As a strong supporter of creation I can understand the need to teach what the other side believes but our church should not allow it as a viable option.  At the beginning of this year I did a sermon that states we have more reasons to believe in God and Creation today then we have ever heard.  It's entitled "Things That Just Are."  It's found at the top of the list. For a more biological perspective you might go clear to the bottom of the page and listen to "The Real Cellular One."  You'll have to click on the sermon you want to hear but here's the page link:

 http://www.lewisburgchurch.org/podcastlist.php

Hope this is enlightening in this very difficult subject.

Pastor Stewart Pepper

LSU Senate: We're going to teach whatever we want!

I wish LSU would just make up its mind.  Out of one side of its mouth it claims that it is in full support of the SDA Church organization, to include the SDA doctrines (even while its own professors are saying and teaching otherwise), while out of the other side it says that it doesn't have to sacrifice academic freedom if certain of its representatives just so happen to disagree with and teach contrary to this or that fundamental belief of the SDA Church as an organization - on the Church's dime. 

Back in November, 2009, the LSU Board of Trustees issued the following statement:

The Board of Trustees if fully mindful of La Sierra Universities responsibilities and commitments as a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education.  This includes whole hearted support for the doctrines and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as defined by the 28 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs, specifically fundamental #6 [dealing with a literal creation week]. ( Link )

"The La Sierra biology faculty have faith that God is their Creator and Sustainer, Each faculty member understands the important responsibility to facilitate broad education in biology in ways that embrace the Adventist perspective of God as the Creator of all things." ( Link )

"Yes, because of our stand for academic freedom here at LSU, we have many professors who do not believe in or support certain fundamental beliefs of the organized SDA Church in their classrooms.  Be so advised that the majority of our science professors are theistic evolutionists and will promote the modern evolutionary view of origins in their classrooms as the most likely story of origins."

This is about what I would have expected from a faculty senate.  Honestly, I can't recommend post-secondary education to anyone unless (1) that person has no ambitions or prospects that wasting 4 years will interfere with, and (2) the education is absolutely free. 

The modern academy is full of people who are profoundly unwise, and in rebellion not only against revealed religion, but also any sort of wisdom or common sense.  Most of the professors are leftists, notwithstanding that their totalitarian dreams led to the destruction of over 100 million lives in the 20th Century alone.  They hate America, and badmouth it at every opportunity, despite the fact that this country is by far the greatest nation on God's green earth, and has given more people more freedom and opportuniy than any other nation in the history of the world.  They especially hate the two defining characteristics of the United States: Christianity and Capitalism.  They even hate things that "liberals" in former times defended, like freedom of speech; the politically correct "speech codes" on modern campuses effectively means that such places have the least freedom of expression of anywhere in the U.S.  They're in rebellion against the natural and created order.  Recall that the faculty of Harvard ran their president out of town for suggesting that maybe men and women are different.  Do you really want to be "taught" or to have your children "taught" by a group of people so profoundly without insight, discernment or life experience as to think that men and women are exactly alike??

As to this particular resolution, it is outrageously wrong in stating that the reaction against LaSierra's biology department is "for including in their classes the evolutionary aspects of the modern biosciences."  The problem isn't including the material, the problem is teaching the Darwinian, pagan origins myth as fact, and belittling the Adventist doctrine as clearly wrong and only subscribed to by "the lunatic fringe." 

Another annoying thing they've done is to accuse their critics of failing to follow the protocol of Matthew 18 when that passage doesn't apply here.  The "sin" of these people isn't a private sin against an individual, it is a public sin against the church as a corporate entity; they are teaching in opposition to the long-established doctrine of the church.  But the larger issue is:  why would anyone pay any attention to Matthew 18 if Genesis one and Exodus 20 are so wrong, so far from reality that only the "lunatic fringe" believe what they say?  If they can ignore or dismiss as ludicrous the Bible's foundational factual assertions, why should I pay any attention to Matthew 18?  I guess I can be thankful that they didn't quote Ellen White in defense of Darwinism, e.g., that "don't think we have all the light" statement.  It really drives me over the edge when they do that.

Again, if you have anything on the ball, any prospect of getting ahead in this world, there's no reason to put yourself at the disposal of such a herd as the modern academy for four years, or put your finances behind the student loan 8-ball for most of the rest of your adult life.  "Education is for refinement, and is probably a liability" said one self-made millionaire.  You can see this reflected in the lives of people like Bill Gates and Michael Dell (both college dropout billionaires), and even Rush Limbaugh.  If you're really, really bored, and without any particular drive or ambition, then go ahead to college, but for gawd's sake, don't waste any money on it.

Ella M

There has been a lot of criticism and unsubstantiated claims made about LSU and their teaching of evolution. 

Until someone can prove to me that the instructors are presenting Darwinian evolution as "gospel truth", using students' belief in it as a test in grading, pressing the beliefs of macro-evolution on the students; while at the same time saying that 6-day creation is an impossible alternative, denying students their religious right to express it, making fun of those who believe it,   I am taking the side of LSU and their statement is a good one.

If the theory were not explained at LSU, it would be remiss in its duty to its students.  Perhaps the school needs to explain how they teach it, what their goals are, and if students are getting an objective viewpoint.  Communication would help here as it does on all political issues.

I don't think the spiritual can be separated from any study, and one would hope the instructors did have a personal relationship with God and would refer to Him in their classrooms in an appropriate way.  Can we ask for anything less?

Trying to separate religion and science is particularly impossible especially when you consider that theistic evolution destroys the plan of redemption. If you believe in theistic evolution you do not believe Jesus came to save us from a fallen condition but rather from the highest condition we'd ever evolved to since we finally achieved the lofty status of homo sapien. You also have death before sin (contrary to Romans 5:12) since things were living and dying long before free moral agents with a choice to sin entered the scene. You remove Jesus as Creator. Thus His death on the cross cannot possibly pay the penalty for sin (since sin and death have no correlation). It's simple if you're honest with your Bible. It's not just that you can't believe in evolution (even theistic evolution) and be an Adventist, it's more like you can't believe in evolution and be a Christian. It's sad to watch this, but the day our church renounces its stand on a literal six-day creation is the day I realize I was one day too late in turning in my resignation as pastor. As one who believes in spreading the three angels' messages it occurs to me that they all begin with a call to "worship him who made heaven and earth the sea and the fountains of water." It's hard to worship the Creator if you don't believe He creates.

 Pastor Stewart Pepper

This has been building for generations. The ethical question at the heart of this is not one of academic freedom or evolution. There are no thought police in the classrooms of LLU. In a world full of constraints, the LLU professor is freer than most to teach what he or she will.

The real underlying ethical question is how a university that has been norished by the dollars and resources of a religious institution can continue to accept their help while simultaneously not sharing the majority beliefs of that religious institution's members.

Most of America's great universities have been down this road before and eventually made clean breaks with the religous organizations that spawned them. If the faculty at LLU really want to take the high road, then it is time LLU be the secular institution that many of its faculty would gladly embrace - that is, if it wouldn't threaten the financial health of the university.

The exact nature of Creation's unfolding circumstances, obscured in details of an Ancient Language, but there can be no doubt Creation is foundational in sound  Christian doctrine.

When Jesus brought the New Covenent into existence, and before during His teaching, He explained the true meaning of many particular doctrine points and challenged Rabbinical conclusions - but never Creation. He references them like events in the Gospel, providing us with confirmation

Whether it was 24 hour day, or even an extended metaphor for some longer but supernaturally watched over process stopped by God dimming the lights, the fact remains Creation of some sort took place very rapidly

Anyone with a modern education has to be aware of the, but just as everyone who has heard and understood of Marx or Plato does not embrace Communism or Platonic ethics, neither should embrace.

If defying such a foundational aspect of Christianity is what those who are being subsidized by the Church are doing, what buisness does the Church have funding them? Is Adventist education really worth anything more than a public one? 

From a purely materialistic point of view, evolution seems the viable belief, but Revealed Religion is just that-- a revelation of something we would not assume otherwise. 

For those who cry freedom, I suggest looking at Pauline discipline in the Church -- for the brother who defys Christianity they are to be rebuked, and eventually treated "as a pagan or tax collector"- in other words the same a public proffesor. Which says what about funding ?

To TruthWave,

I noticed your admiration for Phineas and your apparent suppprt for an action such as his.  The picture that pops into my mind is of Scott Reoder murdering Dr. George Tiller in his church lobby.  Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if Scott felt he was acting the "Phineas" role.  Hopefully you are not proposing such an assult on the LLU campus!

What kind of "Phineas" are you longing for?

This issue is getting old and stale. We keep hearing from angry, bitter people with a personal vendetta. And we are hearing the same things repeated over and over and over and over again. Transparency! Dishonesty! Foul language! Bait-and-switch!

By the way, I've concluded that the "lunatic fringe" statement referred not to those who believe in YEC, but to those who persistently make accusations, judge the characters and motives of others, demand control... and, most stunning of all, go so far as to suggest that college is a waste of time and money. I think that the professor's statements were spot on.

Mr. Hilde stated, "It's becoming blatantly obvious where LSU stands in regard to the church's belief in a recent, six-day creation. They have thumbed their noses at the church and anyone who dares question what they teach."

Did I miss something? I didn't read a single remark whatsoever about origins or the Church's position on a recent, six-day creation.

Could we learn a lesson from the experiences of Copernicus and Galileo? The Church's assertion of geocentricity was basically adopting the Greek View of the Universe back up by scripture references such as the Sun stands still in the Book of Joshua.

It took 300 years before a Pope came up with a public apology to Galileo. The Church finally admitted its long held error. With the Theory of Relativity no frame of reference can claim the monopoly of physical laws. From a relativistic point of view the Church has its right to claim geocentricity but She erred in holding the Earth as the absolute universal reference frame.

The current dilemma is that some faculty members of the LSU Biology Department is open to certain aspect of the Theory of Evolution in the classrooms contrary to the SDA Fundamental Believes #6 with respect to the issue of the literal Six Day Creation. If Fundamental Belives #6 is absolutely true than the faculty has erred but without freedom of inquiry how can one be sure? 

Should we learn from history and refrain from making any dogmatic assertion as absolute truth in the scientific realm?  The study of the biological world is far more complex than the study of the physical universe. It may take considerable amount of time for discoveries of the biological world to adequately explain the process of biological developments in light of the Creation account of Genesis.  A fundamental characteristic of a scientist who believes in God of the Bible is his conviction of the harmony of Scripture with Nature.  Academic freedom of inquiry in science should not be perceived as a direct assault to absolute truth. Present Truth today will be one day old tomorrow. And changes can happen to both camps with new discoveries. Let us be patient.

To Sean, David and Shane

The approach that you gentlemen have taken is at odds with the position taken by the GC President at the recent Annual Council, as reported by the Adventist Review (Nov12, 2009).  I quote from the article:

Start quote 

In his address Paulsen also alluded to recent controversies involving Adventist education: "I appeal to you as leaders to reach out to your scholars and teachers," he said.

Of teachers in Adventist schools, colleges and universities, Paulsen said: "They perform a valuable service both to our youth and to our church as an institution.  Frankly, we could not be what we are and do what we do without them.  They hold a very high position of trust: they teach our young people, they counsel our youth, they help them make the decisions, they help them set the direction for their lives."

