Are these people really against the teaching of evolution? I don't see how it can't be a part of science classes in higher education (even secondary education). If you are not aware of the prevailing ideas how can you truly relate to the people in the world? I have a friend who is an atheist and he is also a scientist. He often points out areas of our creationist beliefs that are proven wrong by science. I think it's almost a requirement for us to look into what people believe in this area. It's not like the schools are teaching about witch craft or something. Large portions of society believe in evolution. Our witness is made stronger when we are aware of different world views and the beliefs that are related to those world views.

Does this remind any of you of what took place at PUC in late 1970's and early 1980's. I really hope that we have learned a little bit as a church since then. I would hate for the fallout to be the same as it was back then. I don't know if our church can stand another split like that. Just as it seems as we're finally starting to unite on some aspects, we are ripped apart on the other.

Thank you Alex for your knowledge and insight into the situation and your involvement on the comments for letters. I have not finished reading all of them, but i am very interested in doing so.

It will be fascinating to watch as this story unravels.

_________________
Timothy Widmer
Student; Pacific Union College.
English Major w/ Theater Emphasis

Let me guess: Those calling for blood haven't remotely justified creationism via acceptable scientific methods, nor have they shown evolutionary theory to be faulty in any way.

That's a given for Sean Pitman, whose manglings of logic and science are plastered on the web.

Here's a new standard for the creationists--how about telling the truth for once?

Until then, you have no moral basis from which to attack anybody.

Glen Davidson

How the world changes. Years ago, the issue at Southern was over Righteousness by Faith--the same tactics were used, successfully, to remove a President and at least three faculty.

Now the issue is diametrically opposed to everything that Adventism believes and holds dear and the tactics are deplored and the teachers defended. Neither creationism nor nateralistic evolution are science. If taught they should be in a class of philosophy or religion.

It will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved. Imagine a monkey bringing down what a PhD theologian couldn't budge. Tom

Tom: you are psychic. The next article from the Spectrum Archives will feature the 1982 flare-up at Southern - of which you of course have first-hand knowledge and resigned from the board due to the way the camapign against the Religion Dept was conducted. I trust you will have further comments when we post that in a few days.

Thank you for shedding light on this controversy. I was troubled by your article, however. I agree with your viewpoint about the educational environment and the need to understand competing theories to better strengthen one's own presentation in the public forum. I do not agree with the ad hominem method of attacking the attackers, though. Repeated disparaging remarks regarding someone's level of education smacks of elitism and only increases any alienation that may exist between our colleges and their detractors. We deserve better quality journalism than this.

Actually, evolution IS a science, whether opponents want to admit it or not. The problem in the country, among adherents of creationism, and the watered-down creationism of 'intelligent design', is that there is some belief that science is about absolutes and final "truths" and because evolution cannot provide these, that it can't be a science. Outside of closed systems, such as mathematics, there ARE NO final or absolute truths in natural science.

Natural science is about finding the best models to describe the mechanics and processes in a field of study. It is about designing repeatable experiments that are falsifiable (that is, are capable of disproving a hypothesis, if the experiment fails). The reason this works for science is that, if experiments continue to NOT FAIL, then we can say that the model used is still the best candidate for explaining a phenomenon. Evolution is a theory (or rather a set of theories) that meets the criteria of predictability and falsifiability. Where it has failed, scientists have worked to find better models. Failure is expected in the sciences, because it is extraordinarily rare to have complete answers in natural sciences. Failure is actually exciting, because it means there is more to know and to learn. Failure leads to a search of better models, and that is what natural science is about.

In other words, science is an arena for fact and reason, not the arbiter of absolute truths.

Creationism and ID fail as sciences, because the two are all about final truths. Assumptions are made without preamble that a creator (or designer) exists and that the living systems of the world would not be possible without such a being. But one cannot factor a supernatural designer into a natural model. It would like being blindfolded and taken to a remote location and locked into a windowless building. One cannot describe the outside of the building, because one cannot see the outside. One can only describe the goings on "inside the system." That is, one can only define the inside WITH WHAT ONE FINDS on the inside. As long as one cannot see an influence external to this system, one cannot use an external influence to define any part of it. And an external influence is not even remotely necessary to explain what's going on within the system any more than our hypothetical passenger needs the outside of the building to describe what is taking place inside it.

This does not mean there isn't an "outside" any more than evolution claims there is no "designer". But you can't use what you can't see and/or measure to define what you can see and measure. To do so is not science.

As I have dealt with this on my blog for the last couple of weeks the reason for the attack has nothing to do with science, it is all about control and authority of the denomination. If the denomination's belief is a 6 literal day creation than that is what science classes must teach. If someone does not than they should remove themselves or be removed from employment by the church. Apparently other courses in science are just lucky that the church does not have teachings so they can still actually deal with real world science. Just bad luck for geology, astronomy and biology that the church has declared our origin.

The ultimate goal I am sure is to remove every type of Progressive Adventist idea from the Adventist church, leaving only the traditional Adventist views. They realize that with the numerous problems with Ellen White, that people far and wide in the Western World realize her numerous errors they can't really use her as a critical test to expel Progressive Adventists, they can't do it with the Sabbath, as a park in time can be used in a verity of ways. They can't use the Investigative Judgment anymore because it had to be reworked into the pre-advent judgment and they can't use Adventist eschatology (Though George Knight recently tried)because what is supposed to happen does not carry a whole lot of weight with anyone and the whole Historicist and day for a year principle have not worn well. They can't do it with the Moral Influence view of the atonement because it was clearly apart of the beliefs of Ellen White also.

So they are left with creationism (naturally backed up with Ellen White as assumed authority)with the assumption that the church has the right to dictate to it's members and employees what to think, if you don't want to be dictated to then you have no business being a Seventh-day Adventist.

Making the John Loughborough quote so very appropriate.

Ron

Wow! How lucky can I be: David is a scheduled speaker at Fresno
Central tomorrow for an all-day meeting on the Ten Commandments!
Surely, someone will attend and report (but not me)!

Evolution is not a science just because someone places it there for taxonomical reasons. It employs scientific tools--but is incapable of either falsification or reproduction. So it remains a hypothesis and thus is merely a sophisiticated philosophic projection.

By the same token, the Genesis story is just that a story.

So we have two competing stories lines--neither of which are subject to falsification or replication.

Intelligent design is a stop gap measure in the nature of deism.

Neither side can make either Charles Darwin or E.G. White an oracle.

The most amazing feature of science is it looks at Stonehedge and asks: "Who did this?" Then it looks at the human eye and asks? "How did this come about?" Then they start with glow worms or lessor creatures.

Having studied the Carnegie human embryo collection at John Hopkins--I stand in awe at the handiwork of God.

Having studied the Book of Romans--I stand in awe at the love and compassion of God.

Wouldn't it be wonderful, if an institution of higher learning could put the two together in a tribute to a creative redemptive being we are invited to call "Father"? Tom

I actually find the response of the administration more intriguing than the attacks. That quote from John R. Jones, for example, is essentially a statement of contrition for teaching evolution. What we should really be talking about is why it's still unacceptable in some people's feeble minds to acknowledge that evolution and creation are not incompatible (much less evolution and Adventism, as Asscherick strangely asserts).

@Steve - fair point. No one should ever be made to feel less valuable.

Yet, when discussing the issues surrounding an academic institution and who gets to decide what students hear in a biology class, academic qualifications play a role.

If I got to court, I want my lawyer to have a law degree and passed the bar. Why not expect the same when discussing origins?

Even if you don't agree with me, perhaps we can follow your logic. If attacking a person's lack of formal education is unfortunately elitist, what does that say about folks who very publicly suggest that someone lacks faith?

In an article published in Contemporary Review 1877 titled "The Ethics of Belief" William K. Clifford began...

"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possible she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He had put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere.

"He dismissed from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those people.

"The sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him."

Taking in these conversation, it just seems to me that in this instance it might profit to make beliefs a matter for morality in the manner of owning such belief structures. That we have an obligation to believe on the basis of evidence or reasons and that we apportion the strength of our belief to the evidence, then believe only what is justified by the evidence, and believe it to the full extent, but only to the extent that it is justified by the evidence. Apparently the critics of La Sierra University (and other educators, not just science or theology professors as implied) are attacking evidentialism on the grounds that it presupposes a mistaken epistemology.

It is wrong in all such cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where there is a presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse then presumption to believe.

Cheers

I am a Pastor in the Potomac Conference. I attended Southern Adventist University and completed my B. Min. at an outside theology school. I have nothing but love for our Adventist educational systems, although I am not blind to issues, and will address them accordingly as I have the complete understanding of what these issues are.

There are several errors on the part of David Asserick, of which I do not intend to go into length about, but in a conclusive way I will suggest they are the following;

1. Not following the principle of Matthew 18 and going directly to a source to find out about the facts and seek to find the common ground so as to win over a brother. E-mail that is written and leaked was no accident, and it was disrespectful to the parties he wrote to.

2. If you are against higher education, and have never experienced it as Asserick himself makes known, there is perhaps an absence of critical thinking skills that would allow a person to look at an issue from every perspective before making a judgement call. For instance, I believe that evolution theory needs to be shared in the classroom so as to understand what the world at large thinks. I am a creationist, and will always be one, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't know how someone else believes so I can lovingly, and with knowledge, share the differences between the two and how creation points to a Creator who is in love with His creation.

3. As a pastor, I believe God has called me to be responsible for what enters in my church, and making sure it is Biblical. There are ways to do this, and they involve being loving and respectful to those who I have a question about personally or in their teaching. It isn't my position to embarrass them before hundreds or thousands, but to treat them with kindness while asking about their thoughts and teachings. Perhaps I have missed something, or maybe they have missed something, that when we sit down together in a conversation over the Bible we can work together on to a conclusion that is redemptive, not judgmental.

I can tell you this as I close, Satan loves this kind of stuff. It distracts away from the end-time message we should be sharing, and pits us against each other. I sincerely hope this can be concluded quickly and resolved in such a way God is glorified, and broken relationships from accusations can be healed.

Speaking of respect, part of that is characterizing people's arguments fairly, even if one disagrees with them (and equally important is taking the time to get a person's name right--its Asscherick).

Asscherick, in his now famous letter, said that teaching evolution is not a problem, but that it ought to be taught as a theory in competition with creationism, not as fact.

Now others might make arguments to the effect that evolution is not being taught as Gospel truth (see John Jones's comments above challenging the idea that La Sierra indoctrinates students one way or another). Still others might argue that teaching evolution as a fact is not antithetical to Adventist beliefs.

But whatever the case, Asscherick is taking issue with what he perceives as La Sierra's teaching naturalistic evolution as fact.

Wonderful! If the professors don't like the heat, go to a public college/university. Azusa Pacific and Biola require their Christian professors to be Christian. What a strange idea to Spectrumites -- requiring Adventist professors to be Adventist. Employment is a choice, not a right. Move on profs ;)

Love the news -- SpectrumLand is all a-twitter -- how dare there be a challenge to the taffy pull on our doctrines. Adventists with backbone -- hurray ;)

Jody ;)

So we've started a "witch hunt"? You know, I'm wondering what the response must have been when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the front door of the Church at Wittenberg? I wonder if his tactics or methods weren't questioned? If he wasn't accused of breaking the advice of Matthew 18 (as per the suggestion of Dr. John Jones). Or, perhaps he was even charged with "persecuting" those who happened to hold differing views from his own? Yet, I wonder if the wrongs addressed in his 95 theses would have ever been taken seriously or actually resolved at all had he not gone so public with his concerns for the public missteps of the Church of his day? - missteps which involved and interested a great many people?

But hey, if the SDA Church wants to make public policy such that its own fundamental doctrinal positions are really nothing more than 28 nice suggestions, that's fine. It just should be publicly stated that way so as to avoid any semblance of false advertising. It should be clearly stated that the SDA Church really takes no definitive stand on anything as an organization and that its own paid representatives are perfectly free to say and do anything they please without any sort of remonstration on the part of the Church leadership or "government" whatsoever - especially when it comes to those "suggestions" that form the very basis of the name of the SDA Church itself. After all, as long as everyone loves everyone else, the actual basis of the Christian hope in the future or the discovery of new doctrines or the maintenance of old foundational doctrines are really of no consequence - right? After all, everyone wants complete "academic freedom" - right?! It sounds sooo good! Who could vote against freedom?!

After all, didn't our early Church founders wish to avoid the problems of doctrines and "creeds" which are set in concrete as unmovable mountains? Didn't John Loughborough argue, in the Review and Herald in 1861 that, "“The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed, and fifth, to commence persecution against such.”

Yet, the authors of this Spectrum article who quote Loughborough forget what Loughborough later said regarding the basis for Church order and discipline:

Consider again the following comments and quotes by JN Loughborough in his The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline (1907):

_____
"When those who back in the "sixties" [1860s] witnessed the battle of establishing church order now hear persons, as conscientious no doubt as those back there, utter almost the identical words that were then used by those opposing order, it need not be wondered that they fear the result of such statements as the following: "Perfect unity means absolute independence, - each one knowing for himself. Why, we could not have outward disorganization if we all believed in the Lord. . . . This question of organization is a simple thing. All there is to it is for each individual to give himself to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just what he wants to, and that all the time. . . . Our only safety, under God, is to go back to the place where God is able to take a multitude of people and make them one, without parliamentary rules, without committee work, without legislation of any kind." - General Conference Bulletin of 1899.

God Requires Rules:
"Superficially considered, this might seem to be a blessed state, a heaven indeed; but, as already noted on a preceding page, we read of heaven itself and its leadings that "the god of heaven is a god of order, and he requires all his followers to have rules and regulations to preserve order." - "Testimonies for the Church," No. 32, page 30.
"As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable."
__________

As it turns out, the leaders of the early SDA Church at first thought that no enforcement of any kind was needed to keep the Church from fragmenting. This was true as long as the Church was small and made up of originally like-minded people. However, as the Church grew larger, this view soon became obviously untenable. Loughborough was one of the main proponents of this sort of church order and discipline - along with James White. Very quickly all of the early Church leaders changed their minds regarding Church order and discipline when they saw that their original ideas of completely hands-off freedom of Church representatives were quickly failing to do what they thought they would do. So, the leadership started issuing cards of commendation signed by James White or John Loughborough.

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the Church did not receive these cards of commendation. And what was the attitude of such persons? - according to Loughborough?:

__________
"Of course those who claimed "liberty to do as they pleased," to "preach what they pleased," and to "go when and where they pleased," without "consultation with any one," failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were "depriving them of their liberty." Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish "order," these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that "when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.'"

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it "abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed," etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: "Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery." - "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. I, page 650.
___________

Sounding familiar? Be careful when you use Loughborough to try to support the notion of pure "academic freedom" within Church schools and a hands-off approach to Church government. Not only does there have to be at least some very specific direction and discipline within the Church government to maintain order and viability, as with any viable organization, it turns out to be a truly loving path to travel as well. A Church without discipline and enforcement of rules on its own representatives, like a home without discipline, is a very unhappy, even angry, Church and family.

One more thing. I just want to thank Spectrum Magazine for this article. I think it helps to highlight a very important issue in our Church today and is relevant to a great many people who are either directly or indirectly affected by it within the SDA Church. And hey, there's no such thing as bad publicity - right? ; )

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. By the way, wasn't Einstein a college dropout? - and Bill Gates too? ; )

It looks as if LaSierra has regained control of the domain name www.lasierrauniversity.net. It now jumps directly to www.lasierra.edu.

I want to comment briefly on the reason topics like evolution need to be broached carefully and thoughtfully within Adventist higher education. The reason is missiological.

If we care anything about "evangelism" or want to be a credible witness/presence in today's society, we will be very careful with our Darwinism = Atheism = Satanism rhetoric.

I currently help lead a Sabbath School group at my church. Due to it's location (the church is in Manhattan) we never know who will show up to our meetings on Saturday morning. Over the past couple years I've had conversations from this group with thoughtful non-Adventists that visit our church.

A couple of them have asked, in a somewhat incredulous tone, "Adventist don't believe in evolution?" (These are not "academics", but average New Yorkers.) My answer to them is that on the books, we are literalists when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, but that in actuality there is a diversity of actually held views by church members.

One of my friends, who attends our church, but does not call identify herself as an Adventist, said to this, "Haven't you all been to the Museum of Natural History?"

The Museum of Natural History is just a few blocks away on the other side of the park. And "Yes, I have been there," I think to myself.

I've seen the exhibits that very convincingly put me as an individual in my place, temporally and spatially speaking. The exhibits are packed with tourists and school children learning "the facts" about our origins and our place in the universe.

I'm not suggesting that just because it's on display at the Museum of Natural History it's true. I am saying that telling people that the Museum of Natural History is wrong, and even worse, of the devil, is not the best way to win the interest of your everyday person to your religion.

Gotta jump in and defend my alma mater... APU's rivalry with Biola extends beyond sports. Said by way of analogy, within Evangelicalism APU is like Richard Cizik to Biola's Richard Land. And Azusa Pacific's character was demonstrated most recently in its approach to the Soul Force equity ride. http://www.soulforce.org/article/1088 APU was founded by missionaries from Quaker, Methodist and Nazarene communities and have much in common with Adventists. They're as comfortable engaging open and relational theologies as they are viewing science as enlightening and informing faith. Sure they both have statements of faith but no they don't relate to contemporary challenges the same way at all...

Many people are talking above about acceptance and love but I would like to examine the ideas behind evolution and how it would apply. In fact, if you understand the premise of evolutionary theory correctly, as a Christian, you should be appalled by it and love being classified together.Evolution is domination to survive. It states that the strongest wins. Love has no point in evolution and morality goes only as far as personal interest and achievement. The end justifies the means including any object. Therefore in evolutionary society there is no absolute law except the one set up by the one with the most power for the moment.The God of the Bible also wrote the ten commandments with His own finger stating the the world was made in 6 days. People keep talking about the validity of Genesis but no one mentions the ten commandments. He said that man had a choice and did not evolve in sin. He came to save us from ourselves as we chose death. He has the power to remake Lazarus after he had seen death and decomposition. All of this the Bible states. Adventism and for that matter Christianity hinge around these ideals all of which hinge on the origin of sin on this planet. If it was here naturally as a evolutionary force to evolve and make us, why do we need a Savior, is God a loving God after all? Now, we can choose to believe the Bible or not. If we don’t, where does that leave us as Christians or Adventists. We should just rewrite out beliefs to say that we believe in love and acceptance and a God that sponsors it but that doesn’t even cover the evolution issue because evolution is a doctrine that leads to hate and selfishness. Some will say that it doesn’t but it really does.To argue for the teaching of this as a source of origin in a Christian school, much less and Adventist one, is equivalent to teaching that it is okay to teach that the nazi’s weren’t bad in the racial dominance (this policy came straight from evolution in combination with antisemitism). I’m sure that any teacher that started to teach neonazi dogma would not last long in a Christian school or for that matter KKK material or other bigotry rooted in the early 20th century evolutionary movement. I think all of you would not have much issue with this because they (the teachers in trouble) would be bigots and racists, but having issue with a the underlying idea (evolutionary theory) that was used as justification for these heinous issues (Nazi's, KKK, slavery) in the past somehow seems to be less characterized as being bad, less than Christ-like, unloving. Is it unloving to ask someone to stop teaching about something that leads to selfishness, dominance, and un-Christ-like behavior if taken to the end understanding of the mechanism? I also feel that my children do still have something to learn at a University level. I do send them to a specific location for a goal of certain aspects of their training. Just saying that they are adults and can handle it so therefore, the school should not have certain standards is side stepping the issue at hand. If that is the case, then what is the benefit of private education? I have been through science education with Godly teachers and though I feel that I would have been able to decide for myself, there was a special blessing to hear Dr Nyirady (at Southern) share his belief with me and it did strengthen mine. I do feel that this is why my parents paid so much money for my education and do not think that I would invest the money if my children would not have teachers like that.

Two things come to mind for me. The Jews also disdained Jesus, because, "He didn't go to our schools." So that critique of Asscherick or Batchelor is irrelevant to me. God had good reason for providing for the education of Jesus and John the Baptist outside of the regular school system of their time.

Second, that the religion professor referred to teaching a particular point of view as indoctrination. Using that term seems like a straw man to me. Doesn't he teach Adventist beliefs in his own classes, or would that be indoctrination too? If so, then maybe the religion department needs a closer look too.

Offering my apology for the incorrect spelling of David Asscherick's name, which was unintentional.

Alex:

"what does that say about folks who very publicly suggest that someone lacks faith?"

Is there someone accusing someone of lacking faith?

I think it was quite laughable that "a college dropout" kept being repeated. It's repeated use speaks for itself, no need for further comment.

I spent the summer of 2004 driving across the U.S. with two Adventist college students shooting an Adventist "reality show" about creationism vs. evolution called "In the Beginning". We visited a number of interesting sites along the way including the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee where the Scope's "Monkey" Trial was held, discussed catastrophism while sitting on the edge of the Grand Canyon, and went digging for dinosaur bones in Wyoming.

The trip provided an opportunity for open and honest dialogue about the difficulty of the questions the issue raises. There were no easy answers and both faith and reason were put to the test with heated debated (which of course made for good television!). But, the beauty of it was in the sincerity of the conversations that occurred. They were not one-sided, flippant, or simple, but were hard questions that spoke to the heart of what it means to be human. And shockingly, in the end, no one left the project an atheist. In fact, quite the opposite occurred; we all learned from each other.

Adventist classrooms should be like this trip if we want our students to take Adventist education seriously.

http://www.inthebeginning.tv

Alexander

Thanks for your feedback. If academic qualifications are the sole reason for determining the validity of one's argument, then no lay person without a four year degree would ever be allowed to question anything taught at our colleges. Is this really a position you would advocate?

While your point regarding the use of an attorney is well made, even our court system allows for personal defense without an attorney. There are exceptions that prove the rules.

I agree with your point regarding statements that individuals "lack faith" are probably not appropriate either. However, this only supports what I was saying. If it is not appropriate for the less educated to use such attacks, then wouldn't it also be inappropriate for those who claim to be educated to do so.

In any event, I do not agree with Assherick and Pitman's "tempest in a teapot." However, I do believe that Creationism is an important testing point for our faith as evidenced by the angelic message of Revelation 14:6-7. I seriously doubt that what is happening at La Sierra is meant as a challenge to that. The Devil dances when we rip ourselves apart like this. If Assherick and company choose not to take the high road then let those who profess to be educated do so. It takes two to make a fight.

http://www.inthebeginning.tv

I watched a lot of it

It was like watching to kindergarten kids playing a professional sport. The evidence for evolution was so incredibly understated it was hilarious - and it tried to make the plainest things look uncertain.

But it was a good first step. At least it was a polite debate, even if the evolutionists were not allowed to bring 99.9% of their evidence to the table, and were not allowed to discredit the short-age 'explanations'.

/Bevin

Stephen,

Thanks for a ray of hope amidst the rhetoric of exclusion. I think Zane is right, the way this issue is being debated will only serve to damage our community and further erode whatever validity we have left in the wider community. Charles Scriven's recommendation to approach this topic with humility and creativity along with the video you shared has me thinking of ways to approach this issue and others that will strengthen rather than tear down community. I hope others will be inspired as well.

"Neither side can make either Charles Darwin or E.G. White an oracle."

I was walking out of the office today, with a colleague who is an atheist. He was commenting on a conversation he had just had with a non-SDA creationist.

The colleague observed that this creationist thought that by discrediting Darwin's writings, he could discredit evolution - and that such an attitude simply showed the creationist didn't understand science.

Darwin died in 1882! His ideas were largely complete by 1850!!! That is 160 years ago. We have a LOT more evidence and a very different understanding of the details than he did. What Darwin said is irrelevant.

@ Bevin - It was produced and funded largely by the Hope Channel, so yeah, we were taking baby steps. But the conversations that occurred, some off camera, were authentic and more in-depth than the approved edit. I would have preferred a "no holds barred" approach, but that will have to wait for the "Director's Cut".

The main insight I got from the experience is that we all choose our own worldview and then fit the evidence to support it. The challenge with Adventism is the conflict between mission and fact.

I can remember numerous times as a kid exploring a natural history museum, looking at the date of a T-Rex or some other impressive dinosaur skeleton, and saying to myself "I'll just ignore that large number and enjoy my time here anyway". It got a little old after a while, throwing out ALL the information that didn't jive with the creationist worldview that I was taught in the Adventist schools I attended.

Personally, the reconciliation came with Francis Collins's book, but that was long after college. I would have preferred the opportunity to study evolutionary theory in an Adventist classroom to better understand not just the evidence, but the implications of the evidence on my spiritual journey.

Now when I see a dinosaur skeleton, I'm free to be lost in the awe and wonder of it. Like a kindergartner.

There really is only one simple question here. That is, do the professors at LSU promote the truth of the idea that life on this Earth has in fact existed and evolved, Darwinian-style, over the course of hundreds of millions of years?

For anyone who actually checks into it with more than cursory effort, it is quite plain that this view of origins is being strongly suggested to the students along with the view that a literal creation week is simply not tenable given the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Of course, Dr. John Jones, a religion professor at LSU says that he is sure, although he has no direct knowledge, that the LSU science professors are only teaching the students "about" the theory of evolution. If that were true, there would be no issue here as we all agree that all SDA students should be taught "about" the theory of evolution - no question. But I'm afraid that the LSU professors aren't simply telling their students about this Darwinian perspective. They are telling the students that it is a true perspective - that the creationist perspective is wrong, clearly so. This is clearly demonstrated in the wording of the syllabus material and lecture notes. It has been testified to by dozens of students on both sides of this issue - even in blogs such as this one the promotion of the truth of long ages of evolution is not denied by those in the know. It is actually being defended.

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue at all except for the fact that the SDA Church has actually taken a very specific stand on this issue. It is right there on the GC website for anyone who cares to look. The literal interpretation of the creation week is one of the most basic pillars of the organized SDA Church - like it or not.

Now, either the SDA Church needs to publicly revoke this "ludicrous" and "outdated" stand, taking its place with most other protestant and even Catholic denominations, or it needs to uphold its current stand in a more direct manner. Let's be either hot or cold here. What be lukewarm on this? There's nothing much worse than being wishy-washy . . . right? People like to call themselves "humble" when they are only being vague and indecisive. If you're going to be wrong, and least be wrong with some style. And, if you think you are right and have something valuable to share, don't be ashamed! Share away! There is nothing wrong or inherently arrogant about thinking you have found something good! It is possible to be both humble and confident at the same time you know . . .

So, let's put it all on the table and be open about this. If LSU is promoting evolution to the students, why not at least be proud of this and make it a part of the publicly advertised curriculum? That way, no one can say they didn't know what they were paying for when they sent their children there. No one can accuse anyone else of false advertising. Let's just be straight up and stop hiding what is really going on here. Why not?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

I'm puzzled. Asscherick says he understands LSU teaching evolution as one possible explanation of origins. Dr. John Johns says this is what is happening. What's the issue?

Or is it that we have to be categorical deniers of the plain evidence of science? I'm just asking.

And when it comes to academic freedom I'm going to side with Ellen White who, in Education said,

Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men [and women] in whom this power is developed are the men [and women] who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men [and women] have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen (18).

Sounds like Ellen White was right on topic, possibly, prophetic? Great reminder that our origins really are progressive.

Ryan wrote:
"I'm puzzled. Asscherick says he understands LSU teaching evolution as one possible explanation of origins. Dr. John Johns says this is what is happening. What's the issue?"

The issue is that Dr. John Jones is mistaken. LSU professors aren't just teaching about evolution. They are promoting the Darwinian story of origins as the gospel truth to their students. They are actually telling their students that the notion of a literal creation of all life on this planet in the resent past within just one literal week is ludicrously inconsistent with the data as they understand it. That is what they are teaching. And, therefore, that's "the issue" here.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

EGW & Education

There will be faithful ones who will discern the signs of the times. While a large number professing present truth will deny their faith by their works, there will be some who will endure unto the end. {5T 10.1}

Many who profess to be children of God follow their worldly pursuits with an intensity that gives the lie to their profession. They will be planting and building, buying and selling, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the last moment of their probation. This is the condition of a large number of our own people. Because iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold. To but few can it be said: "Ye are all ... the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." {5T 10.2}

At our college young men should be educated in as careful and thorough a manner as possible that they may be prepared to labor for God. This was the object for which the institution was brought into existence. Our brethren abroad should feel an interest not only to sustain but to guard the college, that it may not be turned away from its design and be molded after other institutions of the kind. The religious interest should be constantly guarded. Time is drawing to a close. Eternity is near. The great harvest is to be gathered. What are we doing to prepare for this work? {5T 11.3}

The leading men in our college should be men of piety and devotion. They should make the Bible the rule and guide of life, giving heed to the sure word of prophecy as to "a light that shineth in a dark place." Not one of us should dare to be off guard for a moment, for "in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." It is only those who continue faithful in well-doing that shall reap the reward. Much that has no part in Christ is allowed a place among us. Unconsecrated ministers, professors, and teachers assist Satan to plant his banner in our very strongholds. {5T 12.1}

The design of our college has been stated again and again, yet many are so blinded by the god of this world that its real object is not understood. God designed that young men should there be drawn to Him, that they should there obtain a preparation to preach the gospel of Christ, to bring out of the exhaustless treasury of God's word things both new and old for the instruction and edification of the people. Teachers and professors should have a vivid sense of the perils of this time and the work that must be accomplished to prepare a people to stand in the day of God. {5T 12.2}

Some of the teachers have been scattering from Christ instead of gathering with Him. By their own example they lead those under their charge to adopt the customs and habits of worldlings. They link the hands of the students with fashionable, amusement-loving unbelievers, and carry them an advance step toward the world and away from Christ. And they do this in the face of warnings from heaven, not only those given to the people in general, but personal appeals to themselves. The anger of the Lord is kindled for these things. {5T 12.3}

The Bible is the most comprehensive and the most instructive history which men possess. It came fresh from the fountain of eternal truth, and a divine hand has preserved its purity through all the ages. Its bright rays shine into the far distant past, where human research seeks vainly to penetrate. In God's word alone we find an authentic account of creation. Here we behold the power that laid the foundation of the earth and that stretched out the heavens. Here only can we find a history of our race, unsullied by human prejudice or human pride. {5T 25.1}

If morality and religion are to live in a school, it must be through a knowledge of God's word. Some may urge that if religious teaching is to be made prominent our school will become unpopular; that those who are not of our faith will not patronize the college. Very well, then, let them go to other colleges, where they will find a system of education that suits their taste. Our school was established, not merely to teach the sciences, but for the purpose of giving instruction in the great principles of God's word and in the practical duties of everyday life. {5T 25.3}

This is the education so much needed at the present time. If a worldly influence is to bear sway in our school, then sell it out to worldlings and let them take the entire control; and those who have invested their means in that institution will establish another school, to be conducted, not upon the plan of popular schools, nor according to the desires of principal and teachers, but upon the plan which God has specified. {5T 25.4}

In the name of my Master I entreat all who stand in responsible positions in that school to be men of God. When the Lord requires us to be distinct and peculiar, how can we crave popularity or seek to imitate the customs and practices of the world? God has declared His purpose to have one college in the land where the Bible shall have its proper place in the education of the youth. Will we do our part to carry out that purpose? {5T 26.1}

Our college stands today in a position that God does not approve. I have been shown the dangers that threaten this important institution. If its responsible men seek to reach the world's standard, if they copy the plans and methods of other colleges, the frown of God will be upon our school. {5T 27.2}

The time has come for me to speak decidedly. The purpose of God in the establishment of our college has been plainly stated. There is an urgent demand for laborers in the gospel field. Young men who design to enter the ministry cannot spend a number of years in obtaining an education. Teachers should have been able to comprehend the situation and adapt their instruction to the wants of this class. Special advantages should have been given them for a brief yet comprehensive study of the branches most needed to fit them for their work. But I have been shown that this has not been accomplished. {5T 27.3}

If you lower the standard in order to secure popularity and an increase of numbers, and then make this increase a cause of rejoicing, you show great blindness. If numbers were evidence of success, Satan might claim the pre-eminence; for in this world his followers are largely in the majority. It is the degree of moral power pervading the college that is a test of its prosperity. It is the virtue, intelligence, and piety of the people composing our churches, not their numbers, that should be a source of joy and thankfulness. {5T 31.3}

I speak to the workers in our college: You must not only profess to be Christians, but you must exemplify the character of Christ.

