this, but will do so once again. I have never questioned whether there has been a problem at La Sierra. My nameless SDA biologist colleague and friend confirmed to me long ago that there were indeed some problem faculty there. As I understand, one retired and another is on the verge of doing so. What I disagree hugely with is not the message but the method. How many times need I say this? Have you not heard this from me before? Are ye deaf...er...blind? I've stated many times that faculty at any Church-institution need to be respectful of Church beliefs. I have taught at private universities of several denominations (and several public universities as well), and I can assure you I practice what I preach. So of course I care.

Back to my recent post and your responses: all I am saying is that things may well be very different this year. This freshman student who sits in classes and rubs shoulders with other biology majors certainly has no clue that any faculty are currently promoting theistic evolution. I didn't see a need to grill her; that kind of skeptical, hostile approach does not suit my personality. I believe she was genuine, and what she shared contrasted very strongly with statements at EducateTruth and here. I am not denying what you experienced, Sean, in February 2009. But why should I put any more weight on your claims, or those of Dr. Taylor or Mr. Schilt regarding the current situation, when none of you can claim, as this young lady has, to be listening to these teachers and classmates in person on a daily basis. Again, things at La Sierra may well be very different this year. Why are you guys so hostile to this possibility?

Don't you get it? I'm actually saying that you might have succeeded in changing the atmosphere at LSU. Give yourselves a pat on the back! Apparently, though, you have failed in your stated desire to remove these faculty. Perhaps removing these individuals is no longer "necessary;" surely the SDA church believes in personal redemption.

You asked me, Sean, to provide evidence that LSU faculty are NOT promoting theistic evolution. Ask Mr. Schilt about declaring someone guilty until proven innocent. Would it not be acceptable if the "offenders" reformed in their approach and showed more respect toward SDA beliefs? Do these faculty really have to be "removed?" Do you really have to inspire a witch hunt at all SDA institutions and publicly shame and humiliate so may individuals and institutions? Do you really have to make Christianity in general and Adventism in particular subject to derision by those not within our camp?

This clearly has become far too personal for you, and I believe you intend to win at all costs, even if it invokes a scorched-earth policy. I plead with you, as a brother in Christ, to step back, take a breath, give things a rest, and see how events develop over the coming months.

Prof. Kent wrote:

Don't you get it? I'm actually saying that you might have succeeded in changing the atmosphere at LSU. Give yourselves a pat on the back! Apparently, though, you have failed in your stated desire to remove these faculty. Perhaps removing these individuals is no longer "necessary;" surely the SDA church believes in personal redemption.

You asked me, Sean, to provide evidence that LSU faculty are NOT promoting theistic evolution. Ask Mr. Schilt about declaring someone guilty until proven innocent. Would it not be acceptable if the "offenders" reformed in their approach and showed more respect toward SDA beliefs? Do these faculty really have to be "removed?" Do you really have to inspire a witch hunt at all SDA institutions and publicly shame and humiliate so may individuals and institutions? Do you really have to make Christianity in general and Adventism in particular subject to derision by those not within our camp?

The LSU science professors have not "reformed" nor have all the evolutionists "retired" - you are not that naive.  The majority of LSU's science professors still believe what they have always believed and they are still teaching what they have always taught - the clear truth of the modern evolutionary story of origins.  

Their class notes have not substantively changed.  I have them.  I know.  Their lectures have not changed either.  I know what they are currently saying to their students.  Some may have toned it down a little, "till things blow over as usual" as Bradley put it, but they have not changed in any sort of substantive manner. 

There currently is no active support for the SDA position on origins while there is still active support for the modern evolutionary perspective within LSU science classes - especially the upper division classes.

I'm sorry Prof. Kent, but you simply aren't well informed on this issue...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Sean, you are well aware that there is a diverse range of opinions on what constitutes "evolution" and the extent to which "evolution" is acceptable within a creationist paradigm. You know full well that a LOT of evolutionary change has occurred since the very same 6-day creation that you and I both believe in. Yet even if one concedes no more than the possibility that bacteria and insects evolve (gasp, I said it!) antibiotic and insecticide resistance, respectively, one is immediately subject to crucifiction by many many sincere Christians who believe you've sold your soul to the devil.

I used to teach at a very conservative Church-owned university (more conservative, I'd bet good money, than LSU) and I was very careful and respectful about what I taught. Of course, I made darn sure that students were well acquainted with evolutionary theory, and I was very forthright about the MANY problems--which you essentially deny--that confront honest individuals who prefer a Biblical model. I emphasized the importance of faith (which you happen to disdain, having insisted many times that SDA beliefs, in contrast to those of other denominations, are supported by evidence, thereby relegating our well-meaning faith to the realm of the tooth fairy, a position you have posted numerous times at EducateTruth and elsewhere). I was very supportive of a literal creation, in large part because I actually believe in it. But you, or anyone else, could have taken my lecture notes and made any number of vicious charges and convinced a LOT of people that I was an all-for-evolution zealot.

The reality is that one cannot talk about the reality of evolution, unless perhaps couched strictly as "microevolution," without being accused of being an evolutionist. I'm the prime example. I've stated DOZENS of times that I'm a creationist (more so at EducateTruth than anywhere else), yet because I point out problems I have been accused repeatedly--often by you--of being an evolutionist. You've judged me wrongly many times; so why should I believe your judgments about others?