These teachers' "search is in the discovery and clarification of truth," Paulsen added.  "I have to tell you that I have the highest respect for them and for their integrity.  In their quest for truth, they will sometimes state positions and argue findings in which we think they are wrong; and we will tell them.  We will meet that challenge."

However, he added, "we will not walk away from them, and I do not want them to walk away from the church, with the values which define and identify us.  If there are aspects of our identity which need to be reexamined and adjusted, fine, we'll talk about it and we will test it by the writings of Scripture and of Ellen G. White.  But we must talk openly, honestly, respectfully, and carefully, and then we must journey together, bonded to each other by the power of God's reconciliation."

End quote

The clear message that I take from this is that our academics are allowed the freedom to think, and this includes a freedom to think in a way that is inconsistent with current Adventist positons, a liberty that I don't think you gentlemen are at all comfortable with, having read previous postings.  While they are paid with the church's dime, they are not expected to have such a uniformity of thought that they might as well be robots.  The statement by the LSU senate is consistent with what the GC president is saying.

The church that ruled over Galileo at the time he was establishing that the earth revolved around the sun scorned Galileo's perspective, on the basis that Galileo's view was at odds with Scripture.  Galileo was proved right, and the church belatedly had to find a new interpretation of Scripture.  It would appear, to me at least, that the leaders of the Adventist church want to avoid making the same error.

Are the Adventist's going to repeat the errors of Galileo's church, because it adopts the same methodolgy in interpreting Scripture, or are we going to adopt another method, that will provide for a reasoned consideration of new light as it becomes available.

Blessings

kendall

As others have said, LSU's administration/faculty has clearly shown they don't hold the same beliefs as the SDA church and most of it's members.  That alone should be enough to replace them with leaders who do.  In addition to thier personal belief's they are in outright rebellion against the church who pays thier wages.  They are also teachers (the most important people in the forming of thousands of young minds).  Some students will see through the false teachings of evolution, but many others will be lead away from a trust in the Bible.  If that is what the parents of LSU students want in education, they will get what they ask for.  What I don't understand is why they would pay so much money for what they could get at any other public university.  The whole point of having our own schools is so we can teach our students what we believe as SDA Christians (ie. what the Bible teaches).  It seems perfectly clear that what is really happening is that the parents of LSU students also don't believe in Creation or they would also be involved in correcting this problem.  Maybe they are also students of teachers who were teaching evolution in years gone by(this has been going on at some level for a long time in many of our schools).  It's time to stop the cycle.  As in all democratic governments like our church, the lay people have the final say as to who it's leaders are.  I'm not attacking these teachers/administrators.  They are free to believe what they want and work where they want(if someone will hire them).  However teachers at a SDA Universitys are hired to teach what we believe.  If they no longer believe in the Biblical account of Creation, they have a moral obligation to resign and teach somewhere else. Likewise the heads of our Church have a moral obligation to make sure they are replaced with someone that does want to further the students understanding of Biblical truth. 

I find it very sad that it has come to this.  It is plain and simple.  If you do away with creation week, you do away with the very heart of Gods law, the fourth commandment.  If you do away with the heart of Gods law (and character) you can do away with Christ sacrifice, because he died not only to save us, but also to defend Gods character.  If we have no weekly cycle we have no sin. If we have no sin, we have no need of a Savior, hence, we have no need of Jesus as our Mediator, hence, we have no need of a Sanctuary message.  I could go on and on.  This is not just a matter of teaching evolution, it is a matter of destroying the very plan of salvation, which the SDA message is built upon.

The remedy for this normality is to send your child or children to another school.  Believe me, when the money dries up, people will listen.  I find it disheartening that some of our higher institutions of learning have stooped so low to appease the masses.  If we become like all other schools, than so be it.  At the same time, if we choose to allow this, we will and must suffer the consequesces.

When these young men and women come out of school, take up the ministry and begin to "preach" such things as evolution from the pulpit, don't be surprised.  All we will be able to say is that we encouraged it, promoted it and supported it.  

The Lord is coming soon.  The signs are all around us.  Every knee shall bow, even those who are teaching evolution.  A day of reckoning is just around the corner.

David Read, I have to say a few words in support of Adventist education. I attended college later than most people. I was older than many of my teachers. I had a close friend when I was young. His father lived off of music royalties. He was a prolific composer, having written numerous scores which were used by the entertainment industry, including a well known number 1 song. Somehow, I got it in my mind that I could do the same thing. I could develop some creative instinct, work out of my imagination, and not break a sweat, while picking up my checks. Do I need to tell you that it didn't work out that way?

I was actually quite blessed by numerous teachers at PUC. There are some excellent teachers in every department. I assume that La Sierra is the same. One of the most influential professors I had was a medical scientist. He was no fool. He had been an army surgeon and a physician in Africa for many years. His love for God and his fellow man was effusive.

Do you have any idea what it is like being uneducated in the world today? It use to be that people could make a good living in the trades. Nowadays, however, the  workforce is largely comprised  of immigrant workers willing to work for wages that could hardly provide a decent lifestyle for people hoping to buy a home and establish a family in the States.

While the "pirates" of Silicon Valley may include numerous college dropouts, I doubt that it is realistic for most young people to expect the kind of $$$ that Gates, Jobs, Dell, and others enjoy. I doubt that Bob Dylan spent much time in college. Is it realistic to expect most people to have that kind of life experience?

Most people without education must be extremely lucky, intelligent, and generally exceptional to achieve the kind of returns that education generally brings. It makes good sense for young people to choose their fields of study wisely. There are  certain major fields which, while interesting, are nearly worthless in the job market. People would do well to avoid investing money in an education which has little prospect for returns. 20 years ago, advisors were telling theology students to choose a second area of study in case things didn't work out for denominational employment. That was good counsel.

I must admit that at one point, I felt that both sides of this debate were getting redundant.  The EducateTruth-induced fatigue was becoming overwhelming, but new concepts and arguments have been recently introduced that bring new life to the Anti-LSU movement.

1)  Post-secondary education is a waste of time.

2)  Harvard is a bad school where you'd be foolish to send your children.

3)  LSU faculty are unfit to teach our children.

4)  A young person is better off pursuing the invention of new software or the manufacture of hardware, rather than higher education, since at least 2 people dropped out of college and created Microsoft and Dell.

5)  Rush Limbaugh, a thrice-divorced drug addict who lost his hearing to Oxycodone that he bullied his housekeeper to illegally obtain for him, is another role model to be considered. 

6)  American Democrats/Liberals are the equivalent of Nazis/Socialists, and by proxy are responsible for the deaths of 100 million people - an interesting number when compared to those killed in the name of Jesus Christ.

7)  By spelling the name of God with a g-a-w-d, one is granted special exemption from the whole "name in vain" commandment when utilizing the name of the Lord our God in a simple invective.  In other words, one is free to ignore Exodus 20:7 when chastising others for ignoring Exodus 20:11 or Genesis 1, or ridiculing them for misinterpreting Matthew 18. 

And, by far the choicest tidbit from the above post:

8)  The Gettysburg Address should have read:  "Four score and seven years ago our fathers (all of whom are my favorite!) brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Christianity, and dedicated to the proposition of Capitalism."

On January 30th, 2010 Billman says:

However, he added, "we will not walk away from them, and I do not want them to walk away from the church, with the values which define and identify us.  If there are aspects of our identity which need to be reexamined and adjusted, fine, we'll talk about it and we will test it by the writings of Scripture and of Ellen G. White.  But we must talk openly, honestly, respectfully, and carefully, and then we must journey together, bonded to each other by the power of God's reconciliation."

 

What I don't think Elder Paulsen quite realizes is the determination of the science professors at LSU who hold to theistic evolutionary views.  No amount of discussion or appologetic arguments are going to convince them to change their views or the way in which they are educating the students placed in their care in favor of mainstream evolutionary views as the true story of origins.

Those in this thread who have suggested that LSU professors are not in fact promoting the modern synthesis view of the Theory of Evolution as the true story of origins are simply naive and should do just a bit if investigation into the facts for themselves.

Now, I do agree that we should all be as open, honest, and respectful as possible, but it is a mistake to be so careful that no definitive action is taken, for decades, to cleary support our Church's fundamental ideals from both the pulpit and classroom - in opposition to the generally unapposed influence of the prevailing philosophies of mainstream scientists. 

Given that the majority of science professors, and even a number of religion professors, at LSU strongly favor and promote theistic evolutionary ideas in the classroom, and have done so for several decades, the Church leadership has fallen down on its job to protect its own young people - the life blood of the Church itself.  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Despite my feelings towards the error of theistic evolution and my belief that it should not be taught as fact at the expense of a six day creation, I feel I must side with EllaM on this matter.

In looking at the LSU statement, it seems to me that they are reacting more from a 'circle the wagons and protect ourselves from the enemy' standpoint more so than 'we support what our science teachers are teaching in the classroom'. Their feeling the desire to use the Matthew 18 reference strongly hints at this.

Nobody likes to be part of the SDA witchunt. Our church has taken the midieval Catholic Church approach of 'find the witches' and 'recant or die' throughout its history and nothing good has come from it. From the 1919 GC on EGW, to Glacier View and many times in between including now, careers, reputations and even faiths have been destroyed by the Adventist Inquisition in the name of 'truth' and doing God's work. Nevermind LSU, WE will have much to answer for for such destroying tactics thinking we are doing God's work.

 I see LSU saying "This railroading and witch hunting will not happen in our institution whether we are right or wrong."

Let's not be naive people. This type of belief is rampant throughout our universities. I know of at least 3 science teachers at my alma mater that were theistic evolutionists. Are we going to purge all those institutions too? LSU is basically saying 'We will not be singled out for the Inquisition'

I can't say I blame them even if I don't agree with them.

Ella M

Quote from previous post:    "Those in this thread who have suggested that LSU professors are not  in  fact promoting the modern synthesis view of the Theory of Evolution as the true story of origins are simply naive and should do just a bit if investigation into the facts for themselves."

So many words yet not a shred of evidence anywhere on this post that this is true.  How come we don't hear this from students who sat in the class? And it would need to be from more than one or two.  There is a chance for misunderstandings in the classroom, but only if all or almost all of the students were getting this impression would it be more than hearsay.

How is it being investigated and by whom? 

Dr. Pitman,

Until you sit in on multiple lectures from each and every biology faculty at La Sierra University, and learn for fact what is currently presented in class, I think you should stuff it. The evidence you use is old, representative of only a few individuals (including at least one apparently retired and no longer at the university), and highly selective. You belittle everyone who disagrees with you, and you make accusations about those who defend these biologists, but we are not so naive or stupid to believe you have a complete understanding of every single faculty member's statements or views.

No matter how you cut it, your attacks on those individuals contrast starkly with the advice of your Church's president, whose statements have really impressed me. Obviously, neither he nor many other leaders believe that your opinion, or that of EducateTruth, is the gospel truth. Why is it they don't believe you? No one doubts the conviction in your message, so perhaps you need to reconsider the way you sell it. Most of the visceral reaction you get is from the arrogant, judgmental, and downright mean-spirited approach that you guys have taken. NO ONE visiting EducateTruth would conclude that you are a bunch of nice, loving, concerned Christians.