As colaborers with Christ, with so favorable opportunities to impart the knowledge of God, our teachers should labor as if inspired from above. The hearts of the youth are not hardened, nor their ideas and opinions stereotyped, as are those of older persons. They may be won to Christ by your holy demeanor, your devotion, your Christlike walk. It would be much better to crowd them less in the study of the sciences and give them more time for religious privileges. Here a grave mistake has been made. {5T 33.1}

If the literal week is inconsistent with the data as they understand it, why is that a problem? Are qualified scientists/teachers in Adventists institutions, who have examined the evidence and done primary research in the field, unable to harmonize what they have learned with the Bible? If so, they have to go. Either that, or the church needs to modify its position on the subject.

Erv Taylor is a good example, a trailblazer, who does not agree with certain Adventist positions. He teaches at a non Adventist university. Why don't more people follow his example? The world is a big place. Why teach in a private system if you disagree with a basic tenet of the owners of that system? Activist comes to mind. Fine, but integrity doesn't come cheap.

If the Biblical account of creation, and by extension, the flood, is not true, the Bible is a hoax. This is not just about a couple of chapters in Genesis. The Creator motif is woven into many books and passages of Scripture. Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John, Romans, Peter, all contain not only allusions but direct references to the Creator God.

If the Creation/flood account is unreliable, where does it stop? Is the Exodus a hoax? Those events are certainly no less miraculous than the creation account. How about the floating axe head in the book of Kings? That's more difficult for me to understand than the idea that God created the world. If the axe head didn't float, did Elijah really ascend to heaven in the sight of Elisha? If not, why is he depicted with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration? Is that a fable as well?

Christ's identity as Creator and Redeemer is essential to his Messianic roll.

Make no mistake about it. Rejection of the Biblical teaching regarding Creation is an attack on the Bible and Christian faith, the like of which Adventism has not previously seen.

If there is an omega of apostasy, we are approaching it.

Any Adventist, from moderate liberal righward would surely see just how incompatible evolution is with Adventism. And so, naturally, they would be concerned if folks were teaching evolution at an SDA college. But what does Sprectrum do? Label that concern a -witch hunt? A witch hunt? So much for unbiased and fair reporting, eh? It's just more proof that Spectrum is so far to the left that's it's really irrelevant to the church as a whole.

And what? People are surprised that some folks are now denying that evolution is promoted there? Please! Anyone so morally compromised that he or she would take a pay check while teaching evolution at an SDA school isn't going to have a qualm lying about it, either. So why the surprise?

Wow, all of this uproar about Creationism vs. Evolution. And do we seriously wonder why the SDA church can't keep young people involved and as members for very long? Do you know why your current generation goes to church on Sabbaths? Because it's a well-known meat-market, used for finding dates and potential partners. This is the future of your religion, SDAs, because you continually get caught up in trivial issues like this. Seriously, good luck keeping your old-fashioned religion viable.

And I'm sure that when people leave the church because it's lost all significance in their lives, that those of you who stay will just turn to each other and say, “Oh, look, that must mean we're even more right then ever.”

Such an ill organization, this SDA church; caught up in all the things that really just don't matter.

Alex:
You said “when discussing the issues surrounding an academic institution and who gets to decide what students hear in a biology class, academic qualifications play a role. If I got to court, I want my lawyer to have a law degree and passed the bar. Why not expect the same when discussing origins?” Last I heard no one was arguing for taking out the current PhD level Profs and replacing them with “college drop out” types like David Asscherick. Let me ask you something. If you ran a foundation for the advancement of Jewish culture, and you had two candidates to choose from for a position on your board, candidate A. who has respectable academic credentials in field X and candidate B. who is one of the worlds leading expert in field X, but who just happened to not believe in the holocaust, who would you pick? The issue to me is not about academic qualifications or even that the theory of evolution is being taught, it is that those teaching in our system should have at least some philosophical congruency with the official stand of the church. At this point in time the accepted doctrine, as per the GC, is a 6-day literal creation week. If this doctrine is determined to be inaccurate or out of date then by all means change the official doctrine. There are mechanisms within the church structure to do this. To me it boils down to one point, you can’t work for Pepsi and sell Coke.

A while ago we published "Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives" which contains a range of views on various related topics (time etc.) by authors with varying degrees of comfort with 'evolution'. The president of the Loma Linda chapter of Adventist Forum is very active in intelligent design circles. No, I'm afraid that your description of Spectrum is wrong. On this and many other issues, we are a diverse lot. I know it's easier to dismiss what has been caricatured...

The witch hunt title was borrowed from a comment by the president of the pacific union.

Adventists are not unique within Christianity (and beyond) in needing to re-imagine (or express anew, or seek present truth- whatever term you're comfortable with) our faith in light of the challenge posed by evolution. Charles Scriven described it as imperilling our religious foundations. My personal take on this is that the allegations are very troubling. Now, what exactly is being taught at La Sierra? I have zero exposure to what is being taught and no basis from which to validate the allegations let alone render a verdict on the school and/or its professors. Do you?

On another note, the Gifford lectures were good this year... and relevant to this discussion to boot. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

Ho, hmm, it's great to see someone* copying and pasting Ellen White quotes - any sense of context? - as if the last 30 years of hermeneutical and textual research had not happened. Who doesn't love a wall of thirteen excerpts? The thing that seems to be missed is that these could apply to the witch hunters.

If I may demonstrate:

If you lower the [educational] standard in order to secure popularity and an increase of [baptism] numbers, and then make this increase a cause of rejoicing [to raise more money], you show great blindness. If numbers were evidence of success [note how often Asscherick includes his attendance numbers in his letter], Satan might claim the pre-eminence; for in this world his followers are largely in the majority [Cliff, is that kind of like saying that is in the minority?]. It is the degree of moral power [which is not shown through statements of belief, but actions] pervading the college that is a test of its prosperity [admin. no need to be scared of their threats to turn parents away]. It is the virtue, intelligence, and piety [I guess I missed the 28 listed there. . .] of the people composing our churches, not their numbers [you hear that evangelists?], that should be a source of joy and thankfulness [5T Amen31.3].

Next?

All these comment attacks published here are a net good as church administrators and many Adventists can see the extremist rhetoric and inflamed emotions that lie behind this complaint style.

Holocaust? The evidence relationship, using the same scientific method lies inverse to a six-day creation. It is illogical to use the same scientific process to prove the holocaust and then not use it to explain evolutionary processes. Furthermore, Jeremy, your analogy helps to highlight how conservatives are misunderstanding the issue. We are not talking theologians. We are talking about biologists here. So, hiring a biologist who employs the model of a six-day creation of life to prepare students for graduate research would be like (on a pure community-agreed evidence level) like hiring a holocaust denier to teach history. You're a smart guy, Jeremy, read Francis Collins.

Earlier someone wondered where the questioning of faith is.

I can count at least two folks who flung apostasy out and another who calls any profs who teach the other side as "morally compromised." Yes, Goldstein, who has been shouting increasingly inwardly and loudly accused these Adventist academics of "lying."

Unfortunately all do this sans evidence other than the dubious claim that Adventism's raison d'être will collapse if a professor believes, in the context of biology research, that evolution is useful.

Judging by their bullying rhetoric (purge, fire, apostasy, liars) it's easy to see why Pacific Union President Ricardo Graham called this a witch hunt. (On this irrelevant site.)

At some level the sloping logic of this crowd slips into a attack on most of the church.

Of course, evolution is just their apostasy for this season.

My favorite quote from this crowd was one by a women ripping into Adventist education on the .net site. After I suggested reading a book by an evolutionary scientist that affirms belief in God, I received this from her:

"In the study of language and literature, from what fountains are the youth taught to drink?–From the wells of paganism; from springs fed by the corruptions of ancient heathendom.”

Language and literature. . .from the wells of paganism. Well, that narrows the academic options doesn't it?

If I may paraphrase the great Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the biology profs. . .then they came for the literature profs. . .who's next?

And all this based on their own ignorance (and distrust) of the careful (and never perfect ways) that tens of thousands of salt of the earth (non-letter circulating) Adventists daily integrate faith and reason. This, in part, because of the training they received by dedicated professors at Adventist schools.

* This comment originally included references to GYC which has nothing to do with this conversation.

Alex, it's my integration of faith and reason which shows me why evolution and adventism are incompatable. The total lack of reason is on the side of folks, like you, who think that they can be Adventist while believing in a teaching that in every single possible way denies the foundation of all that we believe. Most thinking Adventists find that position wrong.

I'd venture that, with the exception of the far left-wing fringe of the church--which Sprectrum represents (as revealed in this post, written by Spectrum editors)--the vast majority of educated, thinking, and informed SDA literati reject evolution on many grounds, the most basic being its obvious incompability with the Scriptures.

It's hilarious that you throw out the carnard that you are the ones who are applying reason to your faith, while we poor medieval intellectual barbarians who reject evolution are still trapped in some pre-rational state.

Cliff

P.S. Just curious? Is there any trend or fad that you folks on the extreme left don't instantly grab onto and want to somehow find a way to incorporate into our message? Any--at all?

Charles Scriven

Do it our way or...get out, take a new job, admit you're not REALLY Adventist!

Some comments communicate this message. I didn't see one such comment, however, (cursory run-through it was--apologies if I missed something)where any one making this point WENT BACK TO THE BIBLE and attempted serious analysis. The stated, or implied, reasons for this idea reflect INSTITUTIONALISM, or the doctrine that official positions trump all others.

Now a question: who can cite examples anywhere--from the Bible, from the early or medieval church, from the Reformers--that show Genesis 1 being read as a statement that is REALLY about dates, times, and sequences? The Psalms and the book of Revelation, for example, set for very strong doctrines of creation, but they don't invoke details of Genesis 1 as if THESE were the point.

Evolutionary theory is a challenge to Christian conviction. But if our arsenal is obscurantist, and rests on ignorance, how can we, over the long run, meet the challenge?

(I suspect, by the way, that my question will show our modern preoccupations--with numbers, with overliteralism--to be...well, to be a silly digression. But I'm not completely certain. Sean Pitman, Cliff Goldstein, help us out!)

A wall of EGW!. How you going to get around that?

When I attended PUC, among others, there were two professors. One who had just gotten his doctorate and another was still working on his. The newly minted one had some real issues with EGW. He had a lot of anger about her, ridiculed her, misrepresented her, went on a rampage in the classroom about her.

The other fellow, while perhaps soft on EGW, demonstrated cognizance of the context in which he was teaching. No rampages, no diatribes, just a couple of subtle remarks for the cognoscente.

I was paying my own way through school. I was buying a product, Christian education. I expected to get what I was paying for, not diatribes against that which I held, at the time, as sacred. I still would not appreciate that approach. No need for it.

What possible reason would there be to attend a Christian college or university if the science faculty rejects the testimony of the Bible? Really, teachers like that would be worse than those who were indifferent to Scripture.

If Adventist scientists, based on their own study, find the Biblical narrative unbelievable, they can explain why in a dispassionate manner, which is what they may have been doing.

What is actually going on at La Sierra, in the science classrooms? I've heard acusations. I'd like to better understand what the issues are on the scientific end of things.

I do know that the Creator/creation thread runs through the entire cloth of Scripture. Perhaps someone can explain, briefly, how it is possible to reject the Creation account, which is found throughout Scripture, and still believe in the Atonement. The consummation of the Biblical narrative is a new creation. If the original creation is a fable, how can the future one be true?

Also, Alex, I found your reference to Neimoller rather amusing, too.

There's a world of difference between people who are members of a voluntary organization, like the church--which no one is forced to be in--and folks who are under the compulsive power of the state, which they have no real choice in. To conflate the two is, par for the course, more far left wing perfidy, typical of what one expects from the Spectrum blog.

Imagine the scandal--we narrow-minded bigots are just like Nazis in expressing our concern that those who are paid to teach in our schools actually teach what we believe, and not promote views that utterly undermine it!

Quoting Neimoller in THIS context . . Give it a break, Alex, will ya?

Chuck,

Thank you for your comments/observations about the lack of any appeal to the Bible in this "debate." Some of the arguments here are degenerating into name-calling, appeals to institutional/charismatic authority, or fear-mongering (if this is considered, everything we believe is undermined).

The issue here, as you point out, is our interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.

I believe a careful study of these passages (in their original language, in comparison with other texts of its time, etc.) will show that these passages are best understood as belonging to the "poetic" genre.

Affirming a non-literal read of these passages does not entail saying that we have relegated these texts to say "nothing." They are pregnant with meaning and affirm, against other creation accounts of its time (Babylonian, Sumerian, etc.), that God is the creator of everything that exists (not the sun, moon, stars, animals, or humans).

This broad point that Genesis 1 and 2 makes. Looking to these passages for an exact account of "creation" (as a "history" manual) is like looking at a phone book for recipe for a meal!

At Southern the leadership sided with the wolves in order for the wolves to keep holy their faulty exigesis of both soteriology and eschatlology. So the leadership threw out the academic with their Pauline truth--and wonders of wonders the institution flourished!

Now the academics are challenging John's visions " Thou art worthy, O Lord to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4: 11 The same wolves are at the door again. This time the leadership is saying: "You fooled us once, but not again!" So again the leadership will choose error over truth. "Yet the truth alone is strong; Through her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong!"

The Great I AM is being rejected again. (This time within the academy.) One who brought forth water from a rock, One who feed thousands daily with the bread of heaven, One who parted the Red Sea, The One who walked on water, The One who stilled the waves, The One who called forth the dead, The One who made the deaf hear, the blind see, the lame walk, the unclean clean, who turned water into wine, and withstood the powers of the devil and defied the gates of Hell. The One who sits on the right hand of the Father is being set aside in favor of a roll of the dice by nature.

Who needs the Father when you "have" "Mother Nature"? With the credibility of the leadership gone--the end of this saga is not pretty. Just a high rent college playing catch-up with the in crowd. Of course, there is always Saturday Night Football. "Go Sundowners! Go!. Tom

In reference to my previous comment, this website was sent to me by a friend that is a PK (pastor's kid), a practicing scientist/biologist, and a committed member of the Adventist church:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

You can read his thoughts on the issue of the relationship between science and religion here:

http://greatbooks.adventhope.org/2008/08/this-past-week-our-group-discus...

I want to "second" what Steve Terry has said.

There's really no need to twice refer to Mr. Asscherick as a college drop-out, or to accuse him, just on the basis of his open letter as being "disdainful" of SDA higher education. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But I don't see the evidence for that yet.

One of the off-putting things about SDA evangelism is its basic unwillingness to be challenged. One hopes that the university community doesn't replicate this posture.

Maybe there's even an opportunity here for representatives of both sides to pow-wow a bit, try to understand each other's perspectives. (Mindful of course that we should avoid any sort of show trial reminescent of Glavier View, etc).

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Ex 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

2Ki 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

2Ch 2:12 Huram said moreover, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, that made heaven and earth, who hath given to David the king a wise son, endued with prudence and understanding, that might build an house for the LORD, and an house for his kingdom.

Ne 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Ps 115:15 Ye are blessed of the LORD which made heaven and earth.

Ps 121:2 My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.

Ps 124:8 Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.

Ps 134:3 The LORD that made heaven and earth bless thee out of Zion.

Ps 146:6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:

Isa 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

Jer 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

Jer 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Ac 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Ac 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Ac 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Re 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Clifford has a right to his views.

It is extremely foolish of the SDA church to have someone with such narrow and damaging views writing regular op pieces for the Review, and controlling the content of the SS lesson.

What is needed in those positions is someone who can moderate, not polarize, the discussions of these significant issues.

Cliff - how does it feel to have someone suggest your ideas make you unsuited for your job?

/Bevin

To all
Listening to the vitriol that is evident in the comments on this particular thread as well as several others on this site, makes me even more happy with my decision to have left the SDA church, despite my SDA PK and third generation roots. While other threads have made me reconsider and feel that some in the church do get the bigger picture--then to come across this thread and seeing the accusations of deception, lying, not believing the "correct" interpretations and thus being unfit to teach anything again confirms for me personally, that it is time for me to move on.

To attempt to use the Bible as a science text or even as a totally accurate history text, is a gross misuse of the prose and stories in the Bible. It needs to be viewed as the story told from the perspective of fellow humans about God and God's interactions with them, often using great poetic license and prose. I believe it was designed to be passed on as a story that inspires others to allow this same God into their lives--to change them and allow them to demonstrate the same love to fellow humans that He demonstrated especially with the gift and life of His Son.

It appears to be that the big picture of what God wants to do in our lives is totally missed and instead we get into the typical human behavior of trying to "Prove" we are right and our view is the correct one and all others are wrong. That becomes much more important than demonstrating how Christ deals with us, and how we should deal with others. Read the story in the bible of how God and then Christ more specifically dealt with fellow humans--then live it with the help of the Holy Spirit--that should be the focus of our lives--to bring healing to a dying world.

"Lord make me an instrument of your Peace" should be our prayer and desire.

Thank you for bringing attention to this issue! It is a very important topic that needs to be discussed.

A couple noteworthy things that jumped out at me:

1. It seems that just about every time you referred to David Asscherick, you noted that he was a "college drop out." This is a not-so-subtle ad hominem dig at his lack of education, implying that he is not qualified to speak on this subject.

2. I also wonder about the merits of referring to this whole controversy as a "witch hunt." This is a highly-emotionally-charged phrase that inherently raises the ire of many who read the article without considering the facts themselves. And such hardly seems like objective reporting.

3. Interesting how you would quote Loughborough at the end. It must be a favorite for many within the more "liberal" community. His sentiments were fairly common in the early history of our church among many of the leaders. It is no secret that many within the movement did not want to organize either - James White included. But, though Adventists have no "creed," most, if not all, of the early pioneers understood the merits of coming up with a statement of beliefs that spelled out what, exactly, Adventists believe. So, for example, a person could not believe in the sanctity of Sunday-worship and still call themselves a Seventh-day Adventist. The two are inherently contradictory.

The same is true of our belief in creation. No one is going on a witch hunt to drive people out. But we're just wondering why anyone would want to remain in a church that fundamentally believes (with good scientific reason, I might add) in a literal six day creation.

I am an _Advent_ist. I really do believe that Jesus will return, based on the scriptures. Jesus Himself said that he would rise and return. Since he came through on the first event, I believe He will perform the second one as well. He appears to me to be dependable. I have faith.

However, I do not take all the prophecies about the second coming to be _literal_ descriptions about the physical nature of second coming.

-- I don't believe the earth is built pillars that shake
-- I don't believe the sky is a fixed hard canopy that can be rolled up like a scroll
-- I don't believe the sun rolls across that canopy and that the stars are fixed to it--which, when the canopy rolls back, is why the stars are shaken and fall. (And relatedly, I believe that the early SDA "Falling of the stars" was actually the predictable Leonid meteor shower. EEK!)

There are also things I can't explain but I don't get shook up about. I don't understand yet how "every eye will see him" on a round earth. I don't understand how Jesus will enter the atmosphere without a heat shield, unless he's going really slow. We have to assume that Jesus and the angels are impervious to heat and cold, and don't use oxygen--or can hold their breath longer than we can. (Sorry I'm having fun. I'm not asking you to explain it--I'm just saying I don't get it...or feel a need to. And please no explanations from your favorite Star Trek episode! )

Thus, for the assurance of the end of all things but the Kingdom, I am not limited to the best scientific descriptions of the Old Testament or NT apocalyptic.

Yet I still believe. Imagine that.

So...is it possible that certain people--and I'm not insisting all of us--could look at First Things as some look at Last Things? Could a person believe that early Genesis is highly symbolic based on ancient cosmology, just as Revelation is? Could a person look at origins that way, just as some look at destiny that way?

Our constructs are not binary, as if a literal understanding leads to faith, and a nuanced one-- based on the kind of literature we're reading-- leads to infidelity. It's just not how all humans put knowledge and faith together. And Adventism's best arguments aren't always framed in a literal way.

I am very sympathetic with the conservative concern: One of my fears, working on a college campus (in the church, not the college itself), is that we are responsible to give our students a coherent way to believe, but we are not always sensitive to the danger of pulling the rug out from under them. Where I am at age 54 is not where the typical student is at age 18. I have to try to think about where they are and help them take manageable steps toward more knowledge, yet not at the expense of faith. It's more difficult than it sounds. I only teach one religion class, and not every quarter, but I am sympathetic to any biologist who faces these issues day after day in many classes, as well as psychologists or physicists who teach regularly. It would be immensely difficult to teach those subjects only out of Genesis and still have students who can converse in the professional world. And when the data differs or seems to differ?... (I tend to think that Genesis is silent about lots of things too.)

So my "argument" here is for "us" not to polarize...not too assume to much about the fidelity of others...not to assume too much about the intellectual honesty or abilities of others. It doesn't take too much Bible reading to find that even good people have incomplete information and disagree from time to time.

-- Tim

Shawn wrote No one is going on a witch hunt to drive people out.

Jody wrote Wonderful! If the professors don't like the heat, go to a public college/university. Azusa Pacific and Biola require their Christian professors to be Christian. What a strange idea to Spectrumites -- requiring Adventist professors to be Adventist. Employment is a choice, not a right. Move on profs ;)

Cliff wrote And what? People are surprised that some folks are now denying that evolution is promoted there? Please! Anyone so morally compromised that he or she would take a pay check while teaching evolution at an SDA school isn't going to have a qualm lying about it, either. So why the surprise? and has, in recent years, called for purging faculty of anyone who doesn't believe in recent creation

There is too much history within the SDA denomination and others to think that this is not an attempt to drive out people who don't conform to the attacker's ideas of what a SDA should be.

"But hey, if the SDA Church wants to make public policy such that its own fundamental doctrinal positions are really nothing more than 28 nice suggestions, that's fine."

The history of the 27 (now 28) fundamentals is interesting.

They weren't in existence when I joined the SDA church circa 1978.

Originally they were written as a personal opinion, and distributed as "most SDA believe all of these, all SDA believe most of these".

Next thing you know, they have transformed into something all SDA are supposed to believe all of.

Thereby shutting down official paths for debate about the dubious ones.

Thereby setting the church up for being locked into its past, rather than working towards a relevant and truely defensible set of beliefs.

This absolutism is a big step towards the collapse of the the current structure of the SDA church.

/Bevin

Hi Chuck Scriven,

Greetings from my father, Tui Pitman.

You write:

"Now a question: who can cite examples anywhere--from the Bible, from the early or medieval church, from the Reformers--that show Genesis 1 being read as a statement that is REALLY about dates, times, and sequences? The Psalms and the book of Revelation, for example, set for very strong doctrines of creation, but they don't invoke details of Genesis 1 as if THESE were the point."

As a SDA pastor, you have to know the answer to this question. Throughout the Bible the biblical authors reference Genesis in a very literal manner. Even Jesus clearly believed the literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

But, beyond this, consider comments of Professor James Barr, Religion Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

"I am sympathetic to any biologist who faces these issues day after day in many classes, as well as psychologists or physicists who teach regularly. It would be immensely difficult to teach those subjects only out of Genesis and still have students who can converse in the professional world. And when the data differs or seems to differ?...

Ah, Tim, and there's the true difficulty. Not all students study business or the humanities, and all should have some science courses. What is the anwer for these teachers? Has anyone suggested how they should approach their students truthfully, while upholding a literal Creation that has been suggested? Unless
someone or administration can support these teachers, what is being offered to them? Even if they chose to walk away (which is not a good option for both parties) that would leave the Adventist
schools nothing but a shell with no science disciplines offered.

If an 18-yr. old student has been so protected from the facts of life, he is far too immature for college life away from his sheltered environment. For those few students, the six-week "wonder" Bible course offered in Oregon should do just fine.

Elalne,

You're mistaken you know. There are quite a number of very well trained highly qualified scientists, within and without, the SDA Church who do not believe in Darwinian-style evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of life on this planet. While this certainly is a minority position, there are plenty who hold this position who would love to teach at a university that openly supports the stated SDA fundamental position on origins.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean, no doubt you are correct; just as there are many more scientists who would be most uncomfortable being told what to teach. Most teachers are fierce adherents of academic freedom and for an administration to dictate what is being taught would limit the large majority of prospective science teachers. However, as long as an adequate supply of SDA indoctrinated teachers are available, that shouldn't be a problem. Prospective students could be a problem, however.

However, there could be a problem of students who wish to get a knowledge of the spectrum of scientific discoveries without a teacher's subjective view. In fact, a good teacher should be able to teach the facts without ever disclosing his own perceptions. This is the ideal position for an excellent teacher. I have taken quite a few studies in early Christianity without ever knowing the professors own personal beliefs. It is considered unprofessional for a teacher to do so, although admittedly, there are some who do.

i attended an adventist college and in my last year took a biology class in which learning about and discussing evolutionary theory was the entire point of the class. [no, this was not at la sierra. ] for many students it was an incredibly troubling experience to grapple with this issue. but any kid growing up in the adventist church will eventually have to confront evolution. wouldn't the more conservative folks on this blog rather that this questioning happened within the 'safe' environment an adventist college? even if the approach in the class edged toward teaching evolution as a viable theory, this should be welcomed. the tent should be big.

unfortunately, in fact the tent is not big, and it never really has been, especially with people standing at the doors calling for purges. truly saddening. thankfully, i went to a large state school for my phd and teach in an excellent liberal arts institution where academic freedom is not a joke. i'm truly sorry for my colleagues at adventist institutions who face the developing lynch mob.

Please teach sound evolution theory (theory !! - not a fact !!) on SDA schools so we in the times to come have the possibility to critically and with standard and culture dscuss and evaluate it - as a theory also necessary for teaching, training and research at LLU and in operating clinics from some missionary outposts up to the general Hospitals, all obliged to WHO standards, since unfortunately SDA are not in the situation of Jehovahs Witnesses.

Is there nobody aware of the battles between the early Enlightement and backlashing Romanticism, the Idealism and Positivism in western Science and Medicine, the Positivism up to now being the winner ?

In any case of medical malpractice, as a defendant or the expert called by the court (yes, I am expert affirmed by oath and certification) I have to argue in a framework (framework !) for thinking of a Science with evolution having its indispensible place.

When I once was up to teach in nursing school and in bedside
teaching of trainees and clinical pastoral training for Protestant seminarists I before also revised the theories of science and epistemology and at last thoroughly Sir Charles Popper. And I never denied my Biblical bachkground, I again and again stressed the "Great Controversy" to be observed on the bedside and in the theory - that made my quality a as teacher of special reputation.

I believe in Creation; Sabbath theology for me is a matter for a long time. I never would join the Geoscience Institute.

gerhard

Once again, the likes of David, Sean and Cliff have managed to deflect us from our true vocation of loving God with our total beings and our neighbors as ourselves to nourishing their never ending needs to be the center of attention no matter what the cost.

Will we never, ever learn to do our own work and leave the rest to God? Will we never, ever learn to formulate our own agendas in light of what we believe God is asking us to do and stick with them?

There is a huge world out there with millions of people who need what we can share. Why, then, should we allow ourselves to be drawn off course by people who will abandon their current cause and take up another as soon as this one no longer keeps them front and center?

David, Sean and Cliff and their ilk have once again detoured us. Once again they have us on the run and they know it. Once again they have tasted blood in the water and they are jawing for more and more and more and more.

The shame is ours, not theirs.

Dave

Hansen wrote:
--
If the Creation/flood account is unreliable, where does it stop?
--
I think so much of this really does come down to a fundamentalist vs. progressive (modern) viewpoint of interpretation. Take Hansen's statement above.From the same flood story is this a reliable statement about God? (Gen 6:6-7 KJV) "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

So God made a huge mistake making man, the omniscient God screwed up. On top of that He got mad at everything.

I am sure Hansen would try and reinterpret this verse in some way that God did not really repent {verb (used without object)1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act. 2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.}

Of course if he tries to reinterpret it perhaps some literalist will declare how can we trust anything in the Bible if you can't accept the plain meaning, where does it stop?

Well what we have is the fundamentalist literalists claiming the Adventist church is theirs, has always been theirs and the rest of you need to clear out. They will probably be successful unless the rest of us stand up to them, because they won't ever change their interpretation, that is not what fundamentalists do. They dig in their heels and reject any kind of modern thought. One or the other side will have to go as the tension will surely cause a break. It has been coming for years, my guess is that the breaking point is near.

What is somewhat funny is that the breaking point is church authority over teaching a necessary part of science. After the Faith and Science conferences which had presentations on many different sides until the last conference which was stacked with administrators rather then science and theology professionals. And strangely it was that conference which wrote up the documents which set forth the 6 day literal creation which is now the "official" Adventist position. We certainly can't say we did not see this coming.

Ron

Dave:

You certainly brought us back to the centrality of the Cross.

Without a perfect creation, there would be no "fall". Without a "fall" there would be no need for a rescue mission. Without a "fall" There would be no need for the "Man Who is God". The issue is simply: what degrees of freedom did God design within His creation? With dominion usurped by Lucifer, what degrees of freedom did God allow His arch enemy? Finally, how old was the clay that God used to form Adam? Was the calcium in Adam's bones new or old? Certainly the solar system existed, including the earth, long before the first day of creation!

The problem Adventism faces is that it holds to doctrine unsupported by Scripture or serious students of Scripture outside of the "fold". This dilemma leads to doubt in other facets of Fundamental Beliefs. It is now 164 years and 142 days since the Great Disappointment. The Church insists on making its Gospel fit its eschatology. It is about to lose both. Pugnaciousness is the last resort of debate losers. The SDA Church put its mark in the sand on 1844 and were blown away. It now faces the irrelevance of the Churchmen of Darwin's day.

On the one day that counted, only Jesus' mother, and John stood at the foot of the Cross in belief. Why should the last days be any different? With the given name of Thomas, I am glad Paul has shown me the prints in the hands and feet and the riven side. "I know in whom I have believed, and I am persuaded!"

Adventist higher education lost its soul decades ago--we are now seeing it crumble into decay. And its apologists are very very angry. Tom

Thank you for this article. It seems that many of the lasierrauniversity.net comments have found a new home here as well. I believe that “witch-hunt” is an appropriate term for what took place in this process. There was absolutely no interest demonstrated in allowing La Sierra University to defend its position or even clear up several misconceptions. Every response was ripped apart line by line and always was examined through a lens of assumption that La Sierra University promotes evolution as complete fact and that professors encourage students to become atheists. I observed as even several individuals identifying themselves as students of La Sierra University had their comments edited or even deleted entirely by the site moderator for no good reason that I could find. Only two sides were allowed on this issue, with both sides defined by only one of the sides. Anyone disagreeing with even just the way in which the issue was being approached was quickly labeled as an atheist, or unable to be a “real Seventh-day Adventist.” This quickly alienated those who agreed the issue itself needed closer examination but felt uncomfortable about the method of bringing attention to it. One individual even commented that Jesus Himself could comment on the site that there is a better way to conduct ourselves without likely being soon labeled as an atheist. Another individual commented that they saw only two possible sides identified in the debate but didn’t see God’s side being properly represented. This was all an attempt to play on the fears of those within the church regarding our youth and an attempt to portray a David (Asscherick) vs. Goliath (La Sierra) picture to Adventists everywhere. It seemed to me that winning was more important than finding the truth about what is being taught in the classroom.

The way in which we conduct ourselves when these issues come up is a greater threat to our church than the issues themselves. I wonder what this has all taught our students everywhere about our church. Are they better equipped to spread the gospel after observing it? Perhaps we need not only fundamental beliefs by which to stand on but also fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves as a church.

It seems that many are more concerned with our church splitting and disagreeing than finding and defending what is true and right! You are right. This whole disagreement among us is ridiculous, but only because the teaching of evolution within our church is ridiculous! If you want to learn about evolution then go somewhere else.
It boggles my mind that so many in our church are trying so desperately to follow in the ways of the world. You have forgotten that the founders of this church studied the Bible more thoroughly than anyone before them and found its words to be true and unshakable. Too many of you have settled for being spoon fed rather than studying for yourselves and finding out for yourselves what the Bible says! And if you are not interested in what the Bible has to say (it has no room for evolution), then you do not belong in the SDA church. God loves you so infinitely and it breaks His heart to see you deny Him this way. If you want to be like the world then go be like the world. The purpose of the Bible is not to pick some here and choose some there and then throw the rest away. Believe the whole Bible or none of it at all. Those of you who have used cruel and hateful words towards those who are defending God, and those of you who are, in essence, denying His very existence-I am sincerely and truly praying for your salvation.

To me, the issue is about power in the guise of religious purity. It never ceases to amaze me that those who disparage higher education and the critical thinking skills that (should) come with it, are the first to embrace authoritarianism. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. Then again, perhaps I should not be so surprised. Authoritarianism owes its life to ignorance, especially the ignorance of its followers. It even celebrates ignorance as demonstrated in Mr. Pitman's comment that Einstein and Gates dropped out of college. As if, in order to be successful, the less education is better.

