Thanks for the update Jared.
It seems though, that many of the concerns you rightfully noted, are nothing new, and have been standard operating procedure in Adventist education for decades.

You wrote..."Caving to Educate Truth's bully tactics would also stymie the the pursuit of knowledge and truth, a principle the Adventist pioneers championed from the churches foundation.".......the pursuit of knowledge and truth has been stymied all along, by adhereing to the pioneers "vision of truth". It is adherence to the pioneers, that is what propagates inflexibilty and the radical fundamentalist groups like the aformentioned Educate Truth.

You wrote..."Instead, Academics would be constrained by statements drafted in committee meetings, and the pursuit of truth, wherever it leads, would lose out"......One would be naive to believe that this isn't how things are done now. It might not be as transparent as you are suggesting the current threat is, but this is how things are run now, albeit, under the guise of psuedo-academic freedom. In most science faculties, and in many Theology departments.....the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" is standard practice, because for many, what is allowable to teach, has been determined by a committee. Anything that might challenge the Pillars or the Fundamentals, irregardless of how outstanding the scholarship is, and how sound and logical the conclusions might be.....are grounds for dismissal. This is the cloud, under which most SDA Academics must operate when they consider research topics, and or theological discourse.
One could call it Academic Freedom....in a box!

A very sad story indeed. But we have seen these earmarks before. Zeal generated false charges, obscuration, plagiarism, rush to judgment, run for cover, all because a fair open due process review was not initiated from the beginning. Now fear tactics are recruited to defend the institution--saying removal of a professor with damage the institution. That of course is a supposition based on removal for trumpeted up charges. There are proper causes for removal that would strengthen the institution.

In this environment, such a finding would be almost impossible to determine. The only thing left is what is always done: to go boldingly where we have always gone before--totally discredit whom every seems to be the primary villin.

In the early 1950's, Red Grange a famed football player at the University of Illinois and now a member of their Board orchestrated to have the President removed because the President had removed the Chancellor of the Chicago Campus because the Chancellor had allowed and had participated in clinical trials for a patented substance, of unknown compostion alleged to cure any type of cancer. The Board replaced the President with the comptroller who had only a B.S. degree. The Univesity more than 50 years later has still to regain the standing it had prior to the dismissal of its stellar President--even the football team has had a mediocre record--having made two Rose Bose winnings in the late 1940's and not a Big Ten Winning season since.

Now it sounds like someone(s) are attempting a lynching and the sheriff is heading out of town in a buddy.

No one seems willing to ask: "What do they teach? Why do they Teach it? Are such within the bounds of the Mission of the Institution? It seems they are afraid of the answers even given the source and tactics of those challenging the brethren. Gvien: What we know about the universe is much smaller than the universe and what we know about origins holds about the same ratio. Bombast on both sides is certainly a cover for one's ignorance. What, Who, Why, When, and for What purpose? are all proper questions of things and processes. We don't know as yet is still a very good answer.

Then belief systems can take their proper place and be examined critically and openly.

From the entry above, it would seem that is what the professor was attempting to do in assigning the paper. To prepare a young man to face the plethera of opinions about the unknown. If so a very great idea, very poorly defended from the start. Tom

There is a story here of fear and dishonesty attempting to undermine the principles of Adventist Education, and that is a sad one. But there is also a happier story here of courageous educators "whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole". I am inspired by the good work of my colleagues on the faculty at our sister institution to the south. I pray that all of us entrusted with the nice work of teaching college students can follow in the footsteps of Professors Bradley and Greer.

We can not require or expect our students to agree with us, or with the authors of their textbooks. But we would fall short of our sacred calling if we did not challenge students to closely examine their presuppositions, to accurately understand the best evidence and theories,and to honestly engage the views they disagree with in mutually critical conversations. Without this there is no education, only indoctrination. The pressure from those whose fear may have gotten the better of them to simply teach students to reflect the thoughts they have been raised with will likely get even more intense this year. It is crucial that we find gracious, empathic, but firm ways to resist this pressure.

It is not enough for us to keep our heads low and hope for this storm to pass - to do this would be to cheat our current students out of a real education, and it would be a betrayal of our vocation. We must boldly create the spaces in which our students can engage in a broad range of conversations, be exposed to a wide range of ideas and data, and be empowered to honestly struggle through to their own conclusions. This is how they learn to think for themselves, and is their best chance to achieve a mature, Christian identity.

Like many teachers at Adventist colleges and universities across the country, I stand with my colleagues at La Sierra, and thank them for their much needed service to our community.

Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Pacific Union College

I'm troubled that LSU/ LSU professors would put it out there that Cerna plagiarized part of his paper.

There are serious problems with this the first being that this might be a violation of FERPA and Cerna could sue LSU.

Moreover I question the truth of that allegation because it is false that Cerna having graduated would make it impossible for LSU to give him an F for the course. In fact if this is true LSU could revoke his diploma (if the class was necessary for graduation), require him to retake the course or expel him completely. Or, if what is being said about Cerna's paper is true there would be more bite than bark.

There is a lot of muckraking going on with this whole business and while my expectations on the other side aren't so high I did expect more professionalism from LSU professors.

Yes Johnny

Why don't they use the tools of academia rather than merely engage in retorts and leaks?

There are academic processes open--balances--and objective that can dispense with the issue within days. Tom

Jan Paulsen also said that when professors take their students out on a trip, they should bring them home at the end of the day. It is not merely the duty of Adventist educators to provide their students with information. Adventist educators need to help their students integrate information into their faith. In my personal experience in Adventist undergraduate science classes and in the experience of my friends this has not always been the case, to put it mildly.

Is Educate Truth playing a crass political game with an important question? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean Adventist science professors are merely victims in this. In my estimation, they have brought this on themselves by ignoring the more pastoral side of their responsibilities.

It turns out that in this, as in every conflict I've witnessed, there is wrongdoing on both sides. The question is who will be the first to repent?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

"In my estimation, they have brought this on themselves by ignoring the more pastoral side of their responsibilities."

I have had the opposite experience. Of all the SDA employess I have met, the science teachers are the ones most inclined to admit that the traditional SDA 6000-year-old-Earth position is simply not supported by the evidence - and that one can abandon it without abandoning the real positives of SDA'ism. ie: They show the students that they can live in the real world and be SDA Christians.

The employees and members that do the most damage to the SDA denomination, as shown in the cults discussion, are the ones that insist that all SDA maintain beliefs that are both unnecessary for salvation and contrary to the evidence - these are the ones that chase out of the denomination exactly those voices that it needs to be somewhere one can bring the students home to.

/Bevin

David

Generally where there is smoke there is fire. But in this case the smoke from both sides certainly obscures the fire.

First there is a curriculum committee. Tht committee should review the science curriculum for content and philosophic approach. If necessary, if any faculty is charged with an agenda outside of the mission of the institution there is a due process mechanism to explore the issue in a true academic setting.

That committee is required to bring recommendations to the
President through what ever channels have been prescribed in the by-laws. Administrative action can move forward on those recommendations or reject them. Minutes and records shall be kept of all hearings and conclusions.

Public disclosure may or may not be made depending on the wisdom of the President and the nature of the issue.

So far, it has been a shouting match--now listing academic credentials, as if that carries argumentative weight.

What it does say: Why in the world, at this late date, haven't you used the tools available to explicitly determine
if a problem exists or not?

Even the White Estate finally admitted that E.G.White used sources without proper attribution--but it was like floating teeth on a horse.

Given the nature of the persons bringing the charges--it ain't going away. The longer the University delays the worse it will become. Eventually some good people will be badly hurt and their careers ruined. Tom

Calling all Pollyannas, calling all Pollyannas...
How to address infighting and discord....??

Here is another damper to outreach. Why promote or market 7th Day Adventism with this embarrassing, confidence crushing incident taking place? On the other hand, maybe if members spent more time looking outward and upward, there would not be so much interest in analyzing dirty laundry.

I just see more symptoms of the unbalanced emphasis in meistic-promting nurture sermon approaches. The result is constant damage control/fire containing efforts here and there. If a few of those in leadership could ever catch the vision expressed by Paul in Eph 4:12 regarding the altruistic approach of having the clergy equip the saints FOR the work of the ministry and getting them actively engaged in lay ministries, then some of the attention and energy involved in infighting could be reduced.

The usual institutional spiritual teaching/education methodology is warped and perpetuates the carnal, immature, protracted adolescent mentality.

Why invite the unchurched to an organization which makes them two-fold a child of Hell as the member?

Alexander Carpenter...

This statement is extremely misleading if not outright false without qualifiers which were not provided:

Caving to Educate Truth's bully tactics would also stymie the pursuit of knowledge and truth, a principle that Adventist pioneers championed from the church’s foundation.

Ellen White supported the pursuit of BIBLICAL knowledge and BIBLICAL truth. The 'Spirit of Prophecy' was adamant that any science including geology, history, astronomy or biology which was not in agreement with the "truths" written by Moses were to be explicitly denied. She claimed Satan himself was behind these falsehoods in order to weaken faith in the veracity of the Word of God.

I CHALLENGE you to find a statement from any pioneer that states that a conclusion from science that contradicts the Bible should be even spoken about to the virgin ears of students, let alone taught as a viable theory.

Small-scale evolution or large-scale evolution contradicts the Bible. Period. SDA educational institutions were not to be preparing students to accept/know the teaching of infidels but were to be training grounds for missionaries and church workers. This idea that the facts of evolution and geology need to be taught is ludicrous on its face. I am hoping that you are just ignorant about the statements of the early church pioneers which contradict your assertions and not full of knowledge about those statements yet making assertions to the contrary.

If SDA students are going into a field which requires scientific knowledge let them attend institutions that have free thought and respect science.

Here is an excerpt from an EGW Estate piece. It may be a small starting place for educating yourself on what the "principle" is when determing the pioneer's ideas of the search for Truth and Knowledge.

"Although Ellen White uses the phrase “unity in diversity,”[16] and stated “Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto,”[17] she maintained that the landmarks and pillars of Adventist truth were to remain. Concepts that impact the science of geology which she “was shown” to be identified as permanent include six literal, empirical, historical 24-hour days of creation, culminating with a literal 24-hour Sabbath day of rest, and human life on earth non-existent before the literal creation week described in Genesis.[18] Recognizing that all truth in a fallen world is vulnerable to distortion, Ellen White continually repeated her clarion call to elevate Scripture over humanity’s ideas of science.[19] True science, in her view, must always be brought to the test of the unerring standard of Scripture.[20]"

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/genesis.html#3

I thought a piece passing as a news update on an ongoing situation would be less partisan and more factual. When I got to the last 6 words I realized why it wasnt.

Michael: Your comment is a pure ad-hominim attack.

Unfortunately the article has a number of problems. They are related to a partisan viewpoint when it should have been a non partisan report. Subsequent articles could have offered partisan views and reasons for those view. But as it is the article has some major errors.

1. The article states: "Clearly, Shane Hilde and those allied with the Educate Truth website intend to stop at nothing short of forcing the firing of La Sierra University faculty members. This despite the efforts of President Jan Paulsen to put out the embers of controversy with an article reiterating the church’s stance on the issue of origins."

Paulsen's statement was far from clear on anything it was at best middle of the road, actually not even quite in the middle. But in any case as was discussed on this website most people saw in the article something they wanted to see whether pro or against the school or the teaching of evolution. If you calculate in the articles since by the Adventist Review then you clearly are seeing the Administration on the "against" side. So no, there is no indication that Paulsen tried to put out any embers of controversy.

2. From the article: "After the class ended and Cerna graduated, it came to light that Cerna plagiarized parts of the paper (discovered by someone working with Biology Chair Jim Wilson on TurnItIn.com). If this had been found while Cerna was still a student, he would have received a failing grade."

This is really bad. The article is addressing a particular person and charging that person with plagiarism and the article's charge is entirely anonymous. "discovered by someone" does not really matter who that someone worked with. The "Who what and when and where" of journalism would be very important here. As it is it is simply rumor-mongering and not worthy of inclusion nor speculating about what would of happened "if". If it had been announced somewhere then a link should have been provided but this is simply not acceptable as it defames Cerna and the School.

As much as I may agree with your general position on the issue falling to the level of Educate Truth is simply not acceptable.

P.S.
I just looked at the copy of Cerna's paper, just reading the first couple of paragraphs is painful. I am assuming that the student is writing in English as a second language...either that our our schools are doing a terrible job of teaching students how to write.
http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/la-sierra-evidence/carlos-cernas-un...

Ron

As a life-long Adventist, 4th generation, this brouhaha is quite saddening. This controversy would seem to suggest that parts of the Adventist church are infected by the same "spirit" (what I call intolerant, "fundamentalist fury") that is engulfing the American political and religious worlds. For the Adventist church what most disturbs me is that we have failed to learn lessons from our past. I would submit that it is this type of self-destructive behavior that is emptying our local North American churches of the kind of thoughtful, skeptical believer necessary for the organization's renewal and growth.

If anyone has bullying tactics, it's the condescending Jared and Alex. This article oozes with hate against core SDA beliefs and attempts to twist the story to make it fit the authors' distain for fundamental Adventism.

First, I just read the "About" section on Educatetruth.com, so I know Shane Hilde didn't only go to Weimar and La Sierra, he also attended Walla Walla and Southern. There are vast differences between all FOUR universities, and two of them are considered liberal indeed. Saying Shane attended Weimar is a MOOT POINT. I see you trying to paint him as conservative because Weimar was one of the FOUR universities he attended, but that's just weak, yellowish journalism. Even if your point wasn’t totally reaching, Weimar is by far the less conservative of many self-supporting institutions.

So back to the REAL issue, cutting all the attempting-to-prejudice facts.

La Sierra is supposedly an SDA university. As such, it has a duty to uphold the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church. There is strong evidence it's not doing so. Therefore, LSU administration needs to take action, and if it doesn’t, the GC needs to take action. There is no scandal here. No fear. No witch hunting. There is merely (FINALLY) someone willing to speak out against the worldly doctrines being fed to our young people, under the banner of Adventism, which turn out young atheists and SDA haters. It's truly a shame Jared and Alex aren't also using their minds in the small army for truth, but pridefully persist working against God and his last day church. Bravo to Shane!

Evolution-promoting LSU professors shouldn't have to be fired; they should resign if they have any integrity. Obviously the LSU evolutionist professor of 38 years, who mocked creation and even felt the need to swear in an interview, isn't the type of character most SDA parents would like their children educated by. I suspect many parents would rather pay less than half the money and put their kids in a public university, where there's no religious hypocrisy and pretense, or at least put them in a college, such as Weimar, that is different from the world and teaches SDA doctrine.

If LSU is going to publicly take the name Seventh-day Adventist, it needs to publicly live up to the name and teach Biblical creation. And you, Jared and Alex, would do better not to hide behind SDA culture, when you show contempt for core SDA doctrines and very much ascribe to atheistic/agnostic thinking and belief. Your fruits betray you. Speaking of honesty, get some. Pray for some. Perhaps start by leaving the comfort of your SDA sham, and try being big fish in a big world instead.

Amie,
Chill out!

"I suspect many parents would rather pay less than half the money and put their kids in a public university."

A prescient, and self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are huge gaps in the story. What was the student's major? Was this a required course? Did he take it on as a witch hunt? Why does the university stonewall with hyperbole. No need to explore a teacher's belief system. Just determine his teaching content, style, and doctrinaire pronouncements. Either that, or rewrite the University handbook and promotional materials sent to students and their parents.

By the way--what was the student's grade in English 101?

I was educated and trained as a clinician. Some of my best teachers were avowed evolutionists. They were also excellent clinicians. Fortunately, the examinations and exercises were all clinically related.

From Adam to Lucy is quite understandable. From Lucy to Moses is not. Evolutionists pass over the second law of thermodynamics with a wave of the hand. But energy flows down not up. Possibly the professor wanted to get the student's take on the radioactive decay of Carbon 14 as a marker. A critical science to any hypothesis of origins.

We don't know much about the teacher, but we sure learned a lot about the student. A serious critic he is not. A competitive college graduate he is not. A thorn in the side--big time. It is going to take a lot of candor on the part of the University to heal his toxic charges.

One thing for sure if one intends to be a critic of evolution one better understand it better than this student demonstrated. Also, if one wants to defend Creationism as commonly expressed from the pulpit, one better know and understand its pitiful logic and data base. There is very little rational dialog in this debate. Maybe, or it could be that the teachers at LSU are ttuly trying to instill some.
Who knows for sure? My all means let us not repeat Collegedale. But let us not just sweep it under the rug either. For sure E. G. White wasn't just wrong on 1844. Tom

I know that the plagiarism charges were actively discussed in the educate truth comments. My understanding was that a couple of people who had accounts with turnitin.com and other similar sites decided to run the paper after it was publically posted by Cerna. There were several long quotations that weren't sourced. The first was discovered using a simple search. Later on an Australian professor decided to run the paper through turnitin.com and Eduify.com. He posted his results here and here.

It's not clear to me whether the person in the biology department made that search before or after the original charges of plagiarism. Once the paper was released online it was viewed by hundreds of people and many of them had the tools to find uncited sources and it becomes murky who discovered what. At this point the charges are recognized even by those at educate truth, who have removed the paper.

"Evolutionists pass over the second law of thermodynamics with a wave of the hand."

Rubbish. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) is not dealt with by a wave of the hand.

It is dealt with by pointing out that is says

"that the entropy of an ISOLATED system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time"

The Earth IS NOT AN ISOLATED SYSTEM

/Bevin

bevin

A great observation. The question then lies, if not isolated--who or what mades it a "system". "Far Beyond the Sun" as the Mexican Gospel song goes.

Even beyond photosysthesis. Tom

I saw this paper a few years back. The author calculates how much energy from the sun pass through the earth. There is enough energy that he estimates that all of the evolution that we see and all the life on earth could have happened in 12 days and it still would not violate the second rule of thermodynamics. Of course life has been around much longer than that, so the second law cannot be used to disprove evolution. I would consider this paper to be more than mere hand waving. This is the type of calculation that a creationist would have to make in order to prove that evolution is impossible due to the second law. Instead, it has been my experience, that creationists are the ones waving their hands.

No one is saying that evolutionism should not be mentioned, talked about and taught, but they are sayng that is ought not be taught as fact when it is not, Creation is fact. Naturalism and evolutionism are mutually exclusive with creationism. That evolutionism has been taught as a fact at LLU is shameful and it needs to stop.

This situation is now being monitored by biologists and scientists all over the world through the Pharyngula science blog. Since Mr. Cerna has said he wants to be a molecular biologist, he might want to take a look at the feedback he gets from scientists in the real world about his paper, a link to which was posted for all to read. The kindest agreed that the C was generous. It goes downhill from there. Welcome to the world of science - those much maligned professors are doing their best to get him ready for it.

"If LSU is going to publicly take the name Seventh-day Adventist, it needs to publicly live up to the name and teach Biblical creation. And you, Jared and Alex, would do better not to hide behind SDA culture, when you show contempt for core SDA doctrines and very much ascribe to atheistic/agnostic thinking and belief. Your fruits betray you. Speaking of honesty, get some. Pray for some. Perhaps start by leaving the comfort of your SDA sham, and try being big fish in a big world instead."

How true, how true. A pretty sad situation when the Spectrum blog is used like a petty tabloid. If accusations are made let's either get *all* the facts or leave the guy alone until you do. For anyone on the blog who is not a professing SDA aren't your views pretty much inconsequential in this context?

For anyone on the blog who is not a professing SDA aren't your views pretty much inconsequential in this context?

Posted by: Your Friend | 11 September 2009 at 7:03

*******
It might be inconsequential if professing SDAs lived in a hermetic world sealed off from everyone else. But in the world we do live in, where people of different backgrounds and convictions interact all the time, others and their opinions are consequential. We're often told that a man of integrity need not fear external review. Character we develop on our own; reputation and credibility we build through interacting with others. Unless Adventism plans to stop interacting with the rest of the planet, it can't afford to dismiss other people's opinions.