Your methods reinforce the impression that you guys are the "lunatic fringe," not so much for what you believe, but by your loud, angry determination to impose your views on others. Get a clue: "not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit."

Ella M

You asked, "How come we don't hear this from students who sat in the class?"

This is a good question, and I would say there are two reasons.

1) Students are not permitted to share their views at EducateTruth ... unless they do so by indicating their name. They don't wish to do this because they know that they will be viciously attacked and belittled. This happened just a few days ago to an anonymous student that Shane Hilde chose to make an example of. Talk about a chilling effect, but that is the intent. Don't disagree with Shane and Sean! Several months ago, when a student made sincere statements for a different audience--a video describing her personal experience--fellow students complained that she was devastated following brutal attacks by EducateTruth on her character. The treatment was shameful and absolutely unChristlike.

2) There are apparently very few current students who agree with the mean-spirited characterization of their professors by EducateTruth. Remarkably, only one current student seems to have come forward, and this was a student angry at his professor last year because he got caught pelagarizing material in a poorly written defense of Creationism. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, Sean, we've heard about the students you've heard from in the past; we don't need to be reminded again.)

I am personally persuaded that there has been some disrespect toward YEC views by a few individual faculty in the past. I find this disturbing, but there is no evidence that this continues today--certainly not at the levels claimed by those at EducateTruth, who assert the entire department, if not the entire campus, is 100% devoted to evolutionism. There is no concession whatsoever by EducateTruth that things just might be different this year.

I couldn't agree with you more, Ella: the opinions of just a small number of students, particularly relating to very complex issues where misunderstandings are rampant, should never be construed as justification to punish all students by burning down the university, as many have advocated. I don't think it even justifies the personal and highly public attacks launched on fellow believers. These attacks make Adventism, and Christianity in general, look disgusting. I would probably be attending an Adventist church today if it was not for people like these who sit in your pews (and yes, I know, this is not a good excuse).

ProfessorNot Kent:

"Until you sit in on multiple lectures from each and every biology faculty at La Sierra University, and learn for fact what is currently presented in class, I think you should stuff it. The evidence you use is old, representative of only a few individuals (including at least one apparently retired and no longer at the university), and highly selective."

I think it would be great if LSU allowed people to sit in on multiple lectures. I have had the personal "luxury" of sitting in on a biology course while I was a student there. I know of another concerned individual who has had a chance to sit in on the lectures too. I have friends who are still students at LSU and have showed me the course material. Nothing has changed. All the material we have is from last year. You're suggesting that it's old. I suppose it's possible that things are different this year and these professors have changed their syllabi and presentations and are now presenting the evidence for a recent creation; however, there is zero evidence for this.

Your "selectivity" charge is groundless. We have the entirety of the presentations and syllabi posted. There is nothing partial or selective about it. Of course we'd love to show you more, but with information from LSU being sequestered right now it's been more difficult.

I challenge you to find one presentation from a LSU science course that presents the evidence for a recent creation positively. We have been unable to find any. LSU hasn't said they're teaching it. No student that I know has has said otherwise.

We at least have evidence to back up our claims. Those in support of LSU biology department have yet to produce anything from their science courses that negates the evidence and personal testimony of current and past students.

Shane Hilde 

TXalchemist, my experience is that a certain type of aggressive, almost anti-socially aggressive, personality is far more useful in the practice of law than anything you can learn in school.  Law school (along with the Bar exam) acts as a barrier to entry into the profession, something necessary to every high wage occupation, and is also part of acculturation into the subculture of the law.  But there's at most one year's worth of useful stuff in a three-year law school course, and a period of apprenticeship would serve just as well to train people to practice law. 

More generally speaking, this is an ownership society.  The way to wealth is to own businesses and property, or to invent, create, innovate, etc.  Four years of formal post-secondary education are irrelevant to getting ahead in this society.  Formal education is required to become a service professional, like a doctor or a lawyer, but even as such a professional, you'll always be in the middle class rat race, and big firm law practice, just to name something I'm familiar with, is a terrible rat race.  If you own a business, alot of people who have more formal education than you (lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc.) will be working for you as you move toward independent wealth. 

Hansen, I'm not at all opposed to education.  I love learning and knowledge.  I am not opposed to true education.  But you can get the information quicker and far more efficiently by reading than by attending lectures.  I have read widely in many disciplines, and my outside reading has been more significant in my education than my formal schooling.  I find it interesting that you don't mention any classwork, but rather a relationship you formed with one teacher who was wise and good.  That's great, but I'm not sure you even needed to be enrolled for that. 

My point was that the ideological commitments of contemporary academia make it an enemy of true education and wisdom.  The hold of leftwing, "PC" ideology on modern academia is suffocating and renders many areas of intellectual enquiry completely out of bounds.  One pertinent example of an ideological commitment is the commitment to naturalism in history and the historical sciences.  That this is all-pervasive in state-run institutions is not surprising, but it is frightening that this ideology should have such a hold on Adventist science teachers that they (1) believe it is a necessary and indispensible part of their disciplines, and (2) somehow fail to recognize that it is utterly incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism and the biblical worldview.  Of what use is formal Adventist schooling if the professors share all of the effectively atheistic presuppositions, axioms, and ideological commitments of their peers in the public university systems? 

I guess the response will be, "we teach you the same thing you will learn at at a public university, but we are Christians."  But what they are really saying is, "we are Adventists and we've compromised our belief system to fit with what the world believes and teaches, so why don't you."  And we're supposed to pay extra for that?   

To speak of "academic freedom" in the context of a parochial school is fundamentally self contradictory.  The purpose of parochial schooling is to impart a particular world view, and to teach students how to think, and how to navigate through life guided by that particular world view.  The Christian world view has the six day creation and the verity of scripture at it's very heart.  There simply cannot be any compromise on this without losing the reason for existence.  Better for the church to sell the institution to secular investors and use the money to build five "Bible Colleges", where only the wisdom of God will be sought and taught, and the wisdom of man shown to be the shallow foolishness that God has declared it to be.

Observational science has nothing to do with either creationism or evolutionism, and can be learned, practiced, and utilized in research as effectively by one with either world view.  Both world views are a matter of belief/faith. Those of us who believe the Bible find the evidence of observational science far more affirming of the belief in an infinite Creator than of the blind chance of the evolutionary theory.

It is sad that the SDA church has not projected a stronger and more outspoken support and partnering with such non-SDA organizations as Institute for Creation Research  (http://www.icr.org/)  and Answers In Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org).  These organizations do great work in the sciences, having highly qualified scientists (Jason Lisle, PhD, Astro Physicist, among many others) working with them, who are effectively refuting the false claims of evolution-biased colleagues in their various disciplines. These devout men/women of science are unabashedly evangelizing the world within their reach with their excellent research, articles, books, tapes etc.  By contrast the SDA church leadership is indecisive as LSU and other colleges/universities promote the pagan concepts of Evolution, not merely explaining and then debunking (appropriate), but promoting this antagonistic world view as preferable to the 'arcane Creationist views' of the old and new testaments. 

It is an astonishing display of arrogance and poor taste that the defenders of this Trogon horse attack on SDA/Christianity act as though they have been ill handled when they are deplored and decried by defenders of the faith.  They are the interlopers!  They have come into our faith home with their infectious spiritual pathology, and take umbrage with our insistence that they should be quarantined in secular universities.  Besides being unethical, this is simply rude and disrespectful!

The faithful should stand united against this intrusion!  Bravo Shane Hilde!

ProfessorNotKent [writes]:

"The evidence you use is old, representative of only a few individuals (including at least one apparently retired and no longer at the university), and highly selective. You belittle everyone who disagrees with you, and you make accusations about those who defend these biologists, but we are not so naive or stupid to believe you have a complete understanding of every single faculty member's statements or views." 

I didn't say that all professors at LSU are promoting theistic evolution - just that many of them are. Even one professor who is publicly undermining the Church's clearly stated fundamental positions on the Church's dime is one too many in my book. 

Also, the available evidence is current.  I have the current lectures of Lee Greer for example. These lecture materials strongly support the modern mainstream evolutionary perspective.  There  is no hint in these lecture notes in favor of the SDA position on origins.  Also, I know quite a bit about Lee Greer and he is by no means supportive of the SDA perspective on origins.  All you have to do is ask him. He'll tell you straight up where he stands.  He is unabashidly, openly, and honestly a theistic evolutionist who ardently believes in the mainstream evolutionary perspective on origins and the allegorical nature of the Genesis narriative - and promotes his views to his students.

I actually admire Lee Greer.  I think he is a good guy - and very sincere.  I have nothing personal against him.  However, he just so happens to be working in the wrong place given that his views on origins go fundamentally against the stated views of the SDA Church as an organization (i.e., his employer). And, he is by no means alone in his views at LSU.

There is nothing hateful here.  Why is it wrong for me to expect tithe monies to go in support of the actual stated positions of the SDA Church to which they are given?   And, why is it considered hateful to expect LSU to be open and upfront about what all of its professors stand for and promote in their classrooms?  Why is LSU trying to be so obtuse about the fact that many of its professors do in fact support and promote theistic evolutionary ideas in their classroomsand have been doing do for decades?  How is this not in a very real sense a form of deliberate deception?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. for those who wish references to support what is really going on at LSU, see the following Open Letter (reference section):  

http://www.educatetruth.com/letters/open-letter-to-general-conference/

Also, for those who think I'm exaggerating, why not present some counter evidence of your own?  You really think the majority of LSU science professors are not actually promoting theistic evolution in the classroom?  Really?  

Shane,

For all your smoke, where's the evidence NOW that a teacher is saying, "special creation could not have happened; you're stupid to believe in it; there is only one valid explanation for the origin of all life on this planet--evolution." Where's the fire? Of course they are teaching some aspects of evolutionary theory; only a brain-washed student believes that bacteria and scale insects, for example, acquire antibiotic and insecticide resistance, respectively, by some means other than natural selection (an evolutionary process).

You are DEMANDING that LSU and their faculty explicitly state that "special creation is the only explanation for the origin of all life on this planet; abiogenesis and the evolution of new major life forms could not have possibly happened and you're stupid to believe in it; and the vast majority of evidence supports a literal creation week that occurred almost exactly 6,000 years ago." That's not education; that's indoctrination. Many of us believe that education strives to teach people how to think, not what to think.

But until you see such a statement, which you may never get, you will continue to insist that LSU is full of atheists and infidels. It no longer matters to you whether they treat SDA doctrines with respect, or share their personal faith with students. Unless they declare public war on evolution and reassure everyone that the great preponderance of physical data supports special creation (which most of us acknowledge is NOT the case), you insist that they are deceptive and unfit to represent your Church.

I have taught biology at both parochial and public universities. I have shared my faith at both types of institutions (though in a public classroom, I can't state much more than that I sympathize with those who don't wish to accept all of evolutionary theory). I have encouraged students to form their own beliefs and treat those of others with respect. I applaud teachers who refrain from telling students that they have all the facts, and that a student should trust them and not consider the alternative views of others.

Obviously, you can't appreciate this approach to education, Shane. You favor indoctrination over education. That may be fine for you, but you should reconsider forcing others by public humiliation to agree with your approach to so-called education.