I can think of few things as Christless and anti-Christian as authoritarianism. If I remember my Greek correctly, "anti" has its primary meaning in the idea of "standing in place of" in addition to being "against" something. Those who engage in authoritarian behavior and attitudes within the church fit both definitions of the word.

And the record, Einstein graduated from Polytechnic in Zurich in 1900. Gates did drop out of Harvard after two years but only with the blessings of his (highly educated) parents who saw the potential in what he was proposing.

jerrypine

I agree with you on authoritarianism. But can you name any institution that depends more on authoritarianism that American Fundamentalism, including the SDA Church and internationally the Roman Catholic Church?

Or for that matter the science community on origins?

By the by, I don't think Rush Limbaugh graduated from college either.

Ever since Joe McCarthy: "My Way or the Highway" was been the active mantra in politics and religion. THE LOUD MOUTH SEEMS TO CARRY THE DAY.

Tom

Bevin--

Just curious . . .? You said I had called for the purging of anyone who didn't believe in a recent creation. Was wondering where that statment is? I don't seem to recall having ever made it, or anything like that. I assume, though, that you have the reference. Might be nice sharing it with everyone, instead of just making claims about what I have, supposedly, said without backing it up.

Thanks

Cliff

Friends,
My Dad had a saying that has proved true time and time again.
"Where there is much heat generated there isn't much light produced!!"
This seems to fit this current situation!!
As David and Tom have observed very wisely, this controversy doesn't serve the greater cause we all hopefully are engaged in and that is to share a wonderful picture of a loving, trustworthy God (Creator) who has the ability to heal the damage done to this world and all its inhabitants by sin run "wild". That needs to be our focus in these last days. I hope to someday sit with God and have Him answer some of these questions that it is impossible to completely answer now.
As one who has actually visited the Galapagos Islands and spent months there studying what is actually there I can say I believe in creation but also believe that our students need to be taught "HOW to think" and examine all sides of the issues, not "What to think"!! If we teach them the process and "WHY" we believe what we believe they will come up with the right conclusions!!
"Not by might nor by POWER but by My Spirit" is how God works!!
I do take some comfort in Riccardo G. and Jan P. measured responses and hope they will not go on a "witch hunt".
The tone and methods used in this "discussion" speaks volumes to me about what the real issues may be!
I encourage all of us to keep focused on the real objective of sharing Christ with this world!!!
Thanks
Fred

Hi Tom,

Limbaugh too? It would seem that malignant narcissism is comorbid with authoritarianism. :-)

Actually, I can think of one faith group that is quite a bit more authoritarian than Adventists or the RC church. The more conservative branch of the Pentecostal church exercises near complete control over its members. Technically not fundamentalist, its pastors act more like priest and prophet than pastor. They also hold a nontraditional view of the Trinity as well, but that is a bit off topic. In comparison to Adventists, they are a very homogeneous group in terms of authority. I say Adventists are not homogeneous in light of the fact that an administration in an authoritarian conference like Michigan (which does not value seminary trained individuals and recruits heavily from the Black Hills) would not be tolerated here in southern CA.

Fred,
And what IS that word that we are supposed to be sharing? Everyone keeps saying "this is ridiculous" and "we shouldn't be fighting". Well, if no one will say anything, then the Word of God that we are supposed to be sharing like you say will be warped into an unrecognizable shadow of what God meant it to be. Know the Word you wish to share. And don't just share it-defend it!

This is more evidence that 'Adventist higher education' is an oxymoron. After sixteen years of Adventist education, including four at Southern, I am finally at an excellent Research 1 state university working on my PhD. It is a breath of fresh air to be able to pursue truth, beauty and ways of making the world a better place in an intellectually free and stimulating environment.

I went to Southern because of the considerable financial hegemony of my parents and seventeen years of religious indoctrination, but if I had it to do over again I would fight tooth and nail to go to a good university. I still frequently wonder how much further along I would be now if I had gone to a real university for undergrad. (There are a handful of excellent professors at Southern, but they are not enough to compensate for the overarching emphasis on indoctrination and orthodoxy and lack of attention to genuine academic rigor.)

I hope that young Adventists will consider these issues of intellectual freedom and honesty - or lack thereof - when deciding where to go for an undergraduate education. Or, if they happen to be looking for indoctrination rather than education, I imagine that the Adventist colleges are still the best in the business.

Cliff. Here is one such instance. Notice the last quoted sentence. What do YOU think it means to tell the church leadership that they have the OBLIGATION to enforce the parameters?

If you didn't intend it to be aimed at the evolutionists, then why did you include them along side atheists and satanists?

Adventist Review, Jul 26 2001
The Pythagoras Factor - Clifford Goldstein

...

Though Satanists and atheists are easy ones, what about someone who doesn’t accept a literal six-day Creation? Or who teaches that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.
as opposed to the sixth? Should we have to allow someone on a theology faculty who accepts only 24 of the 27 fundamentals? Or maybe only 16 or 12 or 3? Where’s the cutoff point, because clearly there must be one somewhere (after all,
one of the fundamentals deals with belief in God Himself)?

...

By defining the parameters of its faith, the church automatically excludes what doesn’t fit within them. To proclaim Jesus as Messiah is, by default, to place outside our parameters all stances that reject Jesus as the Messiah. To believe that God created the world in six literal 24-hour days means to reject all contradictory views (such as theistic evolution and so forth).

...

Our leaders and administrators not only must define the
parameters of our faith; they have the right—even the obligation—to enforce them.

Jul 24 2003
Seventh Day Darwinians

"Evolution? Please! Nazism’s a snugger fit."

"...some among us have now
accepted theistic evolution—the idea that God used the
process of evolution, over millions of years, to create
humanity. These folks, though, don’t worship the God of the Bible"

"And to those teaching in our schools who believe in evolution
and yet take a paycheck from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I say: If you honestly reject a literal six-day creation in favor of theistic macroevolution, fine; now turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you
won’t have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities of language."

This MONTH you wrote...

Dinosaurs: Perspectives by Goldstein and Taylor
Posted May 18th, 2009

http://www.atoday.com/dinosaurs-perspectives-goldstein-and-taylor

"Folks among us who believe in the current typical model of evolution (millions of years, natural selection, random mutation, ascent from lower to higher life forms, the whole spiel)

don't belong in the SDA church. Period

. And, please, don't get me started on the moral obtuseness (to put it kindly) of those who, believing in evolution, stand in our pulpits or in our classrooms. (We are, indeed, a deeply fallen race.) "

More of Cliff's Review columns:

"Seventh-day Darwinians

Rarely has there been a belief so ridiculous or contrary to the Scriptures that, once it becomes popular, some Christians haven't attempted to incorporate into the faith. In its long and often crude lust for cultural and intellectual correctness, the church has become what Jacques Ellul called "an empty bottle that the successive cultures fill with all kinds of things." Roman paganism, Platonism, Marxism, even Nazism have all had baptized aficionados struggling to cram these "things" into the bottle, now so warped and piecemeal it resembles a kaleidoscope image inspired by someone needing Prozac."

Of all the bizarre mismatches, though, none's worse than the attempt to harmonize evolution with Christianity. Evolution? Please! Nazism's a snugger fit.

And in THIS EXCHANGE you wrote

"Anyone so morally compromised that he or she would take a pay check while teaching evolution at an SDA school isn't going to have a qualm lying about it, either."

Let's see. You believe the church should employ academics who lie about what they teach?

/Bevin

Cliff deserves to "be nailed" and explain his statements that he so conveniently "forgets."

And here you have in all its glory the reason why the SDA church will never change the world for God. Total irrelevance. Nothing in this conversation means a hill of beans to those suffering physically and spiritually, and in need of a saviour. Nothing. It's enough to make me cry. Thankfully, God doesn't rely only on the SDA denomination to do His work. But it is such a shame that so much agony is spent on such a topic. It's all about Faith--believing in/accepting that which can't be explained. Both evolution and creationism require it. The word "university" implies there is curiosity, doubt, questioning going on--in a universal kind of way. If the SDA church is going to use this name for its institutions of higher learning, then it must allow for anything and everything to be challenged within those walls. If not, then what they are is Bible Colleges. And that would be okay too. Just don't get so bent out of shape when a university decides to be all--I don't know, university-like? God is so much bigger than this conversation would lead us to believe He is.

Bevin--

Well, that's all fine, brother; I did say all those things --and, what's more, I stand by them, too. I'm still, though, looking for the quote in which I say that we need to purge any faculty who don't believe in a young earth creation. Isn't that what you said I have said? None of the things you have quoted above have me saying that, do they?

Cliff

Hi there ...

Bevin has made the observation that the 27 Fundamental Beliefs were not around when he joined the church in 1978.

I beg to differ and suggest that the statement is not correct. I have a Certificate of Baptism dated 15th December 1962 within which is listed in point form - and yes there are 27 of them - a "Summary of Fundamental Beliefs".

Whilst these may not be expressed identically to the 27/28 Fundamental Beliefs described in current publications they do describe those beliefs the church held and holds as valid and sacred.

Item 1 describes "The true and living God, the first person of the Godhead, is our heavenly Father, and He by His Son, Christ Jesus, created all things." Relevant supporting Scriptural references are then listed.

Items 14 states, "The seventh day of the week is the eternal sign of Christ's power as Creator and Redeemer, and is therefore the Lord's day, or Christian Sabbath, consituting the seal of the living God ... " Scriptural references are listed.

Further, baptisimal candidates were asked publicly and expected to agree and affirm publicly,their baptisimal vows - and there are 11 on this certificate.

Printed on my certificate, amongst others are these:
"Do you believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian (item 5)
"Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by God's grace, to order your life in harmony with these prinicples" (item 7)?

Now my certificate is not unique. I would suggest that there are hundreds if not thousands of members, or one time members who received the same certificate, differing only with the name of the recipient, the officiating minister, the date, and the church and Conference into which the individual was received into membership.

So ... the 27 Fundamentals have been around for quite some time, and even before my certificate was issued !

HW,
I went to Southern and my experience was quite different from yours. I was able to do groundbreaking research that had never been done on rattlesnake venome. I was accepted early to 2 post graduate schools and had no problems keeping up once I moved on. In the meantime, while I was there I took some work at a local University by my home during the summer, at no time did I have problems keeping up. Interestingly, the professor that taught me at this public univerisity Chemistry was an avid creationist and could not voice it from the platform as the setting would not allow it (he was also brilliant--designed the voltic cells for the space shuttle).

I feel this strongly: you will get what you are looking for from an institution and also the caliber of the learning many times will come if the student has some motivation though his surroundings may not be as conducive. Everyone here is saying that students can handle things at this age and shouldn't be coddled--maybe they are wrong. Obviously, you had a problem with not having the higher availability of the science curriculums of bigger institutions. I did have to design and do the research on my own with someone saying in the background with very little help that I was doing a good job--after the fact we arranged for some science credit for it. I did it though and was proud of it and wasn't coddled a bit.

I am sorry that you had this experience. If you are as smart as you imply, I am sure that it will set you back very little and will serve as motivation--likely springing you on to further achievement. I do not think that you would have been happy with Southern's education though if it had been as liberal as a public university's because it just does not have the resources to provide the high end research and classes that other undergrad programs have. I'm sure that if it were just the lack of education and suppression of the facts of evolution, it just takes a little time on the internet and library to catch up on that as well as a few books.

This is for the rest of you if you are still here. . . . People say that university students are old enough that it doesn't matter what the professors teach. The expressed problems by HW with Southern illustrate that they are not or HW would not have had a problem with it. He would have been able to pick up the computer or a few books, do a web search and bamb--he would have had no problem with developing his own world view earlier. But, as he laments so pointedly, he has been placed at a major disadvantage by his parents putting him through Southern instead of a more progressive school like LSU or maybe a higher end public university where he could have formed this world view earlier.

I do believe schools and teachers teach and mold students. They are not just providers of information. As such this is vital to our youth and families. We all want to focus on sharing Christ but I want to come home and see my family saying with Christ. Part of that is having Godly teachers. Please put up with some discussion and pleading in our church for Godly teachers that do promote the Gospel from whatever subject they are teaching. I just cannot see that Gospel and survival of the fittest can be discussed together--that is not love.

"Most thinking Adventists find that position wrong."

Cliff, should we presume that you have taken a survey of the "thinking" and "unthinking" Adventists on this subject? Or is it another position you hope is true? How do you define "thinking" and "unthinking"? It is such unsourced positions that lessen every other statement you so casually make.

Roger Dudley and Monte Sahlin have made a number of surveys of SDAs. Is this the source of your statement?

Science cannot PROVE Evolutionism or Creationism. The best that science can do is disprove an hypothesis.

Anyone who says there is "evidence for" either side is seriously deluded.

Neither Naturalism/evolutionism nor creationism are hypotheses. They are the philosophies within which science can be and is done. As such they are both beyond the scope of science. Rather they provide the basis for science and the basis for interpreting science.

The problems between evolutionism and creationism have nothing to do with science, but rather, everything to do with which paradigm/worldview/philosophy you choose to do your science within and which you choose to interpret your science within.

It is NOT science vs. religion. It is religious philosophy vs. religious philosophy. Contrary to common thought a religion does not need to have anything to do with the supernatural. In fact, the very denial of the supernatural is a religion in itself.

From Wikipedia: religion:
"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes, principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural.

From Dictionary.com. Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Naturalism (The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be--Sagan) is something one MUST believe in without any evidence. It is believed devotedly, conscientiously and defended to the death!

Allen Roy
Dino Hunter
Bozeman, MT

Hi David Larson,

Nice to hear from you. However, if you think that any of us have raised this particular concern because of some twisted need to get attention, trust me, there are far better ways I can think of to get attention that are far less stressful and cause far less soul searching and prayerful consideration.

Are you really suggesting that one should never stand up for what one believes is important and right? That one should never challenge any leaders of universities or church organizations on any course of action? - regardless of how evidently conflicting these actions might be against what one personally thinks is of significant importance to the basis of solid hope for one's own personal family and friends?

I have a hard time believing that it is really you who wrote this note. I had thought of you as a bit more concerned about such issues. Was it really you, David R. Larson, of Loma Linda University, who accused Asscherick, Goldstein, and myself of acting only out of an interest to be the center of attention? Really?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Go Clifford!

Montana Dino Hunter.

Why are we Christians?

The name implies we are followers of Jesus Christ. How do we know He existed? The only written source is the Bible. If we find Him in the Bible and we become His followers, then we must believe that the Biblical story His life is an accurate account. All throughout the Bible, we are told that He is the CREATOR of the world "...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day..." Exodus 20:10 NKJV

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father." John 1:1-14

"Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves" Psalms 100:3

If you are a Christian, and the only source for your Chriatianity is the Bible, what is the basis for your belief in something completely contrary to the Bible, that totally robs us of our relationship with God as our Creator. If He is NOT our creator, then what basis do we have to worship Him - in even claiming to be Christians?

Do we believe the Bible or do we not? It's that simple.

I have read nearly all of this string of comments, and I feel compelled to make an observation. So many ideas and arguments have been expressed that it would be impossible to even address them all - let alone answer them. It is clear that at least two different modes of thinking are represented here. At the bottom line, some people regard Divine Revelation as the highest authority, while others elevate Human Reason to that position.

Science is really just finite human reasoning about our limited perception of the physical world. It is not realistic to imagine that our imperfect understanding of what we see could be trusted more than the words of the Creator Himself. It is dangerous to cut ourselves loose from the anchor of revealed truth, as spoken by the prophets, and drift on the sea of human wisdom. If Revelation and science seem to conflict, the only safe course is to believe the Word of God.

I don't know how to adequetly express the danger of placing our own thoughts above God's words. Even Jesus dared not do this. He used strong language when He said "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken". It is inconceivable to me that anyone would be asked in the Judgement "why did you believe that I created the earth in six literal days?". It is not a mark of ignorance to believe the Word above science, but rather an indication of true wisdom.

Who would object to being "indoctrinated" with the very thoughts of God? This seems far preferable to being a mere "reflector of other men's thoughts". We want to be reflectors of God's thoughts. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." - Isaiah 55:8. These thoughts are contained in prophets' writings - all of them.

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. - 1 Corinthians 3:18,19.

And I must include this because it is so important:

"It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies . Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies , which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction." - 4T.211.001

Don't let this happen to you. If what I have written here makes no sense to you, ask God to show you what it's about.

God bless!

Do we believe the Bible or do we not? It's that simple.

Posted by: Ahn Songo (not verified) | 31 May 2009 at 2:00

Ahn, do you consider the Bible to be a scientific textbook? I believe it was Galileo who said that the "Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Is it possible that the Genesis account of creation might be to tell us "who and why" rather than "how and when"?

This has the aura of commercialism about it, that is, protecting the BRAND, or "buying a product" (as mentioned). Maybe there is a sizable inheritance afoot, one that requires affirmation of the correct kind of morality.
Do the policies of the institution allow acceptance of bequests that have strings attached?

Dear friends:

Just to add my thoughts here. Thanks to Sean Pitman, Cliff Goldstein, David Asscherick and others who have spoken up so well on this issue.

For all those who want to serve the Lord and are not sure why many of us are speaking up about this, please go back and study the Bible - especially the book of Genesis, and realize that there is no compatibility between Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution) and the Bible. There is just no compatibility. Where did sin originate in the Darwinian picture? Without sin how and why did all those earlier forms of life die? Who does the gospel apply to - the H. sapiens only, or the neanderthals too, and all the other species that are claimed to have existed, or even the chimpanzees? This gets really sick - that is if you try to make this stuff compatible with the Bible.

The issue at stake is not that evolution is being taught at La Sierra. All of us agree it needs to be taught as an alternative view held by many. But our point is that it should not be taught at an Adventist university as the FACT, or as the preferred theory. That is what led to all this discussion. Based on comments of those who were actually in those classes, Darwinian evolution is presented there as the preferred theory - even as the only alternative that makes any sense; sometimes it is the only alternative presented. That is clearly contrary to the Bible. I think we need to be very loving, but with a very loving and kind attitude we definitely need to see this issue resolved. It is totally unethical for a professor to teach contrary to scripture at a university that pays him to support the Biblical (Adventist) world view.

Thanks and may the Lord restore La Sierra and all those who have been disaffected by this false science.

Edward.

In answer to Sean Pitman's query, yes, Albert Einstein did drop out of school--several times--due to learning disabilities and religious discrimination against him, a German Jew. And Albert Einstein reentered school, many times, graduated from a polytechnical institute (where he met the woman who would become his wife), kept studying, performing scientific research, and teaching in institutions of higher learning throughout his life, and died a synonym for careful scientific thought. Here is one link to his biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Bevin--

Well, that's all fine, brother; I did say all those things --and, what's more, I stand by them, too. I'm still, though, looking for the quote in which I say that we need to purge any faculty who don't believe in a young earth creation. Isn't that what you said I have said? None of the things you have quoted above have me saying that, do they?

Cliff

Posted by: Clifford Goldstein (not verified) | 31 May 2009 at 12:00

Hello Cliff, here is exactly what you wrote in the Adventist Review, July 24, 2003:

"And to those teaching in our schools who believe in evolution and yet take a paycheck from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I say: If you honestly reject a literal six-day creation in favor of theistic macroevolution, fine; now turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you won't have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities of language." See: http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1530/story4.html

So cliff where do you stand: with Pastor David Asscherick, and Dr. Sean Pitman or in allowing academic freedom to the La Sierra faculty?

I am a student at La Sierra University. I took a full year of biology courses here. I agree that evolutionary theory should not be taught as fact in Seventh-day Adventist institutions of education. There is little to nothing that we can teach as fact in any subject matter. What some people don't seem to understand, though many who actually know what is going on at LSU keep trying to tell them, is that they aren't teaching evolutionary theory as fact at LSU. We are presented with evidence identified by the scientific community, and informed of different methods and measurement tools by which that evidence and certain biological processes are assessed. We are able to make use of laboratory equipment to conduct experiments and can ask questions of our professors if we have any. And we spend most of our time and content on what is happening in the natural world right now that we can fully test and measure.

Please for a moment consider the perceived firestorm surrounding how science courses are taught at LSU. Right now administrators at other Adventist colleges and universities and even at the academy level are probably worried that they could be targeted next on this or any other number of possible issues. In the SDA academy that I attended, my science teacher never wanted to engage in any discussion or deal with any questions from students about evolution. Just the word was enough to elicit fear. So I, and other students like me, came to La Sierra University without any level of understanding at all regarding evolutionary theory. Imagine how tense it got in the classroom when a professor announces that we will be learning about it. It was completely new to me, but I was able to spend time both in and out of class discussing it with my professor. He didn't push anything on me. He didn't encourage me to question the existence of God. In fact, more than ever, I gained a new level of appreciation of the incredible beauty and detail of God's creation. And I gained an understanding of (not belief in) evolutionary theory so that when needed, I can engage in discussion with individuals who do not know my God. The experience strengthened my faith.

Obviously there will always be some students who just see/hear the word "evolution" and immediately have a rush of thoughts regarding atheism and their faith being potentially shaken. I was one such student and I thank God for being able to attend a University where a Ph.D professor will sit with me for two hours outside of class to talk about it when I ask. But what if I had gone to someone like Sean Pitman first? My initial concern would have been used to be complete basis for a claim that LSU professors were telling me that evolutionary theory is fact and that my faith in God is thus meaningless. This is simply not what is happening at LSU. And I mean no disrespect to those of you quoting scripture, the fundamental beliefs, and Ellen G. White, but if you really are concerned about the truth of what is taught at LSU, you need to come see for yourselves. Don't just take my word for it and don't just take someone else's word for it just because they claim to have heard something from some students. I wish I could list off some great quotes to convince you all, but I somehow don't see that working.

You don't have to be silent on your beliefs, but please don't just hop on the bandwagon in attacking the university where I have learned that my education can have true purpose. This is a place where I found that by learning all that I can, I can be a greater instrument in the Lord's service. And every single course that I have taken thus far has contributed to this.

There are many perspectives to the issues discussed here and I hope that more people can realize that there aren't just two sides with one always having to be defined by the other as evil and completely wrong.

We all have a lot to learn here. And the best way could be to think more like a student instead of trying to decide what students should think.

HI again ...

Sure it's about protecting a "brand", the brand being the doctrines upon which the Adventist Church has its specific identity.

Sure many other church groups hold to one or more of the doctrines that the Adventist Church holds, but none hold the full "set" as the Adventist Church does.

And why is it important to hold to a literal seven (7) day creation week? Without it:
* there is no sense in the 7th day Sabbath,
* there is no "fall" from an Edenic state
* there is no sin where there has been no "fall"
* there is no salvation or redemption where there is no "fall" and no sin, Christ has no reason to redeem that which was not his in the first place, and Christ becomes an imposter into the human race,
* there is no marriage institution as the church teaches, for God would not have united Adam and Eve in matrimony.

Just thinking this over as I write ... makes real sense to believe the evolution story if one wants to deny the claims of God upon humankind.

Three quotes from Mark Twain come to mind in this instance.

“In the two things which are the peculiar domain of the heart, not the mind—politics and religion—[the human being] does not want to know the other side. He wants arguments and statistics for his own side, and nothing more.” Mark Twain’s Notebook, Chapter XXVII

“I’m quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.” “The Holy Grail”, Mark Twain in Eruption

Statement by Satan, the Devil’s Nephew:
“Oh, it’s true. I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs land follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain; but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don’t dare to assert themselves.
. . .you will always be and remain slaves of minorities.” The Mysterious Stranger, Chapter IX

Sean
My argument is with my team, not yours. By throwing enough mud at La Sierra University that some of it won't wash away for decades even if its charges aren't 100% accurate, your team has clearly won this round. Congratulations! I just wish that my team would not hand you such easy victories.
Dave

Hi again ...

Are contributors to this "blog" really about "throwing mud" at LSU (David Larson, 31 May 2009 @ 6.25)?

I must be mistaken. I thought the issue was whether evolutionary theory taught as THE world view at LSU was the issue, thus undermining Scripture and the church's teaching of a litereal 6/7 day creation week.

Oh well ... guessed I missed the boat again !

Alex:

Let me start out by stating that the majority of my academic experience is concentrated in the field of biology. Most of my foundational biology classes (General biology, Ecology, Microbiology, Developmental Biology, Neurobiology, Cell biology, Comparative Anatomy, Etc…) were taken at non-Adventist institutions of higher education. As a result I have a fairly thorough understanding of the intricacies of the current theory of evolution, for which I am grateful. This knowledge has given me a foundation for scientific dialogue with the un-churched and a better understanding of post-modern cynicism of religion. I agree whole heartedly that all Adventist kids should be taught the current theory of evolution. I would also agree that many Adventists, that are not informed and/or educated on current evolutionary theory, do the church and Christians in general disservice by arguing points or making statements that are either no longer valid or downright unscientific. Comments like, “its just a theory” or “it’s statistically impossible” are sadly the common in Adventist dialogue when it comes to “disproving” evolution. I also completely agree with your statement, “So, hiring a biologist who employs the model of a six-day creation of life to prepare students for graduate research would be like (on a pure community-agreed evidence level) like hiring a holocaust denier to teach history.” This makes me think you do not understand my point at all. I never said we should hire profs that solely teach the six-day model as the framework for biological science. Evolution is the glasses through which almost all scientists view biology, thus it is crucial to have a thorough knowledge of those glasses, especially if one wants to enter a research field of biology. This knowledge should not be denied those that attend our colleges and universities. Having said that, what should also not be denied those that attend our colleges and universities, is explanation of where the current theory of evolution has holes or inconsistencies. Alex, evolution is not a pristine theory even it its’ most current and refined form. I know you are well read in this area and hope you would be honest enough to admit that. In fact Francis Collins himself (who I also deeply respect and admire) in hisTime Magazine Debate with Richard Dawkins (which is fabulous by the way, a must read) states that God could be the explanation for things that Science has difficulty explaining as God cannot be completely contained within nature and therefore His actions are outside of science’s ability to weigh in on. What I am against is evolution being taught as scientific dogma within the Adventist educational system without it being tempered by education about the uncertainty of some of it’s tenants. There is a brief editorial on scientific dogma in the Journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry that I think all would find enlightening in relation to the evolution debate.

For those interested the AAUP policy on Academic Freedom is reproduced below.

Academic Freedom
1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject
to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary
return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they
should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no
relation to their subject.[2] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other
aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of
an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from
institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes
special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the
public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they

The word “teacher” as used in this document is understood to include the investigator who is
attached to an academic institution without teaching duties.
... should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect
for the opinions of others.........
AAUP Policy Tenth Ed.2 10/26/06 12:49 PM Page 3

Tom

John R. W. Stott, quoting Harry Blamires defines the Christian mind and then deplores its absence in our society. “A Christian mind is described by Mr. Blamires as a mind trained, informed, equipped to handle data of secular controversy within a framework of reference which is constructed on Christian presuppositions, presuppositions [for example] of the supernatural, of the pervasiveness of evil, of truth, authority and value of human person”.
The Christian thinker, he goes on, “challenges current prejudices....disturbs the complacent—obstructs the busy pragmatists....questions the very foundations of all about him and.....is a nuisance.” But he says, “Christian thinkers with Christian minds do no seem to exist today.” On the contrary: “The Christian mind has succumbed to the secular drift with a degree a degree of weakness and nervelessness unmatched in Christian history. If is difficult to do justice in words to the complete loss of intellectual morale in the twentieth century Church. One cannot characterize it without having recourse to language which will sound hysterical and melodramatic. There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality....but as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.”

John R. W. Stott; Your Mind Matters. Intervarsity Press 1972
Tom

"Ahn, do you consider the Bible to be a scientific textbook? I believe it was Galileo who said that the "Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Is it possible that the Genesis account of creation might be to tell us "who and why" rather than "how and when"?

Posted by: Mike MacLennan (not verified) | 31 May 2009 at 2:49"
-------------------------------------
Mike, since the Bible tells us 'who and why" don't you think it can tell us "how and when"? Consider what God said:

"Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also... So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Gen 1:16-19

There's not enough space to list all of the references to the "how and when" from the Bible. I challenge you to do a thorough study on the subject of creation from the Bible, not just writings and sayings of men. Then ask again if the Bible can be used as a scientific textbook.

These is great danger is relying only on the wisdom of finite man who is limited in his understanding of the physical world by being the created rather than the Creator.

"Understand, you senseless among the people; and you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct he who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O Lord." Psalms 94:8-12

The faithful will have an eternity to scientifically study the "Who, why, how, when, and where" of creation without the limits placed now. Mike, I sincerely hope and pray that we'll both have that privilege.

It should be noted in connection with Adventist discussions of natural history and our faith that the foundation of hope in the second coming -- which makes us Adventist -- is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever the truth about nature's history, it can neither establish nor erase the fact of His resurrection, a fact that N.T. Wright uses the historical critical method to assert (the diligent will find him instructive). And the other term in our name "Seventh-day" enjoys equally unshakable definition and validity since the Sabbath is the day before the day of the resurrection. The fossil record interpreted as you please can never alter the fact the Gospel record provides full and complete authentication of the faith of Christians who are pleased to call themselves Seventh-day Adventists.

Cliff wrote:
Bevin--

Cliff"

Cliff. What do YOU think it means to tell the church leadership that they have the OBLIGATION to enforce the parameters and that the parameters require short age creationism?

If you didn't intend it to be aimed at the evolutionists, then why did you include them along side atheists and satanists?

Adventist Review, Jul 26 2001
The Pythagoras Factor - Clifford Goldstein

hmmm... methinks Cliff would like to portray himself as narrating or warning of fire when in reality he's fuelling the flames and throwing in matches!

A very interesting background paper can be found on the Web.
Entitled:"Ethical Suspicions Between Faculty and Administrators" authored by Donald E. Walker. At the time of the writing he was Chancellor of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Coummunity Colledge El Cajon, Calif. The site is
http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0889-2.html

Tom

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal Friday, May 29, "Look Who's a Believer Now" (Houses of Worship by Timothy Larsen.) "Have you ever heard the one about the Christian who started to study calculus (my comment: or science) and ended up losing his faith? Of course you have. Such 'conversion' to atheism is supposed to be the story of all modern, thinking people. But imagine it happening the other way around." . . . and the article continues about the author of "God's Funeral" (1999).

The WSJ article gave me a wonderful insight into where critical "rational" intellectuals end up when they enjoy picking apart the beliefs of others such as those "free-thinkers in the 19th century, (who) systematically went through the Bible, gleefully mocking each book in turn."

"They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. THEY CAME TO REALIZE THAT THEY COULD ONLY TEAR DOWN AND THUS WERE LEFT INTELLECTUALLY WITH NO HABITABLE PLACE TO LIVE."

Why must we ride the merry-go-round of critical rational intellectuals to "no habitable place to live" and back?

Again, employment is a choice -- not a right. Move on profs to where you intellectual bandwagon is going . . . to the public colleges/universities where, on many campuses, there is no habitable place to live these days.

Azusa Pacific and Biola do not pay free-wheeling profs, why should SDA institutions?

Thank you SDAs with backbone.

Jody ;)

Judy

Even the guilty have the right to face their accusers! At this moment there are several things one can do.

1. Get the facts!
2. Get the Context!
3. Compare the facts in context with the mission statement of the institution.
4. Publish the findings and conclusions.
5. Have the proper constituency take appropriate action through due process: from apology to dismissal.

Certainly, one has the right in a public forum or blog to state their belief system and any supporting evidence for the position they possess. Naturally, those of contrary opinion have the same rights and priviledges. Both should use the constraints of civility in making their case.

The rush to judgment is almost always wrong. Sometimes "Head strong" is mistaken for backbone!

If, as some assert, that the science faculty are explaining the evolutionary theory, fine. If, as other assert, the science faculty are proselytizing students into an evolutionary belief system then they are out of order in a SDA supported institution of higher learning. In such a situation, full due process in dismissal must be followed. That is the substance of compassion.

It should be noted that due process requires review and action by one's peers. Not some college drop-out with an itch!

I am an academic person with strong creationistic views--who has earned high honors and status in dominate evolution oriented environments.

The fact is that evolutionists, excepting a few apologists, are much more tolerant of a range of belief systems than the "born again" crowd.

I would be very disappointed if there was a repeat of Southern. I would also be very disappointed if the issue were merely swept under the rug.

Tom

Evolution is a tough topic. And in my experience talking with SDAs about the subject, there is simply not the needed groundwork of understanding for there to be a rational, thoughtful discussion about it. There are very few who know enough about it to treat the subject fairly and your average SDA hears the word evolution and thinks.. . . well we can see what is thought by the comments posted on these threads.