If one cuts through the rhetoric on both sides what he finds this is an issue that is largely epistemological (the theory of knowledge). The bottom line is this: what is the epistemological base of Adventism? Since we all agree we're in a quest for truth, what path do we trod to get there. And if we have differing maps which one do we follow. The SDA church has from its inception said the Bible is its primary map to discover truth. Our preamble to the fundamental beliefs affrim this:

"Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."

Thus, this makes the Bible Adventism's epistemological base. This doesn't mean that the Bible is the only source of knowledge. There is science (a favorite of the left) and Ellen White (a favorite of the right), etc. These , and others, are valid forms of discovering truth. But, the Bible being the epistemological base of Seventh-day Advenitism means that all other forms of knowledge (or maps) are subject to the main map - the Bible.

That's what makes the teaching of origins a very relevant issue for the modern SDA church. Because to accept macro-evolution, on the basis of science, even if it contradicts exegesis of Scripture, is to insert a new epistemological base into Adventism. That makes it an entirely different church.
The relevant question is, when issues arise will we consult a variety of disciplines for answers, and Scripture gets a voice, but is only believed when it agrees with what the other voices say (such as psychology, science, etc.). An example is gay marriage among baptized SDA's. Is that considered a sin or an acceptable lifestyle? How do we determine that? One group will look primarily to Scripture, secondarily to other sources. Another group will look to other sources primarily, and Scripture secondarily. And both will come to radically different conclusions. These 2 forms of epistemology cannot exist in Adventism, because they cannot both be Adventism. If the base of Adventism is the Bible (which has already been decided), then submitting the Bible to the conclusions of these various disciplines is not really Adventism. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If one wants to be a Seventh-day Adventist then he/she has to submit to Scripture. If he/she is unwilling to do so, then the church has every right and authority to take action in such cases.

I'm an alumnus of LSU (from this current decade). I wasn't a Biology student, but know several Adventist students who were Biology students. Never once did I hear them complain about "They're teaching evolution [of any type], we shouldn't be taught that."

As a student of life, education (any study), don't you want to know about a particular issue as a whole or do you want just a one-sided argument? When I was studying psychology at PUC I didn't like the broad approach the professors were taking and was thinking "Why aren't they teaching a more Adventist or Christian approach?" It made sense after a while that they were teaching the Christian approach as well as what the world approach is to give a more deep understanding of psychology.

I rather study the whole issue not just one side of an issue. If I am supposed to have a "well-rounded" education that means I'm going to need to learn the good vs. the bad, the left vs. the right, the Christian vs. non-Christian, Creation vs. Evolution.

I hear more about alumni protesting and the "elite"/educated protesting; I hardly hear the students that are supposedly being affected protesting. I don't read students or the LSU Biology staff arguing their viewpoint.

If we were to go by the Biblical standards of Creation, than why don't we abide by every single aspect of the Bible that it teaches? Why are we picking and choosing what to believe/teach/share?

In my humble opinion, I believe this is all a tactic to not support one another in the last days of this world but tearing each other down. This tactic is brought on by the devil to destroy the church and to destroy the support system we should have in our church, especially today and in the future.

As an ex English teacher, I feel so proud that the opinions of one of my colleagues is actually being entertained by people who have doctorates in various fields of science and a lot of time to be defending themselves against Joe the Plumber and Shane the English teacher.
Please, Ms. Hilde, if you will, indulge my own interests in science which centers on some discussions I had in grad school classes. Professors were teaching that witches were actually spreading the Black Plague throughout Europe in the medieval period. I think they must have believed it because they taught it, just as I am sure you agree with the scholars that Shakespeare was actually Kit Marlowe and that he was gay and hated his wife because he left her the "second best" bed.

Once I attended the class of a linguistics professor from China. A group of us were talking with her after class about the great consonantal shift. I heard her call one of my fellow students a "moron." When I asked my Chinese classmate about it she explained that she lived in the same apartment complex as the professor, who complained that no one mowed the lawn at the place.

You know, perhaps the best thing we can do is check our motives. Tea party types should just go home and "mow the ron."

Thanks for that reference, Beth. It's quite an interesting read to see how this is getting covered on a popular science blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/carlos_cerna_will_someday_dem...

"Weimar was one of the FOUR universities he attended"

How has that been overlooked in the listing of SDA universities. Weimar should be happy that their institution has just been promoted to the rank of university!

"Unless Adventism plans to stop interacting with the rest of the planet, it can't afford to dismiss other people's opinions."

When such opinions are patently false as are those which teach evolution and promote doctrines contrary to a plain teaching of the Scripture they deserve only to be placed in the trash heap.

The opinion of those who promote adjusting Biblical teachings to modern cultural trends have little credibility as I see it.

I see that educatetruth.com has removed Carlos Cerna's paper. From what I read of it, and I didn't read much, his paper deserved no better than a "C" (which argues against the allegation of pagiarism, because if you were going to crib something, wouldn't you steal something good?). (Although I suspect that if I re-read some of my college papers, I would be pretty sheepish.) But Carlos Cerna's mediocre paper is not the issue. The issue is what is being taught at LaSierra.

You can see from the curriculum materials posted online, and from Gary Bradley's quoted comments, that the science faculty at LaSierra is teaching Darwinism as truth, as the most likely explanation of the creation. As quoted at "Inside Higher Ed:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution.

"Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.

“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bulls**t,” he said.

I have to wonder what Church Bradley is attending, because in his delusional universe, Adventists who believe in a literal six-day creation are a MINORITY within the SDA church:

“It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,” Bradley added. “That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.”

I think he must mean the larger Christian church, not the SDA church, because if thinks that those who believe in a literal six-day creation "do not represent the majority position" within the SDA church, then he should be put out to pasture on the basis of dementia. I guess the creationists of the denomination really are going into the belly of the beast when they head out to Loma Linda next month for a celebration of creation:

http://fscsda.org/.

Some say enough sun light falls daily on New Mexico, if captured could provide all the energy needs of the United States. One day working in that sun, I believe it and more.

By night it can get down right chilly. With a diurnal cycle--without photosynthesis--the biomass has little if anything to build upon in the order of magnitude of the postulates of evolutionists. So say the scientists at MIT.

The Gulf Stream and the Japanese Current help modulate the Northern climate and provide warmth for cold blooded creatures of the sea, etc.

I have the MIT work several times. Despite their negative conclusions on time and energy, they still endorse the Neo-Darwinian theory.

The biologist the followed me had the head librarian throw the book out. There is knee jerk thinking on all aspects of the unknown.

Creationist should allow a great deal more freedom that is their wont. Evolutionist should allow a great deal more design input than is their wont.

The University is an ideal place to consider the full range
of options candidly. Tom

Sorry, Tom, but Darwinian evolution is *not* an option. If it becomes an option then the SDA church as we know it is finished.

The philosophical bilgewater that poses as science is not supportable and I'm quite certain you know it in your heart of hearts.

When such opinions are patently false as are those which teach evolution and promote doctrines contrary to a plain teaching of the Scripture they deserve only to be placed in the trash heap.

The opinion of those who promote adjusting Biblical teachings to modern cultural trends have little credibility as I see it.

Posted by: Your Friend | 11 September 2009 at 9:01

******
Loud and clear. :) I'm sure there are others who share your viewpoint, and so how long the group last in that bunker may depend on how much powdered milk you've stockpiled.

Edit
____

That was snarky of me. I retract the snark.

My concern is that it has never been possible for an org to seal its borders and yet thrive; organizations are not self-contained systems.

Your Friend

Nothing to be sorry about. If I were a betting man, I would bet we are both wrong.

I am sure that you follow the Hubble discoveries. Isn't the universe wonderful? To imagine stars billions and billions of light years away and we are seeing them for the first time.

It gives us some idea how small we really are. Then to think that that God came to earth--just a speck to redeem man a speck upon a speck.

The heaven certainly do declare the glory of God. That we could fathom the whole of it would be wonderful indeed.

I for one think that both Darwin and Adventism were spawned out of the same backwater of the enlightenment. The old order was dead and willful visionaries caught different waves.

Just think the white cliffs of Dover stand as a testimony that the Ussher/White age of the earth is false. But the
ability of man to think and to do stands as a testimony that chance had nothing to do with it either.

We stand in judgment before God, God does not stand in judgment before us. I am glad I was fashioned in the image of God and that God was willing to rescue me and adopt me and call me son for eternity. I suggest we make an appointment to travel together to the Butterfly Galaxy. I doubt if LSU will even enter our conversation.

I remember as a young farm boy seeing the rings of Saturn for the first time. I think the largest lens was less than 4 inches across. Now each time we build a bigger scope we get smaller and smaller and less significant--yet God found us as His pearl of great price.

Imagine a paleontologist can find a pile of bones and articulate them without ever having seen a live pre-historic beast. Now that is design for you!

Have a nice day. We have so few of them given the size of our universe. Tom

Tom,

if you don't mind, I'll join you for the tour...

/Bevin

Since when do we have a right to hobble God by insisting that He fits within laws of thermodynamics or macro evolution or whatever theory that we create.. No matter how clever we think that we are can anyone really explain how all that we see just appeared through any of these natural laws.Can anyone explain how Jesus spoke and Lazarus returned to life after three days. If we insist that evolution is valid then every other bible teaching would be open to being in need of scientific validation. I think that we would be of all men most miserable.

Wow - I can't believe this issue is still going on and both Spectrum and Atoday still refuse to support the SDA church's position. Why do you guys call yourselves SDA's? Is it not clear that the church believes in a literal 6 day creation?

David has highlighted Bradley's contempt for the church's position on origins. And why is this significant? LSU were consistently evasive despite Jan Paulsen and the various official church publications making it very clear where the church stood.

Both Spectrum and Atoday are against the official SDA church on origins. Can you guys stop pretending you are Adventists (even if you are 4th or 5th generation - what significance is this?). Move on and find a faith you are comfortable with.

The issue at hand is whether it is okay to be a teacher within the confines of Adventism and publicly disagree with a foundational doctrine of your employer. Bradley should be teaching and exposing our kids to evolution - but not teaching this is as the preferred view on how the world began.

I have 3 children who all attend Adventist schools - this is expensive but this investment has eternal consequences. These schools happily support the church's theology and I am confident they will expose them to outside views but safely bring them back to what I believe is God's word. If my children want to go on and attend any tertiary college, I will be strongly discouraging Adventist options. This issue has left a sour taste in my mouth. LSU and I suspect many other SDA colleges (per Aubyn Fulton comment) do not appear to know what it stands for. I want my children to be challenged in their faith - but not have it undermined by the very people paid to support it.

And here's where it gets really sad. Despite clear evidence that LSU and other paid executives publicly support a view contrary to what they are paid to support - they remain paid representatives. When will the elected and paid officials of our church deal with this issue?

I think more and more SDAs are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place on this issue. On one hand, many pride themselves on their education and take pains to distance from the more fundamentalist religions who are suspicious of "book learning."

On the other hand, they value YEC. This conundrum used to be at least tempered by the belief that there was a reasonable amount of scientific evidence that supported a YEC view. Perfect, now there is no need to reject science (like the "uneducated fundamentalists" do). One could still claim a YEC view and also consider oneself a scientific truth seeker.

However, that "solution" has become less and less tenable for a number of reasons. (It was never a good one because it wasn't accurate but it was good in that it helped with the cognitive dissonance.) The scientific community has become increasingly vocal in its outrage that YEC could even be considered a legitimate scientific view, biological and geological evidence once poorly understood by lay people is being presented in an accessible way for those uninterested in remaining purposefully ignorant, and the reality that science does not support (even contradicts) a YEC view is gradually sinking in.

The view that science and YEC don't have to be at odds is a view whose time is fast running out. It will be interesting to see how the church decides to go forward - will the church swing more towards Bible college fundamentalism (saying we don't care what science says) or is it really serious about being well educated? I don't know how long it can continue to straddle the fence on this issue.

This discussion about evolution has been fascinating. It is just the kind of conversation we want our Adventist College graduates, informed by their mastery of critical thinking and formal rules of discourse, and their study of history, theology and the Biblical texts, social science, philosophy, and science, to be able to participate in and contribute to. I can think of hundreds of Adventist college graduates who can do this - and half of them would be on one side of the debate, and half on the other.

But much of this discussion is beside the point of what is going on at La Sierra. The question for us is not "Is the theory of Evolution well supported by reliable and valid evidence?" or "Do we subordinate scientific conclusions to the authority of traditional interpretations of religious texts?" (though those are good and important questions). The current question is, do we allow teachers at Adventist colleges to teach students theories and empirical findings that disagree with the formal positions of the Adventist Church.

The answers to these questions are fairly straight-forward, and depend on what we want these institutions to be. If we want them to be real, accredited colleges and universities, then the answer can only be that of course we allow (indeed, insist) that teachers present the full range of relevant and appropriate evidence and theories to students, expect students to learn them, and then push them to arrive at their own conclusions. Biology can only be properly taught by presenting the best evidence, and the various theories that best account for that evidence. We must expect students in Adventist College Biology classes to learn that material. We also teach them about the limits of science, and the dangers of scientism, and challenge them to come up with their own conclusions about the implications of the findings of biological science for theological understandings of the Cosmos, and their relationship to their Creator.

If we do not want Adventist schools to be real colleges and universities, but instead want them to be agents of theological and cultural indoctrination, then we can answer that we only allow teachers to present information that agrees with the official positions of the Church, and we only accept conclusions from students that do so as well.

As a community we can ask these institutions to serve one, but not both, of these functions. Plenty of religious organizations have institutions whose mission it is to indoctrinate - and the Adventist community has several of these already. They are not accredited, and so do not convey the many advantages of that recognition in the larger culture. I respect (while disagreeing with) those who consciously turn their back on these advantages based on principle. But it is fundamentally dishonest for Adventists to use formal educational institutions for social prestige and personal financial advancement, and at the same time try to avoid the intellectual responsibilities that come with it. La Sierra is an accredited post-secondary institution - as such it makes certain promises to the public when it confers degrees on its students, one of which has to do with basic academic freedom. As long as we want La Sierra's degrees to carry this kind of status and benefit, we have to be honest enough to make sure that we deliver on the promises. If we don't want to deliver on those promises, then we should get out of the accredited education business.

Aubyn

You misunderstand accredittion of religious institutions.
They are not required to teach anything contrary to their belief system. They are required to teach their unique beliefs in a manner consistent with academic standards for the level of their accreditation. LLU School of Dentistry may teach comparative anatomy of mammalian teeth without a hint of a suggestion of national selection or adaptation. For example, man is the only primate without a natural diastema. There is no suggestion taught at LLU that the up right posture shortened the muzzle--thus taking up the space found in lower primates. A comon observation in non-adventist dental education 50 years ago. Tom

Tom wrote:

"Aubyn

You misunderstand accredittion of religious institutions.
They are not required to teach anything contrary to their belief system."
*************************

Thanks for the chance to clarify that Tom - I did not mean to imply that accreditation requires religious schools to violate their religious beliefs - you are quite right about that. We do not have to teach classes on Sabbath, and we do not have to offer classes on the science and art of making wine, or the techniques for making pornographic films. But accreditation does require schools to give both teachers and students academic freedom in which teaching and learning takes place, and this does mean allowing teachers (and not the institution) to teach material that might conflict with the positions of its sponsoring religious organization.

A college Biology teacher does not "teach" students that God does or does not exist, or did or did not create the universe. They do teach what their training and experience tells them is the best data and theories in Biology. I keep reading this phrase "teach as true" in reference to Evolution and La Sierra. I don't see that as a helpful approach. In science, what is true is that the theory of evolution explains a large fraction of the available evidence - much larger, and much better, than any competing theory. Clearly, it does not explain all of the available evidence, and any good Biology class will go into this as well, but no competing theory in Biology (and few scientific theories in any other discipline ever constructed) function as well. Well trained and qualified Biology teachers are likely to share this judgment, and at an accredited school - even a religious one that institutionally is opposed to evolution, those teachers must be allowed to teach this in their courses.

A religious school is quite free to commit itself to a wide range of beliefs and positions associated with its sponsoring Church. This might be the belief in a 10,000 year old earth and 6 literal days of creation, or the belief that it is an abomination for black and white people to intermarry (as at Bob Jones University) or even the belief that the Holocaust never happened (I don't know of any religious school that currently has that belief, but there could be one). But it can not insist that all of its teachers teach these ideas and nothing that conflicts with it. They still have to allow its biology teachers to teach biology (including evolution) and its history teachers to teach history (including the Holocaust) and its sociology teachers to teach sociology (including data showing the absence of negative consequences from "race-mixing").

None of this means that those teachers are required by the school to teach anything in particular, but they are 1) allowed to use their own best judgment and training to select what they teach, regardless of whether it contradicts the teaching of the sponsoring church) and 2) they are expected to get their students to master the learning outcomes generally expected for their discipline. Of course in many disciplines there may be healthy and vigorous debate about what these outcomes should be, (and working this out is part of academic freedom, and responsibility, too) so there is some fuzziness here. But each discipline has ways of identifying those fuzzy boundaries, and, critically, those determinations are based on the academic consensus within the discipline, not by the ideological constraints of the governing body.

A religious institution is under no obligation to endorse Evolution, and can even state that it is opposed to Evolution. It does not have to teach Biology at all if it doesn't want to (though of course if it makes this decision it will not be able to offer a pre-med program). If it does offer a Biology class, it does have to allow properly trained and qualified teachers to construct the curriculum, in accordance with the best practices of the discipline, and not under the coercion of conformity to the ideology of the sponsoring religious organization. I do think that religious institutions that state that they do not give their teachers this freedom, and allow sponsoring religious organizations to dictate theses academic judgments, will find it difficult to get accredited - and indeed, would not deserve the accreditation.

Now, at a religious school, a teacher may also share their own personal ways of integrating their faith and learning (as I and most of my colleagues do), and then invite students to find their own way of doing this. The advantage of going to a religious school is not that students never learn information that disagrees with the teachings of their Church, but that they are surrounded by a 100 different examples in their teachers who each model, in a different way, how to integrate, with integrity, their faith with their discipline. We can not mandate that our students make their own integrations, but we can pray that they do, and root them on and encourage them to keep trying. And that is what a Christian College is all about.

Aubyn,

I would expect the Biology teacher at an SDA school to at minimum teach that as far as "origins" of life is concerned we do not know. It is not a "cut and dried" case.

You may suggest that science suggest an old earth and note various evolutionary changes but that does not preclude the "young creation" of mankind. Science has not shown that not to be the case.

In my opinion that is still a faithful reading to Gen.1-4...that brings one home at the end of the day.

regards,
pat

Interesting that Br. Bradley simply dove for cover in the past, when conflict arose over this issue. Now, nearly retired, he has found the courage to stand for his convictions. How many teachers in Adventist colleges, in various disciplines, are doing a similar work?

I'd like to know how many of these individuals actually believe in any of the supernatural events recorded in Scripture. Does their skepticism start or stop with Creation? What about the flood, the plagues of Egypt, Balaam's talking mule, the translation of Elijah, Jonah, and so forth.

Moving right along, where does the virgin birth of Christ figure into their belief system? Was Jesus the Creator, as stated multiple times in the NT. Did Jesus rise from the dead, resurect Lazarus, cast out devils?

What kind of employment is available to an academic who is terminated, mid career, from a teaching position in an Adventist university?

Pat wrote...
Aubyn,

I would expect the Biology teacher at an SDA school to at minimum teach that as far as "origins" of life is concerned we do not know. It is not a "cut and dried" case.

You may suggest that science suggest an old earth and note various evolutionary changes but that does not preclude the "young creation" of mankind. Science has not shown that not to be the case.