Of course, my knowledge of what happens at LSU becomes completely irrelevant when YOU set up a court of public opinion in a courthouse of your own making (EducateTruth.com), declare yourself the judge and the jury, and pronounce both the verdict and the sentence based on selective one-sided arguments. You win! You win! You win! (Not even my friend, Nathan Schilt, could save the accused.)

Erv, 

EducateTruth:  Perhaps the Florence Woolcock of 2010? 

"Guess everyone at least knows what the most important qualification for teaching biology at SWAU is!" 

On May 3rd, 2010 ProfessorNot Kent says:

Sean, you are well aware that there is a diverse range of opinions on what constitutes "evolution" and the extent to which "evolution" is acceptable within a creationist paradigm. You know full well that a LOT of evolutionary change has occurred since the very same 6-day creation that you and I both believe in.

LSU science professors aren't simply talking about various forms of evolution that could also be consistent with a literal 6-day creation week.  They are talking about various forms of evolution that they themselves confidently declare required and did in fact take place over hundreds of millions of years.  They make it very clear that the Church's fundamental doctrine of a literal creation week is untenable in light of the scientific evidence as they see it.  They even go on to explain that the Genesis narrative is clearly allegorical and even internally contradictory. 

They have been doing this for decades at LSU and they continue to teach such opinions to their students as "the truth" as far as they understand the truth.  They are currently proselytizing for this particular perspective in their own classrooms - right now.  They have not changed nor are they remotely respectful much less supportive of the SDA Church's position on origins.  

This is the truth of the situation and it is the primary purpose of EdTruth to bring this truth to light.  Now, you can deny the evidence if you want, but for most who actually consider the available evidence with a candid mind it is very difficult to honestly deny our interpretation of it.

If you really think the LSU professors are not promoting the mainstream evolutionary model as the true story of origins, or that they are not deliberately undermining the SDA position on a literal creation week, why not simply ask them directly?  Why not have them deny our "overwhelming evidence" publicly? Because, they are simply too honest and upright to purgur themselves in this way...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

P.S.  I don't deny your claim to believe in a literal creation week.  What I do question is your understanding and background in evolutionary biology and your comprehension of what you think are still problems for the creationist perspective. Sure, there are still problems, but many of the ones you've listed have long been solved - some quite spectacularly.

P.P.S.  And yes, I do question the value of beliefs that are based on blind faith alone in the face of all contrary evidence or a complete lack of any supporting empirical evidence.  How such beliefs are remotely useful as a basis for a solid hope in the future, beyond a child's belief in Santa Claus, is beyond me...

Sean Pitman wrote:

"And yes, I do question the value of beliefs that are based on blind faith alone in the face of all contrary evidence or a complete lack of any supporting empirical evidence.  How such beliefs are remotely useful as a basis for a solid hope in the future, beyond a child's belief in Santa Claus, is beyond me..."

You crack me up. Please read Hebrews 11 and try to explain to me exactly what "empirical evidence" supported the faith of Abel, Enoch, and Noah, not to mention Abraham of "even though he did not know where he was going", all of whom were rewarded for acting on faith. And tell me the physical evidence that convinced Isaac and Jacob that their blessings would benefit their children. Please share the physical evidence that Joseph had which convinced him the children of Israel would escape Egypt. What was the physical evidence obtained by Moses, who "saw Him who was invisible," that he would receive a better reward by rejecting the royal accolades and wealth of Egypt?

How did those frightened Israelites KNOW they could safely cross the Red Sea? How did Joshua and his people KNOW that walking around Jericho would suffice to defeat it? How did the prostitute Rahab KNOW she would be spared by protecting the spies? And what of the remaining heroes, for whom physical evidence demonstrated they would surely die, but still believed a promise of something better to come? If you know something about these blessed souls that the rest of us have not learned of, please let us in on it!

As I child, I read books about Santa Claus, sang songs about his generosity and appearance and jolly ho-hos, studied many colorful pictures, and opened beautifully wrapped gifts labeled "from Santa." You might belittle my one-time belief in Santa, but I believed just as fervently in God at the time with much less evidence. Would you belittle that as well? Was my faith in Christ as a child just as misdirected and useless to me as my belief in Santa? Surely it served me much better! Would I have been lost until I became old enough to read about the real life-saving evidence at DetectingDesign.com?

Sean, your teachings regarding faith appear to contradict the Fundamental Adventist Beliefs:

#9 - "those who by faith accept this atonement [Christ's death] may have eternal life." Please explain to me the physical evidence that any human being can achieve eternal life.

#10 - "this faith [in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example] which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace." Please explain to me the physical evidence which proves that, by believing (or, um, whatever is meant by "faith") Jesus is the Substitute, I will be saved from eternal death.

#12 - "The church is the body of Christ, a community of faith of which Christ Himself is the Head." Please explain to me the physical evidence whereby we know that the community of believers is under Christ's leadership.

#13 - "a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." So, apparently anyone who keeps the commandments (which no sinner can do, literally) and, more to the point, accepts the "evidence" that Jesus was real can claim to be a part of the remnant. Is that right? Thus, by "faith," what this really means is that all we need to do is acknowledge there is proof of Jesus being the son of God?