It would be a very very big mistake for the church to purge those science teachers who are attempting to prepare students for a scientific world that considers evolution to be the backbone of biology. Somehow SDA institutions have managed to fly under the radar of the scientific community as institutions that are anti-evolution but if word gets out, the value of a degree from that university will plummet. And not just science degrees either.

I hang out on science blogs and I listen to how graduates of places like Liberty University are talked about. I've never heard a SDA school mentioned but this sort of problem makes national news since creation/evolution wars are so hot. SDAs universities are really in between a rock and a hard place here. Most SDAs are not ready to deal with the topic constructively and might be less willing to send their kids to SDA universities if they thought evolution was being given any sort of credence. But the very standing of SDA schools is also at stake as the value of the degree in the community at large could become suspect, especially in the sciences.

SDAs greatly underestimate the scorn held for those who believe in YEC and a world wide flood. They continue to tell themselves that those are perfectly reasonable positions - it just depends on your viewpoint etc. And by continuing to reassure each other about it, they aren't getting the picture in the scientific world at large.

Responding to James R.'s explanation of his experience at LSU:

My experience is similar at Andrews, particularly in the Honors program where students are expected to think comprehensively about their world view and its validity.

In our religion classes we learn about literary criticism and are introduced to traditionally dangerous ideas such as Samuel being written to vindicate David and discredit Saul's dynasty, or Genesis being a creation myth whose primary purpose should be seen only as showing that God is orderly, the Judaic religion arising as a cult from Canaanite religion, and so on. These views are not taught as "fact," but neither are they presented weakly as straw men. We are engaging the world at large, and are discouraged from shying away and choosing ignorance for fear of having to modify our picture of reality.

Similarly in physics we study the evidence for the big bang and age of the earth. It would not be a full physics curriculum if black body radiation (microwave background) and radioactive decay (dating methods) were not covered along with their applications. This, perhaps, is taught more as fact. But the flip-side is that the faculty can also present the cosmological design (fine-tuning) argument in full force, since it is not flat-out rejected by academia like intelligent design. Emphasis is put on the fact that the big bang is not a theory of origins, just a model of the evolution of the universe since its origin, which remains mysterious. Indeed, we just had a pilot class titled "Physics and Faith" that covered these matters very well.

Above all, the professors who are exploring these ideas with us hold true to a strong faith in God and the basic principles of the Adventist church. The mere fact that they can reconcile their science with their religion is a huge influence on students who may be tempted to chuck the whole kit and kaboodle because of Darwin et al.

And besides, what's the alternative? What fills the hole if we leave out the view of academia? Gentry's young-earth model? Flood geology? Hoyle's steady-state? Unfortunately those are scientific heresy, and if the SDA school system were renown for indoctrinating their students with such ideas, I would be embarrassed of my degree.

SigmaX

"The rush to judgment is almost always wrong."

Well said, Tom. For once we can agree :-) (offers olive branch).

"The WSJ article gave me a wonderful insight into where critical 'rational' intellectuals end up when they enjoy picking apart the beliefs of others such as those 'free-thinkers in the 19th century, (who) systematically went through the Bible, gleefully mocking each book in turn.'" -- Jody

I consider that to be an important point. Just because you can pick things apart and find "hooks" for your doubt doesn't mean that you're being a cogent critical thinker. My father often speaks of his agnostic years in such a light, and how an awakening moment for him was when one of his friends started talking about "finding a way around" evidence for God.

But, again in line with what Tom was saying, be careful lest you set up too general a straw man. Some atheists are excessively disrespectful and dismissive. Some Christians are too (ex. those who say sarcastically "I didn't come from no monkey" and think they've thus solved the evolution debate). But on both sides are also honest, intelligent people.

IMO, this statement of EGW's is unfortunate:

"Disguise it as they may, the real cause of doubt and skepticism, in most cases, is the love of sin." -- Steps to Christ, 111.

At least she says in "most" cases instead of "all." But still. It doesn't do justice to the struggle of an individual's search for truth. In fact, I am personally offended by it.

SigmaX

Darn HTML tags, I must have forgotton something in the code!

Here is the links to Collins and Dawkins Time Magazine debate.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

Here is the link to the editorial in the Journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry on Scientific Dogma.

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?do...

"Disguise it as they may, the real cause of doubt and skepticism, in most cases, is the love of sin." -- Steps to Christ, 111."

We all should take offense at such a statement. This is one consistently used by many SDAs when former members choose to sever
membership in the Adventist church: "It's because they want to sleep around; smoke; wear jewelry; work on the Sabbath" ad nauseum. This is convenient since they could never entertain the idea that just possibly, those people no longer can affirm SDA beliefs as formulated in the 28 or put their mind in a straitjacket and refuse to engage outside the SDA ghetto. All of us who have left the church have heard these statements. How demeaning! While, at the same time, prospective converts are greeted warmly with never a disparaging word about their former beliefs! Hypocrisy!

Tom
Your most recent response to Judy makes all the sense in the world to me. Thank you for posting it!
Dave

There will always be individuals of all persuasions who feel free to make derogatory statements about others in public forums. One only has to peruse this thread to see cogent examples of the same. That does not make them evil or unintelligent. It is simply a sociological phenom that is unfortunately very easy to fall into in human societies of all creeds and breeds.

I have seen as many public campaigns led against thinkers by "liberals" as by "conservatives." So jumping to the convenient conclusion that this is one more nail in the coffin of "conservative Christianity" is a simplistic course.

"Disguise it as they may, the real cause of doubt and skepticism, in most cases, is the love of sin." -- Steps to Christ, 111."

@Elaine and Eric: Sound bites are dangerous things. They are easy to misapply and misunderstand. Sin is not behavior, it is the choice to put ourselves in the place of highest authority in our lives. It is interesting that those who do so take offense at being called "sinners" while those who acknowledge God as their Savior embrace the same label.

Time and time again it is stated that evolution is taught as subject to learn at LSU or as at confounding belief but not as a scientific fact. In fact, David Asscherick says this in his own letter that this type we all need to know the ins and outs of evolution but not as fact but as a comparative belief system. My point is that the people here that are blasting Sean and David for reacting without checking first have not checked themselves. You guys need to take the time and read the syllabus that was taught this year--especially lectures #3 and #8. I think that it is quite clear that evolution is being taught as fact and belief for science students. Several other students have verified this in other classes as well. Only, one student has said that it was taught in a comparative nature as in other Adventist university science classes. I'm sure that we all would have no problem with this type of scolastics and evolution but where I have a problem is the other type.

Again, it is quite clear that evolution is being taught as fact and science at LSU not just as a comparative issue.

No. Elain

It means that people put themselves above God. They love themselves more than they love God. Sin is all about self-centeredness. Those other things you mentioned--typically called sinS--are simply the natural results of selfishness.

No one is limited to the "twenty-eight" but you cannot really be an SDA when you start eliminating any of them. And if you want to eliminate any of them, WHY would you even want to be a SDA???? That's the really silly part. Why bother claiming to be an Adventist when you don't believe what Adventists believe. And if you don't belong to Adventism why bother with Adventists??? Promote your own beliefs somewhere where people will agree with you. Join some other group or start your own. It seems that the only reason you are here is to promote your own agenda and tear down anything SDA. Just in case you hadn't noticed---You ARE NOT WELCOME. You can believe whatever you want, just go somewhere else....

Allen
Montana Dino Hunter

Jeremy, I think that you make fine points. There's not much light between your argument and what I believe and what I've found and believe happens on Adventist campuses.

I appreciate your fair-minded and informed argument. You're right to note the gaps that exist in the human models for evolutionary theory. The sad reality is that if folks on the other side didn't exploit those to defend literalism and employ them in political arguments (which is what Asscherick did by going over so many heads) then Christian scientists might actually be able to take more ground in the debate.

I think this quote from the excellent TIME article you linked to gets at the both/and approach nicely:

Most Americans occupy the middle ground: we want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless. And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.

I have a feeling that some folks here haven't actually read the syllabus in question.

Well, here it is, copied as quoted straight from the accusers' site.

What, exactly is the big deal?

It is vitally important for you to realize that this course—as a science course—is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs. Some will decide they cannot “believe” the scientific evidence, and it is your right to decide. This is encouraged and supported. If you expect to be competitive in any modern science-based profession, and hope to perform well on standardized or pre-professional qualifying exams, you must simply know what the scientific evidence is, whether or not you ‘believe’ it.
[…]

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence. New discoveries continue to fill the gaps identified by Darwin in The Origin of Species. The evidence is in the form of direct, measurable, empirical observation. Is it informed to dismiss Darwin’s ideas as ‘just a theory’? In science, the word theory means something that accounts for many observations and explains and integrates a great variety of phenomena. The colloquial use of the word theory comes close to what scientists mean by a hypothesis…

There is nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.


The reason this unifying theory has become so widely accepted in the scientific world is that it has stood up to intense, thorough, continual observation and criticism. The way to become rich & famous in science would be to show a fundamental error in the theory. The built-in skepticism of science prevents these ideas from becoming dogma.

"Some will decide they cannot “believe” the scientific evidence, and it is your right to decide. This is encouraged and supported."

I notice careful explanation, support for a variety of student beliefs, and a smart discussion of what "theoretical" and "evolution: means in the science context.

Given that these are decontextualized and we don't have the professor or student accusers on record, this does seem to conform to the majority consensus in the comments that Adventist institutions should present evolutionary theory as long as it is not taught as Adventist doctrine.

Again, why all the heat? Are folks actually reading the evidence?

Does anyone today deny the "theory of gravity"?

What is the price of unity for the Adventist church? Is it uniformity desired or unity?

As a student at a State U. and taking Geology with emphasis in Paleontology I have taken, am taking and will take the following classes:

Bio 101: (The really should be called Evolutionism 101, because it is nearly biology free. It is almost all Evolutionism propaganda with what little Biology presented wholly interpreted within Naturalism and Evolutionism as unassailable fact.)
Invertebrate Paleontology: Vertebrate Paleontology: Dinosaur Paleontology: (Study of and interpretation of fossils in the Evolutionary geologic column)
Taphonomy:
Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy:
Macroevolution and the Fossil Record:

So I too am very familiar with Evolutionism. And also isometric dating theory and method.

Evolutionism is religious dogma. Isomteric dating is only applicable within Naturalism and completely irrelevant to Creationism. Flood Geology is the ONLY valid interpretation of the geologic record.

Allen
Montana Dino Hunter

David Larson,

What charges "aren't 100% accurate"?

As far as I know, there is only one charge - That is that there are science professors at LSU who are in fact promoting the idea that life has existed and evolved in a Darwinian manner on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years of time and that a literal creation week is nonsense.

That is what is being taught in the science classes at LSU by LSU professors.

Do you honestly think this isn't true? I know for a fact that it is true. I have heard some of these men with my own ears, have seen their lecture outlines, and have read their published papers.

As far as I know, there is no other "charge" or mud throwing. How is pointing out what is being done in a very public manner at LSU "mud slinging"? Why not just admit what is going on and be proud of it if these are really those on "your side" of this issue?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

The evolution-creation debate is an important topic, however, I am disappointed at Spectrum’s one-sided reporting of the current issue and the attempt to make of none effect the objections raised by Pastor Asscherick (and others) based on his being a “convert” and “unfamiliar with the Seventh-day Adventist higher educational system.” A convert myself, perhaps that’s what it takes to see obvious—the “emperor is wearing no clothes” (http://www.detectingdesign.com/)! I hold doctorate in chemistry from University of Colorado, Boulder, did post-doctoral studies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, NY and was later a part of the inaugural ARISE class in 2003 with Pastor David Asscherick. Having spent 10+ years in the centers of higher education, I can say that Pastor Asscherick is one of the best teachers that I have ever had and he is a brilliant student of both the Bible and science. To say that he speaks with “disdain” at higher education is a gross overstatement.

A scientist and Creationist—according to the Genesis account, a literal creation week with 7-literal, contiguous, consecutive 24-hour days—I find it suspicious that Darwin’s proposed theory for evolution, that is reportedly so "overwhelmingly obvious" and "intellectually superior", requires intimidation and ridicule to gain or maintain a following. The point of controversy is not about whether science students should be informed about mainstream scientific beliefs. Evolution (as a concept) should be taught. Indeed, evolution on a micro-scale, as Darwin observed in finch beaks, is testable, observable and well documented in the scientific literature. The point in this controversy is that a Seventh-day Adventist higher educational institution should, at minimum, be supportive of the 28-Fundamental Beliefs (http://www.nadadventist.org/article.php?id=17) held by the organization for which its name represents. This would include belief (#6) on creation—I see no ambiguity in the written statement posted on our denominational websites.

Thus, while it is possible to believe in God and hold to the idea of Darwinian-style evolution occurring over the course of billions of years, for a Seventh-day Adventist in a Seventh-day Adventist setting, these beliefs are untenable and irreconcilable. Those professors finding themselves unable to accept any or part of these fundamental beliefs should naturally seek employment elsewhere, perhaps at a public or other non-SDA college or university—there are many options. Having taught chemistry at the university level, I am acutely aware that young adults of college age are highly impressionable to the spoken thoughts and beliefs of their professors. To present such material from a perspective wherein one vacillates between the two, will have a profound impact on students—as evidenced by recent LSU student reports and voiced concerns. Those parents desiring a truly Adventist education for their students should obtain what their hard-earned dollars have paid for; otherwise, a public institution of higher learning would be more suitable and less expensive.

As such, I challenge leadership of LSU and the leaders and laity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to hold to and support the truths that our name represents.

I close with the following quote taken from the pen of inspiration: “Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony….Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years….Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for." Education, p 128-130.

Christina R. Harris, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist

True or False, Due Process must prevail. One should not be blogged to death!

Thanks Dave: I attempted to convince Southern to follow an Academic Due Process. But Cookies rule! Tom

"Just in case you hadn't noticed---You ARE NOT WELCOME. You can believe whatever you want, just go somewhere else...." -- allenroyboy

[sarcastic]Which I'm sure is exactly what Jesus would say if he were here.[/sarcastic]

Adventism is more than a set of doctrines. It is an international community and family. And it changes and grows over time just like an individual and other social organizations. I don't just leave my family because I disagree with them. I dialogue. I love them. Most of who I am today I have them to thank for. They are welcome to me. And I am welcome to them.

Luther wanted to change the church from the inside out. If protestants and catholics had been able to come to a joint understanding (like happened with the early church, which was every bit as fractured), there wouldn't have been such a split. Why not hope for the same with Adventism? Adventism is people who are bound together loosely by a common core belief system. The nature of that core is up for discussion. We can learn from eachother.

When you say, in all caps no less, that someone who has doubts or has reconciled science with their faith is NOT WELCOME, think of how that feels. They may have spent 20, 30, 40 years in the church, surrounded by its culture, permiated by its moral values. Adventism is their nationality. And now they are exiled for political dissent. True, troublemakers exist. Ex-adventists have made a name for themselves by publishing abnoxious books nit-picking over EGW, etc. To shew someone away because they don't agree with you, however, is hardly in the Christian spirit.

But then again, I suppose every philosophy has tended to brand others heretics from time to time. I suppose it's within your rights. But it contributes to a stereotype of religion that I don't think you want to support.

SigmaX

"Thus, while it is possible to believe in God and hold to the idea of Darwinian-style evolution occurring over the course of billions of years, for a Seventh-day Adventist in a Seventh-day Adventist setting, these beliefs are untenable and irreconcilable. Those professors finding themselves unable to accept any or part of these fundamental beliefs should naturally seek employment elsewhere, perhaps at a public or other non-SDA college or university—there are many options." -- Christina R. Harris

You may have a point. I just went and read about belief #6 in Seventh-Day Adventists Believe..., and while is sorta-kinda-almost lets one maintain a belief in old stars, it requires belief in a young-earth geology and solar system. I know some SDA theologians , much less scientists, who would squirm at such restrictions.

In fact, the 28 beliefs make a lot of people squirm. I've known many SDAs, if not all of the ones closest to me, who say that they don't agree with everything Adventism says, but they've chosen to stay in the church. Is that bad? Are our beliefs up for discussion? Or is it an exclusive dogma? Is "progressive Adventist" necessarily an oxymoron? Does someone who says we should just reduce the 28 to three: the Word, the Godhead, and the Sabbath -- merit excommunication? What if I decided I differ on, say, #17 (Gift of Prophecy)? Should I leave the church? Find others like me and start a Seventh-Day-Minus-Number-Seventeen Adventist church?

Progressive truth, anyone?

SigmaX

Progressive and present truth NEVER denies what has already been settled. Especially the "pillars" of the truth which include the Seventh Day and Creation.

"But what does Spectrum do? Label that concern a -witch hunt? A witch hunt? So much for unbiased and fair reporting, eh? It's just more proof that Spectrum is so far to the left that's it's really irrelevant to the church as a whole."

Interesting comments and obviously true. What a cheap shot to speak about Asscherick and Pastor Doug as being college dropouts. Talk about desperation to belittle someone's views. Creationism is alive and well within the "true" Adventist community and it will *not* ever be changed since absolute truth knows no compromise.

"Witch-hunt"

Talk about yellow journalism......

I kinda bridled too at the mention of Asscherick's college career. However, Asscherick is commenting on the direction higher education should take, so I think the reference may be appropriate in this context.

Adventists who hold liberal views, whether on homosexuality, or on origins, or on abortion, or on women's ordination, or whatever often do think of themselves as Adventists and do not want the church to be hijacked by others. They do NOT leave because the church belongs just as much to THEM as it does to any of the right wingers.

"What a JOKE they are!" -- Ron Stone

Using "liberal" as an epithet doesn't help your case much.

"Progressive and present truth NEVER denies what has already been settled. Especially the "pillars" of the truth which include the Seventh Day and Creation." -- allenroyboy

But it does change our perspective and challenge things that we thought were settled, but perhaps weren't as sure as we thought. Pardigm shifts are still to be expected.

You're right, though. To deny creationism is to disagree very bluntly with EGW. And if EGW settled things once and for all, then not much "progress" can be expected past her word.

SigmaX

Sean

Tom has outlined the steps we all should all take when we feel that something is amiss on one or more of our campuses.

How would you feel if a MD broadcast on the Internet a detailed account of what he or she takes to be some patient's illnesses?

This is how I feel about what your team has done.

Let me also say something I have already said to my "Spectrum" colleagues. This is that I am not certain that the article and cartoon that started this thread will calm troubled waters.

I am especially disappointed in the cartoon. For my team to portray the members of your team as demons on a witch hunt with pitchforks does not strike me as the best way for my team to advance the peaceable kingdom.

Let's all make use of Tom's wisdom. As an exceedingly accomplished academic administrator, he knows how we should handle such problems.

Thanks!

Dave

As the right margin cursor shrinks to infinitesimal proportions, it occurs to me that, once again, we ought to expose irrational extrapolations and define our terms.

As it stands, this argument is without form and void, and may last millions of years. (And darkness moves over the face of the shallow.)

Questions that beg for definition:

* Does "presenting" a topic or aspect by necessity mean we're "promoting" it? (If so, history teachers had better stay clear of detailing wars, racism, actual witch hunts, assassinations, deceptions, the Jewish holocaust, the Challenger explosion . . .)

* Does "naturalistic evolution" exclude "natural" adaptions on a microevolution level?

* Would it be permissible for Adventist professors to deal with the reality that most of the scientific world subscribes to a macroevolution model--and then explain why? (This reality is, obviously, an incontestable fact.)

* Should professors get scalded if they "teach evolution" while explaining that naturalistic evolutionists have difficulty explaining the notable lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record; the Cambrian explosion of fully developed complex forms; paraconformities that show little or no erosion over supposed millions of years; how significant mutations can be consistently beneficial as opposed to what we see today; and how to make DNA by natural processes?

* Should biology professors be disciplined for mentioning that creationists have difficulty explaining the precise sorting in the fossil record; extinction patterns whereby the buried life in deep layers is extinct, while the stuff near the top is still living; and pseudogenes that imply common ancestors? Or should all that, in the interest of orthodoxy, be covered up?

* Should all Adventist teachers be required to sign a creedal statement of beliefs, despite the well-known (?) opening of the fundamental beliefs: "Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed . . ."?

* Anyone heard of "truth squads"?

God help us.

Questioning the academic qualifications of those who speak against SDA colleges is most relevant, and no different than a high school student questioning the diagnosis and treatment recommended by a board-certificed physician. There are excellent reasons for professional qualifications in many vocations: assurance that such individuals have been through a requisite education established by their peers to practice their profession.

Unless those "educationally-challenged" are willing to financially support a future SDA college that conforms to their beliefs, their
expressions directed to the faculty members who do not conform to said beliefs will have little clout. If they truly wish to see
SDA education limited to their approval, then they can financially support such schools. However, it is doubtful that they will receive the necessary accreditation, which will, in turn, greatly decrease the student body, eventually leading to a downward spiral
of Adventist education across the U.S. Be careful what you wish for.

I appreciate this conversation and the many others that Spectrum has facilitated. It needs to happen. There have been many conversations along the way in Adventism that have impacted our direction. We can't forget the trinity, "the closed door", the sanctuary - a work in progress, women's rights, which all needed to happen. That said, why kick the messenger (i.e. Spectrum) in the stomach? Those of us, like me, who stand in the wings of Adventism (okay, the left wing) are watching curiously and wondering how this concludes. This is not just an evolution versus creation debate. It is really a small part of a broader debate over whether Adventism is big enough to encompass progressives, conservatives, and everyone in between.

Hey Alex:

Did you verify James R. as an actual student? What's the deal with publishing something without full disclosure of their name?

One of the more amusing aspects of all this is watching people using IRRELEVANT qualifications as some sign of the value of their opinions.

For example, PhD's in chemistry and M.D's do not require ANY courses in geology.

Elaine is right. LSU has a budget to meet. They will choose their curricula and teaching style based on meeting their budget. The question - for both creationists and evolutionists - is where will you spend the education dollars. The answer to that question will be the definitive answer of this debate.

/Bevin

Friends,
I would recommend following the "due process" outlined by Tom Z. and David L. as well as others above. Problems always arise when we try to go "outside of well established channels" to mediate a dispute of this kind. I could sight many examples of this over the years. The "facts" are always difficult to establish by discussion on a thread like this. It is "he said" versus "she said" and that is why "due process" is necessary and the only "fair" way to resolve these issues.
Both sides have tended to "draw a line in the sand" particularly on this topic for many years. The tone of the discussions tends to be very negative and then things go down hill from there. That is unfortunate for the church at large.
I would point you to the EGW chapter entitled "Attitude to New Light" in the book Counsels to Wrtiters and Editors for some much needed perspective on this process. I would highly recommend this chapter to all!! (Especially those who think they have all the answers down pat)

I will give you one short quotation to mull over from page 37
"Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will NOT be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago... We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible."
When I spoke at NIH on this very topic many years ago after returning from 3 months of study in the Galapagos I was treated with great respect by my peers and there was an open attitude expressed even by those who didn't agree with me.
Shouldn't we as SDA's be at least as courteous to our fellow brethern??
As I said in an earlier post short of heaven we will never have all the answers to the many questions on this topic so I look forward to sitting with the "Creator" and picking His brain for eternity!! I hope to see all of you there and meet many new friends!!
Peace to you all !!
Fred

"One of the more amusing aspects of all this is watching people using IRRELEVANT qualifications as some sign of the value of their opinions." -- bevin

Yeah, that kinda bugged me too. It's kinda analogous to when you pick up a book at the bookstore and see "Ph.D." tacked on to the author's name. All of a sudden -- since most of the books I read are written by Ph.D.'s anyway -- I'm wondering what they're trying to make up for with their title. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design particularly miffs me, where they tak "M.Div" onto the front cover. M. Div? This is supposed to make me think the book is more credible?

Nonetheless it is nice to know who people are. And if I were a postdoc or something trying to make a point, I'd kinda like people to know, or else I get pegged with the stereotype of the average Internet citizen, which is a pretty low standard, relevant or no.

SigmaX

Shane Hilde, actually I did verify him as a student.

I see you're very comfortable with a double standard, or did raise the same concern publicly with the entire anonymous lsu.net site?

Interestingly he provides a more full and difference perspective to the story you've had about your one class at LSU, amirite?

Bevin,
While it is true that people shouldn't hit people over the head with their pedigree it is also true that those degrees give us some idea as to their educational background and familiarity with science and the scientific methods employed in the discussion of this topic.
I respect your posts not because you are a certified EMT but because of the thoughts expressed and the need to hearout even those who may not have the educational background in a specific arena.
Thanks for listening.
Fred

I saw this on a tie-shirt in a store devoted to mountain climbing in Bishop, Californa this afternoon and thought it might apply here in this conversation....

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES!

Cheers

tjoe

tjoe,
I have seen that shirt before and it is very appropriate!!
Say hello to Barbara for me!!
All the best!
Fred E

This is not just an evolution versus creation debate. It is really a small part of a broader debate over whether Adventism is big enough to encompass progressives, conservatives, and everyone in between.

Posted by: Nola (not verified) | 01 June 2009 at 1:48

Nola, I believe Adventism is big enough. I think that the internet has helped to show that there is a tremendous diversity of opinion over these issues and hopefully this would help maintain academic and church freedom.

Hi again ...

For those who are wondering at the strength of the comments directed towards Elaine, I would suggest that you check thru all her posts especially those appearing on the Sabbath School lesson blog ...

You may be surprised as well as understand why the comments made in this thread have been made.

Perhaps the best we can do with individuals posting to Spectrum blogs who do not agree with the Adventist Church postions generally (note that word "generally" cf each specific doctrine/teaching)would be to treat them with ignore.

But don't take my word for it ... go check out her comments on other "pages" and blogs and see for yourself.

Hi again ...

Theory of Gravity? I was taught many years ago that it was the Law of Gravity! And a more recent text still calls it the law of gravity - no theorising here!

Gravity can be demonstrated by scientific experiment which is repeatable and reproducible time after time after time.

Something that Darwin's Theory of Evolution cannot be said to do!

"Something that Darwin's Theory of Evolution cannot be said to do!" -- Eliot

Neither can the theory that my grandfather existed.

Historical science carries with it certain difficulties, but that does not mean it's not science (Tom will disagree with me).

"But don't take my word for it ... go check out her comments on other "pages" and blogs and see for yourself." -- Eliot

I don't always agree with Elaine's posts either. I just think singling her out as strong and rudely as allenroyboy did was inappropriate. Particularly in public. 'nuff said.

SigmaX

Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be individuals do not exist as do the laws of nature ... but they may leave a legacy to testify of their existence.

One area I hope the LSU prof's are teaching is which anti-evolution arguments are poor, and why.

The claim that the Theory can not be tested has been disproven many timees, and yet people either ignore or are ignorant of these disproofs

Many creationists make claims that are so easily demolished that the only real effect is to lower their credibility - and that is something everyone should be trying to avoid

/bevin
B.Sc(Hons) mathematics
M.Sc computer science
NREMT-P Nationally Registered EMT-Paramedic
Member of the Society of Inadvertent Obstetricians
and endowed with a warped sense of humor

Hi there Eric ...

BTW it's not really a matter of whether one agrees with another or not. There is scope for differing ideas and views.

But I would have thought that the criteria for a site sponsored by well educated individuals claiming membership of the Adventist Church - and some employed by it or its institutions - should be whether the comments posted are supported by Scripture, supportive of the Church's teachings and administration, and perhaps whether they edify and uplift the reader. And this in no way stifles individuality, or prescribes uniformity.

Many comments are supported and supporting, but some are regularly (maybe almost always) not.

"The claim that the Theory cannot be tested has been disproven many timees, and yet people either ignore or are ignorant of these disproofs."

Just wondering whether Bevan would like to explain:

1. Who it was that demonstrated the theory of evolution as a scientific fact and who has been able to reproduce the results?
2. If the theory has been demonstrated to be fact, and has been reproduced by others, the theory would now be a natural law, as are Newton's laws of motion and gravity.

As a mathematician you will be aware that the laws of probabiltiy would have the odds of life-forms developing from simple inorganic or organic matter as approaching zero.

Both the theory of evolution and the creation narrative require "faith" in the explanation. You cannot avoid it.

Bevin,

I see that maths and computing make you more correct than chemistry majors? It doesn't stop you providing your opinion.

On the other hand, I don't see that maths and computing do much in the way of testing hard evidence. You assert that evolution is testable. I challenge that assertion. Name the bits that are testable, and we'll see if those bits are actually what the debate is about!

The term testable obviously means something different to you, than it does for me. Some of evolution's axioms are required to be taken on faith. Just because those axioms seem reasonable, does not mean they are proven correct. And it demonstrates that evolution is not fully testable. This is especially true in the areas where creation challenges it.

Chris, education does to things
(a) provides facts
(b) provides training in thinking

Chemistry, math, and computer science degrees indicate some limited ability (b), but provide nothing relevant to (a).

You and I have been over the testability argument before. Go and read that thread again. Eliot should do the same.

If you don't want to do that, Google "the theory of evolution is not testable". You will immediately find

1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

and others. The fact that you and Eliot have not done these searches and instead are asking me, shows that you don't really want to know the answer.

You and Eliot are both modeling my observation I made above
"Many creationists make claims that are so easily demolished that the only real effect is to lower their credibility - and that is something everyone should be trying to avoid".

/Bevin

Bevin,

I have read those three articles, more than once. They contain straw man arguments, misdirections to what the actual criticisms I am making are about.

I never said that evolution was not testable at all. If you read what I wrote, I did allow that some bits of it are testable. But you have to admit that where it disagrees with creation, there are some fundamental areas that are not testable - and INFERENCE IS REQUIRED.

If you want, you can bend the meaning of testibility to cover this inference. But in doing so, you are missing the point that I am trying to make.

Chris,

You admit that the Theory of Evolution is possible, so you should not be arguing about its testability.

You just don't like the fact that there is no corresponding tested Theory of Recent Life Creationism. That every single one of them is (a) woefully inadequate, and (b) easily discredited.

It is this easy discredit that you are really embarrassed by - you want to throw away some of the disproofs of the current short age creation proposals by saying "those disproofs rest on inferences that I can challenge".

Those same inferences are used to build the computers that I write this on, and to obtain the Bible. You don't want to throw them away there, do you?

You have reached your conclusion - now you are trying to justify it. A very fundamentalist, conservative, attitude.

And one very contrary to the open minds of the pioneers who started the SDA church.

/Bevin

Bevin,

You criticise me as follows: You have reached your conclusion - now you are trying to justify it. A very fundamentalist, conservative, attitude.

I am saying it doesn't need justification, it is a religious faith.

But, let's examine your logic of what consists of fundamentalism.

Consider that Darwin popularised an idea, now people are still trying to justify it.

This is how the scientific method works. Someone gets an idea, and then we try to substantiate it. It always starts from an idea - sometimes the idea is inspired by physical evidence, often it is not. Physical evidence is not required to start with.

Look at Einstein - he started with an idea, without evidence, and then look at all the effort it took to justify it.

Science is necessarily fundamentalistic. Religious faith does not need to be.

You also said: Those same inferences are used to build the computers that I write this on, and to obtain the Bible.

I don't think this is true. Please expand on why you think this.

Witch hunt's are a bad name for a process that has to operate at any of our institutions from time to time. People who teach at SDA schools who are out of touch with the basics of Genesis or other issues must be dealt with but not in a hasty or poor manner. I studied about evolution at both LLU and U. C. Riverside. I had no problems at either place with any of the profs. I am not in touch with people at LSU currently. Erv Taylor has long had deviant wiews about Genesis but Erv never taught at our schools. Administrators must investigate fairly what goes on at our schools and must not paper over significant issues. If you are an administrator you must have GUTS to stand up and do the right thing whatever it is!!!

The debate should not be about what is taught in the classroom. Science students from Adventist colleges need to know evolution. Period. They will never be able to teach, do research, continue to graduate school, or in other ways participate of the larger community if they do not know basic evolution.

They do not, however, need to believe in it, and there is no evidence that La Sierra is pushing them to believe anything that cannot be proven. That's the difference between an Adventist education and a secular one, you can attend our schools and also learn about creationism and believe what you want.

When I was in an Adventist elementary school, my teachers once talked to my parents about their concern that my brother and I had been reading about evolution in the encyclopedia. My parents' response was the same I just gave above: we need to know it, we don't have to believe it. And when questions arose on our standardized tests regarding evolution, we were the only kids in the school who could answer them. I still consider myself a creationist, but because I actually learned evolution as well, I am capable of informed and balanced discussions with evolutionists.