LSU Students Debating "Academic Freedom" at LSU: 

In this fascinating preview of the documentary film “The Last Generation” the issue of whether or not LSU should enact policies that would require staff and faculty to be consistent with the SDA teachings. Watch the entire 20 minutes, but the real interesting part begins at about 00:06:30. Hear from actual LSU students what they think of LSU stand on complete academic freedom in SDA Church schools.... on the Church's dime.

http://vimeo.com/6052257

Sean Pitman
DetectingDesign.com

Shane, you wrote: "Your "selectivity" charge is groundless. We have the entirety of the presentations and syllabi posted. There is nothing partial or selective about it."

I'm sorry if my charges are groundless. Perhaps I failed to locate them at your website, but I did not see the syllabi and presentations of many courses that I assume are taught at LSU, including GENERAL BIOLOGY, ANATOMY & PHYSIOLOGY, MOLECULAR GENETICS, DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, MICROBIOLOGY, BACTERIOLOGY AND VIROLOGY, HISTOLOGY, GENERAL ECOLOGY, ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, ENTOMOLOGY, ICHTHYOLOGY, HERPETOLOGY, ORNITHOLOGY, MAMMALOGY; and there are others, no doubt. I have not seen there transcripts of every word spoken by the teacher in classroom. But if you have succeeded in amassing all of this evidence, I will eat my words.

However...I don't believe your claim. And I will be clear with mine: absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

ProfessorNotKent writes:  

It no longer matters to you whether they treat SDA doctrines with respect, or share their personal faith with students. Unless they declare public war on evolution and reassure everyone that the great preponderance of physical data supports special creation (which most of us acknowledge is NOT the case), you insist that they are deceptive and unfit to represent your Church. 

Please name the science professors at LSU who believe in much less respect the SDA fundamental belief in a literal 6-day creation week. 

As far as I'm aware, there are very few who uphold the literal creation week as true in science classrooms at LSU. 

And, if most of these professors really do believe that the great weight of empirical evidence clearly favors the mainstream evolutionary view of origins (as most of them do) how are they not at odds with the stated view of their employer? - the SDA Church in this case?  Why should any employer pay an employee to go around telling people that his/her employer is clearly and even ludicrously mistaken in regards to what the employer considers to be of primary importance?

Why even have a Church school at all if there is no fundamental difference in the education offered vs. what can be obtained at much less cost from a public university?

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com

Shane and Sean,

You're entire approach to this issue bears much in common with the doctrine of hell: conformity motivated by fear.

Whether they be biology faculty, university officials, or Church officials, those who disagree with your views will be publicly exposed and humiliated. You can invent all sorts of hubris about paid representation and on and on, but you are certainly not going to stop short of calling people out by name and trying them in the court of public opinion. Your website and your recent post citing Dr. Greer make crystal clear that you are determined to go far beyond simply providing evidence. 

In the end, you may realize your goals to transform your universities, but you will not have changed minds or transformed souls. You will have brought about change by fear. Your tactics have a long history of success, but truth--whatever it may be regarding these issues--cannot be repressed. A Church that refuses to consider new ideas can lose relevancy to its constituents. You might win your battle, but you might just lose the war.

To those who revel in the Faculty Senate's affirmation of support for the La Sierra Biology Department, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that Church members qua SDAs might have legitimate concerns about the curriculum in the biology department? If Church members send their children to La Sierra, do they have any reason to believe that the teaching of science - or for that matter, any discipline other than religion - will be different than at a public university because La Sierra is a Seventh-Day Adventist college? If so, how? 

I am bothered that so many insist there are only two options: 1) give the biology department free rein; 2) turn it over to The Holy Office of The Inquisition. Why would seemingly intelligent people wallow in such patently puerile false choices?  Refusal to honestly frame the issues bespeaks lack of confidence in one's position.

SBBG, you're a kindred spirit!  You have more discernment than most people, in seeing that observational science is fully consistent with the biblical world view.  I am amused by the philosophical naivety of people who say, "the evidence says this" or "the evidence says that."  They're not practicing science, they're practicing law.  They're arguing.  And if they're going to practice law, they'd better learn that jurors interpret evidence according to the attitudes and life experiences they bring with them into the jury box.  That's why, in big cases, scores or even hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on jury consultants and focus group testing of mock trials, etc.  The lawyers want to know what type of person is going to be most sympathetic to their view of the controversy, their theory of the case, and they want to get that type of person on their jury. 

When it comes to origins, the evidence as interpreted by creationists supports biblical creationism, but that same evidence as interpreted by Darwinists, supports Darwinism.  This is true, for example, of the fossil record.  Darwinists see in it the evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years, whereas I see in it the deposits of the Genesis Flood, laid down in just over a year.  It is the same fossil record, the same evidence for everyone.  If you believe that the Bible is God's word to mankind, and Ellen White a messenger from God for the last days, then you will interpret what is found in nature according to facts that God has revealed through the inspired writers.  But if you believe that it is against the rules of science to posit that God ever intervenes in the natural world, then you will tend to interpret what is found in nature according to the naturalistic theory that is most widely held among your peers. 

This all seems obvious enough, but, amazingly, it isn't obvious to some Adventist scientists.  They accept at face value the naturalistic interpretations of the evidence then say, "the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution," and "no evidence supports a six-day creation in the recent past."  They put the rabbit in the hat and !voila! there's a rabbit in the hat.  

Honestly, I don't know what can be done to help a person who is so hardened in their own worldview that they can't even imagine the possibility that there's another way of viewing the world.  And in order to get this point across, it isn't necessary that they accept the Adventist worldview, or agree to interpret the evidence according to the Adventist worldview; it is only necessary that they admit the possible existence of a worldview other than scientific materialism/naturalism.  Yet this is exactly what they cannot do.  They insist that there is only one way to interpret the evidence.  People who disagree with them don't have a different worldview, they are wilfully ignorant of the facts, doctrinaire, intolerant, close-minded, anti-intellectual, etc.  It's really something quite astonishing.

I also completely agree with you about the failure of Adventist apologetics/creationist research in the past half-century.  Satan has managed to arranged things so that the Geoscience Research Institute has always had a muted, timid witness.  At some times in its history it has been useful, but for the most part, it has been worse than useless.  Recent years have seen the emergence of dynamic non-Adventist ministries such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.  It is remarkable that Sunday-keepers are much more successfully vindicating the historicity of the literal creation week than are Seventh-day Adventists, but that is a fact.

SSBG, perhaps while you were briefly unable to breathe, you missed the thick irony of Mr Read clearly choosing to ignore the actual directive of the 3rd commandment during his vigorous defense of the descriptive component of the 4th -

"...but for gawd's sake, don't waste any money on it!"          - David Read, AToday, 1/30/2010

One would think that keeping an actual Commandment would be a higher priority than agreeing with the reasoning behind another. 

Four years of Adventist Academy:  $32,000.00

Four years of Adventist college education:  $80,000.00

Three years of Law School:  $50,000.00

The gall to directly disprespect the One we all uphold and worship as the Creator while defending your belief in the manner and in what timeframe He went about creating things?  Priceless.

Doug Batchelor on Academic Freedom:

The whole purpose of having a Church school is to educate the Church’s young people from the biased perspective of what the Church thinks is true and important to contribute to the world’s understanding of reality. This is not to say that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) shouldn’t be taught at all in SDA schools – quite the contrary.

The ToE should be taught to the highest standard possible in SDA schools, but SDA education should not end here. The SDA science teachers hired by our schools should also be able to go beyond the mainstream ToE and present its many overwhelming pitfalls and problems as well as the significant weight of evidence favoring the SDA perspective of a recent arrival of life on this planet as well as the subsequent world-wide Noachian catastrophe. If a professor cannot do this in good conscience, that professor shouldn’t be working at an SDA school… it’s as simple as that.

This being said, living in a free civil society where one always has the right to leave any church organization without any fear of civil reprisals or penalties of any kind is vital. No church should ever take on political power to coerce anyone to support any doctrinal beliefs whatsoever.

However, if one freely chooses to represent a church organization in an official paid capacity, that person should actually teach/preach what the Church is paying him/her to teach or preach. No one should expect to get paid by any organization while going around publicly undermining what that organization stands for as “fundamental”. It just doesn’t work that way. Such thinking leads to chaos and fragmentation – not continued strength and viability.

It’s a matter of simple practicality on the part of the organization and a matter of simple ethics (one’s responsibility toward one’s employer) on the part of the individual representative…

I want to thank all the posters for the diatribes and invectives they have shared here.  I especially enjoyed being informed about Adventist Academia by someone who doesn't know the difference between LLU and LSU; (Loma Linda University and La Sierra University)

Seriously though, do you creationists not understand that, while the words you speak may be quickly forgotten, what you write on the internet stays there nearly forever? And will be seen, not just by a dozen, but by hundreds (at least)?  Many of these are precisely the people you are trying to convert.

Sean Pitman wrote: "Please name the science professors at LSU who believe in much less respect the SDA fundamental belief in a literal 6-day creation week."

And there it is: guilty 'til proven innocent. You want it both ways, Sean. You state that you never said they are all theistic evolutionists, and then by asking a question like this you insinuate that they all are. Of course, I don't claim to know these people individually or what they believe. And it's clear to me that they know better than to respond to your inappropriate demands for transparency. I imagine you want all faculty to sign a document indicating their support for each and every one of the SDA doctrines...and perhaps adding intolerance for homosexuality and opposition to abortion, among other ideas promoted by those of your mindset. I have heard that your champion, Pastor Batchelor, would be pleased to include these latter notions. Are you on board with him?

ProfessorNotKent writes:

In the end, you may realize your goals to transform your universities, but you will not have changed minds or transformed souls. You will have brought about change by fear.

Why is LSU fearful of being open and honest about what many of its science professors belief and promote in their classrooms?  Why be afraid of telling the truth to future parents, students, and Church membership at large?  What's the worst that could happen? 

The Church might remove its funding?  So what?  LSU could still continue on as an independent organization - as many other universities have done.  Why be so fearful of that?  It isn't like the Church has any civil power or anything.  This isn't the Dark Ages you know.  What's so terrifying about a professor who believes in the ToE and who wants to promote the ToE working for a public university where the ToE is standard material?  What's so fearful about that idea?

In short, this isn't about intimidation with fear tactics.  This is about internal government and viability - about the right of an individual or organization to actually get what is being paid for.  Anything else is robbery of both time and money.  And, by anyone's book, I don't think theft is considered the high moral ground...

But you argue that the SDA Church should change with the times and do away with its outdated ludicrous notion of a literal 6-day creation week.  The Church is perfectly free to do this as an organization.  But, as soon as this happens, I will drop my membership.  It simply wouldn't be honest of me to remain part of such an organization - no hard feelings - no fear - no civil reprisals.  It's just a matter of practicality for viable church order and government - and basic common sense.  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman writes:

ProfessorNotKent writes:

In the end, you may realize your goals to transform your universities, but you will not have changed minds or transformed souls. You will have brought about change by fear.

And ProfessorNotKent is absolutely correct! 

Why is LSU fearful of being open and honest about what many of its science professors belief and promote in their classrooms?  Why be afraid of telling the truth to future parents, students, and Church membership at large?  What's the worst that could happen? 