#15 - "By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." So, we actually have physical evidence that Jesus died and was raised again? And where would we find that (the Shroud of Turin, perhaps)? In the absence of such physical evidence, or lack of proof in the connection between Jesus and the Shroud, is baptism completely useless?

Whew...I give up. FB's #16, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24 all continue to speak of faith. I have difficulty believing that all of these issues are proven fact, and that to believe anything differently, we are idiots in rejecting the apparently obvious (according to you) physical evidence for all these facts.

You do believe in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, don't you? Since you are pushing to revise FB #6, it seems logical that you believe in a different form of Adventism than the corporate whole and desire additional changes to our de facto creed. Which ones do you suggest we revise so that members will no longer be confused as to what true "faith" is all about?

"Guess everyone at least knows what the most important qualification for teaching biology at SWAU is!" 

Exactly! Ones knowledge of how the function of genes may be altered via epigenetic mechanisms due to environmental stresses such as hypoxia, drugs etc be damned. As long as one teaches creation as the "science" that explains gene function, then you are in the door. Way to go SWAU with academic excellence.

Come on John.  Just because some low-level biological changes and other features can be reasonably explained by mindless natural mechanisms doesn't mean that all biological features can be explained without invoking high-level intelligent design and creative power.

The main problem with mainstream evolutionists is not that they believe that evolution happens on at least some level. We all believe that overwhelmingly demonstrated fact. The problem is that mainstream evolutionists extrapolate very low level examples of evolution in action to much higher levels of functional complexity with the assumption of fairly short periods of time being able to do the trick (i.e., a few hundred million years is a drop in the bucket given the odds against success at higher levels) without any viable statistical basis much less demonstration or testability - i.e., no science. 

The evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS does work, but it is extremely limited to very low levels of functional complexity.  When you start moving up the ladder of functional complexity, the mechanism of RM/NS stalls out in an exponential manner with each step up the ladder.  Once you get to a level of complexity that requires at least 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues working together at the same time to produce a qualitatively unique system of function, the statistical odds of success for RM/NS finding such a novel system in sequence space is essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time.

This is the basic problem for your argument - your extrapolations are not scientifically tenable.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman wrote: "Once you get to a level of complexity that requires at least 1000 fairly specified amino acid residues working together at the same time to produce a qualitatively unique system of function, the statistical odds of success for RM/NS finding such a novel system in sequence space is essentially nil this side of trillions upon trillions of years of time."

Natural selection does not invent novel systems. It takes an existing system, however simple or complex, and makes it better through a statistical sampling process in which some replicated variants perform better than others. You recognize this, so why invoke William Paley's watchmaker fallacy? Evolutionists do not believe that you can get a complex, fully-developed system (like a functional watch) in a single step.

As Geanna Dane adroitly pointed out to you once before at ET, rattlesnakes have evolved heat-sensing facial pits to detect warm-blooded prey, and boas and pythons have evolved similar structures along their lips. Rattlesnakes and many, many other venomous creatures (like anemones, jellyfish, crinoids, cone snails, spiders, scorpions, bees, catepillars, fishes, frogs, lizards, other snakes) have evolved highly sophisticated venom delivery systems with very unique structures (like glangs, fangs, spines) and toxins (usually proteins and alkaloids). That's a heckuva lot of complexity to evolve in a few thousand years assuming God did not create creatures whose venom serves but one purpose--to get food or avoid becoming food. Wait a minute...not "trillions upon billions of years," just a few thousand. I think you must actually agree with this!

And as Geanna pointed out, you're the champion among evolutionists since you believe in extraordinarily rapid evolution resulting in hundreds of species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds evolving in just a few thousand years when evolutionists believe those same species evolved over millions of years. As you well know, there are many distinct and quite large families of these vertebrate groups (>100 species) that occur only in the New World, with nary of trace of how they all got there from Mt. Ararat (of course, they didn't). You're good at probability; what are the odds of so many species evolving in so little time? Do tell!

So why don't you come clean and tell the Church membership the truth: you're MUCH MORE of an evolutionist than any of the theistic evolutionists in the Church that you have criticized. 

I have an update of astonishing dimensions.

I pointed out in a prior post that Southern Adventist University was seeking to hire four new (ultraconservative) biologists. Apparently, I was a tad incorrect: one of those positions was for a health professional and three were for biologists. Did they find their people? NO!!! According to my source, from a phone call earlier this evening, the word going around is that they located and interviewed four candidates for the three positions, but ultimately hired only one who was deemed suitable to their standards. And who was this individual? They lured that person away from another Adventist university, which must now seek a replacement! Because of this disaster at Southern, one of the faculty members who was retiring has agreed to stay on another year, and the department will also have to work one staff member short. Amazing!

Sadly, I'm told that two of the candidates were fresh graduates with strong research credentials and solid teaching records. Further, the folks at Southern were very dissatisfied that these candidates lacked a passion for proving creationism, which apparently is now a requirement even for those tasked with teaching anatomy and physiology. After learning this shocking news, I did some searches for publications by individual faculty in the department and made a downright remarkable discovery: I was unable to find a single recent publication in a peer-reviewed science journal (unless in an obscure journal missed by major indices) by any of their seven faculty members. Apparently, in their determination to become an apologetics department tantamount to a religion program, the department has now relegated itself to community college status. In public education here in California, no four-year biology program would possess an entire set of faculty completely devoid of research productivity, and I am doubtful accreditation would even allow it! Maybe standards are much lower in the southeast, and in the Adventist Church. Southern's lack of professionalism, by the way, contrasts markedly with that of La Sierra University, whose biology program generates substantial publications in refereed journals. I had no difficulty locating publications from their faculty.