Perhaps if more Adventists had learned about evolution, we could even have an informed discussion about its role in our schools without making it a witch hunt. Most of the Adventist science teachers I know, which is quite a few, are thoughtful creationists, who understand that there is a lot that is unknown and unprovable on each side and that believing God was the source of creation does not mean you can not look at evidence and arguments with an open mind. Indeed, I think it is a greater threat to Adventism to have ideological (rather than thoughtful) creationists lecture at our schools. One I remember when I was in college was so outrageous, unscientific, indefensible and combative that it made me sad we shared any beliefs in common.

Lance, you're right! I have personally emailed the Provost of Loma Linda University about issues there. So far, no response, but I did get an email back from the LLU Medical Alumni Association, stating they were and "independent" organization, which was not associated with the idiotic philosophies espoused by those such as Dave Larsen, Julius Nam, etc.

Dr. Stone: you have formally been asked to not post on this website, because - in our opinion - you are incapable or unwilling to engage in discussion with an appropriate level of courtesy. It doesn't matter that you disagree and/or think you are being censored for your views. This is what we have decided. It is difficult to always block access to our website and you have continued to try and work around our blockage. So we will continue to block and delete your posts when they occur. But we will leave this one so you can see it. However, I would ask you - when someone has asked you to leave why do you persist? You have no 'rights' here. Your behavior has rendered you like a trespasser. Please respect *our* right to ask you to leave - and stay away.

In David Asscherick's letter of April 30, 2009 he rightly asserts "Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. ... We need our young people to know what it is they are up against..." But how does one teach about evolution without appering to promote it as a worldview?

The same sort of dilemna was faced by teachers in the 1950s and 60s over Communism. How can you teach about Communism without appearing to advance it as a social philosophy? Or consider a contemporary issue: How does one teach about contraception without appearing to promote promiscuity?

If students at Adventist schools are to learn about evolution, what safeguards are in place (or could be put in place) to prevent or mitigate the firestorms of protest illustrated by the content of this blog? By the way, the diversity and passion shown here is very similar to that revealed in public debates in Pennsylvania and Kansas over the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

So, again the question: How can Adventists teach evolution?

Ah Ed you have put your thumb on exactly the problem.

Anti-evolutionists think that the evidence is not good for evolution. They think that it is possible to introduce students to the concept of evolution but that it is also quite logical to reject it. And any teaching that offers evidence making it seem logical is not appropriate because, of course, evolution is wrong.

Pro-evolutionists think there is plenty of evidence to support it. They understand the reasons why the vast majority of scientists, believers and unbelievers alike, see it as such a valuable and important theory. They may disagree with some claims that veer into theology territory, but overall, they recognize that it is an extremely powerful and well-supported theory.

So anti-evolutionists are going to see attempts to introduce students to the reality of the evidence as wrong because there is no real evidence in their minds. And pro-evolutionists aren't going to have the stomach to water down or distort the evidence to make it seem less supported than it is.

Alex C.:

Yes, the creators of lasierrauniversity.net are anonymous; however, they're not publishing any articles anonymously, or anonymous articles from others. Everything that has been posted by them has had the authors full name and contact information for most.

I don't want to belabor this issue, I was just surprised that you had published someone's writing without revealing their full name.

Yes, James does present a different picture. I've noticed that you haven't posted anything from anyone who has had a different experience, but perhaps you are preparing to do so. It's possible he had a different teacher than I did.

Aside from personal testimony, Dr. Wisbey did not deny the accusation made against LSU from David Asscherick, and I find that very interesting. If anything, he admitted to it.

Besides, the issue is not whether it is being taught as fact, it's whether it should, and in my opinion it should most indefinitely not be taught as fact.

So far I've seen no discussion of Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Or Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

The Sabbath is a "sign" for us, in some measure, precisely because God created Heaven and Earth in six day's time - and then stopped. It is true, as someone pointed out, that we have only the Bible for our creed. I would suggest that this means that the Bible is, in fact, our creed. Adventists are living witnesses to the literal six day creation.

Evolution is fundamentally at odds with the Scriptures. Evolutionary theory requires that "creation" continue at the present time, just the same as in the distant past. The Bible goes out of its way to stress that God ended His work of creation on the seventh day. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
" - Gen. 2:1-2. and "...although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." - Heb. 4:3b.

Also, God has promised to create a new Heaven, and a new Earth, where righteousness will dwell. There will be no death or pain there. Will He employ mutation and selection, and death and pain, over millions of years to create this new world? No, and neither did He when creating the first world. The Bible affirms that Adam was the first man, and Eve was the "mother of all living". Death came into the world because of the wrong choice of those first individuals, notably, after the creation was complete.

We should not kid ourselves by saying that the Biblical record and Darwinism can be harmonized. It is time to chose who we will believe. Will we put our faith in the Scriptures, which are said to be God-breathed, or shall we put our faith in the scientific method, which is limited to the level of human wits?

The Pope has made his choice to go with the deductions of finite men, and has accepted evolution. He clearly shows what he believes in, in this recent statement:

"At a time in which relativistic and nihilistic concepts of life exercise a powerful enticement, a time in which the very legitimacy of education is placed in doubt, the principal contribution we can make is that of bearing witness to our trust in life and in man, in his reason and in his capacity to love." - Benedict XVI.

Rather than trusting in man's reason, I choose to trust Gods revealed word. This is a choice that the founders of this movement made also, seeing that evolution was the talk of the town in their time too. True, they understood that truth is progressive - that is our understanding of truth is progressive, but they were absolutely certain that truth was to be found in the Bible rather than in the vain imaginings of men. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17. "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalms 119:160.

The Bible is our only creed. If we depart from the plain teachings of the Bible in any area, we aren't SDAs anymore, no matter what we may call ourselves. The Bible is our source of truth, and if we decide to drink from any other fountain, we aren't SDAs anymore.

God bless!

Shane H.,

For the record, I've attempted to post comments on the www.lasierrauniversity.net "blog."

The first time, my comment was posted, but later redacted to exclude the critical portion of my statement without my permission.

When I attempted to post again, I was told my comment was "awaiting moderation."

A few moments later, my first comment, along with responses to it, were deleted in their entirety.

This to me, only confirms the suspicions I had about the true spirit of those that are behind organizing and promoting this website, as well-intentioned as they may be.

Zane:

Oh, what did you write that was deleted?

Zane:

I noticed that their comments were reopened today, so if you're inclined, you could try posting again.

I had read Zane's comment on the site before it was edited. From what I got from it, he suggested that the way the site and its content was set up seemed to be inflammatory. It made sense considering the name of the website address, the use of "La Sierra University" in the copyright information, and the use of photos and contact information of who people should contact to make their ideas heard. The next comment from someone suggested that Zane did not understand the definition of "inflammatory" which was then followed by someone else's post of the definition of the word to support Zane's point. The moderator edited Zane's post and then removed a group of posts, including one that suggested the "About" section of the site should clearly explain why it is absolutely necessary to use the La Sierra name and why that set of tactics is the best way to accomplish the goals of the discussion. I noticed that the copyright and contact info with pictures have been changed. Was there a specific reason for that?

Also, is it really that much of a surprise that a La Sierra student would not want to use their full name after seeing all that has happened so far? This is probably the same reason why you don't see LSU science professors engaging in discussion here. We get it, he/she disagrees with you which makes them wrong and you need their full name in order to...? It seems clear that this student just wanted to get the message out to anyone who would take the time to listen. And he/she encouraged the rest of us to not take their word for it, but to stop first making assumptions of what is really going on.

As we debate on what our SDA schools should/shouldn't be teaching, do we have to begin every argument with the assumption that the professors at La Sierra are in fact teaching what they are accused of in the way that they are accused of. Reading the comments on the lasierrauniversity.net site it seems that those identifying themselves as students of La Sierra are told that they are wrong and their comments dismissed with the exception of Shane as he agrees.

On both sides, those giving their full name have their reputations and background brought into question. The students of La Sierra have the names of their parents, schools, and churches to think about. David Asscherick doesn't need a college degree to ask good questions. Your degree, title, and especially your name doesn't do anything to make you more "right" about anything. It just means that certain people will be more likely to believe what you say. A website doesn't have to use the La Sierra name to bring to light what some feel is truth. A student doesn't have to give their name for us to read what they have to say and perhaps question for a moment if all of our assumptions are correct. Perhaps the intent is for us to focus on the real issues with real evidence instead of focusing on those who are raising it as a determination of who is right.

It is interesting though to look at the contrast here. On one hand you have a student who doesn't want personal attention and posts once (from what I can see), in a manner pretty respectful to all sides involved. And then you have the behavior many of the rest of us for the past few weeks.

Here's a fine example of where this witch hunt thinking ends up:

Apparently LSU is doing much better from an attendance and financial standpoint than any other SDA college. I don't know how this happens when they are so liberal [maybe the blessing of God?]. What is the point to going to a Christian school, if even the basic tenets of the Bible are not adhered to?

Here is the Pacific Union Recorder piece on the ordination of a senior pastoress at the LSU church:

http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/109/5/38362.html

Quoting from the LSU president regarding this appointment:

"Her appointment seems particularly appropriate," Wisbey adds, "as La Sierra University and the university church have a long and proud tradition of seeking justice, including justice in ministry, providing gender inclusiveness as a model for university students, both women and men, as well as each member of this congregation."

It looks like the issue of evolution is only the beginning of their apostasy from what the Bible teaches.

Stan

And another man's comment from the RevivalSermons.org forum:

From my experience, there are a lot of older conservative members in the church who will not stand up and protest against this. They failed to protest at least in an effective degree, against the rock music and other worldliness that has cmone into the church. They don't want to be seen as "critical" or "negative." Sociologists who study generational differences over time, have labeled the generation born before WW2 the "silent generation." Is there possibly sopmething to that?

Is it the women, or the rock music?

Eric,

Appreciated your input and agree with what you said.

I have been a member of the SDA church most of my life and I am excited about our message and the Hope that it offers. I recognise our church will never be 'popular' and think it is healthy to debate our foundations - if nothing else it solidifies who we are.

Inevitably the church will issue a statement that affirms our belief in the 6 day creation and those who choose not to subscribe to this will be disappointed. My prayer is that they recognise and support the churchs right to affirm these beliefs and make a decision either way. La Sierra need to align their teachings with the church and I believe they have no option but to do so. From my reading there has been no suggestion La Sierra cannot present other alternatives, but this must be done in the context that the SDA's foundation beliefs are ultimately presented as the explanation of how the world began.

Our bigger picture is the gospel commission. We have an agreed interpretation of the gospel and we need to share this to hasten Christ's return.

I have 3 young children and our goal is to minister to them and ensure their relationship with Christ is infused in everything we do - more than just an intellectual understanding. I have no intention at this stage to send them to a SDA tertiary institution. I would rather have them defend their faith in a known adversary environment then attend a university that pretends to promote Adventist teachings and be trully confused. Whilst I do not expect the SDA Colleges to be perfect, I do expect them to support our foundational beliefs and compliment our teachings. In my experience, exposure to sex, alchohol and the like is just as rampant in SDA colleges as public ones, but the added danger of pretending to promote the Adventist message and not doing so in academia is more dangerous.

As for supporting the church financially. Of course I will continue to do this as our church has the truth, God will protect that and he wants us to finish the work. Anyone suggesting to do otherwise over this issue is stealing from God.

Finally I need to comment on Spectrums words on David being a 'college dropout'. So what and this comment was unnecessary and inflamatory. Anyone who has listened to David will know the guy is more than capable of addressing this topic - perhaps more so than most college graduates. Davids passion is clearly to bring people to Jesus and promote the Adventist Christian message. This is the big picture and I believe he does this well.

Sorry, I have just read the comments and I understand that I am a little late in commenting on the discussion at hand, but I write from Australia and the time difference is considerable, maybe ten years or so.

But I cannot help feel that it is correct what I have heard that God put the fossils in the rocks to fool Charles Darwin.

Be of good cheer. Sandor

Blair wrote:
--
From my reading there has been no suggestion La Sierra cannot present other alternatives, but this must be done in the context that the SDA's foundation beliefs are ultimately presented as the explanation of how the world began.
--

Actually from David Asscherick's letter that is not what he wants. His letter states:

--
It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. We need our young people to know what it is they are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has breached our lines.
--

You notice that he is not asking that it be taught among other alternatives but that evolution is only taught as something that is against 6 day literal creationism. As I noted on my blog article where his letter is posted, http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-gc-against-teaching-evolut...

--
Notice his beginning argument: teaching evolution is OK but only if we teach that it is a view that we oppose. We should not even teach it as the preferred and normative worldview. Yet clearly it is the preferred and normative worldview of most every area of science. This is an important point when we seek to find what the intentions of the author of the letter are speaking about. He does not want the university to acknowledge the scientific reality, the worldview of modern academia. Instead we should only teach how to oppose the reality, the worldview. Something that numerous Young Earth Creation books have tried to do and something that has failed to move practically anyone in the scientific community to the young earth creation viewpoint. This should reflect that what David Asscherick wants, is in itself not possible at this time. Perhaps in a religion class where the focus is upon some type of church apologetic, then it would be appropriate to teach an inimical view of evolution. But in a science class the idea is to teach the most widely accepted scientific information.

--

Ron

Shane,

Thanks, but no thanks.

You can tell your friends that they can repost the deleted items if they wish to get a real conversation started about this issue.

I don't agree with everything that is posted on this blog, but what I do respect is the attempt that those that run it make toward creating a place for candid, civil, and honest conversation about important issues from a diversity of viewpoints.

Bevin,

Also, I want to address this comment you made to me: You just don't like the fact that there is no corresponding tested Theory of Recent Life Creationism.

This doesn't bother me. You are suggesting that it must bother me. I am saying that it doesn't matter. It is a religious faith, that reality was different.

We are having a conversation over multiple threads, its a bit weird. To further what I mean about different realities, and how creation can't be falsified, check out my last post on:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/19/unveiling_missing_link_fossi...

I imagine that you will at least get a good laugh out of my comments.

I hope the following 2 comments were not made by persons that think they are Seventh Day Adventists.

"He often points out areas of our creationist beliefs that are proven wrong by science."

"Those calling for blood haven't remotely justified creationism via acceptable scientific methods, nor have they shown evolutionary theory to be faulty in any way."

No one can believe in evolution(as in the nothing to a universe naturally, amino acids to living creatures, or species evolving into new species, millions of years let alone billions.. on earth anyways) and truly be a Seventh Day Adventist. You could not even believe in the same God, the God of the Bible. Your 'god' would be cruel, evil, using millions of years of death and suffering to eventually arrive at man.

And there is no true evidence of evolution... not one wit. Show me even once where one species evolved into another, where a new organ formed. Reproduce that in the laboratory. The consensus among the top scientists is now that live did not evolve on earth but came from elsewhere, whether by aliens!! or on an asteroid.

Read this site:
http://evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm
and answer all the impossibilities of evolution it portrays. There are hundreds of quotes from evolutions which reveal a myriad of impossibilities of evolution. Just the following 3 chapters cover areas which have been sufficient for me to completely baffle almost every evolutionist that tried to defend his religion(which is really what evolution is).
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch09b.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch11.htm
None had even a shred of evidence for evolution that wasn't easily refutable. If you don't believe in Genesis 1 be honest and quit saying you are SDA. You will leave eventually anyway.

The only reason any professor, teacher, etc., should bring up evolution is to reveal the foolishness that the world believes in and teach the students how to handily refute it and present the greater amount of true evidence for the creation and thus Creator. None should be tolerated that believe in evolution. They are enemies of God, the truth, and the church whether they will acknowledge it or not.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Are we still 'natural', worldly, foolish? or have we been born again, enlightened, taught by the Holy Spirit?

God bless! Jesus is coming soon!

Ron (rc):

I disagree with you that what David mentioned is not possible at this time (regarding the literal 6-day creation position versus Darwinian evolution). At a Christian university (and I have been exposed to and attended a number of non-adventist institutions - I never went to an adventist school) it is very possible to present the view that is widely held by most scientists, and then present the view held by the denomination in question, and mention that as believers this is our preferred position. I cannot imagine ANY Christian believer not being willing or able to do that. I have seen it done numerous times in my life and I have done it myself.

Before I became an adventist, I went to a catholic school and a methodist school. I also attended a government run university in Africa before going to graduate school here in the U.S. We had numerous useful debates/discussions about evolution. However, in the Christian schools, it was very clear to all that evolution was not the preferred Christian position, and it was also clear that many (even then I knew that perhaps most) scientists believed in evolution. What do you expect when you go to a Christian school? You expect the Christian position to be promoted. I always expect that and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. While both sides need to be presented, the Adventist position needs to be indicated clearly as the preferred position of the Adventist (Christian) community. I think our schools have become so liberal-minded that in an attempt to show they are not biased, they are swinging to the other extreme (this is very very typical of liberal culture and I think that is what is going on here). I gather from some of the blogs that in many classes at La Sierra, the Biblical position was NOT EVEN PRESENTED AT ALL. Now, that is REALLY BAD!!! The fact that Randal Wisbey, in his letter, did not dispute these allegations makes me think that the allegations are actually true.

We are not saying professors should not admit or mention that macro evolution is the predominant opinion. All we are saying is that (based on the testimonies of many La Sierra students and the what the curricula clearly state) what is happening is in appropriate - for a professor claiming to be an adventist (a Christian) to teach something that is totally opposed to the Biblical position in an adventist school. Please note that some of you might not realize that the vast majority of adventists believe in the literal 6-day creation story. I realize that quite a few adventists in the western world may not believe the Genesis story any more (sadly I am learning that more and more from these blogs). However, the vast majority of Christians (and Adventists) in Asia, Africa, South America still believe the Bible story.

As some have mentioned in this blog, the university needs to resolve this issue in a manner that removes prevailing doubts about La Sierra, that the university is committed to presenting the Biblical (Adventist) worldview. I am not saying the professors need to be fired, I just think this has to be resolved in a manner that shows Christian mercy, but also preserves the Adventist faith upon which La Sierra was founded.

We all have academic biases, strengths, predispositions. However, let us not forget our faith. Let us not lose our hold on Jesus just because of some fleeting academic laurels.

Thanks.
Edward.

There is some good news:

1. As far as I know, denominational leaders at the General Conference, North American Division, Pacific Union Conference and La Sierra University are handling this matter in harmony with established policies and procedures. Great!

2. At this spot on the Internet, and I suspect others, the La Sierra University faculty under consideration have demonstrated much quiet strength and dignity. Their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty have been challenged in very inappropriate ways. Yet I have yet to read any of them lashing out in angry self-defense. I respect and admire them for this.

3. As we have said on other occasions, God is not dead and neither are we.

We have much to be thankful for!

I will never forget a short saying of Dr. Hughes from the PUC physics faculty: "He who has an axe to grind, looses the edge of his weapon."

Mr. Larson:

"Their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty have been challenged in very inappropriate ways."

There may be a few who have challenged their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty--I have not seen any comments to that regard--but what some of them are presenting is being challenged.

It's in their presentations and syllabi; they also readily admit to it. So once again, all these alleged allegations toward their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty are merely a red herring to the issue at hand.

The church believes that both naturalistic evolution and theistic macroevolution are incompatible with what the Scriptures teach. The church also holds to the belief in a literal six-day creation as affirmed in #6 of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I believe these men are sincere in their faith, but all manner of error has been taught in sincerity. However you interpret the data, it does not change the fact that what some teachers in the biology department believe and present directly contradicts what the church holds as one of its fundamental beliefs.

Yes, I dare any of those faculty members to get involved! Then the true nature of what they think would come to light. If the allegations are false, what is keeping them from producing the evidence that vindicate them? Perhaps because they don't have any.

It's public now, and the information is out there. Some of them have committed it to writing. To deny what they believe and promote as truth would be almost worse then what is being promoted in our schools.

Mr. Larson, do you think the church should retain teachers who do not believe or promote the fundamental belief of creation? Who directly contradict what the church believes is truth based on the Word of God?

Friends,
I thought it might be enlightening to add another EGW quote to this discussion so here goes:
"But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion.
The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error....
And there are many in the church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but until controversy arises, they do not know their own weakness." pg. 39 Co.
to Wr. & Editors
" There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible.Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." pg. 35
Food for thought for us all !!

Bevin

I am also a member of the Society of Inadvertant Obstetricians (inducted with "High Honors" I might add!!) Class of '76
I did enjoy the humor!!

I would encourage everyone to "relax" just a bit and tone down the rhetoric somewhat! Many of these questions will not be answered until we get "up yonder". Last time I checked full knowledge and disclosure on this subject wasn't a prerequisite for salvation. It is an interesting topic with limitations on resolution.

All the best!

Fred

Take a look at this Baptist University. It is not compromising and is even adding a new degree in geology which they believe will be enhanced because they uphold to a literal six-day account of Genesis. They also require a Bible minor as part of all academic programs. Perhaps we can still learn from our Baptist friends. . .

Cedarville University is home to 3,000 Christian students, Cedarville is an accredited, Christ-centered, Baptist university of arts, sciences, professional, and graduate programs.

Our faith is not a label or a surface treatment, it is our lifeblood and permeates all aspects of the university, its programs and its people. Missions and ministry are integrated into every facet of the Cedarville experience.

* Unwavering commitment to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture
* Creationist approach to scientific research and study
* Required Bible minor a part of all academic programs
* Daily chapels with relevant biblical teaching and authentic praise
* Discipleship groups that provide opportunities for Bible study, mentoring, accountability, prayer, and open discussion
* Missions and study abroad opportunities that reach nearly every corner of the world.

We are committed to maintaining complex balances without compromising our doctrinal or philosophical distinctives. We produce graduates who are trained to be "in the world, but not of it." We are ambitious, but not elitist. We are conservative, but not old-fashioned. We are relevant, but not relativistic.

Cedarville, Ohio—Cedarville University’s Board of Trustees recently approved the formation of the Bachelor of Science in geology degree, set to begin in fall 2009.

Faculty will equip students for lifelong scientific leadership in career fields such as hydrogeology, environmental geology, petroleum geology and numerous other areas of expertise.

“The degree will offer a whole host of new opportunities for graduates,” shares Dr. John Whitmore, associate professor of geology. “Geologists help us find clean drinking water, petroleum, natural gas, coal and valuable minerals.”

The program will be unique in that no other Christian school, that holds to a literal six-day account of Genesis offers geology as a major for undergraduates. The course of study will be taught from both naturalistic and young-earth paradigms of earth history.

“It is extremely important to develop critical thinking skills within the minds of young scientists,” describes Whitmore. “We believe that using a two-model approach of earth history will be advantageous to our students, since others are only taught a one-model, naturalistic approach. Geologists are important when it comes to thinking about earth history, especially within a biblical context.”

Coursework will be rigorous and emphasize hands-on experience along with required field work. The geology major will include a wide range of liberal arts classes along with calculus, physics, chemistry, biology, physical geology, historical geology, mineralogy, petrology, structural geology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, geomorphology, invertebrate paleontology, and environmental geology among other upper-level areas of study. The major will prepare students for both graduate school and industry.

The arrogance and aggression in this debate saddens me!

I am a born and bred Seventh-day Adventist and I love the church, I truly love the Sabbath as a special gift from God, but I am not fully convinced that God created the world exactly in accordance with the description given in Genesis.

Despite arguments to the contrary I believe that even those who claim to believe exactly what the Bible says are willing to believe that some aspects of the account must be “interpreted”, i.e. we need to exercise judgment to understand what the Bible is saying.

We are told that on the first day God created light but that the sun was only created on the fourth day. Here already we have a need to “interpret” what the bible is saying. What was this light that God created that existed without the sun? When did God un-create this light because it surely does not exist today? I have heard the explanation that this light was the presence of God, but then why did God have to create the light on the first day, as we are told in Genesis? Did the Glory of his presence not surround him before? Is this light of God’s Gory only 6,000 years old? Which ever way we explain this light we are “interpreting” and deviating from a strict reading of the Genesis account.

Most of the people that I have spoken too, who accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation are prepared to concede that the entire universe is not just 6,000 years old, but that many of the stars and galaxies are much older and that Genesis is only referring to our solar system; but that is not what the Genesis account says. In coming to this conclusion we are going beyond a strict reading of the Bible.

If we accept that some aspects of the Biblical account may not be exactly what happened, then why is it so difficult to accept that the Genesis account might have been God’s way of explaining to a primitive people the fact that He created; not exactly how he created.

I fully understand all the challenges that deviating from our traditional understanding bring; the fall being just one example. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to these questions.

My acceptance that creation might not have happened exactly in accordance with the Genesis account happened fairly recently. All of my life I fully accepted the Genesis account then a few years ago, in an effort to convince my son-in-law of the fallacy of evolution, I engaged him in a debate.

Having attended Walter Vieth’s lectures I believed that proving the fallacy of evolution would be easy. As I began to honestly investigate the matter I found that there was good evidence supporting deep time and of life having existed on this earth for a very long time. Sadly, I found that there seemed to be many more honest scientists than there were honest theologians; I cannot believe that God created the world with an appearance of great age, thereby deliberately setting out to mislead honest scientists. I found that many of the so called holes in the theory of evolution were distractions and easily explained to anyone willing to honestly confront the data.

Today I am happy to accept that I don’t know exactly how God created this world. I have eternity for him to explain this to me. Despite the hysterical outbursts of Cliff Goldstein and his elk I remain a member of the SDA Church. I thank God that our church was built by those who were willing to question what had “already been settled” end especially the “pillars of the truth”. I thank God that there are teachers who honestly confront the data and honestly present this to there students.

Courtenay
Excellent heartfelt post. You like others on this post appear to have the true intent of the Bible in mind as a story about how God has dealt with fellow humans and also your attitudes about some of the posts also appears to see the "big" picture of what Christians should be known for.

"Sadly, I found that there seemed to be many more honest scientists than there were honest theologians; I cannot believe that God created the world with an appearance of great age, thereby deliberately setting out to mislead honest scientists."

I really like the statement above--even though I am a preachers kids and have a lot of other relatives still involved with church ministry. Sometimes though it is the pastors, like my father, that have a better glimpse of what to emphasize since they have to deal with people on a reality basis versus just stating their absolute views in an ivory tower. There are other theologians/posts though that do appear to focus on the right stuff.

I also have been bothered by seeing the posts of Cliff Goldstein. I personally hope that he is better in person than what I have seen of him here--he would be a great lawyer and has the writing ability for that but does not come across in this venue sadly as someone I can respect which makes his writing very suspect. Its too bad he is the voice of SDA administration here but having others in higher positions of the church that post differently than he does is refreshing--and perhaps the measured response of the administration is a good sign. Although having been involved with the church over the years, and seeing previous responses, it remains to be seen how ultimately this will end.

"Cliff Goldstein and his elk" gave me a laugh. Thanks.

May Cliff's deerly held beliefs not grow more rigid as he applies moose to his hare.

Maybe we have a break in the dialog we can use to work on a solution. Shane wrote:

==
I believe these men are sincere in their faith, but all manner of error has been taught in sincerity. However you interpret the data, it does not change the fact that what some teachers in the biology department believe and present directly contradicts what the church holds as one of its fundamental beliefs.

--

We can grant that teachers can be sincere and wrong. Can we grant that the church (leadership/bureaucracy)can also be sincere and wrong? If in our search for truth we limit ourselves by saying the church is never wrong we simply recapitulate Roman Catholic history.

Ron

If anyone wishes to get a take on Science they should at least read Sir Peter Medawar's book "Pluto's Republic". Medawar a Nobel Prize Winning scientist is very candid and quick of wit in his polemics. A near quote: "It is no use to look at scientific papers, they seldom clarify, mostly conceal their real intent or solid findings."

According to a review by Rafe Champion www.the-rathouse.com/Medawar_PlutoRepublic.html Medawar crticises two misconceptins of scientific thought, two contrasting theories which are virtually polar opposites, on the one hand the 'romantic' or 'potec/intuitive school of thought and the other the :rational' or analytical model. It is a must read.

Tom

Shane

Thanks for your comments! Here are some responses.

1. I have no first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the biology program at LSU, something that is probably true of most of us.

2. I do know some of those professors and I would be very surprised if they have acted inappropriately.

3. SDA colleges and universities have established policies and procedures with which to handle such matters. People who have concerns should work through them.

4. I very much doubt that there is a single SDA in the world who understands and agrees with each of the 28 Fundamental beliefs precisely as they are written. Everyone of us can think of places where we would put things differently if we could, even if only very slightly.

5. The responsibility of those who have the gift of administration is to discern whether there is enough overlap between what the 28 Fundamentals say and what the teacher believes to make it a mutually beneficial working relationship. I think that in the overwhelming majority of cases SDA administrators do this very well.

6. When working through established channels does not result in what we think should be done, we have the freedom to give interviews, conduct seminars, hold conferences, publish books. All of these should be about the conceptual issues at hand. These opportunities should not be used to criticize people with whom we differ. The issue is the issue, not the person.

7. The only way to get rid of bad ideas is to crowd them out with good ones. Nothing else works and nothing else matters.

Thanks again!

Dave

@Dave Larson

Thank you for those very wise words. I appreciate the good sense you've injected into this lengthy discussion. If I were to pick one of the points that seems especially helpful (all of them are helpful), I would say that I find the last point most helpful of all.

In the end, it is not throwing rocks that produces better edifices, it is (surprise) building better edifices.

Tom

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm going to follow up on it.

Here is something I have found helpful:

David Ray Griffin, "Neo-Darwinism and Its Religious Implications" in John B. Cobb, Jr., editor, "Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolultion" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing House, 2008).

It is a thoughtful analysis and appraisal of 11 core doctrines and 4 religious and moral implications of Neo-Darwinian thought.

Griffin argues that several of the core doctrines are more philosophical than scientific in nature and that they are open to severe philosophical criticism.

I don't think we should be surprised if people get upset if they are told that the universe is nothing but an accident, that there are no intrinsic right and wrong, that life is meaningless except for the meaning we give it, that devouring others is the only way to get ahead, that there is no God and nothing beyond the grave.

As Chuck Scriven wrote in his column, not every aspect of every evolutionary theory is worthy of our respect and support. Some are culturally and personally lethal.

It would be too bad if we SDAs cannot acknowledge this precisely when many others who are not SDAs increasingly are.

It's sort of like SDAism moving away from vegetarianism precisely when many others are moving toward it!

Good timing has never been one of our strengths!

Grace!

The loudest trumpets are often blown by those who cannot read the score.

Dave L.:

Thanks for your reply to my comment.

1. You're probably right about most of us not having any first hand experience with the biology department at LSU. My personal experience occurred 4 years ago, and as I understand it, the teacher who at the time believed and taught that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that macro-evolution was/is an actual occurance, still teaches some classes there even though he is retired. Plus, a lot of the material from the biology department is out on the web and can be accessed from students who are currently taking the courses. I have seen some of the presentations and there really isn't anything to debate when it comes down to whether or not macroevolution is being taught as fact.

2. Agreed. I have not seen any responses from them that would be inappropriate, though I haven't seen any response from them at all.

3. This is true, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, what has happened over the years is that those who have tried to go through the proper channels have either been ignored or received little attention. I think some of the discussion on this thread and on other websites is especially helpful in bringing awareness to an issue that has largely been ignored by our leadership. Perhaps if they can see that there is really a large concern by the membership, then some action can be taken through the proper channels.

4. You're probably right about this, but wouldn't you agree that macro-evolution is dramatically opposite the creation account and the churchs understanding of how creation occurred?

5. Think I can agree with you on this point.

6. Again, I can agree with you on this.

7. Not sure I agree entirely with this method, but it's a good one.

Good Day!

Shane

Jen's post regarding Cedarville University was the first time that I have seen anyone actually propose a working model that could be applied in our universities. Perhaps it would be better to take the approach of presenting such a model and asking "why not?" instead of only attacking the current model (or the current model as perceived by a handful of people).

"The only way to get rid of bad ideas is to crowd them out with good ones. Nothing else works and nothing else matters" (Dave Larson)

What if the bad ideas are the ones that have been hallowed by tradition? Organizations tend to define "good" and "bad" pragmatically and reject any idea that's perceived as a problem, let alone a threat, to its business model.

The problem with evolution is that it is religiously wrong but scientifically right--in a world that's not willing to adopt Descartes' parallel truth model.

Larson opined: "At this spot on the Internet, and I suspect others, the La Sierra University faculty under consideration have demonstrated much quiet strength and dignity. Their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty have been challenged in very inappropriate ways."

Examples, please. Thanks in advance.

"Perhaps it would be better to take the approach of presenting such a model [Cedarville U] and asking "why not?" instead of only attacking the current model (or the current model as perceived by a handful of people)."

Sure. Sounds great...but in the meantime it doesn't appear to me that La Sierra is "following" a real "model" -- they are just letting things happen and not really responding to the objections of those who want SDA values and beliefs represented in an SDA school.