In my opinion that is still a faithful reading to Gen.1-4...that brings one home at the end of the day.
***************
I think your first two paragraphs might address two fundamentally different kinds of things. If by the "Origins" point you mean that a Biology teacher should be expected to communicate to students the limits of what kinds of questions science can answer, then I agree - though I would hold this expectation equally of secular and religious Biologists, at both religious and public institutions. The overwhelming empirical support for Evolution certainly does not prove that God does not exist, or that there is no Creator of any kind, and it would be bad Biology, and bad science, to teach this. Although even here I would stop short of threatening to fire any teacher who does not see things exactly my way. The world is a complicated place.

I can respect your views in the second paragraph. I can even understand why many tithe-paying members of the Adventist church would prefer that Biology teachers at Adventist schools teach as you suggest. But I don't think you can really "expect" a teacher to do this - much less require them to. We can't cheat the system by forcing teachers to select those views, or that evidence, pre-approved by the sponsoring religious body. You can cajole, argue, and complain, but in the end, at a "real" school, the judgment as to what is taught is that of qualified and well trained teachers, in the the context of the best practices of their discipline.

At any religious college or university worthy of the name there will inevitably be teachers teaching things that a majority of the patrons or supporters of the school disagree with. This is why we have things like tenure, and why it is more difficult to fire a college teacher than almost any other kind of employee.

Let me try your patience with one more example, this time stepping perhaps on liberal, rather than conservative, toes. There may be a religious college somewhere whose religious values and ideology constrains them to endorse, and "teach", diversity and equality (that may even be true of some Adventist schools). But at such a school, a teacher in the film studies department must be free to teach students using the film "Birth of a Nation", and the teacher in the English department must be free to assign the novel Huck Finn. Students required to be exposed to these materials may disagree with them, and feel they violate the religious values and commitments of the school, and not want to have to study them. Because of this they may turn in inadequate papers or projects, then complain about their bad grades, and maybe complain to parents and fellow-church members on websites that spark passionate outrage and advocacy for their cause. A majority of the members of the church that sponsors this institution may be outraged that at a Christian school students are forced to view and read racist and hateful literature, and demand that the offending teachers be fired. This may spark interesting and heated conversations about the relative merits of the works (personally, I think "Birth of a Nation" is racist, and "Huck Finn" is not). But none of that could possibly be allowed to determine what those teachers actually teach. Those decisions must be left to qualified and well trained teachers, who exercise their own best judgment, in the context of the best practices of their discipline, about what to teach. Not all teachers will decide to use those materials - but many probably will, since, regardless of their racist or non-racist status, they are both considered masterpieces in their field. Many conservatives would probably say that attempts by liberals to censor "Nation" or Huck Finn are examples of political correctness, and an unjustified infringement on academic freedom - and they would be correct. So too, trying to dictate what a college Biology teacher teaches in their class, on any basis other than the academic merits, is inappropriate, and unacceptable for a school trying to maintain its academic integrity.

Rather than focusing on what Biology teachers can and can not teach, I think it might be more productive for the religious community sponsoring a religious college or university to explore how this material is taught. Students who believe in a young earth, or 6 24-hour days of creation, should not be made to feel stupid or ignorant, or ridiculed for their beliefs. They should have opportunity and space to express their views, engage others in debate, and rigorously and systematically try to defend their views. If this is not happening then we may have a problem (and I should note I have no reason to believe this kind of problem currently exists at La Sierra). But such a student will still be accountable for learning the material assigned, at a level of specificity and complexity, and with the careful use of the relevant, systematic analytic tools, that are appropriate for the level of the course. And such a student, like all students, will have to be able to tolerate respectful, but at times vigorous, challenges to their views. This is how academic communities operate.

At the end of the day, as Jan Paulsen said, have the kids back home from the outing exploring "scientific" ideas. Macroevolution has never been proved so why would a La Sierra professor feel justified in teach naturalistic origins. Tell the kids the old earth theory exist is one thing, requiring it's riteration is totally another matter in an SDA school. Make plagiarism the issue, not young earth creationism. If you want to start your own denonmination sponsored university, have at it, but this piece is not a good choice for Spectrum, given the official position of the Church. Spectrum owes its existence to the existence of the SDA church. Shos so respect, eh, Mr. Wright.

Aubyn writes, "The overwhelming empirical support for Evolution certainly does not prove that God does not exist, or that there is no Creator of any kind" and "at a religious school, a teacher may also share their own personal ways of integrating their faith and learning . . . and then invite students to find their own way of doing this."

So what you are saying, Aubyn, is that the evidence in favor of Darwinism (molecules-to-man evolution) is overwhelming, but you are happy to help your students "integrate" that fact into their faith. Correct?

David wrote...
"Aubyn writes, "The overwhelming empirical support for Evolution certainly does not prove that God does not exist, or that there is no Creator of any kind" and "at a religious school, a teacher may also share their own personal ways of integrating their faith and learning . . . and then invite students to find their own way of doing this."

So what you are saying, Aubyn, is that the evidence in favor of Darwinism (molecules-to-man evolution) is overwhelming, but you are happy to help your students "integrate" that fact into their faith. Correct?"
*******************

I am not sure I am understanding which part of what I have written is unclear (I'm sure much of it is). I am also afraid I have taken entirely too much of this space today trying to explain what I am saying. But I will take a little more if you like.

My understanding is that the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. Of course, that does not mean it is true, just that it has more empirical evidence to support it than any other theory does. I believe it is fair to say that this is the consensus view of most Biologists. I am saying that it is reasonable that a trained and qualified College Biology teacher would teach this in their class. But I am also saying that this fact (strong empirical support for Evolution) in no way demonstrates that God does not exist, nor does it require the abandonment of Christian faith.

I am also saying that both teachers and students must find ways to integrate what they learn from their best and most careful study, and their faith. One possible way to do this would be to repudiate learning entirely; another possible way to do this would be to repudiate faith entirely. I think most teachers are Religious Colleges think either one of these is a mistake. Another way is to hang on to both. There are lots of different ways of hanging on to both, and teachers at Christian colleges model a wide range of these options, and encourage their students to find a way that makes sense to them.

So, yes, I am saying that I am happy for students to integrate (what I take to be) the fact that evolution is well supported by empirical data, with their faith in a Creator God and the Gospel of Jesus. While students (like all of us) need to learn and practice how to do this systematically and conscientiously, I would not be happy if anyone tried to dictate to students precisely how they should integrate their faith and learning. Of course some students will give up their faith, just as some will give up their commitment to learning - we can not force students to come to the conclusions we would wish for them. Does that make sense?

Aubyn, let's assume that we don't want to entirely repudiate either faith or learning, but want to hang onto both. And I assume you want your students to be part neither of the "some" who give up their faith, nor of the "some" who give up their commitment to learning. How would you help them to hang onto both (without, of course, dictating to them how they should do that)? In other words, out of the "lots of different ways" to hang onto both, what is your favorite way?

Aubyn

Next Friday, September 20, 2009, the Jewish ring in the New Year of 5770 at sundown. According to the tribe whose God created the heaven and the earth and all that's in it He performed these acts 5,770 years ago. Your assertion that A college Biology teacher does not "teach" students that God does or does not exist, or did or did not create the universe, is false, IMO. God, as used in common western discourse, means the god that allegedly performed the BIBLICAL Creation and had a unique son known as Jesus. Teaching students the fact (evolution is a fact) that life has evolved over extremely long time periods does not disprove the existence of A god, but most certainly disproves the Hebrew God. Its possible that Zeus or Marduk (the Zoroastrian God of Cyrus and Darius) or one of the Hindu's many Gods or a god not yet discovered initiated the spark in the proverbial primordial pond billions of years ago but it certainly was not- cannot- be the God of Abraham and Moses.

A time frame longer than ~6,000 years repudiates the testimony of The Spirit of Prophecy, the Bible itself, Jesus, John, Paul, etc. Millions or billions of years do not equal 5,770 in any way that I have yet discovered. Currently, christians are divided into different camps about how to make the Big Speak of 5,770 years ago appear to be consistent with the Big Bang of 13,500,000,000 years ago. My old church (your current one) sticks to the teaching that the goat herders trump science and evidence. The teachers at LSU (and hopefully other SDA schools) have thrown the claims of the goat herders in the trash and are moving forward with evidence based science. Personally, I am encouraged to see that SDA young people nowadays are actually able to learn more than what the church wants them to learn. But, how long will this opportunity last?

I find this controversy very interesting. I am 84 years old and a fourth-generation SDA, having been out of the church for some time, but have been back for 40 years, now. I find that being back is a lot more satisfying.

I want to share one experience I had with Elder Robert Pierson back in the 70's. He was the General Conference President at the time. We were in a one-on-one situation and during our conversation, I bluntly asked him what he thought was the worst problem facing the SDA church. His reply was instant-- "There is no question -- it is 'Intellectualism'."

This seems to be being realized in this controversy. In my humble opinion, I say, have it out and see whether he was right or not, but please don't destroy the Church in the process!

Frank, I am also 84 years old and was raised in the church but can no longer believe in its stated doctrines and for many of the reasons discussed here.

Anti-intellectualism is the death of most religious beliefs. Religion is only man's reflection of his current ideas, and nearly all religious beliefs began with very primitive man's attempt at explaining why the world was as it appeared to them. Through the millennia of time, these ideas often adjust and mature as better knowledge about their world becomes known.

Just as death, when first observed, demanded an explanation and man devised it. We cannot know if it was in any original plan or not, nor did man, but he searched for some reason and with that premise, wrote his reflections--which vary from the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures, long predating the Hebrews' stories from which they liberally borrowed. To accept that one culture's story is the only possible one is simply to choose one over the others and carries with it no special significance or imprimatur.

It is so strange that while we expect, even demand, that SDA schools teach the biblical history of origins, do we also teach the position that the sun revolves around the earth, that there was once talking serpents and animals--all recorded as facts from that same book. Do we teach the cause and cures used for diseases as found in that same book in LLU medical school, and if we do not, what is the criteria for choosing which parts of the Bible are infallible and permanent, while some are only temporary until science makes better determination of causes and develops cures.

In attempting to make the Bible the last word on SOME THINGS, and discard it with better scientific evidence on others, we are being most selective and dogmatic in very paradoxical and inconsistent ways. It is too difficult to try to teach critical thinking and fallacies in such an environment, and smart students do not miss the opportunity of pointing out those facts.

The trajectory for future biology teachers in SDA schools is an "iffy" one and such graduate students would be wise to carefully consider if that position would jeopardize his very integrity. By being "forced" by administrators to teach biology and earth sciences from an ancient book; all the while the nearby medical school operated by the same church is teaching the very latests scientific opinions, is a fact not lost on discerning faculty or students. The accreditation of LLU medical school was once in jeopardy (1910) and the Flexner report demanded that it maintain the highest standards of the "feeder" schools. How much longer will that be possible if the pre-med students are taught their biological sciences from the Bible textbook.

Framk

I am also 84. I also knew both Frobert Pearson and Neal Wilson and worked with both. Neal Wilson was/is a pure political animal.

Robert Pearson was marginally bright and about as well informed. Jan Pearson is the most informed and broadly read President of the G.C. the Church has ever had. He is an intellectual--note that he had to agree not to seek another term he before it was agreed to return him to office at the last G.C.

The worst problem facing the SDA Church is egotism and triumphaltism. "We have the 'Truth'" creates a closed mind. Immagine the 144,000 hiding in the woods in the 21 century with global positioning devices--and the massive deforestation. Yes I believe the end-time will be as in the days of Noah. The problem is we don't know exactly how it was in the days of Noah except egotism and self satisfaction which Adventism holds in spades along with Southern Baptists and Dispensationalists.

A story. We had just sat down to dinner when the door bell rang. I answered the door and a salesman was standing there. He introduced himself and said he was selling cemetary plots. I said: "We don't need any!" He said: "Oh you already have several?" I ssid; " No we just don't need any!" He said: "Everyone needs one!". I said: "We don't, we are going to be raptured!" He looked stunned. I closed the door and went back to dinner. Betty asked; "Why did you say that?" I said, "I bet he has heard every excuse but that one. Now he'll go home and puzzle all night on how to get around that objection. Serves him right for interrupting our dinner."

Self assurance does have it benefits. Tom

I am a Biology major. When I went to Andrews and graduated in 1973, my major professor told us about the only scientific "evolutionary" fact that has been proved, "ADAPTION". Or MicroEvolution. Believe it or not they had to teach separate classes even with that material, Seminarians from Bio majors.

When a science teacher gets further away from ADAPTION, he is way in the "tall grass" with his speculation and extrapolation. The dating mechanisms are too flawed and scientists like John Baumgardner have proposed concepts that could make a Global Flood possible, and therefore a Creation. www.globalflood.org

To accept one without comparing it with the other, is like accepting Obamacare without other opinions or forecasts of deficits as far as we see generations.

Tom wrote in part- "Robert Pearson was marginally bright and about as well informed. Jan Pearson is the most informed and broadly read President of the G.C. the Church has ever had. He is an intellectual--note that he had to agree not to seek another term he before it was agreed to return him to office at the last G.C."

Your evaluation of Pierson is flawed mightily. In fact, if he were alive I doubt that he would debate you as he was such a gentleman of God. It is repugnant to see the extent that alleged intellectuals look down their noses at a man of God. I recall seeing Robert Pierson at an NAD academy and he took time to speak with me never having seen me previously. And he was driving a very ordinary vehicle. The absence of hubris is attractive in both the "intellectuals" and those lacking such credentials.

When I read the accolades with which certain liberals greeted Jan Paulsen's election to the presidency of the GC I was concerned and now time has proven that some of my concerns were well founded.

Your Friend

You saw him as a spectator. I worked with him as a member of a working body for 9 years. He was gentle even suave with a working knowledge of policy and an agenda to protect the status quo. Beach and Wilson ran the show. Frankly sir, you have no basis, in fact, to assert that my evaluation is flawed mightily. He was a clean shaven well pressed suit with a mission to protect the past without a clue as to the future of the Church or any of its major institutions. Tom

Being a good and humble person is admirable, but it may be, as some wag said, "He has lot to be humble about." Those qualities are needed in a leader, but those alone are insufficient to be qualified as a good leader. The Peter Principle has been exercised too often in selecting SDA denominational leaders: an excellent speaker or pastor, often becomes a very inept leader. Just as in the past, this church has repeatedly chosen theologians as leaders for every conceivable leadership position, and often to its detriment.

Such a disdain and denigration of intellectualism is almost paramount to fundamentalists. The equation seems to be: higher education==poor religiosity. That corollary would be: less education==strong religious beliefs. Which raises the question:
why should good Adventists ever aspire to higher education.

I stand by what I said and I'm sure there are those who agree with me. Maybe it's just that they don't take their valuable time to read what liberals and others write about the SDA church.

One can only wonder whether in the final judgment Spectrum will be held accountable for allowing the denigration of a responsible Christian man as was Robert Pierson.

Here is a Pierson quote: "Already, brethren and sisters, there are subtle forces that are beginning to stir. Regrettably there are those in the church who belittle the inspiration of the total Bible, who scorn the first 11 chapters of Genesis, who question the Spirit of Prophecy’s short chronology of the age of the earth, and who subtly and not so subtly attack the Spirit of Prophecy. There are some who point to the reformers and contemporary theologians as a source and the norm for Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. There are those who allegedly are tired of the hackneyed phrases of Adventism. There are those who wish to forget the standards of the church we love. There are those who covet and would court the favor of the evangelicals; those who would throw off the mantle of a peculiar people; and those who would go the way of the secular, materialistic world."

See: http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pier-final.php

I rest my case.

Aubyn, I'm still waiting on a reply. Keafan has thrown the gauntlet, claiming that Darwinism "does not disprove the existence of A god, but most certainly disproves the Hebrew God. . . . A time frame longer than ~6,000 years repudiates the testimony of The Spirit of Prophecy, the Bible itself, Jesus, John, Paul, etc."

But you say there are lots of different ways to hang onto both science and faith. So why is Keafan wrong? Assuming you don't want your students to reject faith (which according to Christian doctrine would cause them to lose eternal life), how do you keep them within the fold? Give us your best pitch.

Next Friday, September 20, 2009, the Jewish ring in the New Year of 5770 at sundown. According to the tribe whose God created the heaven and the earth and all that's in it He performed these acts 5,770 years ago.
Posted by: keafan (not verified) | 12 September 2009 at 1:10

********
Keafan, from what I've read, there has been a great deal of discussion among Jews on this point since at least the first millennium and Maimonides. The Talmud also holds a diversity of opinions on the age of the earth, and one long-standing approach within Judaism has been to treat Genesis 1-2 as the history of Adamic man, not as the history of the universe. Certainly there are some Orthodox Jews who have a position as tight as the Paulsen statement suggests, but even the Orthodox are open on the length of the 6 days, and there are suggestions in the literature of ages and creations before Adam.

Gerald Schroeder has done some work on this. There are others.
So... Adventism is not the only community to wrestle with this question (or to have some stake in the outcome), but at the institutional level it has yet to learn how to hold faith, reason, and evidence without disrespecting one, two, or all three at the same time.

He was a clean shaven well pressed suit with a mission to protect the past without a clue as to the future of the Church or any of its major institutions. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 12 September 2009 at 8:29

So he would agree with you then?
Does hubris prevent saying these were your impressions or are we to believe you to be omniscient as well?
Perhaps the way you state things you have no way of knowing is the flaw in question?

Your Friend

If you can't tell the difference between demagoguery and leadership, I can't help you or blame you.

I did omit the overriding shadow of Arther White in all G.C. decision-making during that era. It was palpable.

Michael, You haven't changed a bit. Hubris is the name of your game from begining to end. I am not omniscient but candid--seems you can't tell the difference or are afraid to admit the Truth. Even Beach's and Wilson's contempt for Pearson's leadership was thinly veiled.

A very nice guy, I must admit: but a competent leader with the moral and intellectual power to lead a world wide movement no. Sorry fellows--you picked on the wrong guy to defend. I certainly believe Robert Pearson will be in the Kingdom--but somewhere back in the crowd. But then, I must admit that Neal Wilson certainly made a mess of Mary K. Silver, Glacier View et al. His legacy is wanting also.

Imagine a guy once in charge of all the SDA educational institutions taking a membership position on the board of an organization dedicated to home schooling: besides insisting on being the first Loma Linda University Board of Trustees member emeritus? Now there is a bone to pick on fellows.

Not to mention the guy who followed Neal.

Tom

David wrote:
Aubyn, I'm still waiting on a reply. Keafan has thrown the gauntlet, claiming that Darwinism "does not disprove the existence of A god, but most certainly disproves the Hebrew God. . . . A time frame longer than ~6,000 years repudiates the testimony of The Spirit of Prophecy, the Bible itself, Jesus, John, Paul, etc."
. Keafan has thrown the gauntlet, claiming that Darwinism "does not disprove the existence of A god, but most certainly disproves the Hebrew God. . . . A time frame longer than ~6,000 years repudiates the testimony of The Spirit of Prophecy, the Bible itself, Jesus, John, Paul, etc."

But you say there are lots of different ways to hang onto both science and faith. So why is Keafan wrong? Assuming you don't want your students to reject faith (which according to Christian doctrine would cause them to lose eternal life), how do you keep them within the fold? Give us your best pitch.”
*************

David, it is a privilege and a pleasure to participate in this online community and discussion; I did not realize though that I was taking on the responsibility to monitor posts and reply on an hourly basis. I apologize for not getting back to you quickly enough (I am not sure when you posted your first request – but I did have to go to sleep at some point last night, and had a few other things to do this fine Sabbath day before checking the Spectrum board today). I am not sure that I will be able to meet this expectation of timely response going forward, and I suspect I will continue to disappoint, but I will do my best.