My conclusion (subject to change if shown I'm wrong): EducateTruth has truly shocked higher Adventist education. It has contributed to a growing and very disturbing all-for-creationism-or-you-can't-work-for-us climate in the biology programs. And this at the expense of quality teaching and peer-mentoring for the most unfortunate student victims, particularly those with aspirations to become professional biologists one day. Ironically, by hiring teachers who are "safe" while dismissing candidates with good teaching ability and research productivity, the university will fail to inspire students to continue in graduate school and ultimately return one day to the system as faculty. Do you get this point? The university--and the Adventist system if this is done at other institutions--is actually sabotaging itself! The decision-makers have cut off their nose to spite their face!

Congratulations to EducateTruth; your influence has been profound indeed!

Prof. Kent wrote:

Natural selection does not invent novel systems. It takes an existing system, however simple or complex, and makes it better through a statistical sampling process in which some replicated variants perform better than others. You recognize this, so why invoke William Paley's watchmaker fallacy? Evolutionists do not believe that you can get a complex, fully-developed system (like a functional watch) in a single step.

Many claim that Paley's watchmater analogy has been a disproven "fallacy" for many years.  This just isn't so.  

Natural selection does not select at all until a beneficial functional change is actually realized by random mutations first.  The statistical sampling you speak of never produces a qualitatively novel system of function beyond very low levels of functional complexity.  I'm not talking about achieving a complex fully-developed system in a single step.  I'm talking about not being able to produce such a system regardless of the numbers of steps.

The problem is that the steppingstones in sequence space are not distributed in the same way at different levels of functional complexity.  Higher level stepping stones are exponentially father appart in sequence space compared to lower level systems.  

Your examples of the evolution of venome and venome delivery systems are not examples of high-level evolution, but of the modification of previous systems that involved a great deal of degeneration and Mendelian-style variation - - not the evolution of something qualitatively new beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.  There simply are no such observed examples of evolution "in action" in literature - period.

Degenerative changes and changes based on Mendelian variation can take place very very quickly - seemingly drastic phenotypic changes can be realized in this way within a handful of generations.  This is because nothing new is really being produced here.  It is the same gene pool of options with differences in expression of the same pool.

For further details on these concepts, why not check out my website? - especially the article on the proposed evolution of the bacterial flagellum...

Come on now, given your arguments here in favor of the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS being so obvious, upon what basis do you claim to be a young-Earth creationist?  Blind faith alone?  Sorry, but that doesn't do it for me...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Sean Pitman wrote, "Your examples of the evolution of venome and venome delivery systems are not examples of high-level evolution, but of the modification of previous systems that involved a great deal of degeneration and Mendelian-style variation - - not the evolution of something qualitatively new beyond the 1000 fsaar level of functional complexity.  There simply are no such observed examples of evolution "in action" in literature - period."

I certainly agree that these systems are not at the highest level of evolution, but while evolutionists believe these nevertheless highly complex systems evolved over millions of years, you insist that they evolved in less than 6,000 years. That's pretty extreme to sweep under the carpet.

You then go on to describe the evolution of these systems as "degeneration." Pardon me, but I have to ask--after a hearty laugh--from what did they "degenerate" from? When I look at the head of a rattlesnake, everything I see, from the enormous venom glands to the moveable, hollow, hypodermic needle-like fangs, appears to be designed to kill. Did a cluster of secretory cells in the oral cavity "degenerate" by dramatically increasing in size to synthesize and store copious quantities of unique (found nowhere else) toxins? Did muscles in the vicinity "degenerate" by enlarging considerably so as to be capable of compressing the gland and expel the venom? Did the gland further "degenerate" by forming an elongated duct that traverses the roof of the mouth to the fangs, which in turn presumably "degenerated" from simple and otherwise ordinary teeth to become spectacularly large and hollow? (Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, the venom gland of some snakes extends beyond the head and well into the body!) What about the heat-sensing facial pits? The these "degenerate" from dimples in the middle of the cheek, to become massive, gaping holes from which special nerve endings "degenerated" as they formed lengthy and novel connections to the visual regions of the brain? Wow! That's some spectacular degeneration!

Next, you declare that these remarkable changes are well below "the 1000 fsaar level of complexity." Of course, no one can really argue with this point since you are employing concepts and terms that you have invented out of thin air, which have never been published. Only YOU know what you are talking about. It's like me saying, "Of course, fellow Adventists, I can cite for you many examples in which animals have evolved more then 43.7 Lego units of complexity." Lego units, you ask? "C'mon, people, you can trust me; I know what I'm talking about <wink, wink>!"

Your final comment further amused me: "There simply are no such observed examples of evolution "in action" in literature - period." This argument is disingenious at two levels. First, to invoke the necessity of something from the literature to support your claims pretty much disqualifies everything you've said up to this point (in particular your Fsaar Side cartoon). Second, no one has lived long enough (thousands to millions of years) to observe the complex changes that have taken place, which, um, you yourself believe in nonetheless.