The Church might remove its funding?  So what?  LSU could still continue on as an independent organization - as many other universities have done.  Why be so fearful of that?  It isn't like the Church has any civil power or anything.  This isn't the Dark Ages you know.  What's so terrifying about a professor who believes in the ToE and who wants to promote the ToE working for a public university where the ToE is standard material?  What's so fearful about that idea?

In short, this isn't about intimidation with fear tactics. 

Equally short, this is exactly about intimidation and fear tactics!  There are a number of disreputable [edit] who use every possible opportunity to spread slander about those with whom they disagree.

This is about internal government and viability - about the right of an individual or organization to actually get what is being paid for.  Anything else is robbery of both time and money.  And, by anyone's book, I don't think theft is considered the high moral ground...

You do not speak for the entire church.  "High moral ground"?  You think you occupy the moral high ground? Keep reading!

But you argue that the SDA Church should change with the times and do away with its outdated ludicrous notion of a literal 6-day creation week.

And there is Sean! That is called slander. Neither ProfessorKent nor ProfessorNotKent has ever argued what you assert that he is arguing for.  If I am wrong please give me the reference, I'll even accept something he wrote over at that "truth" site.  Quite to the contrary I have read him speak quite favorably about creationism, he simply does not believe in totalitarian creationism.

  The Church is perfectly free to do this as an organization.  But, as soon as this happens, I will drop my membership.  It simply wouldn't be honest of me to remain part of such an organization - no hard feelings - no fear - no civil reprisals.  It's just a matter of practicality for viable church order and government - and basic common sense.  

Again most of this is your opinion, particularly the last sentence.  Honesty would drive you out of the church?  I'm sure Ahithophel and Joab felt the same way.

Martin Schrattenholzer

P. S. to David C Read, please note that a passionate expression of one's feeling is possible without making political references or breaking the third commandment.

To Martin, you and others have said I broke the 3rd commandment in trying to defend the fourth.  To anyone I've offended, I apologize.  But while we're on the subject of the third commandment, there's more to it than not cursing.  In addition to "take" it can be translated, "thou shalt not [claim, carry, use] the name of the Lord thy God in vain" and can mean, "don't claim to be a follower of the true God when you're not" or even "don't make a false claim about your religious affiliation." 

And isn't that the problem with LaSierra University?  They claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist institution, they carry the name "Seventh-day Adventist," but they teach against and undermine one of the central doctrines of the church, and by extension all of the doctrines of the church.  I would argue that LaSierra is breaking the third commandment.  They take the name of the Seventh-day Adventist church in vain.  They advertise a Christian education, but reject in detail the Biblical worldview in their classroom teaching.  I think that is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Sean Pitman has a narrower viewpoint than I, and I have a different perspective than he on creation science. But he is raising important and legitimate issues. It seems to me, apart from the fact that he wants to run some folks out of the "club" (hardly an inquisition), he generally, comports himself with great civility and temperance, unlike his frequently hysterical and unhinged detractors.

What Schratt calls fear and intimidation tactics is just common sense: People will not support institutions or causes which are hostile to their deeply held values and beliefs. Sean's goal, as I read it, is to make La Sierra accountable, by pointing out that what is being taught there is hostile to the deeply held beliefs and values of the overwhelming majority of Adventists. I've asked the question several times, but never received an answer. Why is it a virtue when progressives seek to hold Church leaders accountable to Church members, but it is despicable when fundamentalists seek to hold our colleges accountable to the Church members on whom their survival depends?

Doctorf:

If science and religion should be kept separate, then how is a person saved if theistic evolution is true?

Romans 5:12, 5:19, 6:23, along with Genesis 1-3 teach that sin and death came into the world by the wrong acts of Adam and Eve.  Are you saying that science and religion do not belong in the same forum in this case.

Romans 5:12, “just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—”

Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin are death."

Theistic evolution requires death to be a natural process, necessary for natural selection over millions of years.  However the Bible teaches that death is the "wages of sin."  In fact the result of one particular sin.  Would you say that this is untrue?  If so, then the atoning blood of Jesus would also have to be a lie.  How, then, are we saved?

By disclaiming Biblical, literal, six-day creationism you are also disclaiming the Scriptures, sin, the Biblical reason for death, the atonement of Jesus’ sacrifice, the law, including the Sabbath, the character of God…need I go on.  Your way of thinking leads us to conclude that everything the Bible teaches about the Gospel is garbage.

The only thing that I can come up with is that a person would have to be a deist, if he is not an atheist.  The saducees did not believe in the resurrect, or angels, or any form of afterlife.  Is that our destiny?

Are Adventists all to become deists?  That would basically mean that our entire history and purpose, our reason to exist, is a hoax.  In fact, the Bible and all of Christianity are a hoax also.

Again, if our origins, and religion do not have to agree, HOW ARE WE SAVED?  Please respond clearly so I can know your conclusion.

Martin,

You are right. I lean strongly toward a literal creation but am strongly opposed when it's shoved down people's throats. Because I disagreed with their views, Sean and others at EducateTruth (when I was allowed to post there) frequently mischaracterized me as being all for evolution, which I am not (but am willing to tolerate in others). Actually, I believe that the LSU faculty should treat SDA beliefs with utmost respect. The Church has every right to insist on this, but I think the matter is an internal one that should be dealt with in a respectful manner, and not the ugly circus it has become.

More importantly, I oppose giving students an unrealistic picture of the many difficulties and problems associated with YEC. Many of these students later abandon their views when challenged with real data. I'd rather see them squirm in their seats while attending a university where there is some balance (which I suspect is the case even in the biology program), as opposed to post-graduation while living in the "real world," when they may lack the support and reassurance of a committed Christian community.

Sean, shouldn't LSU and every SDA university--heck, every SDA professor--publicly proclaim their views on ALL doctrines and lifestyle issues supported by the Church? Why stop with views on origins? How about other Adventist "hot potatoes" (I once dated a gal who had a book by this title)? Caffeine, alcohol, swimming on sabbath, sex on sabbath, homosexuality, abortion, wearing jewelry, dancing, masturbation (which causes dementia)...need I go on? What's there to be afraid of? I say disclose all; after all, YOU'RE paying for these professors, Sean, so why not FULL transparency on ALL of these things? As you put it, why be afraid of telling the truth to future parents, students, and Church membership at large? What's the worst that could happen? It's just a matter of practicality for viable church order and government - and basic common sense. (And if we don't get our way, heck, let's walk away!)

On January 31, 2010, Sean Pitman wrote this at EducateTruth: "In fact, the significant weight of available evidence strongly supports not only the need for very high level outside intelligent input for many features of both animate and inanimate things within this universe, but for a recent origin of life on this planet."

It's statements like these that convince me that this MD, who lacks graduate-level training in either geology or biology, just might be selling goods that he cannot deliver. Where does he get his facts? From an objective review of the evidence? Of course, "evidence" could have many meanings depending on how selective one wishes to get, but let me tell you where Pitman does NOT get his evidence: from the original science that is published in science journals.

Consider the discipline of geology alone. Each year, thousands of original research papers are published in several hundred scientific journals within the discipline (here is a sampling of journal titles: http://www.library.illinois.edu/gex/journals.html). Is it possible that the majority of these articles provide evidence that material from deposits other than holocene (the most recent epoch) date to <6,000 years ago? That's laughable. I would be impressed if even 1% of the articles provide this support.

As one who admittedly leans toward YEC (based on faith, not physical evidence), I challenge a creationist to show, using real data published in real science journals, credible support for the claim that the significant weight of available evidence strongly supports a recent origin of life on this planet.

I'm sorry to cast such a negative light on something I personally want to believe, but I think we should be honest when it comes to the data. I resent those who reassure Christians that they have nothing to be concerned about; that the preponderance of data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis; that any science suggesting otherwise is "junk science;" that anyone who believes in evolution is a stupid idiot. Claims like these are gross exaggerations; they are dishonest, breaking the ninth commandment. They are NOT educating truth.

Sean, I wonder why you have brought Doug Batchelor into this discussion, as if his opinion is somehow relevant or authoritative. While I don't believe that education is a prerequisite to salvation, it should come into play when discussing educational policies at a university which is preparing students to become physicians, among other things.

Doug is good at what he does but he doesn't happen to be a university administrator, nor does he have experience as a science student in a university.

Are you that desperate?  Why not solicit advice from someone such as Tom Zwemer, for example. He spent many years in university administration. His opinion has some merit, based on his experience as a student of the sciences and his professional qualifications as a university administrator.

If the Adventist church disappoints you, leave it. That's a better option than becoming a bitter critic, which will poison your own soul as well as that of others. EGW said that a Christian physician can do ten times more in the service of Christ than one who merely preaches. Doug merely preaches. Some would say that he has done a lot of good. What about you? 

Many of you who post to this site would be fascinated to read a recently published book by William Dembski, entitled The End of Christianity. It is a faith affirming, mind expanding attempt to point toward a reality beyond the world of science, while still affirming the need to be true to science. Dembski's unrelenting Christian orthodoxy unmasks the accomodations of post-modern theology as unnecessary surrender to the imperialistic Truth claims of Darwinian "science".  My wife and I have given a copy of the book to each of the religion and science teachers at Loma Linda Academy.

As those who are familiar with his work in the field of I.D. know, Dembski is not a literalist when it comes to the Genesis story of creation. Rather, he offers a thought experiment that reconciles the teaching of Scripture - that sin entered both the natural and moral world through human choice - with a science demonstrating that a world of seemingly natural evil preceded the appearance of humanity on the earth.

Dembski's bedrock faith in the transcendent God revealed in Scripture sparkles throughout the book. His chapter on the Cross, without intending to be a polemic against "the moral influence theory", is one of the most profound refutations of that notion that I have ever read. The End of Christianity is very accessible to a layperson. It is more theological and philosophical than scientific.

I personally find that most people who claim to believe that the truth claims of science and religion can peacefully coexist in separate realms are wedded to phenomenology. The material world of sensate experience and logic is their god. While paying lip service to the realm of religion, in reality they reduce the truth claims of religion to psychological projections and artifacts, arguing that religious ideas should be confined to the religion classrooms, even in parochial schools. Dembski lays waste to the possibility and desirability of such simplistic dichotomies, while suggesting mind-blowing ways in which a God, who exists and works outside our finite cause and effect chronologies and cosmologies, might think and work.  

If, in the course of expounding on the findings and theories of science, the biology professors at La Sierra exuded Dembski's sensitivity and affinity for the transcendent, elusive, but ineluctable voice of God, revealed through the community of faith to which they belong,  I suspect there would be far fewer curriculum concerns being voiced by constituents.

[the message below has also been posted as an update in the original news report dated January 29,2010] 

Sincerely

Marcel Schwantes
Online Editor, Adventist Today

OK, geoscience, paleontology, paleoanthropology - they really do not bother me, I only would be interested in the answers Pitman and Shane Hilde would give. And I wonder about the microbiological knowledge of Sean Pitman MD.

There is a stunbling block in the whole complexity of Evolution: Entropy. There are formulas for it - see Wikipedia - and I could demonstrate its meaning on organic chemistry and biochemistry and microbiology.

But doesn't anybody  protest against the fact that LSU Board of Trustees affirms the GC Executive Committees  "call for  a scientifically rigorous affirmation of a literal, recent six-day creation ?" Doesn't anybody protest that the Committee passed such a very questionable formula, at least bringing dishonor to its authors ?