I am happy to respond to your question, but I want to make sure we properly understand the context here. I make no claim to having the one effective way of integrating faith and learning, nor do I claim that my way of doing this will be helpful for all, or even most, students. My claim is simply that the value of a Christian college lies in the presence of multiple models of faith-learning integration, which increases the chances significantly that any one students will find several models that are productive and inspirational. Many students will leave my classes uninspired (I have heard from many of these over the years); I take heart in the knowledge that most of them can find, and have found, inspiration in the models of many of my colleagues. On rare occasions though students who may not find inspiration in other available models may find something of value from conversations with me. This is why it is so important to have real diversity within a college faculty. But the truth is there is no way to ensure that students will hang on to both. Learning is a very dangerous thing, and those who don’t want to take the risk of thinking differently than when they began should not start it.

But again, this is only tangentially related to the question of what is going on at La Sierra right now. Regardless of how we integrate faith and learning, we do have to start with the faith and the learning. That college Biology teachers require their students to properly understand Evolution, and the evidence that supports it, is not an example of how faith and learning is integrated, but simply the starting point for any subsequent integration. It would be cheating to stack the deck so that we only expose students to material that will later be easy to integrate with their faith.

I am not sure why you preface your question by “But you say there are lots of different ways to hang onto both science and faith”. I do say that of course, but when I do I always assume I am merely repeating a truism, accepted by almost everyone. Do you really mean to suggest that you think there is only one way to integrate faith and learning? If so, that would be an interesting claim, and I would love to hear your secret, and the basis for your belief that it is the one true way. I am also not sure why you preface your question by stating that you have to assume I want my students to hang on to both their faith and their learning, since I have stated that this is my desire several times. If I have not already been clear enough about that, I will state it again – I think challenging students to find their own way to maintain their commitment to their faith and their learning is one of the primary purposes of a Christian College, and is one of my primary missions as a teacher at a Christian College, and as far as I know of most of my colleagues.

I disagree with Keafan’s claim that Darwinism "most certainly disproves the Hebrew God” and that “A time frame longer than ~6,000 years repudiates the testimony of …the Bible...". Many other Christians, from a range of denominations, also disagree with this position. Of course that does not mean I am right and Keafan is wrong – just that there is some plausibility to my position.

There are lots of facets to integrating faith and learning, and the challenges from evolution are only one of them, but since that seems to be that specific focus of your question, I will start there. I have two fundamental assumptions: 1 – God is the Creator and Sustainer, as testified to in the Bible; 2 – God is not a deceiver, and has not seeded the natural record with misleading evidence in order to trick us. Based on this, I take seriously the conclusions of science (recognizing the ambiguity and inherent messiness of that approach, and its limitations for answering non empirical questions) and believe we should allow science to progress just as far as it can go, without attempting to put our finger on the scales to shade its conclusions in ways we would prefer. When those conclusions seem to conflict with traditional understandings of the Christian Faith, there are it seems to me two possibilities:

1) Our traditional understandings are incorrect, or at least incomplete (certainly we have enough examples from our past to support this – we know good and honest Christians at one time thought that the theory of a Solar System in which the earth revolved around the sun was inconsistent with the Bible; and also thought that the idea of gender equality was incompatible with the Bible, and many thought that the idea of racial equality was inconsistent with the Bible. Most Christians today accept that those perceived conflicts were the result of incorrect or limited understandings of the Biblical testimony. Of course that does not mean that all apparent conflicts between faith and learning are of that kind, but it does mean that some might be).

2) Somewhere down the line, either in this world or the next, we will discover more pieces to the puzzle that will show errors or limitations in the science, or that will show the understandings of science are consistent with the understandings of faith. In the meantime I try to remain patient and tolerate some ambiguity, while at the same time honestly cataloging and wrestling with the current tensions.

Not trying to defend anyone Tom,
Just suggesting that how you state your opinions sometimes gives the impression that you are egocentric.
By all means please give your opinions and impressions. Just dont try and sell them as universal truth.

I just want to say that I'm usually a silent viewer as I believe most people are that visit these pages. I've really enjoyed the conversation. Thanks also to Aubyn for getting in the mix and sharing his views. I appreciate everyone's time involved in wrestling with the issues.

Micahel

Thanks for the clarification, Tom

Aubyn, you disappoint me. Here's Aubyn's best shot, his best pitch, his best pep talk for keeping his students within Christianity after he's given them the bad news about Darwinism:

1) Maybe our religious beliefs are wrong.
2) Someday, maybe the facts of science won't conflict with our faith (but for now they do).

I'm sure glad there are other teachers at PUC to whom Aubyn's "uninspired" students can repair for solace.

I'm not quite sure why the Darwinists of LaSierra are being singled out, when PUC seems to have the identical problem.

David wrote
Aubyn, you disappoint me. Here's Aubyn's best shot, his best pitch, his best pep talk for keeping his students within Christianity after he's given them the bad news about Darwinism:(SNIP)
***************

You will have to get at the end of a very long line of people who are disappointed in me as a teacher, David. But either you were just using this interaction to deliver your punchline, and were not genuinely interested in having a real conversation, or I have done a poor job of explaining myself. At no time did I say that it is my intent to give students a pep talk, or to try to keep them in Christianity (nor indeed did I say that Darwinism is bad news). What I do try to do is get students interested in finding their own way to integrate their faith with their learning. I am not selling anything.

But I do agree with you that the recent reports coming out of Riverside that have made some in our community so afraid and angry are not unique to La Sierra. What people are afraid of is not a few bad apples at La Sierra, but higher education in general.

Aubyn, I was interested in having a conversation with you about how Darwinism is compatible with Christianity, particularly Adventist Christianity, and how you would argue to your students that it is. I was sort of expecting that you'd make at least a minimal effort to square the circle. But, upon reflection, I really appreciate your candor in basically saying, "at the present time, the two are not compatible." Honesty is always like water in the desert.

I have no way of evaluating you as a teacher, so I can hardly join that long line of people who are disappointed with you in that capacity. I am disappointed with you as a person. You draw a tithe-supported paycheck at an SDA institution, but you believe and teach something (Darwinism) that you know to be utterly incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism.

"At no time did I say that it is my intent . . . to try to keep [my students] in Christianity . . ." I disagree. You implicitly said that when you took a job teaching at a Seventh-day Adventist institution. If you currently have no intent that your students remain Christians you ought to find other employment.

Any legitimate concerns, if they are legitimate, are being undermined by the anti-intellectualism expressed in these comments and on certain websites.

Aubyn, you are being very gracious.

I have a friend that says that the antidote to bad utilitarian ethics is good utilitarian ethics. Along that line, I don't work within science either but I do think the best antidote to 'science' which rules out any sort of creative act (and I'm doubtful that's what's happening at LSU) is 'science' that is honest in admitting that big-bang is as 'scientific' as the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

/the big-bang of course is as out of favor today as it was 'factual' yesterday
//that is, very much so.
// http://www.cosmologystatement.org
///those are 'real' scientists signing that petition

David, it seems that I will have to learn to live with your disappointment in me has a person. I do not know you well enough to form any similar opinion of you, but I guess I have become disappointed in this discussion. You seem more interested in scoring points in some kind of contest than in mutual understanding - I will leave you to that. I will clarify a few things, though I begin to suspect you might prefer to twist my words to your own purposes. That is one of the risks we take when we engage others in discussion - conversation, too, is a risky business.

I am not a Biologist, and do not teach Biology, though Evolution does come up from time to time as a related subject in my field. I do not tell students what conclusions to draw about the ultimate truth of Evolution, though I do point out to them that, as a scientific theory, Darwinian Evolution is about as elegant and well supported as they come.

I thought you had asked me about integrating faith and learning, not about how I make what you call "Darwinism" compatible with Christianity. I don't see trying to do that as part of my job. I do think it is part of my job to help students make learning compatible with their faith however - if you are ever interested in talking more about that, let me know.

I understand that you believe that Evolution is "utterly incompatible" with Adventist Christianity, and I respect your right to that position, though I do not share it. I am sure you understand that there are those who disagree with you. At a college or university, these are the kinds of issues that are discussed and wrestled with, not sold or propagandized. I don't make sales pitches to students trying to get them to accept my particular view of the relationship of Evolution to their faith. There is room for many different views. I have many colleagues on the faculty of Adventist institutions that believe and teach things that I strongly disagree with. Quite frankly, it has never occurred to me to try to get them fired for disagreeing with me. What a curious notion.

As I have noted previously, it is my hope that students will retain both their faith and their commitment to learning; however it is not my role as a college teacher to get students to agree with my particular interpretation of Christianity (nor with your particular interpretation of it). College students have to come to their own conclusions on these matters - and giving them this freedom means accepting the possibility that they will come to a conclusion different from one I might wish for them. That is what I take to be the kind of true education that Sister White wrote about. It is hard to see how pursuing that educational goal is incompatible with Adventist education.

I wish you well, Sir. I can tell that you care deeply about the well-being of students at Adventist colleges and universities, and while we may define that well-being differently, at least we have that interest in common.

Aubyn writes, "I understand that you believe that Evolution is "utterly incompatible" with Adventist Christianity, and I respect your right to that position, though I do not share it."

Why don't you share it? I don't respect your right not to share it. That Adventism and Darwinism are incompatible is not my position, or my opinion, or my belief. It is a fact. More than once in this thread I've invited you to argue otherwise and you've resolutely refused, and wisely so, because it would be deeply, profoundly discrediting to your honesty and/or your basic intelligence to do so.

And didn't you just write, "our traditional understandings are incorrect, or at least incomplete"? Isn't that an admission that the body of doctine that currently comprises Adventism (regardless what you wish it would evolve into in the future) is incompatible with Darwinism? Now you're trying to crawfish.

And the theory of evolution is not "an elegant theory," it is a stupid theory. Darwin believed that animal breeders using selective breeding could change a species into whatever they wanted. He saw no limits to the change achievable by artificial selection, and hence no limited on the change achievable by natural selection. He was wrong; there are limits beyond which selective breeding cannot drive a species.

But Darwin's theory was pretty good compared with the modern theory of evolution, which holds that random DNA copying errors will create new functional genetic information. It holds that all the plants and animals we find around us today are the result of random mistakes in copying the genetic code. It holds that all the evidence of genius and awe-inspiring design we see in the creation is misleading, because there was no intelligence and there was no design—just a series of accidents. It holds that the astonishingly complex biochemical systems we find in nature developed over time by a series of failures in the biochemical copying technology, mistake by mistake, one mistake at a time. Contrary to that old computer programmer's adage, the Darwinist believes: Garbage in, genius out.

This is not elegance, this is desperation. This is a willingness to believe anything rather than that God created. If you call this theory "elegant and well supported" then don't tell me you're not selling anything. You're selling Chevrolets, but taking a paycheck from Ford.

Your FRiend and Michael

I wouldn't have you believe that I thought all G.C. officers were incompetent. In fact, many second and third rank officers were keen, dedicated, skilled, Christians. Dr. Calvin Rock stands out as a real Christian leader. Elder R.R. Beitz was a solid bulwark of common sense. Those that handled the funds and the legal issues were bright, skilled, and dedicated. A number of Union Conference Presidents were also a calming assuring presence. The College Presidents on the Board were excellent administrators and Christian gentlemen. Elder Blacker is another name of excellence that comes to mind.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is populated with men and women of keen intellect, high moral character, and Christian ethos. I have been blessed to have known and worked most of my life with and beside such giants.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church as an institution certainly is on a par with any other avowed Christian body.

It seems that Spectrum and some of us pests keep issues of controversy spinning. But they that are whole need not the physician.

Because, I have strong convictions that the SDA Church is wrong on its eschatology, it is also wrong on its soteriology that to prevent any embarrassment to the Church, I have dropped my name from formal fellowship. I do maintain contact with a wide range of SDA friends and I do stir the pot here on Spectrum's web site.

One just can't leave home entirely. I do not wish to discourage anyone, I simply wish to state my views as clearly and winsomely as possible. However, I am not afraid to meet a challenge or refute any slanderous or ad homimem allegations. Tom

People,

It is evident from the notes posted here that most posters have no current and direct knowledge of the average students' English writing skills. I have a large collection of texts at the undergraduate and even graduate level that indicate that the art of English language writing is on its deathbed among students. Even worse is the fact that most of the college educators are not much ahead of their students. I subscribe to JATS, and most of the articles published in the journal are written by veteran SDA higher education professors. Well, through an English language instructor's eyes, those articles who an amazing lack of English language skills. Sometimes I would just like to take one of those articles, fill it with red marks and send it back to the JATS's editor with the question: "How did such amazingly poor English get published in your journal?"

Running a paper through Turnitin, Eduify, SafeAssign and getting some statistical numbers means nothing if those numbers are not interpreted. In the first place, percentages lower than 15% could be simple documentation errors, and need to be evaluated with the paper in hand. False plagiarism results are common. In the second place, the results need to be evaluated in relation to all the papers written for the class. How many papers show positive for "plagiarism" when they are run through the same plagiarism engines? It seems that we are presented with just a bit of information here, enough to misinform and mislead.

It is clear to me that those who post such accuzations of plagiarisms against Cerna are not in their best honest mood, and that they are hiding facts that would damage their case.

Eduard

Learning is a very dangerous thing, and those who don’t want to take the risk of thinking differently than when they began should not start it.

Aubyn

I appreciate your willingness to 'stick your neck out' on this topic.

You have made many statements about "Christianity". The interpretation of Christianity, Adventist Christianity, purpose of Christian colleges, etc. When I was young I was taught that SDA's had the TRUTH. The Spirit of Prophecy was God's personal messenger to the Remnant. We were not to look to other debased forms of churches for Truth but look to the Bible and the writings of Ellen. The idea that you seem to have about "thinking differently" after a student goes to college seems to mean "thinking contrary". Higher education should expand the amount of truth a young person knows/understands, not contradict supposed truths that they have been taught from the cradle. If there were to be a Church of the Flat Earth and this church had a college where it was expected that professors 1. Believed in the flat earth theory, and 2. Taught the students that the earth was flat, yet some professors were getting up in front of class and spending weeks at a time explaining the evidence for a round earth how would a student be expected to continue as a member of the Church of the Flat Earth? Maybe as a "cultural" member? Why would a member of the Church of the Flat Earth send their kids to a college where they would be exposed to the contradictory teaching that the earth was spherical? That would be Belief Revision. Replacing one belief with another belief is not what I would think of as part of the mission of a particular sect's college.

You brought up as an example that good and honest Christians at one time thought that the theory of a Solar System in which the earth revolved around the sun was inconsistent with the Bible. That theory IS inconsistent with the statements of the Bible. However, after the Galileo debacle the Universal Church decided that they needed a way to be able to dismiss scientific ridicule without admitting that the writers of the Bible were ignorant goat herders writing down the common beliefs of the day which had been now proven false. They achieved this by adopting the "incorrect interpretation" rebuttal. Any time the Bible was shown by evidence to be false they could claim that for the last X number of centuries they had been misinterpreting the Bible. You used their 500 year old tactic perfectly. They would be proud.

The Universal Church has accepted the fact that evolution has occurred over long time periods. Officially accepted it. Can SEVENTH-DAY Adventists accept it? Ellen was "shown" that it was a literal six-day event. It is foundational to the Seventh-Day part of the name. To throw out the goat herder assertions concerning the key act of their god is to deny the key to their deity. The writers of the Bible claimed direct lineage to the Adam & Eve. If Creation did not occur as asserted in Genesis their whole theory of their God, their cosmology, their tribal ancestry and Divine Authority, the legitimacy of their prophets, kings, and priests loses any significance. It becomes another piece of literature from that era. Their "God" becomes mythological just like you believe Zeus or Marduk is.

A literal Genesis is not a majority "Christian" belief anymore but is critical to the sect you belong to and work for. It is SPECIFIC to SDA's and a few other minor denominations on this planet. To teach evolutionary theory does not add onto or expand what has been drilled into the heads of SDA youth all the way through academy/high school. It contradicts core Adventist teachings. Adventism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. The 800,000 annual layers of ice cores that scientists study were put down by God at Creation 6000 years ago (Adam was created with the appearance of age). The planets that we see which are billions of light years away are, are, are.... yes, God created them but he put light partway to earth to make them look old. The progressive layers of complexity, uhm, ah, oh, yes, see, simple life forms sink faster and that's why the complex things are higher up in those layers from Noah's Flood (the Leonard Brand theory of stupidity). Dinosaurs have never been seen alive therefore they can't be proven for certain therefore they never really existed (evidence laid down by Satan theory).

There are not really storehouses for hail (Job, but the Bible is not a science book).

Stars falling to the earth from the dome where God placed them... metaphorical, obviously.

There is no dome (Leonard Brand's theory of reinterpreting goat herder beliefs to current scientific knowledge).

The waters above the dome (heaven or heavens) from Psalms and Isaiah- uhm, hmmm, oh, well, meta-, metaphorical.

But CREATION? Oh, yeah, there is definitely a creator that created a spark and then is watching things evolve just like science can't not disprove so it has to be because we have a $2,000,000,000 church revenue stream yet we still need our students to be able to get into medical school so we can't look too stupid so we teach this mind-blowing, fundamental-belief-contradicting....

Adam & Eve? Certainly. See, Paul says that death came through one man (he didn't like women so nothing even bad can come from them) and that's why Jesus... and if we don't have Adam then death, uhm, well, we HAVE to have Adam cause Paul would be lying if there weren't and our whole miserable existence would be for naught if Paul was wrong.

Its those dominoes falling over.

Eduard, you should reread and possibly check your last post for proper spelling.

David Read wrote:

--
And the theory of evolution is not "an elegant theory," it is a stupid theory. Darwin believed that animal breeders using selective breeding could change a species into whatever they wanted. He saw no limits to the change achievable by artificial selection, and hence no limited on the change achievable by natural selection. He was wrong; there are limits beyond which selective breeding cannot drive a species.
--

We have to remember that this was written by the same guy who thinks that dinosaurs were the creation of pre-flood humans genetically engineering them.

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

That he is not laughed at openly in our universities is a wonder to me.

Ron

Keafan wrote: (SNIP) “The idea that you seem to have about "thinking differently" after a student goes to college seems to mean "thinking contrary". Higher education should expand the amount of truth a young person knows/understands, not contradict supposed truths that they have been taught from the cradle. If there were to be a Church of the Flat Earth and this church had a college where it was expected that professors 1. Believed in the flat earth theory, and 2. Taught the students that the earth was flat, yet some professors were getting up in front of class and spending weeks at a time explaining the evidence for a round earth how would a student be expected to continue as a member of the Church of the Flat Earth? Maybe as a "cultural" member? Why would a member of the Church of the Flat Earth send their kids to a college where they would be exposed to the contradictory teaching that the earth was spherical?” (SNIP)

***********************
I am just going to respond to this first paragraph of your post, because I think it does get to the heart of the issue of what is going on with La Sierra.

I do not necessarily mean thinking contrary by thinking differently – I just mean that higher education will inevitably challenge every student’s taken for granted assumptions. That is the essence of it. As I noted in my initial post on this topic, if a religious organization does not want to challenge student’s assumptions and take the risk that they will think differently, then they should not sponsor accredited colleges or universities (there are other kinds of educational institutions they can sponsor, but not these kinds). If the CFE (Church of the Flat Earth) sponsored a college, it would only be able to do so accepting the possibility that its students would be exposed to the best current thinking and evidence in science. The CFE College could not offer science classes in an effort to gain cultural legitimacy and professional privilege for its membership, and then fire any science teacher that exposed students to evidence that contradicted the flat earth theory. A more honest path would be for the CFE to stop sponsoring colleges and instead sponsor some other kind of educational institution – though then it would have to do without the advantages conferred by college education.