As a reasonably intelligent layperson who couldn't begin to carry on an informed conversation with either a creation scientist or a Darwinian scientist, the recent comments, which are fascinating, reinforce my sense that macroevolution and natural selection rely on scientific theory, not empirical science. Computer modeling doesn't make Darwinian theory science any more than it makes AGW theory science.

And here, to me, lies the crux of the problem with what I understand is taught by SDA evolutionists: Do they acknowledge or emphasize to their students that Darwinian theory is not scientific fact? Do they point out the serious gaps in those theories? And do they expose the materialistic Darwinian world view for the deeply unbiblical thought system that it is? Now, I may be wrong in assuming that the answers to those questions is probably no, but I'd sure like to hear some of the La Sierra biology professors come out of the closet and tell me so. I think they owe it to the Church and their Christian heritage to be teaching the strongest claims and criticisms of materialistic Darwinism offered by Creationists, scripture, and I.D. theorists. If that's not occurring, I think we've got a problem. 

Prof. Kent wrote:

I certainly agree that these systems are not at the highest level of evolution, but while evolutionists believe these nevertheless highly complex systems evolved over millions of years, you insist that they evolved in less than 6,000 years. That's pretty extreme to sweep under the carpet.

Not when you're talking about front-loaded information...

You then go on to describe the evolution of these systems as "degeneration." Pardon me, but I have to ask--after a hearty laugh--from what did they "degenerate" from? When I look at the head of a rattlesnake, everything I see, from the enormous venom glands to the moveable, hollow, hypodermic needle-like fangs, appears to be designed to kill. Did a cluster of secretory cells in the oral cavity "degenerate" by dramatically increasing in size to synthesize and store copious quantities of unique (found nowhere else) toxins? Did muscles in the vicinity "degenerate" by enlarging considerably so as to be capable of compressing the gland and expel the venom? Did the gland further "degenerate" by forming an elongated duct that traverses the roof of the mouth to the fangs, which in turn presumably "degenerated" from simple and otherwise ordinary teeth to become spectacularly large and hollow? (Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, the venom gland of some snakes extends beyond the head and well into the body!) What about the heat-sensing facial pits? The these "degenerate" from dimples in the middle of the cheek, to become massive, gaping holes from which special nerve endings "degenerated" as they formed lengthy and novel connections to the visual regions of the brain? Wow! That's some spectacular degeneration!

I didn't say that everything was "degenerative".  What I said was that all of the basic structures were already there and were either modified by degenerative or Mendelian-style variation for the most part.

The hollow or groved teeth were already there and may have been used to inject digestive juices into the original diet for these reptiles - fruits or the like.  Who knows?  Elongating a duct is easy to achieve since it isn't the production of something qualitatively new. The basic form was already there.  The same is true of the modification of musculature size and the specialization of heat-sensing organs (which were already there to begin with) via Mendelian-style variation of information that was front-loaded in the beginning.  

How can I be so sure of this?  Because, there is a clearly demonstrable exponential decline of the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS when it comes to what we can observe of real evolutionary change in action.  Real evolutionary change only occurs on very low levels of functional complexity, stalling out, exponentially, well before the 1000 fsaar is reached.  

This real life observation is backed up by statistical analysis of sequence space that demonstrates the very same exponential decline in the ratio of potentially viable/beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

For further information on my views on the origin of carnivores and parasites see a video of a lecture I gave on this topic at:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Carnivores

and

http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Discussion

Next, you declare that these remarkable changes are well below "the 1000 fsaar level of complexity." Of course, no one can really argue with this point since you are employing concepts and terms that you have invented out of thin air, which have never been published. Only YOU know what you are talking about. It's like me saying, "Of course, fellow Adventists, I can cite for you many examples in which animals have evolved more then 43.7 Lego units of complexity." Lego units, you ask? "C'mon, people, you can trust me; I know what I'm talking about <wink, wink>!"

The concept of functional complexity that I'm talking about has been published.  For example, Hazen et. al. define functional complexity as follows:

• n:   the number of letters in the sequence.
• Ex:  the degree of function x of that sequence.Therefore, Ex is a measure of the effectiveness of the message ininvoking a particular response.
• M(Ex): the total number of different letter sequences that will achieve the desired function, in this case, the threshold degree of response, Ex.  The functional information, I(Ex), for a system that achieves a degree of function, Ex, for sequences of exactly n letters is therefore:
  
  • I(Ex) = -log2 [M(Ex)/C^n]
  • where C = number of possible characters per position

 

What is also interesting is that Hazen et. al. go on to not that, "In every system, the fraction of configurations, F(Ex), capable of achieving a specified degree of function will generally decrease with increasing Ex."  And, according to their own formulas, this decrease is an exponential decrease with each linear increase in Ex.

Now, they do try to explain how RM/NS can move up to higher and higher levels, but, unfortunately in their paper, they only deal with very very low levels of functional complexity of no more than a few dozen aa residues.  

Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak, Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity, 8581|PNAS|May 15, 2007|Vol. 104|suppl. 1

 

Your final comment further amused me: "There simply are no such observed examples of evolution "in action" in literature - period." This argument is disingenious at two levels. First, to invoke the necessity of something from the literature to support your claims pretty much disqualifies everything you've said up to this point (in particular your Fsaar Side cartoon). Second, no one has lived long enough (thousands to millions of years) to observe the complex changes that have taken place, which, um, you yourself believe in nonetheless.

There are many examples of evolution in observable action in literature.  What is interesting about these examples is that they are all very low level examples, producing no novel systems of function that require more than a few hundred fairly specified amino acid residue positions at minimum.  What is even more interesting about these examples is their pattern of production.  They demonstrate an exponential decline in evolvability, over a given span of time, with increasing complexity.  

This pattern interested me and caused me to sit down and do some statistical calculations based on the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequences space.  According to what is currently known about sequence space the odds strongly suggest that there is an exponential decline in this ratio as well with each step up the ladder of functional complexity (as defined above).  This also means that there will be an exponential increase in the average time required for RM/NS to achieve success at each higher level of functional complexity.  

The math shows that at the 1000 fsaar level the average time needed to achieve success is in the trillions upon trillions of years.  

This isn't a very high level of functional complexity when it comes to what we see in all living things.  The 1000 fsaar level is still a very very low level.  However, when it comes to the potential of the evolutionary mechanism, it is statistically unreachable.  

So, given that the evolutionary mechanism cannot be tested in a demonstrable manner to be likely responsible for higher levels of functional complexity, and given that the calculated statistical odds are also in agreement with this observation, your conclusions that the mechanism of RM/NS is the best "scientific" conclusion isn't true.  This isn't the best scientific conclusion for the origin of life and its diversity beyond very low levels of functional complexity at all.  There really is no science behind this story beyond just-so story telling.  That's it. 

Surprised as I was when I first discovered this reality, this is the fact of the situation.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, your reasoning when you write things like the following leave me with one conclusion: you live on a planet of your making.

"The hollow or groved teeth were already there and may have been used to inject digestive juices into the original diet for these reptiles - fruits or the like." (Most venomous animal species, including snakes, do not have digestive enzymes in their venom. This argument is old and worn out. And of course, only you would know that they were "already there.")

"specialization of heat-sensing organs (which were already there to begin with)... (Um...already there? As what? Only three families of snakes have these: boas, pythons, and a subset of vipers. Either God made them this way or the structures evolved independently in the ancestors of these groups. [By the way, the fact that these groups evolved is macroevolution, which most creationists do not want to hear but which you yourself believe in.] Why didn't these structures evolve in other groups or snakes, or other vertebrates for that matter? What would it take to "degenerate" a second set of "eyes" in human cheeks or a series of multiple "eyes" along our lips?)

"your conclusions that the mechanism of RM/NS is the best "scientific" conclusion isn't true" (Whoa...where and when did I conclude this? But now that you've brought it up, can random mutations and natural selection lead to beneficial change? Absolutely. There is a solid literature base for this, as you well know because I once posted examples at ET.) 

"There really is no science behind this story beyond just-so story telling."  (Whose story-telling, yours, or that of thousands of scientists who have measured natural selection--which you belittle--operating in both the lab and in nature? If you're talking story-telling about origins, you're deluded if you believe there is more science in the "one day a flock of sheep instantly appeared on a mountain" than in any other scenario. But I'm glad you believe in your "science" of creation. I'll just take the Bible at face value, thank you.)

Until you can tell me how many of your fsaar units equate with my Lego units, we really have nothing to talk about. I'm finished. End of discussion.

Okay...so at Educate Truth, Geanna Dane took Sean Pitman to task with fsaars. Apparently, a fsaar is a "fairly specified amino acid residue." I take it 1 fsaar is 1 amino acid.

I've done some math, though I could have some errors. Sean claims that a functional change of 1,000 amino acids is impossible, i.e., it would require trillions upon trillions of years. However, he seems unfazed that a change of several hundred amino acids would be plausible in snakes. Here are my thoughts.

1. The calculations are based on bacterial genetic systems. A bacterial lifespan might range from 20 minutes to 20 hours. So, in a mere ten trillion years and with 24-hr generation times (to simplify the math), >3,650 trillion generations of bacteria would result in 1 trillion years.

2. Geanna asked how many fsaars might be plausible in 6,000 years since creation, but got no answer. That, of course, is a highly relevant question.

3. If a rattlesnake's generation time averages 4 years (according to my Googling, it can be 3-10 years depending on species), and rattlesnakes evolved after the flood, 4,000 years ago (they ONLY occur in the New World), we're talking a mere 1,000 generations for their evolution, not to mention diversification into 30+ species during this brief window of time.

4. So, here is the shocker (from my perspective; maybe Sean can pull the plug on my defibrillator):

  - a 1000-fsaar change requires much more than 3,650 trillion generations

  - a 200-fsaar change could happen in a mere 1,000 generations (or just 400 generations for some species)

  - thus, a simple 5-fold level of change between 200 and 1000 fsaars requires more than a trillion-fold difference in the number of generations. I ain't sayin' this can't happen, but, well...

5. This assumes that eukaryotic fsaars (in animals) are as facile as prokaryotic fsaars (in bacteria), which I suspect is not the case (bacteria can probably evolve novel fsaars more quickly). Surely Sean will know something about this and can reassure us he's got it all figured out.