Nathan,

I am certainly one of the detractors of Sean Pitman's. Prior to the story that broke in the popular press last summer, I was largely disinterested in and unaffected by the age-old creation/evolution controversy. But I became angry when I saw fellow Christians--biologists in particular--publicly attacked, as well as a Church that I was once baptized in and still feel some affinity toward (I attend maybe once every year or so...I prefer attending a non-denominational Church which cares about and seeks to save souls, rather than one which fights continually to control its constituents' thoughts and behavior). Pitman, as we all know, has led this charge.

I am continually amazed by how eager Adventists are to embrace every statement of "fact" from the Adventist Church's "experts" on geology and biology. Who are these experts? Let's see, some of the most vocal I have learned of since last summer include: a medical pathologist (Sean Pitman), a lawyer (David Read), a nuclear physicist (Robert Gentry), several active pastors (Clifford Goldstein and Doug Batchelor), a retired pastor (Bob Ryan), and a high school English teacher (Shane Hilde). Not one of these has an advanced degree in geology or biology, and apart from Gentry (who lacks a PhD, who does not appear to be in the LSU fray, and whose work is apparently regarded with suspicion by many), none so far as I can find have a single published paper on geology or evolution in a refereed scientific journal. Zippo! Despite their GLARING LACK OF EXPERTISE, these individuals sweep aside 99% or more of the published science dealing with these issues and declare that Adventists can rest assured that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) offers the only explanation for life on this planet supported by valid science. (They frequently claim that the 99%-plus, which supposedly fails to confirm Biblical "truth," is "junk science").

I don't claim to be an expert on issues of origins or geochronology, but with my Ph.D. in biology, my long-term employment at a large university, my reading of hundreds of original scientific papers each year in biology, my regular publications in well-ranked scientific journals, and my occasional queries of a geologist colleague about Pitman's claims (always accompanied by a good chuckle), I feel that I have enough knowledge to critically evaluate the assertions made by many of these people. Frankly, I don't believe much of anything these people write. Much of it, I believe, is unadulterated drivel, including the voluminous postings by Pitman. And I conclude this in spite of the fact that, as one who leans toward YEC (why is it I continually have to remind people of this?), I very much want to believe the "evidence" they put forth!

If I come across as "hysterical and unhinged" when my educated judgment tells me that wild claims are being made, then how would you describe the commentors at EducateTruth? Try spending 10 minutes there and reading all the sweet, loving praise heaped on your fellow Adventists, including the Church's elected leaders. These same non-hysterical and well-hinged people happen to be deeply passionate about tolerating homosexuals, too.

There are, by the way, other SDAs with better credentials (PhDs in relevant disciplines), including a nutritional physiologist (Walter Veith) who unfortunately dabbles in conspiracy theories, an archeologist (Erv Taylor) with considerable expertise in dating ancient material and needs no introduction here, and a biologist (Leonard Brand) whose views are quite conservative but expressed with moderation in his reasonable book which I now own and have casually browsed, Faith, Reason & Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Apparently, there are experts also at Geological Research Institute, though I have not taken the time to learn much about them. All of these individuals seem to have pretty much remained on the sidelines regarding LSU, and from what I have learned, none seem to embrace the radical views expressed by Pitman, Hilde, and others at EducateTruth.

This brings me to my conclusion: the most vocal critics of LSU and evolutionism in your Church (whom you seem to defend) happen to be those with essentially no valid credentials. This I find hysterical.

Clifford Goldstein: The Importance of Creationism to Adventism:

At the recent 2009 GYC Clifford Goldstein gave an interesting talk about the personal importance of SDA doctrines as the basis of why he is a Seventh-day Adventist - especially when it comes to the fundamental SDA doctrine of creation.

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

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

By the way, I find interesting the oft-repeated calls for "transparency" and the frequently-cited contrast between La Sierra University and other SDA colleges, particularly Southern Adventist University and Southwestern Adventist University. Recent posts here and at EducateTruth prompted me to check things out.

Here are the biology department websites:

Southern (http://biology.southern.edu/index.html) - there is no mention of "creation," Genesis, a literal 7-day creation week, or 6,000 years that I could find, though Jesus is identified as the Creator; their mission statement, by the way, is very impressive.

Southwestern (http://www.swau.edu/academics/biology.asp) - there is no mention of "creation," Genesis, a literal 7-day creation week, or 6,000 years anywhere that I could find. I might have missed it, but even Dr. Chadwick's homepage appears not to mention these items (I'm aware of his excellent research on whales with Dr. Brand and others at Loma Linda).

La Sierra (http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=437) - click on "Important Reasons" and you will read, "When you study biology at La Sierra University, you:

  * Will study with professors who all deeply believe in God as the Creator of everything.
  * Will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God.
  * Will be introduced to theories of evolutionary process, focusing on speciation and adaptation, with which students are expected to be conversant as they prepare for success in graduate school and career.
  * Will study with professors who have earned the highest degrees in their field, and are active in scientific research.
  * Will use the same textbook in General Biology that is used by Adventist colleges and universities in North America and is used by most biology classes in the nation.
  * Will study with professors who will help you navigate issues of faith and science, in and out of the classroom, so that your faith in God is strengthened."

And there is much more to read at the LSU site about their teaching of SDA faith. Of course, there are people claiming that LSU administrators and biology faculty are a pack of liars (and I can't say I know anything different). But who, exactly, is forthcoming, and who is not being transparent? Read for yourself.

And who is being hysterical?

 ProfessorNotKent:

 

LSU does promote faith, but not faith in all of what the SDA Church, as an organization, considers to be fundamentally important.

Unfortunately for some, part of transparency is being truthful.  LSU has presented many misleading PR advertisements recently. They are only partially truthful in pointing out that their educators will strive to increase faith in God, but they fail to point out that the view of God that they are promoting is not the same view as that of the SDA Church as an organization.  

The SDA Church organization is fundamentally based on the idea that God created life on this planet in 6 literal days in recent history.  In comparision, the view of the majority of science (and even religion) professors at LSU view God as creating life on this planet over billions of years with the help of slow, painful, evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.  

The "faiths" being promoted are distinctly different - and LSU is not making this difference clear.  In fact, LSU is trying desperately to cover up this difference... and is therefore producing a lack of transparency and is deliberately deceiving potential parents, students, and contintuents in the process.

So why this need, on the part of LSU, to be something that it isn't?  Why not just say it like it is? Something like this would be far more honestly transparent:

"Most of our science professors believe in and promote the modern mainstream evolutionary view of origins in their classrooms.  And, we fully support their academic freedom to do so in this 'SDA' institution"... 

Why oppose such an honestly transparent statement of reality so ardently? - some might say "hysterically"?  

As far as SAU and SWAU are concerned, they need not make such a strong PR push in comparison to LSU regarding their support of the SDA faith because everyone already knows that these two SDA Universities are and have always been the most supportive of the SDA Church doctrinal positions.  Practically all of professors in both the science and religion departments actually believe in and actively promote the views of the organized SDA Church in their classrooms.  And, these facts are not difficult to discover with more than superficial investigation.   

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

It both saddens and frightens me that at least one person here characterizes college and university professors as being liberal, secular, anti-American, anti-Christian, atheistic, etc. And it worries me that some (many?) SDA members will drop their support of higher SDA education as a consequence of this controversy.

Folks, I happen to be a biology professor at a SDA college campus and I have both attended as a student and taught as a professor at other SDA campuses, and I can assure you that there are many of us professors who faithfully remain dedicated to the mission of the SDA church and who still believe in the traditional SDA views of origins, and who sacrificially strive to provide the best possible education to future generations of SDAs. There is indeed a diversity of views among us, but don't assume that just because some support the church's mission and doctrines less than others that we all do.

Furthermore, the occasionally repeated assertion that Southern and Southwestern Adventist Universities are the only ones that are "safe" simply is not true. I am aware of theistic evolutionists among the faculty on my campus (not SAU or SWAU), but not among the theology and biology professors. And I suspect there are biology faculty among other campuses who are just as supportive of traditional SDA views of origins as the faculty of SAU and SWAU.

On any given campus--whether SDA or secular--students can find what they are looking for. If seeking parties, alcohol, drugs or sex, you'll find it; and if seeking fellowship and worship with sincere, committed Christians, you'll also find it. But what makes SDA education different than that of a secular education is that many (unfortunately not all) professors in SDA institutions are committed Christians who pray in the classroom, attend worship services with students, and teach subjects from a Christian perspective--which you won't find in secular institutions. So please be careful when you judge us and threaten to boycott your support of SDA education. We need your prayers and support more than ever.

SDA Bio Prof, does it sadden you more that I characterize college and university professors as being "liberal, secular, anti-American, anti-Christian, atheistic, etc." or that this is an accurate description of modern academia? 

There's no doubt about these trends in the contemporary academy, but I consider people like you who buck the trends, who stand against the dominant ethos of your professional culture, very heroic.  It takes courage and backbone to stand against your peers in an extremely peer-driven culture like academia.

And I don't think you need to worry much about withdrawal of financial support.  There's always some rich guy with a charitable foundation who wants to see his name on the side of a building, and he doesn't much care what is being taught inside.  It is even unlikely that the church will cut its ties and withdraw its financial support, because the prestige of claiming a university is more important to church administrators than what is being taught.  (Church administrators in southern California will not typically discipline even a doctrinally errant pastor; they want no part of trying to fix a university.) 

You state that, "On any given campus--whether SDA or secular--students can find what they are looking for" but if a student is looking for science classes that support the Adventist view of origins, he will not be able to find that a LaSierra.  He can't assume that he'll easily find it at most of the other SDA campuses.  He'll find it at Southern or Southwestern but, as you correctly point out, even on these campuses he'll encounter professors who don't have an Adventist worldview. 

Honestly, Shane and Sean, and others of us who are "conservative," are fighting in a lost cause.  History is against us, and shows that all educational institutions ultimately become far, far more liberal than the constituency that established them.  Most become fully autonomous, and the memory of the religious group that founded them recedes into the hazy mists of history, or lingers as a sort of cultural heritage devoid of substantive content. 

Does one need "valid credentials" to challenge the smoke of post-modernism that permeates higher education? Does one need "valid credentials" to question whether students are being indoctrinated by agenda driven professors or challenged to think critically by God-fearing professors committed to fundamental principles of Christianity and Adventism? 

Essentially, the supporters of the La Sierra Faculty Senate affirmation are endorsing a "don't-ask-don't tell" policy, aren't they? Whatever happened to intellectual honesty? Why not be perfectly honest about what is being taught regarding creation/evolution?  Let's have a robust debate. Believe me, if we got to that stage, I would not be in favor of forcing religious orthodoxy on the science department.