I do not accept three of your premises. One, I don’t think the Adventist Church is the equivalent of your CFE. The essence of Adventism is not tied to 6 24-hours days of creation, or a 10,000 year old earth, and the identity and existence of the church is not undermined by evidence challenging those hypotheses. We have bigger and much more important things that bind us together, and we can afford to let the scientists do their work, and let the chips fall where they may. Two, I don’t think it is dishonest or disingenuous to reinterpret traditional and founding texts in light of new understanding. The Adventist Church itself was based on this practice. With all due respect, it is only the most crude kind of literalism that insists that the Bible must be interpreted today exactly the way it was understood by its first readers (or hearers). Indeed, that position is so extreme that it can only function as a straw man in an argument aimed to invalidate any form of traditional religion. Third, I don’t think “Higher education should expand the amount of truth a young person knows” – or, more precisely, I don’t think that is the defining mission of higher education. Truth does not exist in modular form, ready to be unloaded in pre-determined packets into young minds. At any point in time there does exist a set of information that is more or less accepted as true within a given discipline, and we do legitimately expect colleges to communicate as much of this as they can to students. But it is widely understood that the real purpose of a college education goes far beyond this information transfer operation. We try to teach students how to access new information, how to evaluate it critically, and how to integrate it with the wide array of other information they acquire, and with their values and beliefs, and how to apply it in a practical way to make a significant difference in the world. Churches (CFE or SDA) are wise to sponsor institutions of higher education because they are strengthened and enriched by the participation of members who have these benefits (though of course they are also strengthened and enriched by members who had other kinds of formative experiences).

Aubyn, I was interested in having a conversation with you about how Darwinism is compatible with Christianity, particularly Adventist Christianity, and how you would argue to your students that it is. I was sort of expecting that you'd make at least a minimal effort to square the circle. But, upon reflection, I really appreciate your candor in basically saying, "at the present time, the two are not compatible." Honesty is always like water in the desert.

I'll make an attempt

(1) SDAism does NOT teach verbal inspiration of a book, but thought inspiration of a person. As the SDA experience with EGW and the SOP writings clearly shows, the SDA do not believe that everything a prophet says is true. The belief, however, seldom makes it into practise. Most members treat both the Bible and the SOP as beeing totally verbally inspired.

For this reason, the official SDA view of the Bible does not rule out long-age earth, although the views of many of its members do

(2) SDA'ism at its foundation is Christianity - and MANY Christian's accept evolution as the likely origin of life on earth. They accept that God created and sustains the underlying system and occassionally does miracles which violate the standard rules of that system.

(3) SDA'ism has a concept of "The Great Controversy" - but that contrversy begins before the Fall of Adam, is seen around us today in the choices people must make, and does not require Adam's fall for the idea as a whole to be valid

(4) SDA'ism rejects the imposition of one person's views of God's requirements on another - it rejects the kinds of behavior practised by dominant denominations such as the RC behavior around the time of the Inquisition, and it rejects the way American Protestants treated Quakers, and all other efforts to restrain reasonable religious liberty. This was manifest in SDA'ism in their refusal to let the RC denomination claim to set the day of worship - and led to the SDA view of the Sabbath as a 'distinguishing characteristic'. The Sabbath is a blessing and a valid symbol of group membership regardless of Evolution

(5) The SDA views of the importance of a healthy lifestyle are independent of evolution

(6) The SDA views about the Second Coming are independent of evolution

In short, all the SDA have to do is understand and apply their existing official statements about inspiration to accept that the Bible's statements on origins of life on earth can be wrong without invalidating the value of the rest of the beliefs.

One of the reasons that many people do NOT leave the SDA Church over this issue is because they see the critical beliefs as compatible - and that many people who insist that they are not compatible are projecting their own beliefs onto the group as a whole, rather than looking at the group's beliefs

This is why faculty at LSU and other SDA universities can, with integritym, believe as they do = and why a few SDA can't understand that.

/Bevin

It seems that Spectrum and some of us pests keep issues of controversy spinning. But they that are whole need not the physician.

Because, I have strong convictions that the SDA Church is wrong on its eschatology, it is also wrong on its soteriology that to prevent any embarrassment to the Church, I have dropped my name from formal fellowship. I do maintain contact with a wide range of SDA friends and I do stir the pot here on Spectrum's web site.

One just can't leave home entirely. I do not wish to discourage anyone, I simply wish to state my views as clearly and winsomely as possible. However, I am not afraid to meet a challenge or refute any slanderous or ad homimem allegations. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 13 September 2009 at 12:17

Tom
What a fine post. I appreciate your efforts in phraseology and relating the story from your own perspective.
Good Job!

I have been very impressed and heartened by the thoughtful comments and the educational philosophy of Aubyn Fulton.

If my four children had chosen to go to an Adventist University, I would have prayed that they would have had a teacher like you as part of their experience.

During my time at WWC 30 years ago, I experienced such a teacher in the person of Don Rigby.

A teacher's role is more than to present a body of knowledge, but to also instill the desire to dig deeper, and to consider how that knowledge can be synthesized into one's world view paradigm. If it is no way changes or expands that paradigm, it would seem to me to have been a failure.

Thank you again Aubyn, for engaging here on the Spectrum forum, you have my highest regards and respect for your approach. I only wish there were more SDA Academics willing to engage in such a manner.

Sadly though, as you and I both know, freedom of expression regarding personal thoughts and beliefs has never been something that most SDA academics can not do, if those thoughts challenge the long held paradigms of the status quo.

Randy Gerber

Aubyn said,
Like many teachers at Adventist colleges and universities across the country, I stand with my colleagues at La Sierra, and thank them for their much needed service to our community.
Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Pacific Union College

Aubyn -- It's a job. I stood with my colleagues in public education, but if we taught against public education stated standards (let's say, taught creation), we would be fire.

It's a job at an Adventist University. If teachers decide to not include the supporting institutions goals, then let the pink slips go forth.

It's also called integrity ("adhering to a code of values") -- teaching to the standards as you are paid to do. To change the standards in the public schools, we go through the political process as is now being done in Texas public schools to include the theory of Creation along side the theory of evolution in elementary and high schools.

I would like to see integrity in the profs paid by Adventists at Adventist institutions. If the profs want change, then go through the process as the public school parents and teachers have done and are doing in Texas. Change the SDA educational institution's standards legally.

What is happening at La Sierra is called revolution "the overthrow or renunciation of one ruler or government and substitution of another"). The revolutionaries being the paid profs against the employers or tithe-paying SDAs and students.

What a bias article in SpectrumLand (same 'ol, samd 'ol for Jared); and what an unreal situation. Back door revolutionaries both. And profs that are "SDA on the books only -- read into that what you want" (as biology prof discussed in his magazine article) are not genuine characters -- dishonesty in themself and to one's students while "grading" students on honesty.

I would not stand by a colleague in a public school that was playing such a dishonest game with "club" membership to get the club perks.

Didn't God say about making all secret things public somday? I don't look forward to that day for me . . . on the other hand, I admire how God is truth.

And, I take comfort that the SDA church will stand through the Alpha and the Omega. Mr. Toad's wild ride . . .

Jody ;)

Aubyn said,
Like many teachers at Adventist colleges and universities across the country, I stand with my colleagues at La Sierra, and thank them for their much needed service to our community.
Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Pacific Union College

Aubyn -- It's a job. I stood with my colleagues in public education, but if we taught against public education stated standards (let's say, taught creation), we would be fire.

It's a job at an Adventist University. If teachers decide to not include the supporting institutions goals, then let the pink slips go forth.

It's also called integrity ("adhering to a code of values") -- teaching to the standards as you are paid to do. To change the standards in the public schools, we go through the political process as is now being done in Texas public schools to include the theory of Creation along side the theory of evolution in elementary and high schools.

I would like to see integrity in the profs paid by Adventists at Adventist institutions. If the profs want change, then go through the process as the public school parents and teachers have done and are doing in Texas. Change the SDA educational institution's standards legally.

What is happening at La Sierra is called revolution "the overthrow or renunciation of one ruler or government and substitution of another"). The revolutionaries being the paid profs against the employers or tithe-paying SDAs and students.

What a bias article in SpectrumLand (same 'ol, samd 'ol for Jared); and what an unreal situation. Back door revolutionaries both. And profs that are "SDA on the books only -- read into that what you want" (as biology prof discussed in his magazine article) are not genuine characters -- dishonesty in themself and to one's students while "grading" students on honesty.

I would not stand by a colleague in a public school that was playing such a dishonest game with "club" membership to get the club perks.

Didn't God say about making all secret things public somday? I don't look forward to that day for me . . . on the other hand, I admire how God is truth.

And, I take comfort that the SDA church will stand through the Alpha and the Omega. Mr. Toad's wild ride . . .

Jody ;)

Jody wrote
Aubyn -- It's a job. I stood with my colleagues in public education, but if we taught against public education stated standards (let's say, taught creation), we would be fire.

It's a job at an Adventist University. If teachers decide to not include the supporting institutions goals, then let the pink slips go forth. (SNIP)

**************
Hi Jody. With respect, you are wrong in your description of "the job" of a college teacher. There are differences between a K-12 teacher and a college teacher - the former are more likely to be required to follow specific lesson plans than the latter. Even so, the reason biology teachers in public K-12 schools are not allowed to teach Creation is that Creation is not part of Biology, it is part of Religion. Creation can be and is taught in lots of college courses. At a private college teachers may (and often do at schools like PUC and La Sierra) share with students their own belief in and commitment to a Creator God. But in a college biology course Evolution is going to be taught, regardless of who sponsors the college.

Supporting Religious Institutions specifically can not dictate academic content at an accredited college or university; such schools must be able to demonstrate adequate independence from outside (including supporting) bodies. President Paulson specifically can not fire any teacher at La Sierra, or order anyone at La Sierra to fire a teacher, or mandate what a teacher at La Sierra teaches. La Sierra would have to surrender its accreditation for any of those things to happen.

I know standards of civility in public discourse have taken a beating this summer, in the nation and in the Church, but maybe we can begin to pull back from the edge. We don't have to attack each others' integrity just because we disagree. It sounds like you are saying that if you were a Biologist you would not feel comfortable teaching students about evolution if you were being paid by an Adventist College or University. I can respect that decision, and I know people who have made that decision. There are also people who believe that if they are being paid by a college to teach Biology, it would not be ethical for them to not teach students about evolution (I happen to agree with that position). These are serious issues, with important ramifications, and we should be able to discuss and debate them vigorously. But just because we disagree does not mean that one side or the other lacks integrity. If I have written anything over the last few days to suggest that I think that you and others who hold your position lack integrity, I apologize.

Furthermore Jody is wrong about the teaching being against the standards of the church.

There is nothing in the SDA 29 Fundamentals that require a teacher not to teach evolution.

There is no requirement that a member of the SDA church believe all the 29 Fundamentals.

The ONLY requirement for being an SDA is to have your name on the books of a local SDA congregation. If they are prepared to have you on their books, you are an SDA. Local congregations, not the GC, and not a bunch of vocal conservatives, set the standards for membership.

This is another reason why it is perfectly ethical for person to be both SDA and believe that the theory of evolution provides the most likely explanation for the geologic column.

And since the SDA universities don't even require the professors to be SDA, it is absolutely possible to - with one's integrity intact - teach evolution at an SDA university.

/Bevin

"I have no way of evaluating you as a teacher."

Yet you have not hesitated to do so in many ways. Quite disingenuous, sir.

Thank you, Dr.Fulton, for taking so much of your time to carefully explain both your position, and particularly the position of the school and denominational leaders in dismissing teachers. If the whim of every person was granted to subject teachers to such an inquisition, there would be no Adventist education, period.

Thankfully, for accreditation, Aubyn has carefully delineated the requirements, none of which allows either the hiring or firing of teachers to satisfy any one constituent's wishes. No one would spend the lengthy time required to become a college teacher were that the case. Failure to understand how college instruction is different from K-12 causes much of the current misunderstandings. For others, it indicates a vendetta against the best education that should always be found in Adventist schools.

Hi,

Aubyn and bevin,

Try that logic on UC Berkeley ;)

If you're name is on the books, you are an SDA -- how SAD for anyone to join just so one's name is "on the books" to better one's chances of getting a job. I call that lack of integrity.

I did not join the teacher's union. The school nurse once asked me, "You are the only teacher at our school who is not a union member. Why don't you join." I replied that I don't believe in the teacher's union's stands. She told me, "I don't either, but I am part of the group."

So, maybe I have a different idea of integrity than Aubyn, bevin, or the SDA prof has. To join a group just for the "perks" is dishonesty to one's self and to others.

I never said "not teach" evolution . . . that was words being put into my mouth. It is non-ethical to "not teach" creation -- or to say that creation is a bunch of balony while being paid by SDA-church money. Biology teachers at a Christian institution should be able to multi-task to present both views or clear out for others who are capable of the job.

And Aubyn, creation may be taught in Texas soon as the teachers and parents are going through correct channels to result in change -- not back door revolutions by professors while being paid by Adventists who support the 29 doctrines. How about turning back the pay of the "full" Adventist -- and just accept the pay coming from the "evolutionist" Adventists? That would be fair.

Then, state your views to the prospective parents and students. "I am an Adventist who does not support the 29 doctrines -- I support the evolutionary theory. Please send your child to my classroom and pay your tuition that supports my job. The university cannot tell me what to do so this is my decision. Thank you, and please enroll in my class."

Again, try this with UC Berkeley ;)

Jody ;)

Oh, I forgot to add . . .

UC Berkeley refused to list the dinosaur bone collection on Southwestern Adventist University's website (one of the best, if not the best internet site in the world on dinosaur bones with 3D rotation capability) because the science teachers are creationists. The UC Berkeley site provides links to all sites in the world that have dinosaur bones -- including several teachers' "home" web pages. But refused the SDA link . . .

Also, biology does include creation. The institute at Loma Linda is doing fine work on the subject and has books available that could be included as reading materials for the biology course. These books are written by scientists who believe in creation theory.

Also, there is the "public trust" issue. The consumers have a trust in items and services purchased that these items or services will meet the assumed wants and needs. Businesses who provide consumers with deceptive or substandard items or services are often taken to court. The SDA parents require so little of the professors in the institutions they support, that it is sad that the professors cannot even meet these minimal standards, but rather throw fits of "academic freedom" on the one hand while asking for tenure and raises on the other.

How easy it would be to meet the expectations of the consumers of the LSU business by including mention of creation and reading lists that include books from biologists who support creation in the classroom.

Seems like minimal effort to me for maximum reward for consumers and job holders. A violation of the public trust is what is happening now, in my opinion.

So, be clear on what is being offered . . . be honest within one's self before evaluating students . . . and see if the business prospers. Or, remove ones self and make way for those who can do the job better.

UC Berkeley would not tolerate your arguments if the arguments were reversed. But, tell the SDA parents that this is the way it is suppose to be and hope that they "buy" it. The public institutions would have teachers who had these arguments of "freedom" so we can mention creation and creation scientists' books tossed out pronto.

Learn to multi-task and include both in biology -- both belong. Or, get a job at UC Berkeley ;)

Jody ;)

What would Jesus do if he were a biology teacher at LSU? How would he teach the class? What reading materials would he include? Would he mention creation?

Jody ;)

>> 'If you're name is on the books, you are an SDA -- how SAD for anyone to join just so one's name is "on the books" to better one's chances of getting a job. I call that lack of integrity.'

THAT IS NOT WHAT I WROTE, and is not what these professors are doing. There are SDA congregations that have no problem with having people on their books who agree with most of the 29 Fundamentals, but not your particular interpretation of a handful them.

>> 'It is non-ethical to "not teach" creation -- or to say that creation is a bunch of balony while being paid by SDA-church money.'

Where is there any evidence that the professors involved are doing this? You are putting words in their mouths.

>> 'Biology teachers at a Christian institution should be able to multi-task to present both views or clear out for others who are capable of the job.'

To be absolutely blunt, there is no scientific theory of creationist biology to teach.

>> 'How about turning back the pay of the "full" Adventist -- and just accept the pay coming from the "evolutionist" Adventists? That would be fair.'

For 25 years, from approximately 1975AD to 2000AD, the SDA church happily accepted my thousands of dollars of tithe a year, and did not have any problem at any level in the organization with my belief in the likely correctness of evolution. They poured my evolutionary tithe dollars into church and school facilities. And then, in 2000AD, the anti-intellectual anti-science fundamentalists in the SDA church began an anti-evolution witch-hunt rallied by Clifford Goldstein in the Adventist Review.

Tell you what - give me back the $125,000 of mine that your fundamentalist side of the denomination accepted, and stop funding anti-evolution activities such as Clifford's columns out of the tithe dollars that the pro-choice-on-evolution SDA are contributing every week - and then you have a case for not having the pro-choice-on-evolution faction receive your tithe dollars.

/Bevin

Bevin, your defense of incorporating Darwinism into Adventism leaves out two big issues: Ellen White and Bible prophecy.

Ellen White didn't just make a few passing statements on the doctrine of creation. She made scores of statements over the course of 50 years, all of which strongly upheld a literal six-day creation in the relatively recent past. Being familiar with Darwinian notions of biology and Lyellian notions of geology, she specifically repudiated them over and over and over:

"I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. . . . On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days."

"When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” . . . “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.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days."

"But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom."

"Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. . . . And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them."

"It is one of Satan’s devices to lead the people to accept the fables of infidelity; for he can thus obscure the law of God, in itself very plain, and embolden men to rebel against the divine government. His efforts are especially directed against the fourth commandment, because it so clearly points to the living God, the Maker of the heavens and the earth.
There is a constant effort made to explain the work of creation as the result of natural causes; and human reasoning is accepted even by professed Christians, in opposition to plain Scripture facts."

"We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestion."

As you know, I could go on this vein from now to next Wednesday. Clearly, if Ellen White was wrong about a recent literal creation week, she was not an inspired messenger from God. Her prophetic credentials are impeached beyond any hope of rehabilitation. So when you suggest that Darwinism can be incorporated into Adventism, you are suggesting that the church throw out Ellen White, which would change the church into something unrecognizable to contemporary Adventists. You aren't really talking about incorporating Darwinism into Adventism, you're talking about changing Adventism into something completely different than it is now.

The second big area is Bible prophecy. The First Angel's message of Revalation is: "I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 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.'" Adventists have always understood this passage to point in a very special way to our movement, because by holding up the Seventh-day Sabbath, the Fourth Commandment, we call people to worship the creator God, the God who created the world in six days and rested on the Sabbath day. "The hour of his judgment is come" refers to the 1844 doctrine of the investigative judgment. Most of our understandings of Bible prophecy are tied to the Sabbath. We understand the mark of the beast to mean Sunday sacredness, because the Creator God's sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. But we would greatly undermine our position on the Sabbath by throwing out God's own rationale for Sabbath sacredness, the rest on the seventh day after a six-day creation.

So basically, to adopt Darwinism, you'd have to throw out Ellen White and throw out all of our unique interpretations of Bible prophecy that revolve around the Sabbath. This would pretty much eviscerate our Adventist self-understanding, and require the construction of a new and completely different Adventism. It would require, as Barack Obama once described his plan for the United States, "total transformation."

David

Amen, amen, and AMEN. That is my point. Ellen loses all authority, the writings are a fraud, and the church is a scam. These people that are trying to reinterpret scripture to fit scientific facts should leave the church and be a Catholic. Or Lutheran. Better yet, an Episcopalian. The C of E priest Polkinghorne, former scientist and member of the British Academy, postulates that God is love, Jesus was resurrected, and when he comes in 5 billion years as the earth collapses or is consumed by the sun, God will take EVERYONE and every pet and every animal to a new earth. That's where those that rationalize away the 6 day creation 5770 years ago are heading.

And it ain't Adventism, for certain.