Dave. Thanks for your perspective. I'm sure there are many SDA professors who are following all of this very closely.

I haven't read the book you mentioned so I offer a criticism more as a question. Is Griffen able to distinguish clearly between naturalism and the theory of evolution (TofE) because they are separate things. There are many things blamed on TofE (including all of the things you listed above) that are not part of the TofE.

There are vocal naturalists who are also evolutionary biologists like Dawkins, Coyne, and PZ Myers. But there are also naturalists like Sam Harris who is a neurobiologist, Dennett who is a philosopher, and Hitchens who is a writer. In other words, philosophical naturalists can be evolutionary biologists but all too often, the naturalists are all lumped together and called Neo-Darwinists thus mixing up naturalists with TofE. These outspoken critics of belief may rely on TofE to shape some of their ideas but even they are careful to distinguish what TofE says with what they think people should conclude.

TofE is a scientific theory like the theory of gravity. Trying to draw moral lessons from it or trying to say it is immoral is like calling gravity immoral because people fall off cliffs. It's just kind of the way it is. Naturalism, however, is a philosophy that really is incompatible with belief.

If you look at Cedarville University Geology course descriptions you immediately see that they are teaching creationsim as one of the possible interpretation but it appears the majority of the course is mainstream Geology. As the syllabus says:

Course Description: The earth’s geological history from its beginning to the present. Topics of study include plate tectonics, biological evolution and the meaning of the fossil record, correlation, dating methods, and alternative views of earth history. Required field trips will study local fossils. Three lectures and one laboratory per week. Prerequisites: GEOL‐1110 Introduction to Physical Geology. (Fee:
$100) http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/sciencemath/geology/geol1120.pdf

As you look at the sections you see that very little time is spent on young earth creationism. It appears to be three or four session in the first Geological course. I think it is always good to give alterantive explaniations if you can find them. In this case it is the young earth creationist viewpoint that appears to be the alternative.

In any case this is a far cry from what Asscherick's letter with it's call to teach evolution only as a harmful or hostile idea to 6 literal day creationism. Of course it makes since because there is practically no way to teach geology without going over evolutionary and deep time and dating techniques which have no corralation with 6 literal day creation. Geology with the idea that the flood did it simply does nobody any good.

Ron

duplicate

This debate touches on subjects that go right to the very CORE of our Adventist Christian beliefs. Throw out a literal 7-day creation and you cast doubt on the Creator, the Sabbath, the story of the fall of man, and even the Great Controversy itself.

On the issue of creation, I choose to stick with Sola Scriptura, no matter how narrow-minded and uninformed that may make me look. Darwin's theory has come along rather recently in the scheme of things and should time exist long enough, I'm sure evolution will prove itself to be inaccurate to the extreme.

We always keep finding things that prove this or that and then find something new that disproves the old "this or that." See: http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/belshazzar.htm

The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8

@Your Friend: Larson opined: "At this spot on the Internet, and I suspect others, the La Sierra University faculty under consideration have demonstrated much quiet strength and dignity. Their spiritual integrity and denominational loyalty have been challenged in very inappropriate ways."
Examples, please. Thanks in advance.

I can tell you my experience with some of these professors. I have earned degrees from two Adventist colleges and am now a tenured professor in biology at a Research One university. Some of the professors that are under attack are the very ones that were instrumental in my becoming a scientist and remaining a Christian. Their example, both in and out of the class, was among the greatest influences in my life. How many of you can remember details from a specific sabbath school class you attended twenty-some years ago? I can - it was let by one of these professors while he was with a group of students on a field trip. We all shared in an excellent discussion. I have similar memories of specific lectures as well as scientific and spiritual discussions in one-on-one talks with the professors.

I have been offered employment at several Adventist universities and have passed on all them, partly because I have no desire to be attacked by those that don't know anything about the types of information students need to survive in science, and partly because I didn't want my family to struggle financially because of the lousy pay (especially at the Adventist schools located in expensive areas). These professors have sacrificed more than I would be willing to.

As a scientist that trains graduate students, I would be perfectly willing to accept a student that got a B.S. at La Sierra because I know the student would have a good education. Beth was right when she mentioned that students from Liberty University have a hard time getting into graduate school because they don't have adequate depth in their science training. I have seen that exact scenario - we won't accept them to our graduate program. Students from the Adventist system could face the same problems if the science programs are gutted.

I have looked over the La Sierra lecture material that Mr. Pitman swiped and posted on his site. The lectures look to be good quality. Were there any factual errors? Was Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium incorrectly defined? Or allopatric speciation? Are there errors in the information about drug resistance in HIV? You can cherry-pick quotes, but for those of you that want the professors to go, what are the specific factual or scientific errors? I suspect that many of the people want the professors gone couldn't begin to analyze the validity of the lecture content.

Roger

Wait....as I recall, there was a post on here that someone stated that a petition was was opened in regards to this matter, as well as there was a link posted.

As I recall, weren't you (Alex Carpenter) the one bashing Lasierrauniversity(.)net for moderating their comments, and yet you go and do the same thing?

Here it is again:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Sixdaycreation/

I'm glad to hear Roger's perspective. The mission of a teacher-scientist in a church university setting is, as my major professor said, "a lonely life". Thanks be to God for those who accepted such a mission.

I was the one who brought the petition to everyone's attention. Perhaps Spectrum deleted it because they didn't want to publicize that reprehensible thing here, which is fine with me. I only posted it because I wanted to provide evidence that this ordeal has been taken to the next level by the right wing.

(Other John...)

If you want to post a petition, just link it on a blog and tell people to visit it for the petition link. That is why you can put your homepage address for your comments. Removing a link that could imply this site promotes the petition is very different from comments that are on-topic being revised or deleted.

Beth

I think that you and Griffin are moving along the same lines.

Writing as a philosopher of religion, he tries to identify eleven of the most commonly recurring themes in current evolutionary thought and distinguish between those that are truly scientific in nature and those that are actually philosophical and therefore worthy of philosophical analysis and appraisal. Here are the eleven:

1. Microevolution

2. Macaroevolution

3. Naturalism

4. Uniformitarianism

5. Positivism-Materialism

6. Predictive Determinism

7. Nominalism

8. Gradualism

9. Reduction of Macroevolution to Microevolution

10. Restriction to Random Variations and Natural Selection

11. Evolution as Wholy Undirected.

He believes that only the first two--microevolution and macroevolution--are scientific. The other nine are philosophical.

I gather that his point is that to deny either of the first two is to demonstrate either that one does not have adequate information or that one does not have the mental capacity to deal with it.

Most SDAs would probably agree with him on microevolution and disagree with him on macroevolution.

He distingishes between two kinds of naturalism. Both reject supernaturalism when this is understood as occasional divine interventions from some other realm that counter the natural processes. One of these forms of anti-supernaturalism leaves room for God to work within these natural proceses and the other does not. He favors the first.

Most SDAs are supernaturalists. I think we need to be very careful here, however. Afterall, in harmony with Scripture's doctrine of creation, EGW is very clear that God's interventions do not work "against" but "with" what we call the laws of nature.

In my view, this more subtle and accurate form of supernaturalism is one of the very best things about SDA theology. We SDAs aren't the only ones who think of God's interventions as working "with" rather than "against" the laws of nature. But I am pleased that we are among those who understand "supernaturalism" this way.

Everything depends upon what we mean by "supernatural." In order not to be misunderstood on this issue, I usually prefer to speak of God "paraticipating" rather than God "intervening."

This takes less time than for me to say, "I am a supernaturalist, but I am not the kind of supernaturalist that you probably think I am. No, I am another kind of supernaturalist. A better kind!"

Back to Griffin. He then identifies what he takes to be the religious and moral implications of evolutionary thought:

12. Atheism

13. The Universe as Meaningless

14. Amoralism

15. Nonprogressivisim

He sometimes describes these as implications of all of the first eleven, the two scientific ones and the nine philosophical ones. But as I understand it, the force of his argument is that they are actually implications of the the nine, not the two.

In other words, in his view of things one can believe in mircoevolution and macroevolution without affirming atheism, the universe as meaningless, amoralism and nonprogressivism.

I am confident that this is the right way to read him because he--himself--does this.

Most SDAs would probably limit his point to microevolution. Others might say that this distinction doesn't always hold up. Again, I think we need to be very careful, making certain that we are using words like "species" in the same and best way.

This is a long way of saying that I think that Griffin would agree with you that in-so-far-as evolutionary thought is truly scientific, its religious and moral implications are unavoidable and therefore unworthy of a lot of discussion.

He would only add that much of what passes as science in evolutionary thought is actually philosophy and that it is worthy of being judged as such.

Thanks!

Dave

P.S.: Griffin can be a stickler. In an informal conversation I once told him that I agreed with 9.50 of 10 points he had made in some publication. He said that this was not good enough and walked off!! So much for the "aloha spirit!!" I've nevertheless learned much from his writings.

Thanks so much for that clarification Dave. I love talking with professors - good ones have such a talent for summing up and explaining complex ideas clearly as you've done here. Now I really am going to have to get that book.

The story you related is hilarious. Luckily interesting ideas can be set apart from the occasional interpersonal foibles of the idea maker if necessary. I've known plenty of really brilliant people who can't always be counted on in polite company but what can you do?

David Larson wrote:

--
P.S.: Griffin can be a stickler. In an informal conversation I once told him that I agreed with 9.50 of 10 points he had made in some publication. He said that this was not good enough and walked off!! So much for the "aloha spirit!!" I've nevertheless learned much from his writings.

Beth replied:

The story you related is hilarious. Luckily interesting ideas can be set apart from the occasional interpersonal foibles of the idea maker if necessary. I've known plenty of really brilliant people who can't always be counted on in polite company but what can you do?

--

Is that a foible, on these recent threads we have been told that if you don't agree with the Adventist 28 fundamentals that you should get out of the church. It seems to me those people think they they are behaving entirely appropriately. So lets not call Griffin's action a foible let's just say he was behaving like a good traditionalist Adventist. (though I would suspect he would take that as a huge insult...so better not say anything.)

Ron

Well put, Ron!

John:

You can find a link to the website that sponsors the petition you linked.

Shane

Have you guys seen this site yet: www.EducateTruth.com?

Interesting....

Matt

Thanks for this link. I really like the layout of the home page, particularly the beautiful "rolling pictures" at the top. [There must be a proper name for this but I don't know what it is.] Wish I knew how to do that!

Substance seems about the same, except for Doctor Sean Pitman's gratitude to this article for giving his project so much free publicity.

I wish he would spend more time developing and promoting his own views and less time addressing issues that we should leave, after expressing our concerns, to those who have the gift of administration!

I have visited his own personal web site and benefited from his studies. More of that, please!

Dave

As usual Spectrum seeks to put out the most bias opinion toward liberal perfection and furthering their diet gospel. It frustrates me that having the voice of mass communication via their journal, that they use negative nomenclature throughout the article. So much so that it is more than obvious that it is intentional. Examples: using words like "attacked" "witch hunt", and stating more than once that Pastor Asscherick is an college drop out and Dough Bachelor inexperienced in SDA higher ed.- as if that is the cardinal sin of all sins. How arrogant of statements! If half of our students realize that work that has been ordained for us as Seventh-day Adventist in proclaiming the Three Angels Messages' our modern schools of Adventist education would be bankrupt. But I suppose that if we are all part of evolutionary process, we are going to ebb our way to Heaven in a few million years from now, going through this sin sick world doing what we want to do instead of following a "Thus saith the Lord."

People are comparing this to previous incidents over the past few decades where there were huge riffs through our institutions, not giving any thought to what was being taught on a public level, new doctrines that is contrary to true Biblical doctrine, i.e. D. Fords new theology on the Investigative Judgment and Righteous by Faith.

It sounded as if this should have been dealt with in an private matter. I'm convinced that Pst. Asscherick intended to not make that email public, never the less, when issues such as these (erroneous teachings of evolution) are taught publicly, it has to be dealt with publicly - period.

Addressing the President's statements of LSU, he stated more or less that we can have different conclusions and still be brother and sisters. My question is where do we draw the line, especially on a matter of this magnitude. If we are called to be a unified body as stated in Joel 2, Acts, and Revelation 14, where does that process begin? If I come to church next Sabbath stating I believe in the Seventh-day Sabbath but I reject Christ as my Saviour, furthermore he was just another man, will I still be a brother? Would I be allowed to teach that in theology department?

Lastly if we continue to entertain evolutionary teaching - even under the garb of "Its just to show both sides," we are eroding at one of the two monumental pillars of creation - The Seventh Day Sabbath. If creation didn't happen in six continuous days, then there technically shouldn't be a Seventh Day Sabbath.

As Seventh Day Adventists we are called to a higher standard than the rest of the world and Christianity. When are we going to get our act together and do our part to usher in the second coming of Christ, because His return is dependent upon us!

God Bless Pastor Asscherick for NOT being a coward and addressing these issues dead on. As Pastor Asscherick is an ORDAINED minister of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST organized church, it moves me to joy and confidence that there is laity that will NOT sit complacently by, nor not rock the boat, but has the man-hood to be a watchmen on the wall and blow the trumpet in Zion.

"Pastor Asscherick is an ORDAINED minister of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST organized church."

Which makes every one of his utterances inerrant, infallible, and
unquestioned. Ex cathedra speaking? Are pastors now popes who
proclaim what will be correct doctrine? God help us. Where did
the idea originate that pastors are the church's official spokespersons and that their every word is absolute truth?

I wanted to commend James R for his 31 May at 5:24 contribution. I also found comments by Fred Eastman, Bevin, and some by davidrlarson very interesting and surprisingly calm amist what seems to be quite a storm.

I am an alum of the La Sierra Biology Department. I had a very similar experience to what James R related. I would like to add a simple request that when considering this current issue that we remember that the livelihoods of the professors and the administrators of LSU are being affected. That these "discussions" are causing ripples that are going to destroy people. Not destroy a "theory". But people and their families. Some comments by Pr. David and Dr. Pitman have been incredibly damaging.

The professors of my time at LSU were very open about the struggle of Science and Belief. That condition will not change just because an administration dictates that the struggle can't be made public. Good science, done from a man/woman seeking knowledge, always encounters struggle with regards to where that search leads.

As a pastor's wife I also understand the seeming uproar that science causes. Having lived a life with these two "worlds" for a lack of better wording, I just ask for kindness and love to temper the discussion. To understand that this discussion is not happening in a vacuum, or for our non-science bent people, it is not happening independent of repercussions.

I understand the passion represented by both sides, but as a person it's easy to jump into a defensive and passionate position. I ask God to give each of us the wisdom to meet issues clearly and with a maturity of spirit and a wish show Him in a light of love and not of extreme disregard for our fellow humans,Christians, and adventists.

Blessing to you all!

Brandon
Although I don't think it was intentional, I agree with you that the tone of this article, and the cartoon that accompanies it, are hurtful. Yet I'm not inclined to think that this is typical of the results of AF/Spectrum's investigatve journalism. I anticipate that subsequent articles of this sort will be more dispassionate. Thanks!
Dave

Brandon, I suggest that you read the article by "A La Sierra Student speaks." This student does not take sides, and simply tells of his experience. However he does show that the La Sierra faculty are over-extending themselves in being available to counsel students and help the students to make their own minds about some of these more complex issues.

Just would like to leave this closing thought: you object to the term "witch-hunt", but what is worse to call someone a "witch-hunter" or to be "witch-hunted"?

Thanks, Another Shannon. There are real repercussions that are damaging to professors who have dedicated years of their lives to educate our students.

Roger W.

Hey John,

Thanks for posting the petition link again after it was whipped off SpectrumLand.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Sixdaycreation/

There are many, many, many other choices for colleges and universities to attend or for obtaining a teaching job. Why stretch a college with SDA foundation to a student's or prof's personal goals? Who would benefit from this stretch to secularism?

Jody ;)

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor."

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Do unto others as you wish them to do to you."

It appears that any method is used to achieve the desired results.

Destroying the livelihoods and professions to meet the approval of
individuals who resort to such methods is reprehensible, as well
as unchristian.

If the desired result is to greatly limit Adventist higher education, is that the price such character assassins are willing to pay?

It does not go unnoticed that one of the prominent spokesman attacking La Sierra, is the product of postgraduate education. What are your plans of Adventist higher education now that you have achieved your goal? Should Adventist education lose its accreditation (which could be the result if these recommendations are followed), what do you offer for SDA education for the thousands of young people in the future? Is destruction the method to improve it? Like war: "we had to kill them to bring peace."

I just checked that link that Jody gave to a petiton. It says:

--
Dear Pastors Jan Paulsen, Don Schneider, and Ricardo Graham,

We, by signing this petition, reaffirm our belief in a literal six-day creation as expressed in Genesis 1.

We are concerned in regards to the alleged teaching of theistic macro-evolution as fact in some of our Adventist colleges and universities. And we lift our voices in agreement with the open letter from ASI Missions Inc. "that this dialog move to a point where parents and prospective students have a full disclosure of what our colleges and universities are offering so they can make informed decisions and have realistic expectations regarding the philosophy and quality of education being offered."

Sincerely,

--

I find that difficult to believe that anyone is or could be teaching theistic evolution as a fact. It is at best a philosophical interpretation of the evidence. But not really a fact. Evolution as a fact is more likely to be taught as it is a simple statement of explaining reality. Even reading David Read's (the author of the Dinosaurs...) comments he accepts evolution. Stating that there was an great increase in speciation following the flood.

But I guess if people can't even articulate a relevant petition we don't have to fear anyone taking action on that petition. Just intereting however.

Ron

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor."

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

"Do unto others as you wish them to do to you."

It appears that any method is used to achieve the desired results.

Destroying the livelihoods and professions to meet the approval of
individuals who resort to such methods is reprehensible, as well
as unchristian.

If the desired result is to greatly limit Adventist higher education, is that the price such character assassins are willing to pay?

It does not go unnoticed that one of the prominent spokesman attacking La Sierra, is the product of postgraduate education. What are your plans of Adventist higher education now that you have achieved your goal? Should Adventist education lose its accreditation (which could be the result if these recommendations are followed), what do you offer for SDA education for the thousands of young people in the future? Is destruction the method to improve it? Like war: "we had to kill them to bring peace."

I cannot believe how naive people are when they claim that this is not a witch hunt. They are either in denial or just plain blind. One only has to peruse a few of the comments on that petition to see that the mob is mobilizing and gathering together with torches and pitchforks in hand. You can practically see some of these individuals salivating with glee as they cry out for the firing of Wisbey and faculty.

Not a witch hunt. Right. And I've got some property for sale in Iraq. Any takers?

BTW, this one was a particular favourite of mine:

"We need to get the LIBERALS OUT OF OFFICE !!! Discontinue the JESUIT AGENDA for our church!!"

Was there any doubt it was heading towards this? None whatsoever.

I only hope those crying out for blood understand the principal of Karma.

Hi Elaine,

Despite what I am about to say, I do enjoy your posts and passion for your beliefs...I just have a different view to you and think any robust discussion on beliefs is a good thing. In general, I expect to be having this discussion with non-SDA believers, but such is life.

A couple of comments:

Do not bear false witness? What I do not understand is how a lecturer or teacher at La Sierra can honestly teach and affirm evolution when it is contrary to the stated beliefs of the SDA church. Fine to explain other points of view but this must ultimately be countered by the stated beliefs of the church - and explained why this stated belief makes sense against other views. The passion you have for wanting evolution taught as fact (sorry Ron - 'reality') is the same passion that the majority of SDA's have for the 6-day creation.

Destroying lives? Might I also suggest that the teachers are undermining the Adventists beliefs of the students - and thus ultimately confusing and destroying their eternal lives. I really dont understand why these teachers choose to undermine the beliefs of the church. Given their scholastic background, they know what they are doing. There has never been any suggestion that these teachers do not have the free will to believe evolution - just that they should be honest with themselves and teach somewhere where their university agrees with their teaching - which is the majority of other universities.

And plans for Adventist Higher Education - I was not aware that university accreditation involves stating that you cannot believe in a 6 day creation. If that is the case, then lets not worry about accreditation. Amongst many established courses, the SDA network has many well respected hospitals to survive on their own. If over time the general population refuse to be serviced by Adventist trained doctors because they subscribe to a 6-day creation - then we move on. But to date the Adventist theology has survived this scrutiny. And other science degrees. I recall an ealier post where a Baptist university was happy to advocate a 6-day creation position - and teach Biology. I wonder if they are worried about accreditation?

The bottom line for me is that we should have the freedom to dictate what the SDA position is with evolution and the like. You dont have to agree with this, but for those who choose to follow this creed, then it is only fair that they try and defend this. I have 3 primary school aged children that attend an SDA school (which is a significant dent on our budget). Is the next step that evolution be taught as fact at all levels of SDA schooling? Why not as accreditation may become an issue for them as well. If this happened, I would be looking at alternatives. As it stands now, I acknowledge that most of my childrens education is the home responsibility anyway - its just nice to have this complimented at all levels of SDA education.

For those who disagree - start their own Christian university with stated beliefs that allow for evolution to be taught as fact and for a 6-day creation to be taught as a competing fairy tale. Is that not reasonable? Surely this is viable given the passion and view of a lot of posts on Spectrum.

Moving forward - Ron: I suspect no matter what the outcome of that peition, that the church has no choice but to uphold 6-day creation as 'reality' for SDA's. How can we adjust what is taught and ensure we uphold the 'love thy neighbor' principle. Challenging, but with prayer and all the academic minds on the case - anything is possible.

Ron:

It shouldn't be hard to believe after perusing through the syllabi and presentations from the biology department. Theistic has to be added to include the idea that God was the originator of life, but that he used naturalistic processes to bring about all species. Whether it's being taught as the preferred worldview is not in question at this point; what is in question is why it's being taught at an SDA university.

Shane Hilde
www.educatetruth.com

RD,

On 30 May 2009 at 11:06 you made the following statement: “Nothing in this conversation means a hill of beans to those suffering physically and spiritually, and in need of a Savior.”

Evidently, you probably have failed to analyze the issue involved in this debate. If we merely evolved thanks to natural selection, we have no Savior, and if we have no Savior, those “suffering physically and spiritually” have no Savior either and no hope for any help from above either in this life or the life to come. The theory of evolution accepts no miracles or divine intervention in the affairs of men. Everything is explainable either today or tomorrow on the basis of natural activity.

Both Jesus and Scripture, from Genesis through Revelation describe God as the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe. This belief is negated by the theory of evolution. Teaching evolution as factual should be condemned in the strongest possible terms by Adventist leaders. If Darwin is right, then there was no Creation, there were no miracles, no resurrection of Lazarus or Jesus, no Second Coming, and no future life. This present world is all there is. There is no need of a Ph. D. in order to understand the truth of what I am stating.

I do have a Ph. D. degree, but I don’t use it to deny the power of God. Jesus described his Father as one who continually cares for his Creation. “My Father works and I work as well.” The alleged working of natural selection is in fact evidence of God’s constant care for those he created. Were it not for God’s constant activity in nature, our planet would look like the Moon, Mars or any other planet in our solar system, entirely devoid of life. God is constantly working in nature, and Satan is working in it as well. This is explained by the Great Controversy.

We need to take the theory of evolution seriously and avoid pretending that the arguments used to neutralize the teaching of Scripture do not exist. If Dinosaurs did exist before the creation of Adam and Eve, then the only solution to this conundrum is to adopt Dr. Jack Provonsha’s solution to the problem without doing any violence to the fundamental teaching of Scripture. He proposed that if life existed prior to the creation described in Genesis, then we need to attribute the pain and suffering prior to the creation of Adam and Eve to the sin and activity of Lucifer instead of Adam’s sin.

This represents the golden parachute I have at my disposal without doing any violence to my faith!

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Any simpleton can toss bricks. It takes no degree in any discipline to be so certain how they should be taught. For those who are so critical of what is being taught at La Sierra or other SDA colleges, please complete the necessary qualifications to teach so that you may replace all the faculty you would like to see removed. Unless you can offer a better plan, where has a solution been given to replace the "broken" science departments that you so easily condemn?

The old saying is especially true: "Don't criticize the other person until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

How many who are so passionately critical of La Sierra's faculty, have the necessary qualifications to replace any of them? Have you offered the school your application to teach there? If so,
did they employ you? IOW, until you can offer a workable solution, agreeable to the school, you are doing nothing more than undermining a Christian school and attempting to overthrow it.

If La Sierra were no longer an SDA college, what do you wish to see as its replacement? Why not all those students who wish a shortened education focusing on just learning the "proof texts" to evangelize, go to Wiemar or one of the several "90-day wonder evangelistic schools" that are offered in several places already?
Or, attend Liberty University, they are eager for new students, and offer all sorts of degrees for online completion.

It seems this conversation, and the underlying turmoil within the SDA church that leads to it, generates a lot of heat and not much light.

Those leading the attack against LSU basically say one of two things

(a) What LSU is doing is contrary to the stated position of the SDA church

(b) What LSU is doing is contrary to my personal beliefs, and I am an SDA

The Faith and Science Conferences were organised by the GC to have SDA discuss exactly the origins of life on earth. It was clear from the level of participation that a significant number of SDA prefer the evolutionary view. It is also clear that the GC was prepared to tolerate their views. Furthermore membership in the SDA church is at the discretion of the local congregation. It is obvious that the teachers are SDA because their churches accept them as SDA. It is obvious that most of the parent's who have sent their children there are not pulling them out when the kids come home at the end of the first semester of biology.

All the evidence points to the school doing okay, teaching what its intake wants to be taught, and being fairly representative of mainstream Adventism.

Which means that the attack is probably by people that are outside the mainstream. Which explains why they are so adamant that they are right. They have taken a visible stand. They feel threatened. They are being defensive. People in that position don't like to admit that they might be wrong.

I am reminded of Nic's observation near the end of the abortion discussion about how much time and money he had put into this cause that the Lord had laid on his heart. My immediate reaction was to think "with that much invested you are no longer capable of clearly seeing the issue".

The SDA church needs to get some real data about what it's people believe - and I don't mean some survey at a biased sample like the General Conference - I mean a real survey of the membership.

Perhaps some university student would like to take it on as a PhD thesis.

/Bevin

Ervin Taylor from Adventist Today nailed it right on the head IMO:

" One answer is that this brouhaha has less to do with La Sierra University and the teaching of evolution and more to do with a much broader agenda. A carefully contrived smoke screen has been created. One hypothesis is that the attack launched against LSU is really a testing of the waters to see what kind of political traction might be gained as part of a plan by reactionary forces in the North American Adventist Church who wish to control the election of the next General Conference President at the 2010 General Conference Session in Atlanta, Georgia.

Some may view this hypothesis as stretching and straining the facts. In response, the following points are offered for consideration:

(1) It is widely known that a certain General Conference (GC) Vice President (VP) is being strongly touted as the next GC President by his father (a former GC president) and by former and current leaders of the Adventist Theological Society.

(2) The currently sitting GC President is a conservative but a reasonable, well-educated, pragmatic, and moderate conservative. However, he is not conservative enough for the reactionary, fundamentalist, right wing of the church.

(3) There is a possibility that moderate elements might convince (a) the currently sitting GC president to stand for reelection in 2010, or, if this is not possible, (b) assist the most moderate of the current GC VPs to succeed the current President.

(4) Reactionary forces will do most anything to prevent either (a) or (b) from taking place.

(5) One way to accomplish the agenda of reactionary elements is to incite controversy, appeal to church officials, and then complain loudly that nothing is being done by these church officials. In this scenario, the attackers are deliberate and conscious provocateurs. They seek to show that administrators are not defending the church's teachings with sufficient vigor and that there needs to be a general house cleaning so that a new GC leadership can take firm control and bring Adventist educational institutions into line."

http://www.atoday.com/bashing-lsu-whats-really-going-ona-hypothesis

Ever since I heard the news about a year ago that the election of the next GC President is going to be held at the 2010 General Conference Session, I knew the fundamentalists would stop at nothing to advance their agenda. With Ted Wilson in office, they would have a clear way to start the work of culling an entire denomination of those they deem 'unworthy' of being a member of the SDA church. Paulsen would never submit to being a patsy or instrument of destruction for the right wing, but good old Ted will fit the bill quite nicely. Let the games begin...

Don't kid yourself. The timing of this assault at LSU was not accidental.

I responded to Ervin's strand on AT concerning a comment between Ron Corson and Sean Pitman.

Sean,

Speaking to Ron you state..."It is very disingenuous of you to suggest that the LSU teachers are only teaching "about" the theory of evolution. The truth of the matter is that they are openly telling their students that this is the actual truth - that there was no literal creation week as per the interpretation of the SDA Church. That life on this planet did in fact evolve over hundreds of millions of years of time. That is what they are telling their students. Anyone who tells you any different is lying to you. "

IF this is true, it should be part of the LSU catalog describing the course selections. It should be known by the Board of Directors. It should be openly known by any support from the SDA church and parents sending their children to LSU.

I suggest at the present time of "knowledge" the "fact" of origins is not known and anyone presenting it as fact (as to human origins) would better represent a secular college or an institution holding that view.

As to the "conspiracy" view...I don't know.

regards,

pat travis

Bevin,

On 05 June 2009 at 4:31 you made the following comment: “I am reminded of Nic's observation near the end of the abortion discussion about how much time and money he had put into this cause that the Lord had laid on his heart. My immediate reaction was to think ‘with that much invested you are no longer capable of clearly seeing the issue’".

You have demonstrated in the past in another blog that you are an expert in the field of science and the theory of evolution. Since the topic of this blog is the teaching of evolution as factual in our SDA schools, I wonder why you decided to ignore my comments about precisely the main issue in this blog and opted to comment about abortion.

Evidently, you disagree with my views about the abortion issue, yet you failed to critique my doctoral dissertation which is available online. [ http://www.sdaforumlcom/page13.html ]Your comment seems to suggest that there exists an inverse relationship between the time we invest in studying a topic and our ability to see clearly. Does this apply to the time you have spent studying evolution as well?

The arguments I presented on 05 June 2009 at 2:21 on this blog are short, simple and straightforward. It would have been easy for you to respond to what I presented there. If you reject my views about the teaching of the theory of evolution in our schools as facts of nature instead of as a mere theory in our schools, why can’t you address them?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic said,

"If we merely evolved thanks to natural selection, we have no Savior, and if we have no Savior, those “suffering physically and spiritually” have no Savior either and no hope for any help from above either in this life or the life to come. The theory of evolution accepts no miracles or divine intervention in the affairs of men."

Nic, this is just not true. Since you have actually engaged in discussions on the evolution and even this particular topic, I would expect more from you. There is a big difference between saying, "There ARE no miracles or divine intervention," and saying "There is no need of, nor evidence for, miracles or divine intervention in explaining how life diversified once it got here."

One says there wasn't any divine intervention which the TofE most decidedly does. not. say. The other says, we can explain the diversity of life without needing divine intervention and if there was divine intervention in the process, we can't detect it using science. Which is what it does say.

It's like this. A ball rolls down the hill. We can explain its path and speed using the laws of physics. We don't have to rely on the belief that God is somehow intervening with the ball to make it roll down hill. We can explain it without God. The theory of gravity doesn't say there are NO divine miracles keeping the ball moving downhill. It just explains it without relying on God. Might as well jump up and down about how Newton's laws dare to explain how things move without the divine as part of the equations.

We can explain the diversity of life using mechanisms that work without the necessity of the supernatural. That doesn't mean God didn't intervene.

I want to make my positions clear on this matter.

I had to take a course at the Adventist college I attended and the professor there taught Theistic evolution. I got a B in that course. I did the coursework and I got the grade. And while I made it clear to the professor I did not agree with him on certain things throughout the year, I was still humble enough to listen to what he was teaching, take the good and leave the rest.

Do I think LaSierra should be teaching the information they are in regards to Theistic evolution? No I do not. But I do believe that the professors should be able to stay true to their convictions and teach the direction their training has led them. They were hired on as experts in their field of science, not theological apologists. Why do we now expect them to be what they are not?

What I abhor is the way this is being handled by the LaSierra critics. Like David Larson says, there are proper protcols and channels to do this, to say nothing of the Matthew 18 principal which was not followed with regards to Randal Wisbey and the faculty.

That is why, while I disagree with this material being taught in our schools, I will never sign that apalling petition nor will I ever think this 'mob mentality' is in any way a manifestation of the Christian spirit.

Nic, you wrote "The theory of evolution accepts no miracles or divine intervention in the affairs of men. Everything is explainable either today or tomorrow on the basis of natural activity."

Beth adequately covered this. The TofE does not require miracles to produce life, but it does not deny the possiblle of miracles within an individual's life or the life of a nation - it is neutral on that topic.