Progressive SDA theologians have done a great job of palatably packaging "heterodoxy" for the laity by volunteering to teach Sabbath School classes, write articles, and participate in seminars. 40 years ago Remnancy, Spirit of Prophecy, and The Investigative Judgment were just as sacrosanct as the first two chapters of Genesis. But the attitudes of North American Adventists toward these doctrines have changed radically over the past few decades. Dr. Jack Provonsha opened baby-boomer minds to "The Moral Influence Theory of Salvation" because he first established himself as a devout Christian committed to his Church. More recently, Fritz Guy has articulated, in traditional Sabbath School classes, the reasonableness of a belief in Universal Salvation. I profoundly disagree with him, but salute his courage and honesty. Why can't our Darwinian scientists think creatively and Biblically about evolution, and find faith affirming ways to engage with the Church on Creation/evolution issues?  Trust is not a birthright for intellectuals and academicians. Jack Provonsha, Graham Maxwell, and other "progressive" thought leaders in the Church, won the trust of thousands of Church members the hard way. They earned it. Is that too much to ask of Adventist scientists who wish to breach the walls of Creation orthodoxy?

From David Read:

SDA Bio Prof, does it sadden you more that I characterize college and university professors as being "liberal, secular, anti-American, anti-Christian, atheistic, etc." or that this is an accurate description of modern academia? 

How on earth do the AToday editors allows such a negative, arrogant, nasty, broad-brush portrayal of a professional group in general and of our SDA teachers specifically to be posted here?

Perhaps they, like me, find the irony of someone who chose to become an attorney heaping such harsh criticism and scorn upon those that chose the most noble field of teaching too ripe, too delicious, too thick to not allow it pass into their cyberspace.  

One of the people that I enjoy disagreeing with most here on AToday (Username:  Hansen) has given this most useful advice to other people here in this forum:  "If the church and its leadership and its treatment of its universities is so disappointing to you, then just quit!"  Pull your name off the membership rolls, and start your own church and schools that you can control more fully.  Choose your own leaders and teachers who will be more obedient and respond more correctly to what will certainly be your frequent tugs upon their leashes.

After all, you're "fighting a lost cause."  Throw your hands up and quit.  But do it soon.  In my non-professional opinion, it would be psychologically healthier for you and your group of hand-wringers to simply stop running your heads into a wall that you've already conceded is moving in the opposite direction of your noggin.  At this point, the notion that you guys are some sort of collective Spiritual Rosa Parks is wearing thin - I doubt even she would have sat on the bus once she realized it wasn't headed in the direction she needed it to go.  

ProfessorNotKent:

Yes yes, and Jesus was just a carpenter who "never learned" and even Darwin was only trained as a theologian...

The fact of the matter is, however, that, though certainly a distinct minority, quite a number of well-trained well-published scientists in every field of science question the validity of various fundamental aspects of the modern mainstream evolutionary view of origins - from the validity of the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) to explain the functional complexity of life to the notion that life has existed on this planet for billions of years.

For example, you forget to mention Arthur Chadwick in your list.  Ironically, he is an LSU graduate who currently teaches at SWAU.  He has his Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Miami (with honors).  He also has quite a number of publications and is currently active in field research.  Yet, he is also an outspoken proponent of young-life creation. He has written several strong letters asking the Church leadership and the leadership of LSU to decidedly support the SDA position on a literal 6-day creation week.  He is deeply disturbed at LSU's current support of theistic evolution in the classroom and has signed the following Open Letter of petition to the SDA Church leadership regarding this matter:

http://www.educatetruth.com/letters/open-letter-to-general-conference/

The argument, of course, is not that such views are popular or even convincing to most scientists.  The argument is that this is what the organizaed SDA Church claims to believe and support.

Given this extraordinary claim by the SDA Church, the question is, does it, as an organization, really believe such notions as the literal creation week to be "fundamental" or not?  Does it really support such views?

If so, why does the Church hire those who actively counter such views on the Church's dime?  Is this not a form of schizophrenia? - not to mention false advertising to parents, students, and constituents? And, if the Church doesn't mind the bold stand of LSU on the "academic freedom" of its professors to proselytize for theistic evolutionary views, on the Church's dime, why is LSU trying to cover up the fact that this is in fact what its professors are doing? 

You only try to hide stuff you're doing if you know what you're doing is wrong.  Otherwise, if you thought what you were doing was perfectly fine and even beneficial, why try to hide it?  Why not advertise and promote it?

Why do I even have to ask such an obvious rhetorical question?  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Correction to my last post regarding the credentials of Arthur Chadwick:

Chadwick has his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from the University of Miami (with honors). His geological training is from the University of California, but because they will not give a second PhD, he has no degree from there. However, he was Visiting Professor of Geology and Geophysics at University of Oklahoma before going to SWAU.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

David Read, you asked "SDA Bio Prof, does it sadden you more that I characterize college and university professors as being "liberal, secular, anti-American, anti-Christian, atheistic, etc." or that this is an accurate description of modern academia?"

Definitely the former, because I have worked with and personally know many professors, both SDA and non-SDA on multiple campuses, who are conservative, religious, pro-American, pro-Christian, believers in a Creator God, etc. Professors span the spectrum in their political, social and religious views. If anything, I would guess most are relatively moderate and tolerant in their views, because radicals are less likely to thrive in the highly structured environment of academia.

Out of curiosity, were you ever a student or a professor on an SDA campus? How many SDA campuses have you ever visited? How many SDA professors do you actually know? How many SDA professors have you actually asked what their personal views are on any given topic? What is the basis for and what is your expertise on your sweeping generalizations of SDA professors? Why should any of trust your opinions of higher SDA education to be accurate?

Oh, and by the way, if you don't like American professors, American seculars, American liberals, American non-Christians, American atheists and all the other Americans you seem to disapprove of, how does that make you not anti-American?

Two thoughts:

There are without doubt diverse viewpoints at LSU. You yourself, Sean, have pointed out that not ALL the faculty believe and teach mainstream evolutionary theory as fact. That being the case, they can't advertise: "We teach only mainstream evolutionary theory to the exclusion of SDA beliefs on young earth creationism," but this is exactly what you keep demanding they do. And until you have forced them to capitulate by harrassment and public humiliation to lie in this manner, you are insisting that they are lying by not lying in this manner.

This raises another obvious issue. LSU, like any fundamentalist organization, institution, and individual, is in a lose-lose situation when it comes to discourse on evolution. No matter what you say, you simply cannot win. You WILL be attacked by either the right or the left, as much for what you say as you don't say. You insist, Sean, that LSU must put a big bulls-eye on itself for further attack. Yet you are quick to allow other SDA institutions, like Southeastern and Southwestern, to remain under the radar (though others may very well see those institutions in a different light--after all, who is investigating?).

I think you are both uncharitable and unrealistic, Sean, in demanding that LSU wear the Scarlet Letter of your design.

I'm with you, Statefarmsteve...I'm tired of this noisome pestilence, too, and I'm giving it a rest now. (Whoops...that was Berard, not SFS, who found this story tiresome; sorry about that.)

If  "quite a number of well-trained well-published scientists" favor a YEC/YLC creationist view, then why did educatetruth.com feature none of them in their (original) "science" section. Instead, I believe to remember there were contributions by a lawyer (David C. Read) and by a muslim of dubious credentials (Harun Yahya aka Adnan Oktar) amongst others?

Mark Houston

Nathan, you write:

Dr. Jack Provonsha opened baby-boomer minds to "The Moral Influence Theory of Salvation" because he first established himself as a devout Christian committed to his Church. .... Jack Provonsha, Graham Maxwell, and other "progressive" thought leaders in the Church, won the trust of thousands of Church members the hard way.

I'd say that that might be a poor example.

We are outright and explicitly told that justification by faith is the third angel's message in verity. Whether Provonsha put it quite the same as Maxwell or not I don't know, but Maxwell's theology called for the third angel's message being a repudiation of the doctrine of justification by faith.

The creation vs. evolution topic is about the same. It results in diametrically opposite and incompatible views, beliefs, doctrines, and conclusions.

Paul told the Corinthians that they should all speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10). That is impossible if one group is convicted that the entire world must hear the messages of justification and creation, while another group wants to convince everyone that justification is a farce derived from Latin, and that everything evolved over millions of years.

Greetings, thought I would add to the "noisome pestilence"... 

Since when were MDs (like sean) excluded from being able to speak on the topic of origins?  This seems to be a desperation move and those that support Anti-Adventist views of origins are unwilling to deal with the substance of the argument. Rather  there seems to be a wanting to detract from the real issue by bringing this spurious issue of proper "credentials" up. Who decides which letters behind someone's name allow them to speak on a topic? How absurd.  Is there some official credentialling body that oversees on speaking about scientific truth?  God gave us all brains, and if I smell and see a skunk, I'm going to call it out, regardless of whether or not I did a PhD in "skunk studies"!
 
Question: If a parent had a concern about the quality or content of a class they were sending their child to, don't they have the right to voice their concern? Are you saying they should keep their opinions to themselves unless they provide sufficient "credentials?"  

 Answer: No, they have a right to express their concerns based on the fact they are "consumers/purchasers" of a product that LSU is "selling."  They have a right to question whether they are receiving the actual "product" that was "advertised" and promised to them upon payment.  And the fact that LSU receives money from the Adventist Church and carries the name, means that all of us as Seventh-day Adventists have a vested interest in what is happening at one of our schools.
 
Another Illustration: I have patients that question my decisions as a physician, and I have yet to use the argument, "well I am a doctor and you are not, that ends the discussion."  I simply use my position as a medium to access and present the "truth". We then dialogue about it to come to a decision. Since I am comfortable with where the truth is, I see no need to hide behind my "credentials" and censor other ideas out from sensible sources.

Thank you for allowing me to make some noise : )

Jason

ProfessorNotKent:

There are without doubt diverse viewpoints at LSU. You yourself, Sean, have pointed out that not ALL the faculty believe and teach mainstream evolutionary theory as fact. That being the case, they can't advertise: "We teach only mainstream evolutionary theory to the exclusion of SDA beliefs on young earth creationism," but this is exactly what you keep demanding they do. And until you have forced them to capitulate by harrassment and public humiliation to lie in this manner, you are insisting that they are lying by not lying in this manner.

Oh please...

As far as I am aware, there is no one in the science departments at La Sierra University who is promoting the truth of a literal 6-day creation week.

And, even if there were a few who were supporting the SDA position on origins at LSU, it would still be false advertising for LSU to tell parents, students and church constituents that all professors at LSU are in full support of the Church's fundamental positions and do not teach contrary to the same. 

Yet, this is in fact what LSU's PR department is suggesting in an very deceptive manner.  LSU is making people believe that all at LSU are in full support of the SDA Church's stand on these issues and that no one at LSU is actively undermining any of the SDA fundamental doctrinal positions in any classroom.  

This carefully cultivated perception is, of course, a lie.  The strong majority of science and even religion professors at LSU do not believe in or support the notion of a literal 6-day creation week and most of these are active in telling their students that this view is simply untenable.

While I fully support the right of any person to free speech in this free country of ours, I do not support a person's right to expect payment for their free speech from me or from any private organization who does not agree.  Organizations should also be free to hire only those who accurately represent the free speech they, as an organized body, wish to share with the world.

Evidently, this view is not shared by the leadership or many of the professors of LSU who think they can say whatever they want and get paid for it by the SDA Church under the banner of "academic freedom" - all while suggesting to future parents, students and church members that they also fully support the Church's stand on these issues? Please! 