Keafan,

I think there is an angle you may not have considered: the OT writers claimed to record direct experiences with God. Regardless of “which” God, if the stories are true—for example, of a Being speaking to them or acting miraculously on their behalf—then GOD was at work, regardless if their understanding was of a tribal God, or Zeus, or whatever. In that sense, I think it is possible to say that GOD created the heavens and the earth without having to commit to the idea of the God of the Israelites doing so 6000 years ago in 6 days. More to your point, the literature of the Bible then still retains legitimacy because it does record GOD’s acts, even if its historical or scientific accuracy may be questioned, and even if much of it was written as polemic or for political purposes. We read or hear contemporary personal testimonies in the same way. Wisdom suggests being skeptical, but also open-minded. When someone says they received a $1000 check in the mail from a stranger on the very day they needed it after praying for it, who am I to say that isn’t GOD at work, even if it hasn’t happened to me? I’ll treat the story with some skepticism, but I won’t rule it out on the grounds of impossibility. So, I think we can treat the scientific and historical reality of Genesis with a great deal of skepticism, allowing science to guide our thinking on the most probable account of earth history, yet still retain the GOD of the O.T. and thus of the Israelites, Paul, Christians, Adventists, etc. (And if you want to throw in Allah, etc., and all the other imperfect perceptions/descriptions of GOD, why not? Romans says GOD is at work with all people, even those without a formal description of Him).

David Read,

Have you ever seen the “The Crucible”? You are an easily recognized composite of several people in that play. Do you think you’ll feel as better once the hangings are over?

RT, it seems there are some who would relish being back in the time of Salem. None of us would be safe.

Keafan is right. Not about Darwinism, but about what trying to accommodate Darwinism would do to Adventism. There's no need for the Adventist Church to try to fuse the Biblical worldview with the pagan worldview; that task has already been accomplished to perfection by the Roman Catholic Church. They don't often brag about having given all the pagan gods and goddesses biblical names so that the idolatry could continue unabated in Catholic cathedrals, but they are open and very proud of their accomplishment in having blended pagan Greek philosophy with Christianity. Keafan is right in stating that "these people that are trying to reinterpret scripture to fit scientific facts should leave the church and be a Catholic." Why re-invent the wheel?

RC, I've never read or seen "The Crucible," about the Salem witch trials, but I get the gist of your comment. The funny thing is that I'm really not a conservative Adventist at all; I'm a California Adventist with all that implies. I've talked to other people who are on my side in the creation/evolution controversy who also described themselves as liberals. I don't relate at all to Adventists who stress behavior, and back to nature, and living in the country, etc. But I don't view the creation/evolution controversy as a being a libera/conservative issue. For Adventism to try to accommodate Darwinism would mean the complete destruction of Adventism as a coherent belief system.

What's more, I think the shoe is on the other foot. There are already several liberal churches that don't try to uphold a literal view of creation and the Genesis record. There are many more of them, and they control many more churches, colleges, universities, seminaries, etc. Why don't the people in our church who believe as they do join them? Why is it necessary to turn our church into a liberal church? Why must every single Christian denomination, literally every single church without exception, become a liberal non-Bible-believing church? The real fascists, the real totalitarians in this controversy are the people who can't sleep at night until the Adventist church becomes just another liberal church, of which there are already many, that believes the Bible is a pile of Cr*p.

Can't I appeal to the anthropologist in you, Elaine and RT, to leave one, just one poor little tribe of Bible-believing creationists in existence, if only as a museum piece, an illustration of what most Christian denominations were before all-corrosive liberalism rotted them from the inside out?

David Read wrote:
"Ellen White didn't just make a few passing statements on the doctrine of creation. She made scores of statements over the course of 50 years, all of which strongly upheld a literal six-day creation in the relatively recent past. Being familiar with Darwinian notions of biology and Lyellian notions of geology, she specifically repudiated them over and over and over:"

Your kidding right? Isn't this the women who is famous for having only a 6th grade education? How could she possibly understand the notions of either Lyell or Darwin well enough to actually repudiate them?

What she actually did was totally ignore them and write the story the way she wanted to. But I know of no instance where she gives anything resembling a well thought-out repudiation of either Lyell or Darwin.

On a personal note let me just say that creation is a bit difficult to understand. The flood story, however, both as told in Genesis and even more so by Ellen White is impossible. In fact, Ellen White's descriptions of it are patently absurd, particularly how she describes the aftermath of the flood. What she wrote may have been necessary for the church in her day but I do not think that her desciption of the flood is binding on us 21st century SDAs, any more than, I think that we should continue to practise slavery as described in Deuteronomy.

David,

Concerning you stated threat to EGW.....

Isn't truth and understanding progressive and didn't EGW say this herself?

After Jesus had come and gone, it took hundreds of years of readjustment by the christian community to come to terms with a move from a monotheism that comprised one God with a monotheism that comprises three divine persons.

We don't now throw out the OT because of this, but take it in its context.

By the same way of thinking we don't throw out the meaning of Genesis because it includes outdated cosmologies (the water above the firmament).

Adrian

Martin, I think Ellen White's formal schooling never went beyond third grade. She didn't attend school after age 12, and much of the time before that, she missed because she was struck and badly injured by a rock thrown by another girl. But she was what today we would call "home schooled" and obviously had an education on par with most other similarly situated people of her time and place.

By saying that she repudiated Lyell and Darwin, I mean that she clearly rejected their conclusions, not that she ever attempted a point-by-point rebuttal or critique of their views. To my knowledge, she never mentioned either of them by name, but she was obviously aware of the theory of evolution and of long-ages geology and she rejected those conclusions repeatedly. I think she probably had Lyell and Darwin in mind when she wrote things like, "the theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestion."

If you're interested in a critique of Lyell by modern scientists, I suggest Gould's "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle" and Derek Ager's "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record."

Adrian, the point I keep trying to make is that Ellen White was a contemporary of Darwin and Lyell. She lived and carried out her prophetic mission at a time when Lyell's and Darwin's theories were already well known, even in America. These theories have not arisen since Ellen White's day (1827-1915), but were well known in her lifetime. And she rejected them; she considered them of no authority to any extent that they contradicted what she referred to as the Mosaic Record.

It seems to me that if God was going to send us a prophet to tell us that the Genesis record of a six-day creation in the recent past was not to be taken literally, Ellen White lived at exactly the right time to bring us that message. But she brought us the opposite message; she told us in no uncertain terms, in the strongest language she could muster, to reject "science falsely so called" and "the theories of great men" that conflict with what Moses tells us in Genesis. If she was wrong about this, she was no messenger of God; she was a fraud and mountebank. Keafan is right about this. There is no tenable middle ground here. Either Lyellism and Darwinism are wrong, or Ellen White was a fraud. That is why Ellen White simply cannot have any significant role in any "Adventism" that attempts to incorporate Darwinism.

David,

I can see where you are coming from to an extent but science has moved on greatly either confirming or denying her statements... and not just in this area.

However, I remain more agnostic than anything else on this issue and as such Stephen J Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial is a handy principle, theology from theology books, science from science books.

Adrian

Michael Thank you. I thought I wrote a note earlier but it does seem to have been posted. Tom

David,

(1) EGW and Creation - as Tom says, the Bible is full of inspired people who would have given you wrong descriptions of scientific things.

The Bible is the heavily filtered, somewhat edited, capturing of people's oral and written account about God's interaction with them, people near them, and people not so near them in time and space.

EGW's "writings" are the extensive results of her writing, the writing of her literary assistants, the input of her husband, friends, and books and magazines she read, and the impact of the compilers. The filtering is no where near as extensive as has happened to the Bible.

The material has some great concepts, lots of details that have not stood the test of time, AND ORDERS BY EGW HERSELF NOT TO USE THEM TO SETTLE ISSUES OF DOCTRINE

(2) Prophecy and Creation. No SDA interpretation of prophecy requires YEC. The God is the Creator is not the dispute.

(3) Going to other churches

After a lifetime of being told about cigarettes, alcohol, dancing, the dead are asleep, the nearness of the second coming, the great controversy, unclean foods, speaking in tongues, etc., is it that surprising that some ex-SDA can not feel comfortable in these other denominations?

My wife has found a community church that she really likes. I can not imagine joining a church again, to put up with the ignorant telling me what I should think because people like me are going to hell.

/Bevin

David,

It's not my job to tell the church how to reinterpret White's writings. But reinterpret them it must.

Do you also believe - after White - that volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by underground coal fires? She didn't invent this; apparently it's something she "was shown".

And how about ther condemning tennis, football and cycling?

How about her promising her contemporaries that they would not die till Jesus came?

Finally, how about her being against "interracial" marriages (how could such things be approved by God?!)

If you reconcile these teachings with a modern mindset, then reconciling evolutionism becomes really easy.

Jag

Football is bad, bad, bad, if Georgia loses to South Carolina and if Green Bay loses the SuperBowl. It is not that tennis is bad, it the women's tennis wardrobe that is bad. It is not the cycling that is bad--but have you priced the cost of a racing bike lately? Bad, bad, bad!

Now golf, except for sand traps a wonderful pastime. Some of the best landscaping on earth and the rare opportunity to see birdies, and eagles besides.

My dad built the first tennis courts at E.M.C. Not a peep from the most avowed White enthusiats. Tom

Tom

"Does the Seventh-Day Adventist Church have the Truth?" would be the bottom line. As Jag said, Ellen was demonstrably wrong on things that she claimed were "shown" to her by supernatural beings. This begs the question of why anyone would believe that she had ACTUALLY been shown the "special light" shining on the 4th Commandment. The OT has, likewise, been proven demonstrably false on many things which we now have evidence for. The evidence COULD have turned out to support the claims about the actions of the Hebrew's Deity. But the evidence has contradicted those claims, just as evidence about coal fires and numbers of moons has contradicted Ellen.

That being the case, do you take the Catholic way out and start furiously convening committees to "reinterpret" the problematic statements or do you stick to the disproven claims and hope you find out in the next life what the answer is? Until the invention of telescopes, microscopes, advanced chemical analysis, DNA sequencers, and computers many things that we now realize are naturally occurring events were attributed to "God" or The Gods. The ancient cosmology of the middle east is based on the same premises of the Hebrew's cosmology. El Elyon got everything started, He had 70 sons, the earth was divided into 70 nations, follow the wishes of your assigned deity and you could win battles, conquer other tribes, take their women and their land and livestock, etc. The earth was flat with a blue ocean in the sky above the crystal dome. God lived on the dome with the earth as his footstool. Barbecue an offering and God could smell it. God could come down and walk, talk, write things on stone, etc. People dreamed of climbing to the dome on ladders or building towers to reach God on the dome. The earth was stationary, and as EVERYBODY could plainly see, the sun went across the dome over the stationary earth. Their were little tracks in the dome to transport the sun, moon, planets, and those itty-bitty stars across it. The earth was on a firm foundation, never to be moved. God physically opened windows in the dome to let some of the ocean in the sky pour onto the flat earth flooding it.

Just as in modern times, God is on the side of the largest guns or newest technology. The Hebrews lost one battle because the tribe in the valley had iron chariots. They thought you got sick because the gods were punishing you for a transgression or a transgression of an ancestor. David turned over the descendants of Saul for a human sacrifice to end a three year drought. To keep leprosy off the walls in your hut you hired a priest to wring a birds neck over running water. Snakes talked, long hair gave you supernatural strength, and bears mauled kids on the commands of a prophet. People actually still read, and believe to be inspired, the scribblings of a guy that sat naked in the dirt for 3 years. Esther gives up her virginity hoping to please the king and be his second? wife. For her immorality, God saves her tribe. God gave David seven wives but was not happy how David decided to take one for himself. God kills their baby.

Jesus, via hearsay, supposedly said that the end would be like the days of Noah. Its clear that Noah was a myth so the End must be a myth.

And yet people are freaking out because they need to reinterpret the Bible to fit current knowledge? Jesus healed by forgiving the sins which caused the sickness. Now, prospective doctors need to learn evolution to heal? Just learn how to forgive sins!

There is so much that is wrong and barbaric about the whole concept put forward by the goat herders that sticking to a literal six day creation seems trivial. If you can't stick to the belief about the beginning of creation why would anybody think they could rely on the alleged end of creation and a NEW Creation?

The Gospel of Mark ended at the empty tomb. Later, maybe hundreds of years, the ending now in the modern Bibles was added. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark. As Paul was the first writer he should be the most reliable yet he claims that he didn't learn anything about his Jesus from ANY man. He had no interest in Calvary, Golgotha, the site of the Last Supper or trial. In fact, he seems to indicate that Jesus died on some low level of the multi-level sky he believed in. A friend of Paul's had actually VISITED the 3rd level of heaven which would have been above the level of heaven that Jesus needed to descend to in order to die for our sins.

Reinterpret? You guys haven't even scratched the surface of the level of interpretation the SDA church will need once time advances to 1844 x 2, or 1844 x 3, or 1844 x 10.

Abandoning the theory of God as presented in the Bible by admittedly ignorant, barbaric, simple nomads who lived in a time when the iron chariot and wheelbarrow were the latest technologies is the rational thing to do. Since religious belief is irrational, why does anybody need to reinterpret to try to make it appear rational? I accept that most of my family and old friends are irrational. Admitting that the earth is not 6000 years old or teaching evolution doesn't change the fact of their irrationality. However, if they want to pay money to send their kid to an irrational institution then they should be expected to demand, no matter how irrational it is, that their science teachers teach that all species of animals and all plants, and all bacteria and all viruses were created by the Guy That Lives On The Dome.

Trying to teach evolution so that the school can be accredited for premed or med school in order to appear somewhat normal does not change the fact that SDA's are a fringe group in a fringe sect with a discredited prophetess for their inspiration. Once the prophet is discovered to have been a fraud why would anyone stay?

I support the teaching of a literal creation 5,770 years ago. Maybe losing accreditation would have good unintended consequences. Make the church stronger. They could play the victim. Trying to adapt to modern science sure isn't working unless there is absolutely no correlation between accepting that your prophetess is a fake, Darwin and Paine were correct, and the likelihood of a positive response when the Altar Call is made.

IMO, of course.

keafan

Losing accreditation over creationism is the biggest myth of all.

The Accreditors are coming! the Accreditors are coming! is the cheap immoral way for Presidents to get their way.

Does Liberty University teach evolution?

Tom

"the Roman Catholic Church. They don't often brag about having given all the pagan gods and goddesses biblical names so that the idolatry could continue unabated in Catholic cathedrals, but they are open and very proud of their accomplishment in having blended pagan Greek philosophy with Christianity."

For anyone to believe that the NT wasn't greatly from ignorance or lack of information. Most Bible scholars realize that John is one of the gospels most influenced by Hellenism as in his opening prologue. As long ago as the sixth century B.C. Heraclitus set out on a journey of self-discovery and discovered the "Logos shared by all." He wrote: "Having hearkened not unto me, but unto the Logos, it is wise to confess that all things are One." Anyone who uses the terms "logos" or "the word" or the only-begotten" has borrowed the very germs of this religious thought from Greek philosophy. The writings of the NT are rife with such pagan concepts, which go unnoticed because they are disguised by poor English translations of the original Greek. The language used by early Christianity is in fact so similar to that of the Mysteries that we often cannot tell from burial inscriptions whether the deceased was a Christian or a pagan.

Where did the concept of virginal conceptions originate if not from both Greek and Roman myth. There are so many similarites between these myths, from the most ancient times, that to be unaware of their influence on the Bible is astounding. The myth of a baby floating down the river in a basket, to be later rescued, was first told of Sargon, nearly a millennium before the story of Moses.

History is not simply related, it is created. Often, it is simply to glorify and justify the status quo. Such histories conceal as much as they reveal. It is very easy to believe that something mujst be true because everyone else believes it.

No religion is an island completely uninfluenced by the surrounding culture and religion. The Jews borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism--from which we get both Heaven and Hell and dualism; the Jews most heavily influenced Christianity, and to this day Adventism is the religion most resembling Judaism gets its main doctrines straight from the OT.

Christianity began in the first century and evolved and developed over many centuries. Its major doctrines were not officially adopted until well into the 5th century. And the one Christian church from which all the denomationations sprang, gave us our NT, most of our doctrines, liturgy and practices. To believe that Adventism is so unique that nothing contributed to its doctrines is to be ignorant of church history and assume that the one SDA church is the only "true" church originating in Eden.

RT

The direct "encounters" with God come from the Torah. God speaking with Adam about Adam's lack of a mate, God instructing Adam & Eve on the rules of the Garden, God searching for the pair after the Talking Snake incident, the arm-wrestle in the night, the burning bush, the writing of the Covenant with His finger on the stone. The people were not that impressed with listening to God speak, so the rest of the laws had to be recited by Moses after a private conversation with God (riiiiiiight). Are we counting God in the wind, God in the magic cannabis cloud, or God behind the lightning bolts? How about God instructing big fish, directing rain to bypass the Promised Land until David heard the magic voice that he needed to sacrifice his competitors to the throne? Did anybody see the chariot go up to the dome?

These stories are as credible as the preacher who hijacked the plane in Mexico last week because God told him there was a special message for the President.

See, supposedly, the same man that drew the hieroglyphics which turned into hebrew which were translated to Greek and then latin, german, and finally our english Bible- that same guy that said the earth was created in six days with God spending the second day constructing the non-existent dome and dividing the waters so He could put an ocean in the sky- that guy ALSO was the one that supposedly had the best encounter with Yahweh, which was one of the 70 sons of El Elyon. Yahweh's inheritance was the land which was to be occupied by His People, the Israelites.

This man, Moses allegedly, also never had any idea about their being 1 God, but that THEIR God, Yahweh, was the God for the Israelites to worship. Moses had seen the abilities of the other God's demonstrated in Egypt. But Yahweh had better powers and could smite the creations of the Egytpian Priest's other God's. This concept of the special God for the Special People inhabiting the INHERITANCE of the Special God with distinct boundaries of that inheritance is explicitly stated in the 10 C's.

As for the $1,000? The rational thing to understand is that for every one story about somebody who thinks that a miracle has occurred because somebody got their name and address, wrote a check to them, put it in an envelope and mailed it was a miracle there are at least a million times that people have prayed and asked for some similar relief and the check never came. Now, if a long boom was extended from Mars with a magic hand on the end all the way to the surface of the earth, penetrating without damage the person's ceiling as they sat at their dining room table, and handed them $1,000 worth of Yuan, AND it was all recorded by NASA, Hubble, CNN, and their atheist next-door neighbor, THEN I might be LESS skeptical.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The claims of the Bible are extraordinary, and there is NO evidence. In fact, what evidence there is refutes their entire cosmology including the God that supposedly created that non-existent cosmology.

Tom

Great point. I seriously doubt that Liberty University teaches evolutionary biology. Course, LU is trying to make lawyers so they can overturn the Constitution. Don't really need to know anything about the facts of biology for that.

keafan

The issue was accreditation. The mission statement is of some importance--the hidden agenda is not part of accreditation.

Interesting to note that the former President of PUC is now head of the West Coast Accrediting Board.

Did you know that Life College (a chiropractice school) with a number of pre-chropractic courses is fully accredited as a university by the Southern Association? The issue of accreditation is bogus except when it comes to resources like
Atlantic Union College etc. Without resources, an institution cannot fulfill its mission of what ever. Tom

A story:

During my second term on the Board of Trustees at LLU. The administration proposed establlishing a School of Public Health. In their proposal they states emphatically that accreditation required that the School be Organized with five mjaor departments. Each of which had to have 3 full professors, 3 associate professors, and three junior instructors. That proposal was sent to the members of the Board prior to the Board Meeting to consider the issue. I was a member of two accrediting boards: The American Association of Dental Schools, and the Southern Accrediting Association of Colleges and Schools. I had serve on 33 site visits Including the U. of Florida, Harvard, UCLA, University of Texas, Stony Brook, Tufts, University of South Carolina, Baylor, U. of Penn. and 24 others.
The statment just didn't jib with any other accreditation standards I have even read or worked with. So I went to the library to look up the accreditation standards for School of Public Health. I found the requirements for major subjects to be included in the program and that both senior and junior faculty should be employed with competence in at least one of three primary areas. The number and ranks were not listed, only senior and junior level faculty in three critical areas.

I wrote the Vice President for Academic Affairs prior to the Board meeting and included the full requirements for accreditation. I received a curt thank you for my interest.

At the Board Meeting, the proposal as submitted prior to the meeting was introduced without change or explanation.