These amazing calculations by Sean regarding fsaars assume, of course, that the equations provided by the evolutionary biologists are correct (and that Sean has extended them appropriately). Naturally, he rejects and reinterprets virtually every piece of evidence provided by evolutionists to support long earth ages (e.g., all forms of radioactive decay and isotope replacement; rates of DNA base pair substitution), but in the case of fsaars he makes an exception. Why? Because he can use them to show that substantial change simply cannot happen.

So Sean's approach is basically this, so far as I can tell:

   - In most cases, A (measured degree of change) multiplied by B (rate of change according to evolutionists) CANNOT correctly predict C (the inferred age) because, of course, in case after case the outcome, C, contradicts the Bible. Therefore, B must be wrong!

   - In the case of fsaars, B (rate of change according to evolutionists) multiplied by A (hypothetical degree of change) CAN correctly predict C (the inferred age) because, of course, it makes evolution appear to be impossible. Therefore, B must be right!

I find it curious that the author Sean obtained his equations from reaches very different conclusions from his equations. conclusions which Sean, no doubt, outright rejects. Apparently, Sean cherrypicks what works to support his views. According to a 2010 paper by Hazen:

"Nevertheless, the idea that life is “irreducibly complex” and, consequently, that the origin of life required an intelligent designer has been soundly refuted on both scientific and philosophical grounds (Pennock 2002; Forrest and Gross 2004). Indeed, in terms of generating systems of high complexity, evolution by the cyclic Darwinian process of mutation and selection has proven to be far more effective than design." (Hazen RM, Eldredge N (2010) Themes and variations in complex systems. Elements 6:43-46.)

Actually, I would LOVE to believe that Sean has all the answers we need to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that life was created in six days just 6,000 years ago--the evidence he so dearly cherishes. Of course, if we had that evidence, there would be no further need of the faith he trivializes.

Prof. Kent wrote:

Until you can tell me how many of your fsaar units equate with my Lego units, we really have nothing to talk about. I'm finished. End of discussion.

Don't you understand?  The concept of fsaars does equate with your "Lego units".  How many basic Lego building blocks, at minimum, does it take to build a structure with a particular type of function?   Different functionalities require different amounts of specifically arranged basic Lego units. 

The same thing is true of all language/information systems.  It's like the difference between a 3-letter word and the minimum sequence necessary, in the English-language system, to produce a blueprint that codes for the Space Shuttle.  

As you consider systems with greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements, be your system made up of Legos or protein building blocks, the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences or structures that could result will decrease, exponentially, with each step up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements.  

It is this exponential decrease in the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial that produces the real gap problem for the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS.  

The reason why I know that the high-level features in the animal kingdom, like eyes or heat-sensing pits, etc., were predictably front-loaded features is because of this non-beneficial gap problem at these levels of functional complexity.  Statistically, such features cannot evolve or be produced by any known mindless process of nature even in trillions of years of time.  There is no demonstration of evolution at such levels of functional complexity - not a single example where the information was not already within the genome to begin with.  And, there is no statistical basis to believe that such evolution would be remotely possible. All that is left as a known viable explanation is high-level intelligent design.  That's it. 

All that is left on your side of the argument are the many just-so stories about how such evolution must have occurred.  The problem, as with all just-so stories, is that they aren't based on science.  They aren't testable in a falsifiable manner and they aren't backed up by any sort of statistical analysis that produces useful predictive value.  Again, as firmly as you believe such stories, your beliefs simply aren't scientifically based.  You can close your mind and refuse to consider what should otherwise be obvious, but the truth of the situation is that your arguments for the evolutionary origin of complex biosystems aren't based on the best scientific information that is currently available...  sorry.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, in posting his reply at ET before it showed up here, wrote:

"Statistically, such features cannot evolve or be produced by any known mindless process of nature even in trillions of years of time. There is no demonstration of evolution at such levels of functional complexity – not a single example where the information was not already within the genome to begin with. And, there is no statistical basis to believe that such evolution would be remotely possible. All that is left as a known viable explanation is high-level intelligent design."

I'm continually amazed that a creationist would base an argument on the supposed lack of statistics when one could just as easily say "there is no statistical basis to believe that a flock of sheep could appear instantly on a mountain." Funny that one argument is "non-viable" and the other is perfectly viable. Hello?!

Sean also wrote:

"Again, as firmly as you believe such stories, your beliefs simply aren’t scientifically based. You can close your mind and refuse to consider what should otherwise be obvious, but the truth of the situation is that your arguments for the evolutionary origin of complex biosystems aren’t based on the best scientific information that is currently available… sorry."

Four things:

1 - Sean is correct; my beliefs aren't entirely scientifically based. Much of them are based on faith. Sean's, in contrast, apparently ARE scientifically based--on a highly select subset of science that in his mind cannot be biased by his Biblical faith. Somehow, without the benefit of faith, he is able to see through >99.9% of the "junk science" to the very tiny fragment that legitimately points to a recent creation in 6 literal days. I tip my hat to him.

2 - It does not matter how many times I state that I don't believe in the big picture of evolution. Sean continues to "know" what I know about what I don't know about what I know. I guess I should thank him now for helping me know what I didn't know about what I thought I knew.