Am I the only one who sees such deliberate deception as a travesty? - a wrong against basic moral principles?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

SDA bio prof, I was characterizing secular academia in general, not the SDA colleges specifically.  I would hope that they are not as bad as academia in general.  That academia is lopsidedly liberal is a finding of anyone who's ever studied it, and not really up for debate.  Here's something I found real quick, but you could probably find alot more along the same lines.  Keep in mind that, as per the last several election cycles averaged out, this is about a 50/50 nation outside of academia:

"A 2005 study by the George Mason University economist Daniel Klein, using voter registrations, found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of 10 to 1 at the University of California, Berkeley and by 7.6 to 1 at Stanford University. In the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors). In some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn't a single Republican to be found. The ratio for all departments in all colleges and universities throughout the U.S., says Klein, is 8 to 1 Democrats over Republicans. Smith College political scientist Stanley Rothman and his colleagues found a similar bias in a 2005 national study: only 15 percent of professors describe themselves as conservative, compared to 72 percent who said they were liberal (80 percent in humanities and social sciences)."

See also, here:  http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/01/21/19886/.

and here: http://www.amazon.com/One-Party-Classroom-Professors-Indoctrinate-Undermine/dp/0307452557/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265432630&sr=8-3.

If anyone cares, which I doubt, I attended Southwestern Adventist in Keene, generally conceded to be one of the more conservative campuses.  I liked most of my professors and thought they were good people.  I love all professors, seculars, liberals, non-Christians, and atheists, although in most cases I would find it painful to sit through their lectures at a university, and wouldn't want to pay for the privilege. 

Comment has been moderated and edited. Refer to posting guidelines.~ AToday Moderator

When True SDA Conservatives gather, they find themselves among both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, progressives and traditionalists.  But they are bound first by a love for their God, a willingness to do his work, and a desire for the shelter of brother- and sisterhood in Christ.  All other differences are details, and rather than divide, create a rich tapestry of color and hue in which our Heavenly Father can take much pride.  

I'm proud to stand alongside brothers such as Nathan Schilt, with whom I've disagreed often, but always admired his style and his substance, and always come back to good terms after discussions.  In the secular world, I'd love to someday sit beside him and hoist a pint.  I'll settle for an intense "I told you so" session someday in Heaven, where answers will be revealed and I'm sure we'll both get to needle each other in good spirit.

Until then, I'll try my best to stand aside from this debate, as I feel it provides fuel to the fire with which people like Sean, Shane, the EducateTruthers, and others would use to burn down my church.   

Two thoughts:

There are without doubt diverse viewpoints at LSU. You yourself, Sean, have pointed out that not ALL the faculty believe and teach mainstream evolutionary theory as fact. That being the case, they can't advertise: "We teach only mainstream evolutionary theory to the exclusion of SDA beliefs on young earth creationism," but this is exactly what you keep demanding they do. And until you have forced them to capitulate by harrassment and public humiliation to lie in this manner, you are insisting that they are lying by not lying in this manner.

You are misquoting me.  I never suggested that LSU claim that all of its professors only promote as truth the mainstream evolutionary theory of origins.  This is what I said:

Why not just say it like it is? Something like this would be far more honestly transparent:

"Most of our science professors believe in and promote the modern mainstream evolutionary view of origins in their classrooms.  And, we fully support their academic freedom to do so in this 'SDA' institution"... 

Why oppose such an honestly transparent statement of reality so ardently? - some might say "hysterically"?  

Notice the word "most" along with the specific reference to "science professors". 

Is it really unfair to ask LSU to make the fact that most of its science professors (and many of its religions professors) support mainstream evolutionary theories quite clear to future parents, students, and the Church at large?  How is it not fair to ask our own universities to be completely transparent on such issues? - to the point of asking how individual professors teach their classes?  Don't all concerned and interested parents and students, and even church members, have a right to this information?  Or, is it really better to keep such information under wraps? - in your view?  Or, to argue that, as you suggest, "everybody else is being deceptive, why can't we do the same?"  Is that really a good argument? - even if it were true?

 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

As a related aside, I think some of you will be amazed at the following excerpt from a fairly recent 60 Minutes piece on the amazing discoveries of Mary Schweitzer.  She has found what appears to be stunningly "fresh" soft tissues, blood cells, and sequencable proteins within dinosaur bones that are supposed to be 68-80 million years old. 

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html#Fresh

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

I owe this whole forum an apology for my first post in this threat, which is hereby rendered. 

I am deeply distressed by the teaching of Darwinism as truth at LaSierra and, to a lesser extent, at some of our other Adventist colleges.  It bothers me, and not a little bit.  It bothers me greatly.  I admire and support the efforts of Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman to bring this situation to the attention of the larger church.  When I saw that the LaSierra faculty reacted to these efforts with pure arrogance, circling the wagons around their "academic freedom" to destroy the faith of SDA students who have sacrificed, and whose parents have sacrificed, to send them to an SDA school, it maddened me.  I then went off on a rant about academia in general, including alot of complaints that are not specific to, and probably irrelevant to, the situation at LaSierra University.  I apologize to anyone I've offended by my rant, especially including SDA biology prof., who seems to have taken my comments too much to heart.   

Guess I'm not ready to give this a complete rest.

Jason (jshives), you wrote: "I have patients that question my decisions as a physician, and I have yet to use the argument, 'well I am a doctor and you are not, that ends the discussion.'  I simply use my position as a medium to access and present the 'truth'."

I love physicians and I say "Praise God!" when their "truth" sets you free (from the grip of illness). But when a physician prescribes quack medicine, and the victimized patient dies, the abuse of his/her credentials will land the healer in jail.

When Adventist physicians and lawyers and high school teachers prescribe quack evidence as "truth," and tell geologists and biologists who have studied rocks and living organisms their entire careers that they understand everything wrong, the abusers of their credentials gain praise. In contrast, the victims get publicly shamed and humiliated, labeled as thieves and liars, and forced by threat of job loss to wear a scarlet letter.

I can't tell you, Jason, how to save a patient because I lack the training, expertise, and experience to understand how he or she will respond to a medication or treatment. I do find it laughable, though, that anyone without relevant training can talk as if they are an expert on all things geological and biological, and everything they say is accepted as gospel truth. Why are so many Adventists so gullible? (Yes, I can agree with you that LSU faculty should support SDA views, but I find the attacks on their character and beliefs, often supported by drivel dressed up as science, deplorable and unChristlike. I think the vast majority of "evidence" for YEC is hogwash, though I'm not willing to dismiss it all.)

My comments hardly represent a "desperation move." I'm not an employee of LSU, and have no interest in becoming one. Ironically, if I were hired there, I would teach very close to what you want, supporting your beliefs, but you would probably criticize my humility, tolerance, and open-mindedness that stem from one glaring fault: I don't think we have all dimensions of "truth" figured out.

To the question:

"Why not just say it like it is? Something like this would be far more honestly transparent:

'Most of our science professors believe in and promote the modern mainstream evolutionary view of origins in their classrooms.  And, we fully support their academic freedom to do so in this 'SDA' institution'... "

Apparently LSU does not want to cave in to bullying. Why is this so unfathomable?

From Sean Pitman

"Why not just say it like it is? Something like this would be far more honestly transparent:

"Most of our science professors believe in and promote the modern mainstream evolutionary view of origins in their classrooms. And, we fully support their academic freedom to do so in this 'SDA' institution"...Why oppose such an honestly transparent statement of reality so ardently? - some might say "hysterically" Notice the word "most" along with the specific reference to "science professors".

Is it really unfair to ask LSU to make the fact that most of its science professors (and many of its religions professors) support mainstream evolutionary theories quite clear to future parents, students, and the Church at large?"

________________________ 

Perhaps you are looking for this transparency and would be satisfied with it, and in this I do agree with you. However, do you think that this is all many others are looking for, Sean? Is this really enough for those calling for heads to roll? I highly doubt simple transparency is sufficient for those who demand adherence to literal creationism. Do you really think those who want these professors fired and disfellowshipped will say, 'Well. Thankfully they came clean and that's all we wanted. Now we can all go on our merry way with this knowledge to either send our kids there/with that professor or not while they continue to teach evolution." Somehow I doubt that.

It is not enough for many to be transparent. It is only enough when heresy is squeezed out and the status quo is followed. Until then, until these TE profs are given the boot, I do not believe the complaining church folk will be satisfied and I believe that it is naive to think simple transparency is enough.

Darrell

Is it possible to find meaningful standards which will allow external scrutiny of classroom curriculum and content at SDA colleges and universities, while still allowing them to be quality institutions of higher learning?  Why is it okay to ask that clerical leadership be accountable and transparent with constituents, but demand that academics be free from such accountablility?

Defenders of the moat between the academic ivory tower and the benighted plebes in the pews assure us that biology professors at La Sierra believe in a creator God. Why is that important? Haven't we been told that the beliefs or faith of the professors who teach our children are none of our business? Surely, belief in a creator God is thoroughly non-scientific. Why should that have anything to do with their competence as highly qualified teachers of science? Do they believe in the Resurrection? Do they believe in free will or original sin? Why is belief in a creator God important, but belief in the Resurrection, or other Biblical/SDA doctrines is not? 

Once you concede that something more than character, competency and nominal Church membership are important qualifications for educators at SDA colleges and universities, haven't you sort of let the genie out of the bottle? You've put a limit on academic freedom, and you can't continue to use that shibboleth to shut off debate about where the line should be drawn.  At what point, dear progressives, do beliefs or teachings become irrelevant to the kryptonite of Academic Freedom in an SDA school? The Faculty Senate has conceded the legitimacy of some threshhold religious litmus test - belief in a creator God.  At the point of a "creator God" application of the standard has the potential to become inquisitorial, by your own definition, does it not?  You can argue with the fundamentalists over where the line should be drawn. But you cannot delegitimize their question or deny them a place at the table without tergiversation.

I truly wish that we could debate real policy questions rather than fight rhetorical turf wars over proprietary rights to values we all believe in, but prioritize differently.  

I agree with the Senate and that does not make me an American hating leftist.

You love all seculars, liberals etc? From your posts above suggesting that LSU professors hate America etc that claim seems not to ring true. Why the sudden conversion or change of heart from your previous posts?

---------------------------------

Sean: They are teaching science, not doctrine.

---------------------------------

ProfessorNotKent: The visceral reactions from those at educate truth and the comments from people like Dr. Pitman illustrate quite well the point you make. With regards to theistic evolution that is a philosophical/theological topic and should remain in the that type of classroom. I am shocked by the comments here suggesting that the La Sierra science faculty are now left wing totalitarians and represent liars and heretics.

It's interesting to read the bellicose rhetoric on display here along with demands of "burn them at the stake" in a professional sense. I agree that those posting their negative reaction is an honest view of their opinions but they are hardly convincing and this appears to be recognized by people like the GC conference president.

I recall watching movies that deal with the ability of a person to morph from a logical and loving person into a demon if provoked. The individuals representing educate truth (an oxymoron IMO) will present themselves as reasonable loving people if you agree with them, but if you do not they morph into some very hateful and spiteful people.

---------------------------------------

Kendall2010: No they are not hired to teach what you believe. The theological implications of the creation story are within the purview of the theologians, not scientists. For me to say that genes are not conserved and to not point out the evolutionary connection between life forms is for me to lie about the science I teach. If I am trying to study the expression of a gene that has not been sequenced in a particular animal model, why is it that I can use the genomic information on the same gene from a mouse, human or other species to get a probe? Works every time and it works because genes have common origins within species.