I rose to point out that the accreditation requirements did not include the demands suggested in the proposal. The Dean under appointment responded first by saying: 'Well, we can't teach the unique SDA approach to Public Health under the three disciplines listed in the accreditation guide-lines. I responded: the accreditation guide-lines are so broad that one could teach the moon is made of blue cheese and still pass accreditation. The Dean, elect, responded. "Yes that is well and good, but I want Five Departments with three senior,three asssociate, and three junior faculty. The Vice President for Academic Affairs said: I agree. The call for a vote was taken
The vote was 39 for and 3 apposed.

The news report of the Board meeting simply stated that a School of Public Health was approved by the Board that met all of the requirements for national accreditation.

One must say: They do have a good schol of public health. But partly at the expense of the Truth. Tom

In his second response LSU President Randal Wisbey wrote ( 5 )-"evolutionary process (is) a subject that is foundational to the modern biological and behavioral sciences - "

May I line out : Enlightement ( - how much of SDA ideas is derived from it ?) - Romnaticimsm as a backlash (with its ideas about "Nature" and "Natures" remedies - Mrs White writes
"natures" remedies, please take notice of the slight difference) - the contemporary world of Comtes Positivism : Some do research according to Positivisms preassumptions, some work with them every day, almost evereybody cherishes its results. Some are aware of the loopholes.

(Will those living like the Amish please stand up !?)

In this theoretical framework Darwin has his indispensable niche.

If tomorrow the surgeon will be confronted with your appendix as a surgical problem, he will deliberate the strategies in Positivisms thinking; the diagnostic means, the premedication, the anaesthesia and its pharmacology, the hygienic measures, all the "evidence based medicine" follow Positivisms rules - else your Doctor would face a malpractice lawsuit.

The SDA Church operates a number of hospitals meeting WHO standards.

Positivism is a useful and - to a large extent successful - theory, not explaining everything , not guiding in all matters of life - even if some believe so. We just have to rely on it and we do rely on it.

Wisbey with his reference to biological and behavioral sciences takes account of this.

So please, students, learn about the basics of the tools you achieve in your University studies - and evaluate them critically (!) as hypotheses.

And please, Church members and theologians and leaders be more restrictive with quotes like "Science says - - studies have shown - - scientists believe - - ". Dont applaude to the one and make a fuss about La Sierras teaching concept in Biology.

gerhard

The lateral and vertical thinking of diagnosis and treatment planning are not derivatives of evolutinaary thought.

Clinical medicine is a far cry for the theories of origin.

If evolutionists and creationists were to use evidence based data they would both have to say: "We just don't know!"

Several things are true.

The earth as a sphere is mightly old.
The history of the earth is catastrophic.
There are distinct barriers between kinds.
Man certainly is a mess and needs moral help and forgivness.
The Christ event is historical and critical to the future of man and his world.

That is evidence based. Tom

I have been following the discussion with interest. Both sides seem to have good arguments but we seem to be missing the mission of Adventist education. As I see it, the purpose of Adventist education is to produce strong Adventist young men and women that can function in today's society. If we are to be Adventist, we must express a Christian perspective and an Adventist slant. If we are to educate with a pure world view, our colleges and universities really have no reason to exists.

The question that has been missing in all this discussion is whether our institutions produce Christian/Adventist leaning young men or women? What is the percentage of our young men and women become stronger Christians/Adventist after being educated at LSU? Or is there a significant population that leave the church as a result of what is taught?

Jesus says: "By their fruits..." (Matt 7:16), so what are the fruits?

If any of our institutions are having problems keeping our young people, we need to look at how to improve the system. While education is very important, salvation is even more important. While academic integrity must be maintained in our higher ed institutions, should that trump the cost of a lost sheep?

God bless - Sam.

The earth as a sphere is mightly old. - Agree

The history of the earth is catastrophic. - Depends on your definition of catastrophy

There are distinct barriers between kinds. - No evidence for this what-so-ever

Man certainly is a mess and needs moral help and forgivness. - Agree

The Christ event is historical and critical to the future of man and his world. - Limited evidence to the former (Jesus son of Joseph almost certainly existed but the range of His activities has very little evidence), no evidence for the later

/Bevin

While academic integrity must be maintained in our higher ed institutions, should that trump the cost of a lost sheep?

It depends on why you are loosing the sheep. It may well be that they are being correctly educated to see the flaws in the system, and are not perceiving any progress on fixing the flaws.

Like the USA Health Care system, no-one thinks the current status-quo is viable. Something WILL change - for better or worse.

/Bevin

I want to thank this group for a very stimulating and productive discussion this weekend. Sadly for me, this long weekend was my last liberty before the beginning of the responsibilities of a new school year - though that is always exciting too. I do try to keep tabs on what is going on with the Spectrum site (which is a wonderful resource by the way, we are really lucky to have this) but I doubt I will be able to contribute very much going forward. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was rudely ignoring them if they pose me a question and I don't respond. I have one more point to make (re-make) and I will try to check back in before going to bed tonight to respond to any questions or disagreements.

I may have been the first in this thread to bring up accreditation, and I want to try to clarify my point just one more time, so I don't leave anyone with the wrong impression. Accreditation certainly does not prevent any school from teaching Creation Science, or Intelligent Design, or some other variant. It also does not require any school to teach Evolution. What accreditation does require is that schools have functional independence from external bodies. La Sierra has a Board that is its governing body. The General Conference, or the NAD, or even the Pacific Union (though this is somewhat ambiguous, given the number of Union officers and employees who sit on the LSU Board) can not dictate curriculum or personnel decisions. Moreover, faculty at accredited institutions must have academic freedom. Now this is a fuzzy and complex construct, and it is defined and practiced in a variety of local ways. But at its basic level, Academic Freedom does mean that teachers must have the right to teach their course based on their own judgment, training and experience, and in the context of the quality standards of their discipline.

So, my point about accreditation was simply that any religious organization that makes the decision to sponsor an accredited college or university will almost certainly find itself in a situation in which a teacher is teaching something that is regarded by many as being in disagreement with church policies.

Audyn

Your argument is that academic freedom must be in evidence in order for an accrediting body to fully accredit an institution.

This is true with reservations. Academic Freedom can be defined as within the mission of the institution. The governing principle is well stated in the AAUP documents. Below.

Academic Freedom
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.
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 should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.[4]

Boards of Trustees also must be balanced. The sponsoring body through a constituency process can form a Board of Trustees in which the Sponsoring Body has significant, if not controling representation. However, alumni, and consumer interests must also be met--never-the-less those members can be vetted as to their sympathies with the mission and purpose of the sponsoring body. For example a Jesuit University does not have to appoint any member of the KKK to its Board.

Changes in Mission Statements and limits on academic freedom must be approved at a duly called constituency meeting. These limits must appear in official publications of the institution in be a formal part of the teaching contract.

Tenure indicates that over a perscribed period of time, that a teacher has demonstrated competence in his/her discipline, productivity in teaching, research, and service within the bounds of the contract to be awarded continued employment. Subject to closure of the discipline, moral turpitude, etc.

It is very unlikely that the wording of any teacher's contract is specific enough to dismiss on the charges currently being floated around.

Of course that did not limit the Church from action over the Des Ford issue. However, I do believe it made the leadership very gunshy over any sort of repeat.

One thing is absolutely sure. The issue cannot be settled by debate, argumentation, or lack of proof on either side.

Because varifiable or falsifiable proof does not exist for either party.

The best compromise is for both views to give their best shot and let the student decide. They will have to sooner or later anyway. Bevin and I have opposite world views--neither can prevail on the basis of evidence. So be it! Tom

Thanks for posting that Tom - that is essentially what I meant by academic freedom having fuzzy boundaries that are locally defined.

Aubyn, thanks for the work you do. :)
Have a great semester.

Aubyn, thank you for your comments! I have been impressed by your kindness and respect. PUC is lucky to have you!

Bevin

Catastrophic events:

1. Pre-history impact craters.
2. Land mass movement the size of continents thousands of miles.
3. Biomass buried thousands of feet even miles below the surface.
4. Mountain ranges with sea beds thousands of feet above sea level.
5. Biomass under thousands of feet of ice at the South Pole etc.

Man and animals have placed their seed in every orifice imaginable with very limited success beyond their own kind.

I don't believe in amalgamation, except between silver and mercury, do you?

If thee was not a Christ event, then the entire exercise is vanity. eh? Tom

> I don't believe in amalgamation, except between silver and mercury, do you?

The world has seen big fast events (eg: the flooding of various seas), big slow events (eg: the movement of whole continents), local fast events (eg: volcanic craters), local slow events (eg: fault line movement) in its geology - are these 'catastrophes'? It is in the eye of the beholder.

The world has also seen vast genetic changes, such that whales and mice show strong indications of having shared a common ancestor, and birds show strong indications of having descended from dinosaurs, and you and I have portions of our DNA also found in earth worms.

There is no known reason why an earth worm could not evolve into a whale, a bird, or a lizard. There is no natural boundary around a 'kind'.

/Bevin

bevin

Or a common designer?

I can spot a Frank L. Wright house two blocks away. Tom

To Tom :

no, Tom, I can look back on years of University, beginning with two semesters of Anatomy, five whole afternoons the week in the Anatomy Lab; I look back on years of preparing for Pathology exam, affording the skill of the Rokitansky method for autopsy; Electroconvulsive therapy - yes or no ? - As an emergency ? At the Pulmologists : Brain death ? Sign for turning off the respiratory machine ? Exhaustion ( -relax !) or maior depression (-get a specific individual treatment !) ?

I have pointed out Auguste Comtes (1798-1857) Positivism, the basic philosophy of "science" with its standards up to today, a philosphy the poet, playwright,and genius Johann Wolfgang Goethe already questioned in his tragedy "Faust II " act 1. 1832 about its possibility to fully explain nature and life.

The Berlin pathologist and Positivist Virchow converted Viennese pathologist Rockitansky, personally an Individualist, to Positivism. Virchow is said not to have shown much sympathy for Darwin. Positivist Du Bois - Raymond, the one who "fulfilled a centuries dream of physiologists" about explaining the electric potentials (defeating the one hundred years old idea about "electric currents" ! ) in nerval functions around 1850, admired Darwin as the one who in the framework of this philosophy had given an apt answer in one field. But bthe positivistic medicine simply is - no, not "true" or "The Truth", but at last shows some unique ( ! ) success in diagnosis and treatment.

The way of very personal deliberation ledaing to diagnosis and further strategies are a matter the phsicians individuality. But he (legally !)has to play with the tools of Positivism which elevated Medicine out of the sphere of mere poetry. This already is his guide in chosing the desinfectant or the anaesthesists medication.

Many of us are aware that Positivism and Evolution are insufficient in explaining the problems in oncology or functions of the nervous system (comparing the chordonians and the lower vertebrates ad the mammals - - ) or allergoses or- or - or.

My attempt always was to see my Biblical anthropology in the background, the mystery of evil, the Great Controversy. And I
appreciate the Romantic medicine; I have my strategies to get watercures covered by the Social Security. And until now I gave no cause for a malpractice lawsuit.

Clear ?

Common design does NOT explain the fossils that show the many different mammals the both dating and cladistics suggest lead from a common ancestor to both the mouse and the whale

You may be able to spot a Frank L. Wright house two blocks away, but the experts will be able to take two such houses and make a reasonable guess which was designed first...

/Bevin

Yes bevin but both were designed!

So were the mouse, and the whale.

How reasonable men can combine commonality with chance. The statistical odds do not favor a progression from mouse to whale Even within the billions of years granted so say the biostatistians at MIT. See (The Mathematical Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Theory) Now listed under rare book dealers.

Transfusing whale blood into a mouse isn't going to help the mouse any. There is a difference macroscopically and biochemically. In fact a whale of a difference. Tom

I'm amazed at the heat such a discussion generates. At least there was some light. I'm not going to get into the fray, but I want to express my appreciation to Aubyn for his forbearance, patience, eloquence, and wisdom. I wish I could discuss these issues in such a manner. I'm afraid I'd just throw up my hands in despair and go off and read a good book!

The original brickbats being thrown at La Sierra University are coming from one(s) who are less well educated, or even uneducated. They are afraid of any education which encourages the student to research points of view other than his/her own. But being educated at the university level includes the ability to examine other viewpoints, and to cull from all evidence that which will form one's own position on many topics -- only one of which is the topic of Creation vs. Evolution.

If a student is not required to think for himself, after examining contrary views, he has not been well educated. An uneducated person fails to understand this.

Barry and tuningin

Excellent observations. Yet I shall close with two points. One relevant to the initial thread and the other off on a tangent.

1. I don't care what they teach at LSU. I just think that what ever they teach should be transparent to students and the parents, to the mother institution, to accreditors--it certainly is transparent to the Lord.

2. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. This word processor works on a binary code, much like the Morse Code to express those 26 letters in an infinite variety. One system uses on and off switching the other a series of dots and dashes.

Thus, the idea of similar DNA codes between species is not primarily an indication of relationship except to indicate a single source/design.

Years ago the President of the local Dodge dealer in Milwakee showed me a picture of the 1957 Dodge. I said, it looks a lot like the 1956 Dodge. He said: "Doc! There is only so many ways to bend a piece of tin!" That is why pre-med students almost always take Cat Lab--the parts and the functions are comparable to the human. Gross Anatomy in medical school is much easier having first dismembered a cat. Even to vocal cords.

The DNA sequence is a great piece of science but it doesn't tell us anything about origins or process--It has limited value in defining relationships but much better at denying relationships. That difference is mighty important in forensic science.

Tom

Unable to compete with the minds education in the sciences, nevertheless, we ordinary folk still have questions of how the same designer who made humans so complex and operational, yet still created the harmful bacteria, the mosquito carrying malaria, the creatures that seem to have no "redeeming value" other than to kill or destroy. Or, is he not the creator of all?

He is the creator of all. Bacteria make my cheese.

Whatever happened to Stephen Jay Gould and non-overlapping magisteria?!

Gould, the biologist, historian, scientist, teacher, choir member was killed by bad biology, as the result of a rare disease...the big C, created by either:

1) the devil.... but its hard to see why the devil would want to silence Gould's explanations against creationism...

or

2) God...who, according to popular belief based on past experience, especially the Bible where millions of people were snuffed by the Hebrew God by various means, including disease, had the means, the methods, and probably the motivation to silence Gould's voice. God probably appreciated Gould's voice in the church choir where he enthousiastically (meaning = full of Theos, or God!!) sang the Messiah, but may have chosen to stamp out Gould's propagandizing of ungodly concepts such as evilution ...

or

3) Darwinian explanations.... where his rare (and genetically unlucky) disease survived him.

To Elaine :

there are many open questions in Creation and in this or that Evolution nobody could solve till now. Well, Elaine, what about those microorganisms causing severe illnesses - and supllying you with Vitamins ? Vitamin D - we hear more and more about it recently - is also a poison. The class of "fungi" is living of organic material - plants, animals and mankind - recently alive and now d e a d : All is getting "soil" again (Thanks to the Wise One who gave us the fungi !) How did the fungi exist before the Fall and Death ? Were they created on the fourth or the fifth day ? And as far as I know the Neisseria gonorrhoe is strictly specific to humans, you also need human serum to cultivate it in the lab. Did Adam have Gonorrhea ?

I dont want to feed the discussion with new "arguments", I just displayed some questions one meets when - - -. As I often say : Get your doctorate on Italian Renaissance Lyrics -
Less problems, less responsibility.

The world's biology is such a complex system that mutation and evolution simply happen - and produce things that we have no apparent use for - such as measles.

Curiously, I believe this is true regardless of whether the world is 13B years or 6K years old

/Bevin

Gerhard and Bevin,

It is the Creationists who have a ready explanation for anything appearing evil: "It's the Devil, Stupid."

This posits that God: created the Devil; or allowed the Devil to do his dirty work. Which is it?

Elaine, having a body of knowledge to relay is one thing. To believe it or mark down a student who does not believe it would be wrong. But to expect one to answer the structured questions relative to the body of knowledge is expected by every teacher. Jan Paulsen just expects those questions to be answered according to the body of knowledge being "sold" at SDA schools and expecting SDA Professors to expect that "at the end of the day." That goes very well with the accreditation process, IMO. Stating what "most" schools teach, is not a problem in my book and probably not at my alma mater, as long as the SDA view is what is returned to at graduation. I had to learn how to refute the "competition". Helped me, even to this day. Now if you can tell me that MacroEvolution has been proven, I may need to write and tell the professors at Andrews who taught me Adaption which is what Darwin really saw, the rest is extrapolation .

Regurgitation of information is neither knowledge nor critical thinking. The ability to understand and explain the subject studied, is required for courses. Unless, that has changed.

If I had to pick one, I'd say the Devil killed Stephen Jay Gould. He was the best friend we creationists ever had. Not because he had any sympathy with our cause, but because he wrote so well and so prolifically. He gave us many opportunities to make creationist arguments, while citing a Darwinist Harvard Ph.D. for the underlying biological/paleontological facts or quotes.

It may be a far away day before any Creationist even approaches Gould's status as a scientist and especially as a writer.

He can be cited, but who is the Creationist who has even published in a recognized journal of significance?

"Now if you can tell me that MacroEvolution has been proven, I may need to write and tell the professors at Andrews who taught me Adaption which is what Darwin really saw, the rest is extrapolation ."

In that case, they did not serve you very well - because they did not teach you over 150 years of biology.

Darwin saw the consequences of both adaption and mutation -and we have found a lot more examples of mutation since then.

/Bevin

This comment has been removed. It is off topic and just attacking an individual. - website editor

David Read said about Gould:

"He gave us many opportunities to make creationist arguments, while citing a Darwinist Harvard Ph.D. for the underlying biological/paleontological facts or quotes."

I think you meant misquote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

which prompted Gould to say, among many other pointed comments about creationists:

"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents." [Stephen Jay Gould, The Verdict on Creationism, The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 87/88, pg. 186]

Jody,

Elaine needs to be congratulated. For the courage to follow the truth rather than church dogma (unlike many others). For the courage to ask questions and to live a life of uncertainty. It is much more comfy to live a life of assurance in a church that "owns the truth" and is alwaus right.

The church needs to be congratulated too, for allowing people like Elaine to take part in its activities.

She provides a heatly balance to the "lunatic fringe" that dominates the SDA church.

the fact that I have chosen to remain a Christian is to a large extent because of people like Elaine - not the lunatic fringe people.

Elaine, Graduate/Research studies are something different than undergraduate and K thru 12. The difference is obvious and has to be different to give the base for research learning. Reguritating the Periodic Table is necessary, if you go out on your own on that one, your research won't be taken too seriously.

Elaine

Scienitific journals of significance are all peer reviewed by scientists who are evolutionists. There is a built in bias.

Creationists have published in highly respected journals in Math, Physics, Medical Science etc. on subjects far removed from origins.

Of course Gould is correct; The Story of Creation is no science-I can't beliee anyone ever considered it science.

The problem is evolutionary science is the oxymoron. No one has ever produced a new species by mutation or adaptation.

Neither creationism nor evolution are subject to the pure scientific method. Comparative Anatomy and Physiology can demonstrate relationships but not progression.

We still have two theories in conflict. Both must be at the bottom-line a matter of faith or confidence--experimental proof does not exist. Never-the-the less, Stephen Gould was a far better writer and apologist for evolutionary theory that
Hawkins and Dawson. They are just blow hards. That does not mean that creationists don't have their hot heads also.

By and large the debate will always go to the evolutionist. Small mutations and adaptations always hold out the possibility of much large and more significant chains of such events. Tom

Tom, admitting that there are biases, does that include the biases of medical and dental journals--bias toward those professions? At least in most reputable journals (and I am aware of many problems), they are SUPPOSED to be peer-reviewed.

What peer-review do Creationist journals maintain?

> Creationists have published in highly respected journals in Math, Physics, Medical Science etc. on subjects far removed from origins.