3 - Sean's calculations leading him to conclude that complex biosystems cannot evolve have not been published in a refereed journal. I don't think his claims are any more "science" than my claim that I can make a living, breathing mastodon out of 1,789,234,789,372.38 Legos with a thimble of ketchup and a sprinkling of fairy dust. His conclusions rely on the equations of a scientist who reaches a very, very different conclusion than Sean does; so which is "the best scientific information currently available?"

4 - I am tired of this exchange. I don't have time to further study "truth" at the alter of Sean's omniscience. My bent knee is getting worn out. He can give the last lecture without my protestations.

Postscript:

I am an honest soul humbled by my inability to discern the "truth" in science. So rather than put my trust on the word of any one human who claims to use science as an approach to understanding truth, I will "blindly," perhaps stupidly, put my trust instead on God's word. I don't understand a lot about His word, and I know I'll be belittled for accepting it, but I'm willing to die with this decision.

Prof. Kent wrote:

I've done some math, though I could have some errors. Sean claims that a functional change of 1,000 amino acids is impossible, i.e., it would require trillions upon trillions of years. However, he seems unfazed that a change of several hundred amino acids would be plausible in snakes. Here are my thoughts.

It isn't a change of 1000aa, it is any change, even a single amino acid change in any pre-existing sequence, that ends up hitting upon a new 1000aa system that has an attached function which itself requires at least 1000 fsaars to work.  

Again, the 1000 fsaar threshold isn't a measure of change.  It is a measure of the minimum structural threshold needed to produce a particular type of function.  This threshold could be achieved with a single character change to something in the gene pool that just happened to be that close enough within sequence space.  

The problem here is that the odds that the actual gap distance will only be a single point mutation wide is extremely remote at this level of functional complexity.  The most likely minimum gap distance at this level is over 50 character changes wide.  

It is this minimum likely distance (50 mutational changes at the level of 1000 fsaar systems) that creates the statistical problem for RM/NS.

- a 1000-fsaar change requires much more than 3,650 trillion generations

- a 200-fsaar change could happen in a mere 1,000 generations (or just 400 generations for some species)

- thus, a simple 5-fold level of change between 200 and 1000 fsaars requires more than a trillion-fold difference in the number of generations. I ain't sayin' this can't happen, but, well...

It's far worse than you think, but I'm glad you're beginning to see the picture.  

Given a huge population of bacteria (1e30 of them - a population as large as all the bacteria on Earth) crossing a gap distance of just 50 character changes wide would require 1e36 generations (given a generation time of 20 minutes).

This is because a gap distance of 50aa changes is equal to a sequence space that size of 1e65 different sequences of 50aa.  Dividing this space up between all the 1000aa sequences in our gene pool of bacteria (~1e34 sequences of 1000aa) equals a search space, per mutating 1000aa sequence, of 1e31.  With a mutation rate of 1e-8 per codon per generation each 1000-codon sequence of DNA will get mutated once every 1e5 generations.  With a generation time of 20 minutes, that is one mutational step every 2,000,000 minutes; which equals ~4 years. So, with one random walk/mutational step every 4 years, it would take 1e31 * 4 = 4e31 years for at least one individual in the entire population to achieve success, on average, at the level of 1000 fsaars (i.e., trillions upon trillions of years).

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

Prof. Kent wrote:

I find it curious that the author Sean obtained his equations from reaches very different conclusions from his equations. conclusions which Sean, no doubt, outright rejects. Apparently, Sean cherrypicks what works to support his views. According to a 2010 paper by Hazen:

"Nevertheless, the idea that life is “irreducibly complex” and, consequently, that the origin of life required an intelligent designer has been soundly refuted on both scientific and philosophical grounds (Pennock 2002; Forrest and Gross 2004). Indeed, in terms of generating systems of high complexity, evolution by the cyclic Darwinian process of mutation and selection has proven to be far more effective than design." (Hazen RM, Eldredge N (2010) Themes and variations in complex systems. Elements 6:43-46.)

 

There is no cherry picking when it comes to doing the actual math beyond low levels of functional complexity - something that Hazen, Pennock, Forrest, Gross et. al. simply do not do.   They simply assume that because the math works in a reasonable amount of time at low levels of functional complexity that somehow someway that RM/NS must be able to do the job at higher levels.  This assumption simply isn't supported by Hazen's own calculations of how the ratios of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space decline, in an exponential manner, with increasing functional complexity.

As far as Hazen's claim that the concept of "irreducible complexity" has been soundly refuted is nonsense.  Perhaps Behe's narrow version of it has been refuted, but the basic idea has not.  It is very clear that all systems of function have a minimum structural threshold requirement below which the system in question will not work at all - not even a little bit.  By definition then, all systems of function are "irreducible" beyond this minimum structural threshold requirement.  And, as it turns out, different types of systems have different structural threshold minimum requirements.  This means that different systems are in fact on different, what I call "levels", of functional complexity.  

Higher level systems, because of being exponentially rarer in sequence space vs. lower level systems, are exponentially harder to find in a given span of time via random mutations - according to Hazen's own formulas...

And that, in a nutshell, is the death knell for the mechanism of RM/NS beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity.  It just doesn't work and stitistically cannot work beyond these low levels...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com