Such mischaracteristisations of the extent and impliciations of the TofE are very common, in my experience.

/Bevin

I love all the "abhoring" about how "this is being handled by the LaSierra critics."

Facts to consider. This has been brought before the attention of leadership many many times in the past and NOTHING has been done. They've been covering for LSU ever since someone first raised an eyebrow on the issue.

Proper channels? Please, you have no idea how many emails have been sent to the President of LSU or the Board of Trustees by concerned Adventist. I have done plenty of emailing to through the proper channels.

Despite the fact Matthew 18 applies to when personal wrongs are done against you, it is a lie to say that the principals were not followed in regard to the President and faculty.

The President hasn't responded to any of my emails or anyone else that I know of. Bogus.

Why don't you read what one concerned student did and how NOTHING happened. You can read what Louie Bishop had to say at www.educatetruth.com.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Hi!

I've just finished reading a paper titled "Can We Save Our Selves? Neuroscience, Philosophy and Human Freedom" that Richard Rice presented the end of May at an international conference at Venice, Italy on "Evolution & Human Uniqueness."

This conference was presented by "The Venice Summer School on Science and Religion" at the Istituo Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti with the financial help of the Templeton Foundation.

The URL for the conference as a whole is
www.vssr.info.

The one for Rice's paper is:
http://vssr.info/docs/2009_participants/Rice-Can%20We%20Save%20Ourselves....

Rice's engagement with evolutionary psychology is precisely the kind of thing that I think we should expect from teachers on SDA campuses.

Read, enjoy and happy Sabbath!

Dave

Blair,

You wrote:

"Is the teaching, whether in Science or any course, compatible with the Bible as well as what the SDA church officially teaches?
Fine to explain other points of view but this must ultimately be countered by the stated beliefs of the church - and explained why this stated belief makes sense against other views."

For a professor to teach what he cannot, with integrity believe to be the position supported by nearly all in his profession, is to ask him to "bear false witness" of pretending a belief completely contrary to what his many years of study and knowledge has disproved. What you think of a physician you sought for a blood deficiency who chose to use the "bleeding" that was so popular several hundred years ago? Or that after a diagnosis of a thyroid
condition, he recommended herbs? Or if you wished a house built, would you go to a hairdresser for the architectural drawings?

This is exactly what is being suggested: that every individual has identical qualifications to teach any of the sciences as long as he is a dedicated Christian and faithfully reads his Bible. It is also dishonest to expect, even demand that all faithful believers are qualified to teach any and all university courses. If that is not what is being suggested, it certainly appears to be.

Would you be content to send your children to an unaccredited university for a four year degree, knowing that it would be worthless for nearly all future employment requiring a degree? Would you even send your grade-school child to a teacher who only graduated from elementary school (a very usual practice several hundred years ago?

Rest assured, that if those who wish to discredit and send the science teachers "packing" that will be the inevitable results. Students will both disenroll and applications will decrease very drastically, and with decreased students come decreased revenue, fewer courses offered, and a downward spiral very rapidly. These are not merely suppositions, but prophetically fulfilling if the
fundamentalists yell the loudest.

Matthew 18 has a much broader principal application than just personal wrongdoings. And as far as Asscherick was concerned, not, it was NOT followed. Engaging the individual one on one is far preferable than e-mailing the individual and at the same time e-mailing his superiors!Then the e-mail is convieniently made public. This thing stinks to high Heaven!

Furthermore, Wisbey has responded to the charges as is evidenced by his official message. If one has indeed approached him one on one and he has issued his response, then one should consider the matter settled and closed.

But no, that is not good enough for some. They don't like his answer. Now the petition is started to force the hand of the administration. Now force and pressure tactics against the GC are going to be utilized until the desired result is attained, despite the fact that the GC should never have been involved in the first place on an in-house University issue.

Sorry. Not working for me.

Hi Shane!

As you and I have both learned, working through established policies and procedures doesn't always yield the results that we think best.

At that point we have at least three options. One of these is to accept the decisions and stop discussing the issue, at least for a while. Depending upon the topic and the circumstances, I think this could be the responsible thing to do.

The opposite course would be in public to dennounce, discredit and defame the ones who made the decisions with which we disagree. I think that this approach is very irresponsible because it rips and tears the body of Christ, leaving the church wounded and bleeding for years to come.

A third alternative is to continue doing the scholarship and publishing that might eventually enable our views to prevail. If the issue is very impotant, so much so that it would not be fitting to leave it alone for a while, this is our only responsible course of action.

This is what political parties do when they lose major elections. As we have recently seen in the USA, some defeated politicians embarrass themselves and their colleagues by saying very hostile things against those who conquered them. The wisest among them hold conferences, establish institutes, publish books, start journals, manage websites and broadcast talk shows and in these ways they begin to win the confidence of more and more people.

If we believe that we have exhausted all the resources available to us throgh established policies and procedures, and if we feel duty-bound not to give the issue some rest for a while, this is our only responsible alternative.

Our views will prevail only when enough people see that they make enough sense, all things considered, voluntarily to adopt them as their own. Any other victory will be empty and temporary.

Thanks!

Dave

Thanks for the link Dave,
Interesting paper by Richard Rice.

Elaine

The appeal should be to the evidence. What does that evidence tell us?

1. The idea of a "new world" or recent creation is in error.

2. The world has a chaotic history far beyond anything within historic times.

3. None of which is reproducable.

4. An unbroken chain of evidence does not exist in geology, biology, history, or theology.

5. All tools of measurement of time beyond history are implications from secondary sources that assume uniformity--in the face of a distinctly un-uniform chaotic history of the planet earth.

6. The Who, the How, and the When are not subject to testability.

7. Any dogmatic statments on origins and process are leaps of faith.

8. It is well that prevailing hypothesis be explained and their limits fully understood.

9. The field is open for critical thinking--that will enhance
disciplined science and theology.

10. The Churchmen's dogma compelled alternative thinking.

11. Evolutionists are unwittingly going down the same relentless path far beyond the reach of evidence.

12. Who would be so bold as to say the present world is an improvement over any other point in its history?

13 Is the present moral state of man an improvement over any other period? Is it improving?
Has man's science or his theology contributed more to that moral status?

14. Does the Christ event offer any pattern to ethics, and to hope, faith, and love?

15. Of the three great questions: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? Which does science answer without a doubt?

The dogma of both church and science leave much to be desired. The scientist would advance the most with a humble explanation of the evidence. (It sure does seem old, It certainly doesn't fit with current Biblical thinking nor does science offer more than studied speculation.)

Finally, these fossils tell us little or nothing on how to direct your life, your passions, or your citizenship in either the here or the here after. Of course we need better answers but we also need better questions far beyond what these bones can tell us. True education is about that process. Remember we stand on the shoulders of giants not monsters. My field of science falls within the range of testability. Others work in the field of possibilities, history, philosophy, and religion, rightly understood, are necessary to the making of a whole man.

Each of us in the academy are here to open your mind, heart, and soul, not to close them. Certainly what we know now is a far cry from what there is yet to be learned.

Such a place, we could call a university.
Tom

Dave:

Right now, our (EducateTruth.com) main goal is to bring awareness of the issue to the membership. So we're taking option number 3 off your list. I am keeping in contact with the Board of Trustees too. More importantly, I'm praying for them. Our leaders need much prayer. This is not an easy situation.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Beth,

On 05 June 2009 at 5:13 you made the following statement: “We can explain the diversity of life using mechanisms that work without the necessity of the supernatural. That doesn't mean God didn't intervene.”

Since you seem to believe in miracles and in the theory of evolution, then I have a few questions for you:

1. Do you believe that the “diversity of life” you made reference to include what is normally understood by the term “macroevolution”?

2. Are humans the result of common descent or common design?

3. If common descent, was there a moral fall?

4. If there was no moral fall, what do we need a Savior for?

5. Can you spell out which miraculous events alluded to in the Bible do you believe in and which ones do you reject?

6. Do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus?

7. Jesus stated: In the beginning it was not so. What was he referring to? Was he referring to the first living cell or the first human being? If he had Homo Sapiens in mind, then why would he use the term beginning in connection with the first human being?

8. Jesus also made reference to the biblical flood. What did he mean by that?

9. Was Jesus the Son of God, or simply an outstanding Jewish itinerary Rabbi?

10 Jesus claimed to have been in existence before the birth of Abraham. Was his claim a legitimate one?

Bevin,

On 05 June 2009 at 9:00 you posted the following comment: “Beth adequately covered this.”

Please, read my response to Beth above and answer the questions I posted for her!

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic,
These questions feel to me like an attempt to shift the subject. My personal theological beliefs and struggles are not the issue. What I was pointing out was that you were mischaracterizing what evolution actually says and what it doesn't say. In trying to deal with the perceived threat of the TofE to the SDA church, it is very very important that people understand exactly what is meant by evolution. Otherwise everyone is running around attacking strawmen and generating fear based on ignorance.

I fully acknowledge that evolution challenges some basic tenants of Christianity. There is plenty to deal with when evolution is understood correctly, let alone mischaracterized. There have been plenty of other strawmen, goodness knows, on these threads but I wouldn't get anything else done if I took on all of them. I picked on you because I really did think you should have known better based on past conversations. The only way people can get to dealing with the real challenges is if they understand what evolution actually says and doesn't say.

Tom asked "15. Of the three great questions: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where do I go when I die? Which does science answer without a doubt? "

The answer, of course, is that science ALWAYS has doubt, and that religious zealots DON'T DOUBT when they should.

Neither science nor religion can answer either of these with true certainty, and anyone who tells you that either can should be treated with care.

Nic asked Beth and I to answer the following...

"1. Do you believe that the “diversity of life” you made reference to include what is normally understood by the term “macroevolution”?"

It is highly likely that all life that we see on this planet has evolved from a small set of much simpler self-reproducing organisms.

To me, the word "believe" has a built-in amount of uncertainty and willingness to change that most fundamental Christians do not imbue it with.

"2. Are humans the result of common descent or common design?"

Homo-sapiens share a great deal of genetic and behavioral similarities with the rest of the great apes, and there is now strong evidence that the Neanderthal were not homo-sapiens

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7886477.stm

Indeed our knowlege of them is something that must challenge everyone who wants to merge science and Genesis

Every piece of evidence we find in the ground suggests that homo-sapiens, like every other plant and animal is one of the ongoing branches in the tree of genetic descent.

"3. If common descent, was there a moral fall?"

In the sense of a sinless ancestor who, one day, did one act, that made him a sinner? Quite possibly not.

"4. If there was no moral fall, what do we need a Savior for?"

Because we are mortal.

"5. Can you spell out which miraculous events alluded to in the Bible do you believe in and which ones do you reject?"

Again, belief includes uncertainty. The Bible miracles can be broken into several major groups...

() Genesis - these huge miracles don't line up with what we see in the ground, The stories are a ancient myth, with true morals based on inaccurate histories.

() Exodus - these miracles don't line up with what we see in the ground. The stories are a ancient myth, with true morals based on inaccurate histories.

() Elijah - no evidence found or expected to be found. The story is possible but not certain.

() Jonah - no evidence found or expected to be found. The story is possible but not certain.

() Daniel - I think it is likely that Daniel is written by several authors well after the events inaccurately described.

() Jesus - no evidence found or expected to be found of many of the details, although the general outline is certain. The specific miracles are possible but not certain.

() The disciples - same as Jesus

() Individual - same as Jesus

"6. Do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus?"

I believe - in other words, I admit that there is insufficient evidence, but act on the assumption that these events happened.

"7. Jesus stated: In the beginning it was not so. What was he referring to? Was he referring to the first living cell or the first human being? If he had Homo Sapiens in mind, then why would he use the term beginning in connection with the first human being?
"

Jesus was doing morals, not science.

"8. Jesus also made reference to the biblical flood. What did he mean by that?"

Jesus was doing morals, not science.

"9. Was Jesus the Son of God, or simply an outstanding Jewish itinerary Rabbi?
"

I believe - in other words, I admit that there is insufficient evidence, but act on the assumption that He is.

"10 Jesus claimed to have been in existence before the birth of Abraham. Was his claim a legitimate one?
"

I believe - in other words, I admit that there is insufficient evidence, but act on the assumption that He is.

Anyone who is certain about these things is using a low standard of proof, and demonstrates to me that I can't trust their certainty about anything.

/Bevin

Bevin

If you visit www.ponderanew.com, you will see the suggestion that "Doubt is the shadow of faith; they grow and shrink together."

Not that much different in this respect from science, I aver.

Few have doubted more intensely than did Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane just before his crucifixion. But nobody has had more faith.

This kind of existential doubt is more challenging than that which is only intellectual, I think.

I apolgize for promoting my site. Well, Not really!

Dave

What beliefs are considered to be "deal breakers" in terms of being a Seventh-day Adventist, or at least a deal breaker in terms of being allowed to teach in an SDA institution.

What about professors who teach:

- the open view

- a view of the atonement that is not purely legal/penal, substitutionary, etc.

- that the death of the wicked does not involve a literal fire that burns them to death

- that God is the one on trial in the judgment

- that God does not retributively punish

- a view of inspiritation that allows for mistakes in scripture

- a view of EGW that allows for disagreement with some of her teachings and advice

What should we do with people in our church who are coming to understand things in a new light? Are all of the beliefs as they were laid out in the 1800's set in stone? Is there still truth to be discovered?

If our church was united on its main purpose, we would deal with matters like this in a much better way. What is our purpose? Are we the people called to bring about a Sabbath reform in the world? What if everyone in the world kept the Sabbath and became vegetarians, would we have fulfilled our mission.

Our purpose is to show the world that God is exactly like the humble One who came 2,000 years ago. Our mission is to reflect the love of Jesus (who died forgiving those who tortured him to death) to everyone we come in contact with. If we were united on that belief then perhaps we could still move forward as a church in reflecting Christ to the world - - even as we disagree in other areas.

And, FWIW, I am not defending evolution. What concerns me are the methods being used against those who are felt to be "heretics".

Brad

One wonders how this thread would have run if the headline had been: The Sabbath under attack from senior faculty at ULS--Conference President and College President defend faculty.
Ellen White views challenged. Students support faculty. Old rocks and old bones have expelled the Sanctuary Doctrine from the curriculum. Bring wood, rope, lighter fluid, and matches.

Tom

Good idea, Tom! How about if the story went something like this:

"Asscherick opens dialogue with La Sierra University by sponsoring weekend faculty retreat"

"La Sierra University offers Asscherick a 12 month position as University chaplain and with freedom to attend all relevant biology and theology classes"

"Asscherick reports to the General Conference on his 12 month experience and praises the gracious treatment he received - admits to a greater understanding of the complexities involved in the creation-evolution debate"

"La Sierra faculty report greater sensitivity on creation-evolution issue - plans on formal review of all course material so that students are best equipped with the knowledge to make up their own mind"

Christianity Today headline: "Adventists set the standard for dealing with doctrinal differences within the church"

When Truth was looking him in the eye, Pilate asked “What is truth?”

Likewise, all the soliloquy of this blog will not change the truth regarding the origins of this earth and the life that inhabitants it; nor will the so called “scientific” teaching of evolution. Thus in the name of “critical thinking” and “higher education” should Seventh-day Adventist universities follow the pedagogical philosophy of the world, where rationale inquiry gets preference over the concept of any existence of absolute truth?

I’d just like to 2nd the well-stated question earlier in this blog: “Is there any trend or fad that you folks on the extreme left don't instantly grab onto and want to somehow find a way to incorporate into our message? Any--at all?”

I fail to understand those whom diametrically oppose fundamental beliefs, of the Seventh-day Adventist message, yet still remain Seventh-day Adventists. Similar to a thought expressed by Clifford Goldstein, I respect those whom, after developing disbelief in some aspect of the Adventist message, reject the Adventist Church entirely. On the other hand, I don’t appreciate those whom instead make it their mission to realign Adventist beliefs to their own well-reasoned conclusions.

willard

Then you should have the most sympathy for Jr. Jim and his cause against typical SDA Evangelism. The command of Jesus was to go ye therefore and teach all nations--that would include even those close to home who have dabbled with the Truth to skew it into nonsense regardless of label. Tom

I certainly do not pretend to have any scientific expertise, or more than a rudimentary knowledge of the issues at hand.

However, the statements made on this thread to the effect that Jesus and the Biblical writers do morals and theology, while evolutionary scientists do science, to me, somehow sets up a convenient dichotomy. A convenient dichotomy that somehow makes a non-conflicting belief in both possible in the minds of those who hold such a premise. Science and theology are in a way made to exsist in parallel universes, with neither able to comment on the veracity of the other. This is a reflection of the age in which we have been living; the sacred and the secular have long been conveniently bifurcated.

As others like Tom have put it earlier on this thread, I cannot buy into such a premise. I cannot reconcile a both/and in this situation, because the acceptance of either world view seems to make the other nonsensical in my mind. And that is what I see when viewing these differing accounts of origins, two starting places for world views and their consequences that are at their core mutually exclusive. Both/and thinking in this case seems like nothing more than wishful thinking to me concerning this issue...something that seems so clearly an either/or.

The simple point is as Tom has already stated, if evolutionary theory is the truth of our origins, then the idea of covenant through personal creation is rendered nonsensical. So is the truth of man's fall into sin and rebellion against his/her Creator.

If man has developed over eons of time from earlier forms, where in the world did sin ever enter the picture? The Bible is clear about when and where, evolution can never hope to be. And, if the biblical account is nothing more than moral myth and fable, then is God to be charged with guiding the development of a flawed, and let's face it, a highly problematic world and race?

Additionally, if there is no such thing as sin and rebellion against a Creator who entered into relationship through the act of creation, then what in the world is the point of redemption? We are in need of redemption not just because we are mortal... that we physically die... as stated in an earlier post. We are in need of redemption because of our enslavement to sin, slaves to our own rebellion against the One who has rightful claim over his creation.

This is the consistent point of the story of Jesus...he came to "save his people from their sins." "He died not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world." Our physical mortality is merely the upshot of a far greater dilemma. And Jesus' act of redemption, and the continual preaching of the gospel was and is needed to address that dilemma.

The gospel is to announce God's action to reclaim and fully restore his wayward and lost creation. It speaks of a God who personally intervened in creation, in redemption, and who will intervene again in the act of new creation of a new heavens and a new earth. It is the call to abandon all false gods in the worship of the one true God, because he is the one Creator and Redeemer of all.

Evolutionary thought allows for no such view of God. God is either reduced to first cause, guiding hand, or both, but in regard to the origin and end of this world, never the one who did or will step in against the flow of observable trend or natural law.

The idea that both adherene to the biblical world view and evolutionary theory can be mutually held, among many things, denies the fact that both lead to and indeed stem from differing views of God, of his exsistence, his relation to his creation, of our place before him, and of what he has done and promises to still do for his creation. We cannot pretend that science and theology cannot be sealed off from one another in separate disciplanary realms, as if one has no effect upon the other. The ideas we hold in one will most certainly impact what we to be true in the other.

Should LSU science faculty teach evolutionary theory? Yes, if it is to produce informed graduated entering into the field. They must be able to function on the prevailing playing field of academia and research. No, if it is being touted as a world view that can be held equally and compatibly with that of the meta-narrative of the Bible itself.

Thanks...

Frank

Brad, I like your idea! What if we could disagree agreeably and humbly look for explanations to challenging issues. There will never be an end to these challenges.

A few comments on the way certain scientific terms have been used in this blog. Perhaps clarifying our terminology can help lead to greater clarity of the issues.

Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories are very different from one another. Consider the law of gravity. If, standing in your living room, you drop an apple you expect it to fall to the floor. This apple obeys the law of gravity which is predictable, reliable, trustworthy. It is a SCIENTIFIC LAW because it describes a phenomena that is observed. That the apple fell to the floor is a FACT.

Why did the apple fall to the floor? Why do all bodies with mass attract one another? The answer to these questions requires a THEORY OF GRAVITY. Scientific theories explain why things happen and also provide predictions and explanations of future events. Interestingly enough, physicists are still wrestling with developing a good theory of gravity, although Newton provided some beginnings to this over 300 years ago.

Virtually nobody doubts the LAW of gravity even though the theory of gravity is incomplete. Other scientific theories seem obvious to us now even though they were revolutionary ideas in the past. These include the germ theory of disease (Louis Pasteur), the particulate nature of matter (atoms and molecules). Other, less obvious theories (and younger) include the theory of general relativity (explains how your GPS works...), the theory of plate tectonics, and others.

It is important to notice that scientific theories do not turn into scientific laws. Theories explain the why while laws describe the what.

We should consider the facts of evolution (such as: organisms have changed over time as evidenced in the fossil record--most organisms alive today are different than those preserved) and separate these facts from the theory of evolution (natural selection as an explanation for bacteria becomming resistant to antibiotics). Both of these items mentioned are supported by extensive evidence but they are not the same thing.

Also, we should note that a scientific theory is not capriciously developed but is meticulously devised and modified based on data. No explanations are elevated to the level of scientific theory without much supporting evidence. At the same time, scientific theories change as more evidence is gathered. A good example of this would be Newton's explanations of motion which were subsumed by Einstein's general theory of relativity which explains Newtonian motion plus much more.

Let's be careful with our use of terms in an effort to clearly communicate what we mean.

Good points Eric

How ever according to Einstein--the apple is not pulled down but forced down--His great proof being the bending of light
from stars as the light passes the sun as veiwed from the earth. So now we have global positioning etc. Never-the-less yours and Frank's observation are to the point. Tom

Hi!

I understand this to be the first part of the syllabus for La Sierra University Course:

UNST / UHNR 404B: Religious, Moral, and Social Aspects of Biology—Spring Qtr 2009

Course objectives

Our senior Biology capstone course provides a journey in three parts, completing your Bachelor of Science degree. Each part will be based on the peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature and books by scientists and scholars in their respective academic fields. You should be able to understand, discuss, and synthesize the following categories of information:

I. Scientific evidence of the natural history and evolution of life on earth from comparative biology, geology, paleontology, and genomics – capped by your Major Field Achievement Test (MFAT). You will have an opportunity to reflect on the data in a paper.

II. The emerging dialogue between science and religion – a synthesis of history, epistemology, philosophy, laying emphasis on current discussions, and the history of thought on science and religion from the late Medieval-Renaissance Europe, to the Scientific Revolution & Enlightenment of the mid-17th -18th centuries, and the expanding world of science since Darwin and into the 21st century. You will have an opportunity to reflect on the issues in a paper.

III. Environmental ethics – the roots of our current ecological crisis and individual and societal approaches for becoming more sustainable in a time of planetary stress. You will keep up with breaking developments in the planetary environmental crisis and participate in campaigns on Internet.

This strikes me as an excellent course, one that I wish I could have taken; but because I was not a biology major this would not have been possible.

So far I do not see any module devoted to "creation science" or any other challenge from the scientific and political margins to the reigning evolutionary paradigm. This might be embedded in Section II and I just don't see it.

I would not expect to find a course along these lines at most universities, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are some because of our postmodern proclivities. But because La Sierra is a SDA institution, and because the denomination has invested many resources in these scientifically and politically subversive ways of thinking, I think it would be advantageous for LSU students to have access to one.

This would be like providing the option for medical students to take a course in "alternative medicines" so that those who want to can learn what these challenges to the reigning medical paradigm are all about.

Perhaps somewhere on campus LSU has such a course and I don't know about it. If not, I suggest that one be developed.

If it were taught well, and if the challenges from the scientific and political margins were given a fair chance to be heard, I think it would enrich the options available to La Sierra students.

Many thanks!

Dave

Frank and Tom,

I appreciate your stated views.

The multiple reciprocities of scriptural thought would be destroyed by "Neo-Darwinism, Meta-Darwinism or Theistic evolution."

To teach evolution is one thing. To suggest it as the "fact" of the origins of the human species vs. a young creation of mankind by God's direct action is quite another.

regards,
pat

"Proper channels? Please, you have no idea how many emails have been sent to the President of LSU or the Board of Trustees by concerned Adventist. I have done plenty of emailing to through the proper channels."

No doubt administration has been bombed by such letters. If everyone who wrote such letters, regardless of what was criticized
expected their demands would be answered and major changes would ensue, administrators would not have time to handle their many other duties.

Such writers of letters, should first equip themselves to teach one of the disciplines so easily criticized first, then at least they would some credibility. Usually, the critics are not experts at all in the disciplines criticized, and expect that every single
course should also include theology; ignoring that there are no theological requirements for science teachers, nor should there be, any more than theology instructors should be proficient to cross-teach in science. Evidently that is being assumed and only demonstrates the ignorance of academic standards and requirement for university teaching: that a 6-week course in Bible study should be all the knowledge necessary to teach in any discipline, so long as it is a "Christian" school.

This is a LONG thread! A lot of blog footage has been spent on whether LSU professors teach evolution as "fact" or "just" as a theory that students must be prepared to deal with (presumably as they try to convince their future graduate school professors of YEC). Repeatedly (and yes, this goes back to Goldstein, and I think Folkenberg before him, and probably much further back than that), calls have been made for teachers who teach evolution to resign because if they have integrity, they would teach somewhere else, that they are not teaching what SDA parents want. There have even been discussions about surveys of what SDA parents believe.

To a constituency "educated" by 3ABN, it is unlikely that a survey will produce a result favorable to evolutionist professors. Nevertheless, that is what they should teach, and they can do so with integrity, since their objective is to keep bright young SDA scientists in the faith by helping them come to terms with the overwhelming evidence from biology, geology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, etc. I can't offer enough thanks to Spectrum for the many articles published on this subject over the years by thoughtful SDA scholars; I know I am not alone in saying that these role models helped me stay in the church, by providing examples of ways to think about evolution within the SDA context. It isn't easy, and the braying of the mob certainly doesn't make it easier. One almost wishes that they could get what they want--that EVERY person with a view somewhat deviant from the 28 were kicked out, and then they could see what kind of church they had left! I suspect they'd look around, then turn on themselves and whittle it down some more.

The Faith & Science conferences showed how many scholars--not just scientists, but theologians too--"believe" in evolution. We can kick them and everyone like them out, and become mostly irrelevant to the majority of educated people in the world today. Or, we can recognize the value of having people working hard at the interface of science and theology, and appreciate the contribution they make to the church and its relevance in a world where TRUTH is not simply based on arbitrary claims, but is measured against evidence.

"One almost wishes that they could get what they want--that EVERY person with a view somewhat deviant from the 28 were kicked out, and then they could see what kind of church they had left! I suspect they'd look around, then turn on themselves and whittle it down some more."

That's gold RT. Just a brilliant observation. And you're probably exactly right too. It reminds me of the story Russell Burrill from the SEEDS Conference likes to tell.

He was asked to meet with the board of a dying, nearly extinct ultra-conservative church to discuss revival and evangelism. The board members made it clear to him that evangelism was not going to happen on their watch. Shocked, Burrill asked why that was. Their answer? They had spent years and hours of effort 'purging' the church of those they deemed falling woefully short of the 'perfection' EGW demanded. To evangelize and bring in new people would tarnish the 'perfect' few that were left in the church, guarding their pristine fellowship. They had gutted the membership to less than half of what it originally was. It sounds unbelievable, but it is a true story.

I think it would be a pretty safe bet to say that once the 'undesirables' were forced out, spiritual cannibalism would have ensued amongst the 'worthy' remnant left standing.

DaVe

A very interesting approach. One would like to read what the range of acceptable answers might be. Seems quite difficult to separate sheep from goats on opinion pieces. In dental school I had to carve a set of human teeth to Wheeler's dimensions. I did so well and so soon, I was given an honors assignment to carve the tooth from the shark through reptilian, to the ape. I did improve my hand skills--my mind saw differences and similarities but no progression. I did a final saber tooth canine.--lot of blue wax. Tom

Tom
Once again: amazing! Thank you!!
Dave

Beth,

Thanks for your answer dated 06 June 2009 at 1:50. Of course, you opted to ignore the list of questions I took the time to post for you, but fortunately Bevin decided to answer them for me. The reason I asked them is very simple. I am currently reading Kenneth Millers book “Only a Theory,” and I am faced with the task of having to weigh for my own benefit the pros and cons of the arguments dealing with origins.

Besides, this morning Dr. Lee Greer, a science teacher from La Sierra University, made a list in the Sabbath School group I am currently attending of reasons why he believes the evidence from genetics favors the evolutionary theory of common descent. A few Sabbaths from now, it will be my turn to take a chapter from said book and present my views about origins. I have no idea why I accepted such a task, but it is rather late to retreat. I must face the challenge with God’s help, and perhaps with the help of someone more versed in science, which is rather Greek to me.

As you can see, the reasons I did ask those questions have nothing to do with building a straw man. I hope this helps.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Bevin,

Thanks for your response dated 06 June 2009 at 2:00. You took the time to answer my questions and I do appreciate it. I am open to scientific evidence, but as I weigh the pros and cons of the facts dealing with origins, I need to determine the price I would have to pay in the event I were to adopt the theory of evolution as a viable explanation for life on earth.

If I were considering the idea of trading my car for another one, I would make sure I am given the chance to test it on the road and I would inquire what it would cost me in terms of expenses connected with down payment, monthly payments, insurance, fuel and repair. Trading the biblical teachings about origins for the theory of evolution must be carefully evaluated and the cost of the trade estimated.

After reading your responses to my questions, I have the feeling that the price I would have to pay is rather high. I have especially in mind your answers to items # 3 through 10. I am not ready to sacrifice that much for a scientific theory which cannot be replicated yet in the laboratory.

If one day the evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming, I do have a golden parachute, as I stated on this blog and elsewhere. I would attribute the death of animals before the appearance of Adam and Eve not to human sin and rebellion, but rather to Lucifer’s rebellion and his tinkering with nature before the birth of humanity.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Hi Nic,

There are different kinds of Golden Parachutes. One that I have been thinking about allows for evolution to be scientifically correct, although only insofar as correct within it's own uniformitarian assumptions. Uniformitarianism requires causality to be consistent - this is the standard scientific paradigm.

To be honest, I can't expect any different from current science - as we do not yet understand other mechanisms of causality. Although religion certainly already does speculate on other mechanisms of causality.

We do believe that there is a different type of causality, one in which God speaks and reality results. Also, we believe that along this line, us choosing sin altered our existence, we hid ourselves from God's grace. Sin deforms the reality that we experience.

If evolution overwhelmingly appears true, then I could choose to believe it is the result of our sin. Perhaps sin changed our history retrospectively. This is an unusual thought. It is a golden parachute that is impermeable to any challenge.

The time period between man's fall, and the entrance to the garden of Eden being removed from our reach, to me means that perspective of creation is unreachable by current science.

I think if I was overwhelmed by evolution, I would choose this model, rather than give up on the spiritual meanings of Genesis.

Nic,
I respect your point of view, yet you surprise me... You choose not to accept evolution because you see it as "unbiblical". Yet you keep a golden parachute under your pillow, which is far more unbiblical! I'm confused...

Jag, Why is Nic's parachute unbiblical? Compared to what, is it 'more' unbiblical to?

Bevin,

In this thread you said to me:

"You admit that the Theory of Evolution is possible, so you should not be arguing about its testability. "

And then later on, you said to Tom:

"I believe - in other words, I admit that there is insufficient evidence, but act on the assumption that these events happened."

So, according to you, am I, or aren't I, allowed to believe something is possible, even if it is not testable?

Me believing that evolution is theoretically possible, does not mean that I agree it is testable in every sense, especially the sense where I challenge it.

Evolution is not testable to the degree that would satisfy everyone's requirements. If you posed a test that would falsify the uniformitarian assumptions. Let me think - what about Jesus raising from the dead.

You believe this is possible, not exactly testable. But, by you believing this is possible, shows that you do not always accept the uniformitarian assumptions!

Most of the world do not believe in the resurrection. But we do as Christians. There is scientific certainty that resurrection is impossible, it is an accepted 'fact', with overwhelming evidence. But guess what, we still believe it!

Are we going to say that to believe in resurrection, God must be deceiving us by leaving all this evidence of death around?

I have strongly disagreed with you on this a few times, but have never had you acknowledge my position on this important stance that you take.

Are you truly so convinced, that you must believe if any other possibility was true then God has deceived you?

Let me ask you this in another way. Did you ever believe in creation, for example when you were younger, were you ever convinced that creation was true? So, do you think God was lying to you then, in order to take the stance that you do now? God must have deceived either then or now - on the basis that you are overwhelmingly convinced. I think not.

On your logic, shouldn't I believe that God is deceiving me, for coming to a belief system that requires creation and the fall of man to make sense to me? Did God deceive me through the Church? This logic of deception is rather insidious.

You allow room for belief in the possibility of resurrection, immortality and a perfect God, and that Christ saved us. Why not then, allow with the same level of belief, the possibility, that we were created originally with perfect characters, and then fell into the need to be saved? Even if the model I previous posed to you is weird, why is it any more weird than any other belief?

Nic
I apologize. I see now that you were asking the questions out of a sincere effort to understand more about my thoughts. I made an assumption that you were asking to try and show how evolution poisons faith and thus is untrustworthy. It has been my experience that many who discuss this try and argue that evolution must be wrong because it doesn't fit with their theology. I still see this as a separate issue from the importance of describing it accurately but I do now understand why you were asking. And so I'll do my best to answer.

1. Do you believe that the “diversity of life” you made reference to include what is normally understood by the term “macroevolution”?

Yes

2. Are humans the result of common descent or common design?

Common descent although I don't rule out that God did some special designing somehow.

3. If common descent, was there a moral fall?

I don't know. If you mean, were humans somehow perfect at some point I would have to say no.

4. If there was no moral fall, what do we need a Savior for?

This is what I mean by death before humans causing problems for traditional Christianity. I think we can all agree that we need saving. We long for salvation. But I don't understand why God would create us that way to begin with. On the other hand, I also don't understand why God allowed evil such a free reign anyway so it's not like theodicy is solved by the Genesis account. This is tough stuff for me.

5. Can you spell out which miraculous events alluded to in the Bible do you believe in and which ones do you reject?

I really don't know. I don't believe in the Genesis account and I don't believe in the world wide flood. These should have left evidence but didn't. The rest are simply a matter of faith.

6. Do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus?

Yes for Jesus because it is central to Christianity. For Lazarus, I don't know. It is certainly possible. I wouldn't say either way. Personally I like miracles and have no problem with them. But I don't think they are vitally important either.

7. Jesus stated: In the beginning it was not so. What was he referring to? Was he referring to the first living cell or the first human being? If he had Homo Sapiens in mind, then why would he use the term beginning in connection with the first human being?

I don't know. It's possible that he understood everything about science and simply chose to communicate an important truth in ways pre-scientific people could understand. It's possible he was divine but didn't understand everything about everything. That he understood what was vital to salvation but, as a human, didn't have the full knowledge God does. I personally lean towards the latter because I think we see evidence that he continued to learn as an adult and even made mistakes (like saying he was coming back before the current generation died. Why would he say that if he had perfect knowledge and knew it wasn't going to happen?)

8. Jesus also made reference to the biblical flood. What did he mean by that?

See above.

9. Was Jesus the Son of God, or simply an outstanding Jewish itinerary Rabbi?

I believe he was the Son of God but I'm not exactly sure what that means.

10 Jesus claimed to have been in existence before the birth of Abraham. Was his claim a legitimate one?

Yes.

I understand that for many who are approaching this topic, evolution is one world view and creationism is another. They are able to weigh them as philosophies and decide which one fits their faith better.

There are those of us though for whom that is no longer an option. We understand the evidence for evolution and it becomes a reality that you can't just walk away from because it troubles your faith. It's like asking someone to decide whether geocentrism or heliocentrism works better for you. One fits the evidence and one doesn't and even if I liked geocentrism, I still can't believe it is true anymore.

That isn't to say that every hypothesis made in the name of evolution is true. But the basic tenants are not something I can walk away from anymore, no matter how troubling. And to continue to hear over and over that evolution and faith are incompatible is very discouraging (I'm speaking generally now, not to you Nic).

I think I speak for at least a few when I ask those for whom evolution is a philosophy to be weighed on its theological merits, to try and have some understanding of those of us for whom evolution is a reality. We have to find a way to make evolution and faith work because going back isn't an option.

And good luck with your class Nic. I admire your willingness to take all this on.

Chris,

On 07 June 2009 at 7:33 you suggested that “there are different kinds of Golden Parachutes.”

Could you describe the alternative “golden parachutes” you were referring to in more details. It is hard for me to trade my golden parachute for yours if I do not fully understand the fabric it is made of and the likelihood that it would help me land safely on solid ground instead of crashing and breaking my bones.

In the event you are interested in learning about my own golden parachute, please take the time to read the long debate I had with Dr. Sean Pitman over this issue a few years ago. Here is the online reference to this:

“How fundamental is a Six-day Literal Creation Week?”

http://sdaforum.com/page61.html

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Jag,

On 07 June 2009 at 7:52 you made the following comment: “You choose not to accept evolution because you see it as "unbiblical". Yet you keep a golden parachute under your pillow, which is far more unbiblical!"

You may have a good point, but you need to explain to me why my golden parachute is unbiblical. Do you reject it because of the biblical silence on this potential explanation for the problem with origins? How strong is an argument from silence?

Is the Bible an exhaustive account of everything which has taken place in the past? Didn’t Jesus say that there were many things he had to reveal to his disciples, but that they were not ready to receive them? Didn’t he also claim that “An enemy has done this? Is it wrong to attribute the suffering and death of animals before Adam’s sin to the activity of Satan after his fall? Why do you think that so many species of animals have become extinct prior to the appearance of Homo Sapiens?

This golden parachute was originated by a renowned Adventist theologian who held spellbound a large group of Sabbath School members in a double session at the LLUMC A-Level amphitheater for many years. His main session was so crowded that some members had to seat on the floor to be able to hear what he was saying. I have never seen another SS teacher who could have such a large following for so long. His name is Jack Provonsha. He passed away a few years ago, and a book in his honor is in the works. Of course, he did publish several books of his own. He was both an accomplished scientist and a theologian.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Chris,

On 07 June 2009 at 9:03 you asked the following questions directed at Bevin.

1. “Are we going to say that to believe in resurrection, God must be deceiving us by leaving all this evidence of death around?”

2. “You allow room for belief in the possibility of resurrection, immortality and a perfect God, and that Christ saved us. Why not then, allow with the same level of belief, the possibility, that we were created originally with perfect characters, and then fell into the need to be saved?”

I am eager to see how Bevin will respond to these questions.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Mrs. White made the point that we shouldn't establish a creed because the church hadn't arrived at all the truth yet, and our understanding would need to change.

It appears that our teaching about evolution is one of those areas. If you take off your polemic blinders and take a good honest look at the world around you, you see that evolution is so pervasive that it appears to be a fundamental principle of the universe, dare I say it, part of the very character of God.

What is peculiar is that so many feel that without the literal creation story of Genesis they can't understand anything about Salvation and the gospel of Jesus. But have they ever heard any alternative views. Probably not the Adventist church rarely asks anyone to speak to their members unless they are speaking acceptable Adventist beliefs. Thus the members only know what the gatekeepers let in unless they seek information outside the Adventist church (some Sabbath school classes are exceptions). So we are left with most Adventists completely unaware of alternative ideas.

The fact is this is not simply about science but about the art and science of Biblical interpretation. Two things that are rarely talked about in Adventism, because in each case; science and interpretation, any variance will effect SDA doctrines, and truth is only found within the Adventist set of doctrines (The Remnant philosophy of a denomination).

Ron

Hi Ron (Nielsen),
"evolution is so pervasive that it appears to be a fundamental principle of the universe, dare I say it, part of the very character of God."

This gets to the heart of the issue for me. God's kingdom as seen in Jesus is based on the stronger laying down their life for the weaker. Jesus' commission to us is to also lay down our lives for others. Satan's kingdom is based on the stronger consuming the weaker (survival of the fittest). Satan is the "prince of this world" that Jesus came to defeat.

So, however we explain the world we see around us, from my perspective the stronger hunting, killing and eating the weaker is not in any way a part of God's kingdom but reflects that which is the opposite of God's character.

Brad

So according to Brad's statement above, this is Satan's World. I wonder how those people that hold to the literal story of Genesis can account for God's creation being now Satan's world?

I realize people like David Read insert an amalgamation of man and beast into Genesis to make account for dinosaurs, others seem to go even farther as Pickle said on my blog all flesh is corrupt (apparently not a description of the people but of all animals), but that is not taking the story literally at all either because amalgamation or genetic engineering are not at all part of the story.

What it amounts to is that there are a whole range of creationist ideas, the claim that they are simply following the Bible account however is not to accurate, they are really based upon a particular interpretation of the Bible.

Ron

Nic,

I don't expect you to exchange golden parachutes. Why not have a few of them? I'll try to give an overview - but have too many thoughts on it now to put into one posting. I'm still fleshing it out.

And the ultimate golden parachute is Christ, so it doesn't matter if all of us are wrong about any of this stuff.

In conversation with Beth, I thought of the possibility that sin changed our history retrospectively. This is a strange thought, and maybe ends up a parachute made out of fish net! But I have thought about it only for a few days now, and it seems to be relatively supportable by various ideas from the Bible, and a I have also been thinking about E.G.Whites material support for this as well.

I am very cautious about this idea. I have had some reactions to it as pure heresy straight away. But I don't really understand why so. Maybe because they see it is unnecessary to go to this 'unusual' idea.

It's like a plan A, and plan B type of idea. In plan A, God created us as in the Bible - this occured literally a number of thousands of years ago, in the Garden of Eden view of reality. Then when we sinned, this changed our creation, to plan B. The difficulty in understanding it is we end up with what looks to us now, as two histories to our current perspective. The second history, plan B, sin caused our very creation to change.

This is how deep sin is. In plan B, because of sin, God manipulated evolution, despite the presence of sin and death, God's power making the decisions along the pathways to evolve us, as per BioLogos idea, also perhaps plan B fits your Golden Parachute. Plan A was the original Creation, sin is what changed our creation to evolution. In Plan B, God still brought man to the point where we could recognise the character of God in this reality, and be able to save us.

In plan B, God still directed our history, so that Adam and Eve were still more or less the same characters but sin caused them to 'fall' into an existence that's history was different. They physically changed. This whole planet physically changed. The image of God was no longer as visible with them, or their creation! It became the perspective of reality that they had actually evolved.

I think about how different the laws of the universe were, how causality was different, when God spoke reality appeared. I think about the laws of physics that enabled us to live forever - and I believe that there would have been extra fundamental forces, intentionally directed forces that knew when to counteract the second law of thermodynamics for example - which is what leads to decay and death. We also need the second law for us to eat, and for friction so we can walk, etc. Our reality requires this law, but it's side affects kill us. So laws must have existed to counter some of the known laws.

I also think about the idea that God is the beginning and the end, from the foundations of the earth. He has control over time, and he knows the future. What sort of reality does God live in to know the future?

We do not have these counter laws any more to our perspective. These, I see as the perspective of reality that was in the Garden of Eden, and when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden, they were actually expelled from that Plan A view reality.

This 'fall' may have been partly instant, and maybe had been a gradual component as well. For example it was a long time for that Plan A original creation view of reality to become inaccessable to us, and by the time of the flood, the perspective to the gateway to the Garden of Eden was completely removed from our view.

In this scenario, by the end of the flood, everywhere and any-when we look in history, we can now only see mostly evidence of evolution.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we see through a sinful perspective now. If we see evolution, then that could very well be because of the sinful perspective that sin caused to our reality.

I don't want to be resurrected to more of plan B. I need to believe that a perspective of reality exists where God's power is eternally absolute. Plan A is what I believe in the eternal.

Anyway, that's an overview of the idea, if evolution is true, which I am not convinced of, then I think I would choose that view.

"There is scientific certainty that resurrection is impossible, it is an accepted 'fact', with overwhelming evidence. But guess what, we still believe it! "

Since when is it a scientific certainty that resurrection is impossible?

All of modern biology points to all life being just chemistry, and to "mind" being a particular set of brain cells.

All God has to do is put enough brain cells together with the internals and connections being close enough and - voila - I'm resurrected.

We do this all the time with computer programs - ever hibernated your computer?

/Bevin

"So, according to you, am I, or aren't I, allowed to believe something is possible, even if it is not testable? "

Chris, you can believe anything you want to.

/Bevin

Nic,
PS. Some more thoughts:
Some thoughts about 'choice' and free will. How choice is what changes our possible perspectives of reality going forward. Perhaps the presence of 'sin' was also able to change it in reverse. Also about forgiveness, how God will 'completely' wipe away our sins. There is a bit of mirroring that I see here. That we will be physically changed in the twinkling of an eye.

I think it also strengthens the connection between sin being able to change our reality physically. Sin not only causing future consequences, but also a real physical difference when we had zero sin, to when we did have sin.

And how character affects reality.

Bevin,

OK Sorry, I was having a go at you for telling me that I had to think evolution was testable, in order for me to think it theoretically possible. I wasn't really asking for your permission, that was actually a rhetorical question. I understand that I shouldn't have had a go at you, because now I have received a sarcastic answer. I was hoping you wouldn't take it that way. In hindsight, I deserve it, and I will endeavour to be more respectful with you.

Feel free to answer my actual questions. I would appreciate it if you could respond to the possibility that God is not lying to us. I will only accept the possibility that He is lying, if you can answer all possible models that can fit in all of the evidence. David C Read has posed a model. And I am sure that there are numerous other possible models could be developed as well.

Then there are other models, for example the one that I posed, where the ideas are not even in conflict, in which no one is really wrong. So that would eliminate the idea of deception completely.

Bevin,

Yes you were right to correct me, science does not say outright that anything is impossible! That would be beyond the limits of scientific investigation. Think about how this impacts on creationism!

And another point that interests me: All of modern biology points to all life being just chemistry, and to "mind" being a particular set of brain cells.

Isn't it amazing that SDA pioneers said something like this over a century ago!

Also, just to clarify, the cells are not mind, they are brain. The 'function' of the brain cells is mind. And I am wary of reductionism denying function.

davidrlarson posted an interesting article on this.

oops double post. This spectrum website gets overloaded sometimes.

frank,

I always enjoy your thoughtful posts. And would like to respond to something you said:

I cannot reconcile a both/and in this situation, because the acceptance of either world view seems to make the other nonsensical in my mind. And that is what I see when viewing these differing accounts of origins, two starting places for world views and their consequences that are at their core mutually exclusive. Both/and thinking in this case seems like nothing more than wishful thinking to me concerning this issue...something that seems so clearly an either/or.

No doubt, it is posed as either/or. But the both/and idea, means that it does not have to be either/or.

if evolutionary theory is the truth of our origins, then the idea of covenant through personal creation is rendered nonsensical. So is the truth of man's fall into sin and rebellion against his/her Creator.

I don't think so. The both/and idea does not have to do away with anything at all. If we have the both/and idea, in the context that sin caused the second perspective, then the covenant is still applicable.

This is not an epoch type of creation that I am proposing. The both/and model that I have been thinking about, has the same starting place as scripture says. It means that sin caused our creation to change to contain evolution from this perspective. It means that they are not mutually exclusive at all. Rather, one is the result of sin from the other.

It means that sin can change the past and future. Just like ultimately, forgiveness can change the past and future, eventually restoring it to what it was originally meant to be!

frank,
PS. As to the origins of sin, there was a war fought in heaven, was this before or after man sinned? When/where was this war fought?

God and the angels appear to operate beyond our known understanding of this reality. God also appears to operate outside our known understanding of time.

Consider that God knows the future, yet we have free choice. Therefore, God knows all possible realities.

Out of 9 siblings and in-laws, 7 of whom were K-16 SDA educated, only 3 attend any church, and of those, only 1 the SDA church. Only 2 left over doctrinal issues and the rest profess no particular animosity towards the church. One of the two, an internationally recognized biology professor and researcher, traces his militant atheism directly to his SDA undergraduate education which forced him into an either/or stance on origins. He admits, grudgingly, that a great many published and respected scientists are also practicing Christians. He says that they seem to have compartmentalized their brains to allow both faith and science to coexist, much like we would format the hard drive on our computers into different segments. Because of his background however, he personally is unable to separate the two and feels that any compromise is a moral failure. It seems that many of the literalist/creationist posters here on this thread suffer from the same affliction.

I wonder how much traction this issue holds with the younger SDA demographic, say ages 18-30?
As the Republican Party has discovered in the last couple of elections, the culture wars that defined American politics for the last 25 years are over. Outside of a shrinking demographic composed of older, conservative, southern fundamentalists, guns, gays and abortion just don’t matter anymore. Most of the extremists on either side are seen as either dangerous psychopaths (Scott Roeder), inflammatory gas-bags (Bill O’Reilly and Al Sharpton), or clueless morons like the 30-Rock character, Kenneth the page, who said in a recent episode that “science was my favorite subject in school, especially the old testament.” The majority of Americans, especially those under 30, seem to be primarily focused on economic survival and quality of life issues. They want a society that works and see the extremists on both sides as either antithetical or benign to that purpose. They are replacing ideology with practicality and abandoning traditional institutions. Many have a strong sense of social justice and willingly commit themselves to unconventional sources serving the “the greater good”. Google Tom’s Shoes if you wish to see the future.

If the hierarchy continues to allow the church to be drawn into cultural wars on the extremists turf, it will eventually fight its way into irrelevance

Beth

Thanks for your comments dated 07 June 2009 at 12:49. After reading your frank responses to my questions, I have to say that I am concerned especially about numbers 3 and 4, and I am surprised about your answer to question number 6.

You state that the resurrection of Jesus is “central to Christianity,” and I agree. Had Jesus remained in the tomb, Christianity would not have survived, and Jesus would have been merely a man. Nevertheless, I can’t understand how you can dismiss the moral fall, since Jesus mission looses its meaning without Adam’s moral fall.

This tells me that if I were to accept the theory of evolution, I would have to pay a heavy price for trading a central pillar of my faith for the privilege of being in sync with academia. Fortunately, I can always hope that one day, science will discover why apparently the dinosaurs became extinct prior to the appearance of Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens. And I am not thinking about missiles from space.

Perhaps at the time of the Flood something happened to nature’s radiometric clock. Of course, I will not try to hold my breath until this happens; actually I have no need for this, since my golden parachute is still intact and always ready for deployment in case of emergency. The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that Jack Provonsha’s invention is the greatest gift for us Adventists.

Regarding item number 5, my view differs from those in the fundamentalist camp. The internal evidence found in Genesis indicates that the order of creation is not fixed in stone. This is evident from the contrast between chapters one and two. I do prefer six literal days over millions of years, though.

If Jesus could reconstitute his own physical body in the twinkling of an eye, I do not understand his need to make the first pair of human beings through a protracted process which lasted millions of years. I hope that one day the evidence for Common Design will be so overwhelming that all scientists will exclaim like the Egyptian magicians did: “This is the finger of God.”

I see in Genesis internal evidence which contradicts the fundamentalist's belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. When I contrast the pains Moses took to document the source of all the information he received directly from God with the absence of any reference to the source of the creation story, I conclude that the origin of said account must have been either his family tradition going back to Adam and Eve, or else some documents he found in the library of Egypt.

I fail to detect any evidence that said story was the result of a visionary experience. This means that the core of the account is true, although the details might not be scientifically accurate in its minutest details.

This should not lead us to conclude that the account is unreliable or uninspired. The Gospel of Luke was the result of research instead of visionary experience; nevertheless, the result is as reliable as the prophetic books written following heavenly visions and dreams. If you or anybody else is interested in more about my views of Genesis, I suggest that you take the time to read the following document I have on my web site:

How Fundamental is the Literal Six-Day Creation Week?
http://sdaforum.com/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5285

Finally, regarding my July 25 Sabbath School assignment, I will need a lot of what you wished me: luck. I will most likely limit my comments to what I do understand about origins and avoid any attempt to respond to Lee Greer’s powerful arguments dealing with the genetic evidence for Common Descent. I do see plenty of evidence for Common Design in nature, but as far as genetics is concerned, I am totally blind and no optician can help me with this limitation of mine.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

All God has to do is put enough brain cells together with the internals and connections being close enough and - voila - I'm resurrected.

**************************************************************
Bevin,

You are speaking of a God who intervenes to create life out of death. When has science ever quantified this as observable phenomena? This is certainly not something that is even remotely within the pale of evolutionary thought.

Yet, the Bible itself ties together resurrection with creation ex-nihilo through the picture of the one God who dramatically and decisively intervenes at the beginning, middle and end of history. It is a consistent picture of God doing what is beyong man's capabilities and comprehension, all for man's ultimate benefit and blessing.

If one can believe that God can create life from death absent supporting observation, then, to me, it would not be a far stretch to believe that same God could create ex-nihilo in the beginning, and in the end will bring into being a new creation as well... out of an earth that is once again tohu and wohu...formless, empty, and void. And in a sense, isn't this what the experience of conversion is even about? God coming into a life that is empty and dead, and in Christ making a person into a new creation, newly alive to God.

To extract resurrection to fit into a naturalistic paradigm, and to reduce it to a possible physical phenomenon albeit any lack of observable natural evidence, is to do violence to all that it represents and to what it is inextricably connected within the Biblical meta-narrative.

Thanks...

Frank

Nic,
There are probably better ways to understand a moral fall than I am able to come up. There are plenty of people much smarter than I am who don't seem particularly troubled by it. I'd love to have them all over for dinner and pick their brains myself.

It is very difficult to understand evolution in light of strict atonement theology. Why would God create us in a way that never allows us to be perfect and then condemn us for not being perfect? Makes little sense to me. On the other hand, it also makes little sense to me that the entire world including innocents like animals and children must suffer for thousands of years because of two peoples' mistake. Very unfair.

An alternative view to strict atonement is that Jesus came as an attempt to reconcile humanity to Himself, his death was probably inevitable given our wickedness, and the real emphasis is on the resurrection - that God has power over death and one day God will do away with death and sin permanently.

I think you are wise to leave the genetic evidence alone. Genetics is a complicated area that involves a lot of specialized knowledge. As laypeople, we can understand the overall picture but to really challenge information intelligently, I think any one would need that specialized knowledge themselves. I also know that genetic evidence is considered extremely strong for common descent and trying to tackle it would be difficult indeed. By recognizing you are out of your depth in this area you are already being a much better spokesperson for creationists then many of your fellow apologists.

Frank:

there are huge gaps between

- what technology is capable of doing

- what is conceivable within the constraints of the currently understood natural laws

- what conceivable mistakes there are in that understanding

- what can be imagined

I did not say resurrection was testable - it is beyond our current technology. I said it was not impossible.

/Bevin

Furthermore I accept God as the creator. I just don't accept God as the liar.

There are three alternatives

(a) science is wrong, when it says that the earth looks like it has had life on it for millions of years

(b) God made it a long time ago and life has evolved

(c) God made it recently, but made it in a way that has it looking old

The first is no longer credible to people, like myself and Beth, who understand the evidence.

The second is the only viable alternative for people who understand the evidence and who wish to believe in God

The third is inconceivable to everyone - noone likes the idea that God made an huge lie

Most SDA are (a). Many (most?) christians are (b). Almost no-one is (c).

I have yet to hear any credible recent-creationist response to the observation that it requires God to be bearing a huge false witness against us.

/Bevin

Are there any creation stories which relate the concept of evolution? I can't think of any...they all revolve around a god of somekind doing something.

As such we would expect the Genesis account to relate a similar view as it is directed at a similar people. If it rains it is because god sends the rain if no rain it is because god withholds the rain. How many modern Christains hold to that idea of weather. Yet for some reason we still cling to a creation story of similar nature. Now yest of course gods could have done it instantly, that would be true no matter what god one was referring to. However we are no longer at the point of what possible ways God did something but what does the evidence show us about what God did.

The Genesis story reveals nothing much other then man has trouble following instructions and is selfish and reaching for things that he can't handle. We really don't need the story of Adam and Eve to see that. The problem with sin is that it hurts ourselves and others we don't need the Adam and Eve story for that either. What we need is a way out of the reality we see rather then an explaination about eating forbidden fruit made us the way we are. I think God included the keys to understanding the genesis story right there in the name of the tree, the knowledge of good and evil. but it seems too many ignore the internal evidence of the story which is likely included in the story for the time when people no longer thought that God moves the leaves and sends the rain and wind.

Ron

Hi all,

Does anyone have any information on responses from the church or La Sierra administration? As much as I have enjoyed the debate re: evolution and 6 day creation, the fact is the church promotes a 6 day creaton - anyone carrying the SDA name should support this. Unless this position changes (and I pray it never does) La Sierra has no real option but to support this view. If various representatives choose to undermine this position, then it gets investigated and options are considered - this takes time. But how much time does La Sierra need to confirm that it supports the official SDA position and that they will investigage the accusations put to them? This is not a minor issue that will go away and the amount of comments and posts on other sites warrants a response.

Like all Seventh-day Adventists, La Sierra will make mistakes and they cannot be expected to be perfect but to remain silent on a fundamental belief at the administration level is at best.....odd.

Support the SDA church and admit you can make mistakes. Learn from this and adjust your teaching. The longer you take to respond, the greater the erosion of the La Sierra brand.

Freedom of thought and ideas is a fundamental right. Scientist as well as the SDA church itself must be free to express their beliefs regardless of what anyone else may think.

One question in my mind is this: "do you have to be so open minded as a church that you accept people in, even though they don't accept church teachings?" If you are that open minded you can't believe anything, why bother having a church at all? When is the SDA church going to take an official stand on this disaster I wonder?

The other thing I am wondering is why people who don't believe what Adventism teaches want to be a part of the organisation? Surely it is basic logic that you ought to join a church that believes what you believe, not, what you don't believe? Some of the conspiracy theorists out their like Erv Taylor might like to investigate "why people with non SDA beliefs are so desparate to be Seventh day Adventists"? There might be something there...;-)

Tim

Ron,

On 07 June 2009 at 6:58 you made the following comment: “Mrs. White made the point that we shouldn't establish a creed.”

The Adventist church is telling me that we didn’t adopt a creed; that we merely opted for a list of “fundamental beliefs.” Well, I decided to consult my dictionary and discovered the following: “A creed is a statement of belief;” therefore I conclude that what our church is saying in fact is that we do not have a statement of belief, but rather a statement of belief.

You also stated: “Evolution is so pervasive that it appears to be a fundamental principle of the universe.”

Are you referring to microevolution, like the evolution of bacteria and viruses or the transformation of a mouse into an elephant? Are the skeletons of dogs structurally significantly different from the fossils of Cambrian explosion dogs?

Do you expect that some of the descendants of today’s apes will be able to produce the equivalent of Milton’s Paradise a million years from now or that the progeny of mice today will eventually metamorphe into gigantic dinosaurs one day? Why is it that bacteria and viruses are still the same species after millions of mutations?

If the theory of macro-evolution is true, shouldn’t we see today millions of life forms in the process of being altered into new species? How come the only transformation science can observe today is in the micro-evolution category?

Finally, do you think that millions of years from now humans will morphe into a total different type of species as predicted by the French philosopher and theologian Teilhard de Chardin?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Beth,

On June 2009 at 2:07 you made the following comments:

1. “There are probably better ways to understand a moral fall.”

Perhaps, but I haven't heard any explanation that makes as much sense as the one we have in the Bible.

2. “Why would God create us in a way that never allows us to be perfect and then condemn us for not being perfect?”

God has no intention of condemning anybody for being imperfect but rather for being rebellious.

3. “On the other hand, it also makes little sense to me that the entire world including innocents like animals and children must suffer for thousands of years because of two peoples' mistake.”

No one will be condemned for Adam’s sin, but rather for his/her own rebelliousness.

4. I think you are wise to leave the genetic evidence alone.”

Given my age, I have no other choice. I have to rely on those who have made the investment in time and effort to master this field of research and study. My hope is that someone will study genetics from a Common Design point of view and share the results with me before I lay me down to sleep.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

As an SDA parent of two college students, it matters very much to me what is happening in SDA colleges. As a parent, am I not one of the primary consumers who is supposed to be served by our church-schools? Surely there are others like me who had no idea that within a denominationally supported institution, the church’s fundamental beliefs could be dispensed with at will. It seems simple enough to me—an SDA school’s reason for being is to provide an SDA education.

For the record, I looked up the LSU handbook to see what the policy is for hiring teachers. I also looked up the page where all the LSU biology teachers are posted. The bio for Dr. Larry McCoskey sounds very good, but no one could defend his syllabus as promoting a creationist’s point of view. There is no bio available for Dr. Shereen Sabet so I looked her up on the internet. She's not only a practicing Muslim, she's an activist Muslim. How does this meet the published LSU hiring standards? To quote from the Faculty 07/01/08 Handbook, page 30: “In the event that a qualified Seventh-day Adventist is not available to fill an advertised full-time faculty position, Christians who demonstrate an understanding of and commitment to the mission of the university will be given preference and may be hired into non-tenure track positions.” Since when did Muslim become synonymous with Seventh-day Adventist or any Christian denomination? Or how is LSU following this policy from the same handbook (Appendix, page 22)? “The university expects its employees and students to follow the religious teachings and practices of the SDA church and to uphold Biblical principles of morality, deportment and dress as interpreted by the church.” Hmmm… what church was that?

Why doesn't La Sierra just quit trying to hold onto any SDA strings with those pesky restrictive ideas about a God who created our world in 6 days, instituted marriage between one man and one woman, established the 7th day Sabbath, expects moral integrity, unselfishness, humility, honesty, requires a non-negotiable belief in Christ as the divine son of God, and will actually judge people to determine their eternal fate?! LSU should change its name to the U.N. University of La-La Sierra and leave out the pretense of SDA affiliation. I would rather my children attend a public university where they at least would be expecting and not be blind-sided by teachers who promote an anti-SDA philosophy.

The Spectrum article’s antagonism toward the whistle blowers--and that's really what they are, some brave souls who have dared to challenge what is happening—rattled my lethargy. Their blatantly biased and derogatory tone should clue anyone in to the fact that the truth must be far removed from what they’re purporting. While reading the various blogs I was reminded of Job's smug “friends” who with their pseudo-intellectual conversations carried on and on and on until finally God Himself thunders at them: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?"...

Eerily C. S. Lewis in the "Abolition of Man" describes a similar miscarriage of education: the guise of a grammar textbook that sneaks in the promotion of a dangerous philosophy. In LSU's case, the guise of “SDA approved” professors under the cloak of teaching in an SDA institution, yet promoting the antithesis of SDA beliefs. This is an insidious method for indoctrinating students with the philosophy of evolution. (It is a philosophy/religion/chosen world view/whatever you want to call it--but it is not science.) Then Lewis laments the end result of creating men without chests. If we take away our foundational beliefs in a Creator/Redeemer God (a God who doesn't try to trick us by describing a literal creation when He actually did something else entirely) and we make our own little gods that fit inside politically-correct containers such as "academic freedom," "scientific inquiry," "relevance," "inclusiveness," et al, we will simply scatter into the wind into various piles of dead leaves. We end up without chests, without a compass -- with nothing. If La Sierra University wants to accomplish the abolition of traditional SDAism it has no right to do so using the sacrificial offerings of those who in good conscience pay their tithes and offerings to the SDA church. It is a travesty against all those who chose to be baptized into this church because of its stated doctrines and principles to have people within, stealthily attacking and redefining the church.

For those who think the church’s basic fundamental beliefs are too confining, intellectually stifling and irrelevant, I have to ask, what are you doing here? You are free to form another church if you like. And yes, teachers are free to teach where their views will fit perfectly—i.e., a public university.

How have we gotten so far down this road? Where are the leaders who have been entrusted with the sacred responsibility of keeping our institutions on track? Or even simply making sure that the hiring practices as stated in the handbook are followed? Where are the board members and trustees who are supposed to be trust-worthy?

LS

Brad,

On 07 June 2009 at 8:50 you stated the following: “God's kingdom as seen in Jesus is based on the stronger laying down their life for the weaker. Jesus' commission to us is to also lay down our lives for others. Satan's kingdom is based on the stronger consuming the weaker (survival of the fittest).”

Great observation! What a contrast between God’s character and the attitude contained in Darwin’s philosophy.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Hi Nic,

I have read through your origins sections on your website, starting from page:
http://sdaforum.com/page61.html

as you suggested for me in your post:
@ 08 June 2009 at 1:32

And in that same post, you asked me some questions, which I responded in the post:
@ 08 June 2009 at 9:41

Note: the times quoted here are +10hrs from UTC. I'm not sure which timezone you see the times displayed as.

After reading the content on your website, I am even more keen for your response.

Many thanks,

Chris.

Chris,

Thanks for your comments dated 09 June 2009 at 5:16 on my computer. Please, let me know what date does your computer show for this posting of mine. I was under the assumption that the dating was the same for everybody, regardless of the person’s location. If that is the case, then there is no point in my habit of identifying the postings I am responding to with the date appearing on my computer. Thanks for calling my attention to this fact.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Hi Nic,

Please, let me know what date does your computer show for this posting of mine

Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 09 June 2009 at 3:51

PS, methinks that I am +10hrs to default UTC. This 3:51 is actually PM for me.