We are talking SCIENCE

In Science, it doesn't matter who said it, it is EVIDENCE that counts. The fact that a Creationist can get an abstract painting exhibited in the Louvre adds nothing to the credibility of any science they are advocating.

/Bevin

Jag, I sincerely appreciate your remarks. A life of uncertainty is always open to new information and new discoveries, and each new day brings new knowledge and experiences when we remain open to them.

At any time the church no longer allows dissent, it will likely proceed to an inquisition--which we have seen from past history--even in the SDA church, although no auto de fe.

Any institution closed to questions, even dissent, will eventually become a closed system of the "saints," and it will be peopled with clones who never allow a new thought to cross their pure minds.

Makes one wonder if Heaven will have any of the members of churches who tell us that if we don't believe exactly as they do, we are going straight to he**. If the majority of churches teach that, Heaven will be pretty darned empty.

David Read,

Your 9/14/09 post was so pathetic-sounding, I had to chuckle! Are you serious?! The people on your side feel so threatened by “liberals” that they will grovel, begging us to “please leave one little Bible-believing creationist church” for them to enjoy (the SDA church)? Really now! (Anyway, your side’s tactics hardly look like groveling).

Instead of buying your argument that I’d be happier in another church, may I suggest that you consider whether ***you*** might be happier in another church, perhaps the LDS church? Now THERE’S a church where a “burning in the bosom” overrides other evidence. I imagine you could comfortably belong there and continue in your form of Bible-believing without threat of truth intruding. You could cling to a belief in meso-American civilizations founded by lost Israelites, despite a complete lack of archaeological support (even though your church’s “scientists” and “historians” might dispute the 99.99% of published papers that provide the evidence against it). Of course, even in that church you’d find “liberals” who’d argue that the absence of evidence suggests the church should revise its teachings. But since that church places the authority of its prophet above that of the Bible (i.e., modern prophetic writings are necessary for the Bible to be correctly interpreted), you’d find more support for the view that the revisionists should be ignored or removed from denominational employment. In short, the climate would be one of using prophetic writings to discount scientific evidence and alternative interpretations of the Bible than those proclaimed by the denomination’s founders. Isn’t that more congruent with your approach to scriptural interpretation?

By contrast, the SDA church has emphasized the pursuit of Truth as ultimately important. Those of us you want to leave are attracted to that ideal, so we stay, even when you and others insist the church should not and cannot follow truth (including scientific and historical truth) wherever it leads but must cling to the pillars of the past. Some of us think that the ***spirit*** of the pioneers should enable us to move beyond the out-dated ***content*** of what they believed in some areas (Shut Door, for example, being an example you wouldn’t contest; YEC being one you would). It may be you, not us, that should consider leaving. Or do you think the SDA church should adopt the hermeneutic and culture of the LDS church? (Isn’t that pretty close to the EducateTruth/SDA Fundamentalist viewpoint?).

Honestly, though, what I REALLY think is that there should be room for both without either side calling for the dismissal of teachers, pastors, members, etc. on the basis of honest disagreements of interpretation. That may be unrealistic though, as the evidence of so many thousands of denominations within Christianity evidences. I do respect your coming on here to state your views persistently. What I sense is that like so many other fundamentalists, you only see black and white. For example, EGW was either literally correct on everything or she’s a fraud. That isn’t the real world I live in. For that reason, even though I disagree with you, I can’t write you off as a fellow traveler even if you think I should get off the train myself. You have value, even if you are wrong on some things (in my view).

BTW, I wonder how the people on EducateTruth who’ve been castigating the LSU professor for allegedly saying “bulls**t” would feel to read one of their champions saying “cr*p” here? Or is it only SDAs who are church employees that have to stay within the bounds?

RT, if I were going to join another church, it wouldn't be the mormons, it would be Islam. On the multiple wives issue, it's a wash, and I'm pretty sure the Muslims won't ask me to go door-to-door in a shortsleeve white shirt and dark tie passing out Qur'ans. Also, the Muslims are the ultra-fundamentalists; they believe the entire Qur'an is the "uncreated" word of Allah, word for word. Even fundamentalist Christians don't make that claim, except maybe for the Ten Commandments.

My understanding of BYU is that it is actually pretty liberal; from a conservative point of view, Mormonism made a mistake by putting all of its educational eggs in one basket. While I may bemoan the fact that LaSierra and PUC are full of Darwinists, I can be consoled by the fact that my reliably creationist friends are on staff at Southwestern and Southern.

Another thing I like about Islam is their cultural confidence. They believe what they believe, and they do not have any doubt that what they believe is superior to what we believe. They intend to crush us and they are not ashamed of that, although they will lie about it for tactical purposes (taqiyya, kitman). By contrast, Western elites in government, media, academia, and even business and religion are shot through with a cultural self-loathing that is incomprehensible to me. (They claim to love America but they despise Christianity and capitalism, America's two most prominent characteristics; that's like telling your blonde, petite wife that you love her, you just wish she was a large black man --see how loved she feels after you tell her that!)

You profess to admire the spirit of the Adventist pioneers and their pursuit of truth above all. I admire them, too, and one of the things I admire about them is that they left their old denominations and started a new one. Ellen White didn't say, "we have new light, and I am going to remain in the Methodist Church until it accepts my new light." James White didn't say, "I have new ways of understanding the Bible that will benefit the Christian Connexion, so I'm going to stay there and help bring those people along." No, they went out and started their own church with its own doctrines and practices.

You can do the same. If there are things about Adventism you like, keep 'em. You can keep health reform, the state of the dead, whatever you want and like about Adventism, and add Darwinism to the stew. You can have it your way, just like at Burger King.

Just to be clear, on a point of history, it is my understanding that Ellen and her family were kicked out of their Methodist Church.

Becci, I think you're right about that. Those were the days. Back when people could be kicked out of their denomination for obnoxiously insisting on something the majority had no interest in, and in fact viewed as very negative. Nowadays, we're much too enlightened and inclusive for that.

This here is non-sense! Some please hand those two a tissue for there issues. Because we go to school to learn; learn of people’s theories, imagination and thoughts. If someone has fear of losing their religion, from hear new knowledge. Then they are simply not ready for college, nor ready to face the life in which they live in. We all need to understand this world doesn’t fall as planned to everyone, it’s not a utopia. There will always be different believes, values, and emotions in this world. I strongly believe LSU is not young, but mature. To hear of what life has for us!

Because of that’s the case, let’s not have pharmacy because it the study of DRUGS!

http://www.trueorigin.org/

just imagine the conversation between God and those infidel LSU profs as He prepares the nukes to BBQ them after the sun has done its millenium of circuits around the earth at the end of daze..

to set the scene...God has raised them up from the dead, and now intends to show them where they went wrong, why they they shudda believed the "truth" from His Book of Words instead of allowing themselves to be deceived by human interpretations of His Book of Life, His Book of Nature, and His Book of rocks...

and now they must stop wimpering, and pay the consequences of their willing deception....

http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=7&post=6985#POST698...

who are we to think that God's universe must be limited to the first 12 chapters of the Bible? If God is not speaking to us from the heavens "poured forth like speech" then we are not listening. The more I peer into the vast reaches of time and learn how this incredible world came to be the more I am awed by God's majesty.

How is the Christian message of salvation through God's unyielding grace going to matter to a secular mind?
Austalopithecus was not only able to speak, but was potentially capable of faith. Yes, studying the origins of homo sapien has hinted that yearning for the divine is a biological imperative; something that even the most latent materialists accept as possible. The sad thing is that conservative Adventists and other Christians remove themselves from the conversation. So who will speak for God's evidence left behind in the fossil record? The six day creationists have no credibility and in my mind actually "deny" God's creation by denying its processes.

The fact that this is even a discussion reveals the patent dishonesty and corruption of our administrators and theolgians. Remember all the reassurances that the "Fundamental Beliefs" would NOT be a CREED?

Note the preamble: "Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed. . . "

If the "Fundamental Beliefs" are used to determine employment and membership, then they are in fact a creed and Adventism has lost it's most important foundation, to follow truth wherever it leads.

Educate Truth is a fun little blog for students and professionals over 50 (as those are their main demographics) who like to contemplate the possibility of what it would be like to have a christian college teach creation as the best explanation.

They have garnered over 6,000 signatures and a lot of bloggers but haven't accomplished anything substantial in the last 6/7 months or so. Faculty and Staff in the SDA church organization frequently get in trouble for lesser known reasons and frequently get transferred around to positions that do not conflict with the reason or reasons they were transferred in the first place. But nobody really hears why or what for. At Educate Truth, they have just the opposite, no action and alot of talk.

The manner in which the forum is operated is highly guarded and watched by its admin Shane Hilde and entire article comments have been known to shut down if its bloggers disagree with his views too much. It is a view based rather than an action based forum with careful attention to not upset or cause a stir. Perhaps something of a roundtable PBS discussion with carefully guarded quiet intellectual wording and peaceable, non-confrontational discussions that do become extremely repetitious.

Just a few days ago their so call "enemy", the LSU Board, asked Shane to cancel their prayer vigil on the LSU campus and they cancelled it without so much as a bark or bite. And LSU got their way, setting up these fictitious committees to pacify Educate Truth.

Ugghhhhhhhh, can we all throw up now? What is this snore fest of a social club ever going to do with themselves? Anything worth talking about?

Someone needs to setup another website run by a real professional / attorney or the like who will get the job done. Educate Truth's bloggers are desperately screaming for action!

Educate Truth did nothing but bring to our attention the fact that evolution was being taught as the only reasonable explaination. This goes against our beliefs and can not be allowed to continue. If ever there was a time to stand up and be counted it is now. For years Biology teachers in many of our schools have walked the fine line, but now they are not even trying to hide their distain for Creationism. Should these teachers be fired? Not only should they be fired, but they should never work in any of our schools again. They are in the most powerful positon possible and are making full use of our well meaning but weak leadership to distroy our young members. The bottom line is that if you distroy Creation as the Bible tells it, you take away the very foundation of Christianity. If the Bible isn't true then what do you have left. The answer is ultimitely nothing. I've seen many of my classmates leave the church based on these false "facts of evolution". There is no way you can believe in Ellen White and believe in evolution. She is clear on this matter. Even with her aside, the Bible stories are now fables and any reason to continue as a SDA member is gone.
This doesn't have to be. There is plenty of evidence to "Scientifically" support Creation and the Bible(go to our geoscience website -grisda.org or non sda icr.org) This is what needs to (and is not being) be taught in our colleges. We need to show our youth that our church supports the beliefs that it holds as truth.

If the Bible isn't true then what do you have left.

Reality.

LSU's request to close all topic commenting on Educate Truth seems to still be enforce.

The control they seem to have over Shane seems to be continuing as the sites discussion has rapidly dropped in numbers as well as its place in Google, including the perception that Educate Truth was a strong force against the university.

The dig that LSU was desperate enough to cancel a prayer vigil was cunning and clever on the part of Educate Truth's supporters, however Shane bowed and blew the whole opportunity at a crucial moment in time. It's losing substantial ground and may not ever be able to recover without a strong resurgence of public opinion, which will never happen because open topic commenting continues to be closed.

very sad.

Doug,

Your preaching to the choir. We all know evolution is bunk and doesn't belong in our schools. But repeating the same information over and over again like you just did doesn't change anything. Its just a continuation of the roundtable PBS discussion that we already know and are well aware of.

Are you not convinced that Adventists don't want this evolution influence? 6,000+ signatures. Come on! Move your discussion to action of what you're going to do, what others should do to change it.

Whether its 6 people or 6,000 people, saying the same thing over and over is not going to change anything until some action is implemented. Discussion is not action.

You and everyone else, take the palm of your hand and hit the side of your head five times...

Did it sink in? Discussion of evolution vs. Creationism and what is right and wrong is NOT action and it doesn't change anything. Discussion OF action perhaps IS and is a good first step. Comprende?

What ideas and contributions can you, the reader, give toward action and change today?

I agree. What are we waiting for? LSU to hand their professors over on a golden platter? That's never going to happen.

Educate Truth is all bark and no bite it would seem.

Educate Truth is a big billboard for the LSU biology department. If you haven't noticed, the site "bows" to LSU but not to its supporters. Get a clue. I discontinued my newsletter subscription and I'm writing letters directly to the Southern Pacific Union conference leaders and the North American conference leaders. I suggest we all do the same and throw any and all chaos at the church to get them to wake up. One way or another our voices will be heard!

Jessica,

It might be noted that the voices of the several thousand who signed the petition were heard, actually. The petition was delivered to the LSU president and the Board of Trustees. The president of the Pacific Union Conference has commented as has the president of the World Church, Jan Paulsen.

Assuming you were one of the petition's signers, your voice has been heard.

Given that, throwing "any and all chaos at the church" might result in more annoyance than action.

Jessica,

I'm all for change at LSU, but no need to "throw any and all chaos at the church..."

Jared is right. The Board has been made aware of the problem, and of a sorts apologized for letting it happen. This language is not explicit, and rests more on conversations I've had with board members.

Some board members have even taken the time to attend the classes in question. Not surprisingly, the allegations of how evolution was being presented ended up being confirmed.

I do ecourage you and all parties concerned to continue to write to their leadership. I wouldn't doubt that many personal letters have a greater impact than a website.

Be assured that things have been set in motion, and I've been told by board members that these releases were by no means the end of this issue and that they will continue to address this issue. I've also been told that Wisbey is 100% on board with the Trustees. I have my reasons to question that, but it's good to hear none the less. Granted it might not be accomplished this year, but things are motion.

We must continue to show support for our leadership and our church. Encourage them also! Elder Graham wasn't even aware of this issue till this year. A lot of people didn't know, but now they do and things are happening. So take courage!

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Sounds like your patting yourselves on the back for shuffling a bunch of paperwork. While young impressionable minds get stoked over having some conversations with some folks with titles, it only allows the enemy to walk away with a smile on his face. Flattery is only a distraction.

The more you stand up to LSU, the more strength EducateTruth will have. Your followers don't want to see you crossing your T's and dotting your i's especially because LSU asked you to. Because of your stance on the truth and because of LSU's stance on the truth, this makes EducateTruth the boss over LSU. The more you take on that role, throwing off the notion that your subservient to them, the more people will truly believe in EducateTruth and that you yourself truly believe in your own mission.

If EducateTruth really believes in its mission, than it will not back down at any moment even for a second. If when Jesus comes again and the Ku Klux Klan says, "Oh but you didn't send us the proper documentation telling us you were coming", and Jesus says, "ooops, your right let me do this again" and backs up a few light years from the planet, faxes the KKK their documentation and gives it another running shot... Do you think His followers would tell themselves, "What an idiot" and turn atheistic? Most likely.

The stronger EducateTruth is, the stronger its following will be and the more ability it will have for change. If what your doing is of God, you don't need anybody's permission to do anything in accomplishing it.

When a spark of an idea, passion, or energy comes into the blog, encourage it, direct it, embolden it, do not hush it up or make excuses.

Martin Luther had the devil after him and he wasn't asking anyone of authority for their permission, and they certainly weren't giving it to him.

Pay attention to the voices of the people. Without them, you have nothing.

The stronger EducateTruth acts, the stronger it will be. Place no limits on yourself.

;)

Wow, Shane, that's great! Some board members attended the classes in question? Cool. Write a story on that.

So what's happening or what's the goal now?

Joe,

Educate Truth's goal will continue to be raising awareness about the promotion of evolution over the church's position on a recent, literal six-day creation.

As to what the specific actions from the board will be, I haven't been made entirely privy to, but the general sense that I get from talking to them is that they see what's going on, disapprove, and will be taking further action to address this issue.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Shane...do you want biology teachers to teach that all life was created in Oct of 4004 BC?

or can you at least allow for maybe more than 9,000 yrs ago, to line up with bristlecone tree ring chronology?
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

or maybe 10,000 yrs ago to better line up with the archeology of jericho? which the past prez of LSU knows well because along with others, he dug there.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html

or maybe more than 12,000 yrs ago to allow for Niagara Falls to erode its way up river...3 ft per yr, for 7 miles (5280 x 12 / 3 = 12,000+ yrs)
http://www.niagarafrontier.com/origins.html

or should biologists teach what these other Christians believe here:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

that there is a lake in japan which proves 40,000 yrs of alternating seasons...including pollen and mud washing into a lake, creating varves, layers,
proving that life existed (in pollen form) over 40kyo, and by the way, helping calibrate/validate radio carbon dating methods.

or should we allow students to explore the possibility that maybe more than a coupla hundred MILLION yrs ago, God's creation allowed for the formation of limestone (made out of previously LIVING marine animals, which died, and formed a limey ooze at the bottom of a shallow sea which got compresssed under more layers, and cemented into stone, then later raised up above sea level ) which the Falls at Niagara cut their way thru making the 7 mile long Niagara gorge from the runoff from melting glaciers long before Al Gore started worrying.

which one of the creation stories should we teach?
http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_two_creation_stories_of...

quote:...The two creation stories of Genesis parallel two Ancient Near Eastern texts. There are differences between Genesis 1 and 2 that

...CANNOT BE RECONCILED...

It appears these stories were written during different periods of time, under different circumstances. This evidence suggests that the two Genesis creation accounts are rooted in history, not science." END QUOTE

or should we further confuse our kids with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis

where we find that according to one story, plants were created before man, but the other claims that man was created, then trees were created in the garden for him!!!

if you want teachers to "educate the truth"....shouldn't we first find out what the truth is?

or is SDAism supposed to be a closed system, which already has all the answers....and that is all we should tell our kids?

...should we put up a high, impenetrable fence around our closed system to keep our kids in? but which effectively will keep others OUT...(at least many educated, intelligent, true seekers of truth)

how much of what everyone else seems to know should we reject? and refuse to consider?

doesn't restricting the size of the tent make the gathering smaller and smaller and closer to an inbred cult?

is that your goal?

5280 x 12 / 3 = 12,000+ yrs previous post should have read:
5280 ft per mile x 7 miles divided by 3 ft per yr = 12,300 yrs age.

and thats just for the length of the gorge!!!

now YEC's have to explain where the alternating layers of limestone and shale came from in the earth's surface which the falls cut their way thru.

and wouldn't it be nice if they could rationally explain all the salt under Saltzburg...or Lake Erie!!!
where the deepest scuba diving in the world takes place!!!
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lpt/erie.htm

raising our kids to believe answers pulled from a hermetically sealed mayonaise jar on Funk and Wagnels front porch like Carnac the Magnificent (RIP)
http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/pop/video/carnac_airtraffic/start.jsp
is probably not what education is all about.

and striking (out at) airline controllers or teachers may not be the best way to reach ones goals.

Hey John

when it comes time to go to work each week and get your pay check its amazing how obedient you are to the weekly cycle THEN. Or do you to tell your boss, "but Sunday took 1 million years to evolve. That's why I didn't show up on Monday. But go ahead and send me my checks. See you in a million years"...

:)

where do you think the weekly cycle came from...

where do you think Sabbath came from and why Christians worship each week?

;)

i'll let you in on a little not so secret (ahem, you would know it if you read your Bible).

Lucifer, you know the most powerful supernatural being on this planet we reside with. He and his angels are living with us on this rock in space studying us and fooling many. You watch TV and movies, so you should know all about supernatural demons and stuff and end time scenarios. Anyways he's on this planet with you and me and so are the fallen angels. Well he wants ALL OF US to go with him to eternal destruction because that's where he's going. So he's got these elaborate plans to fool as many as possible.

1) False Church (Are you in it? I sure wouldn't want Lucifer to show up one day as "god" and thank me for all the hard work I've done in gathering the world to worship him. ooooops maybe these things called words in the Bible really do matter. Does your church read it? All of it?)

2) Atheism (Are you one? Atheism and Evolutionists are one in the same. The best lies are the ones no one can prove, which is always the case among the ignorant and uneducated. If you were a scientist you would know the growing evidence that they are finding that prove God and creation, such as large human bones the size of a 15 foot man, such as all these layers requiring sudden calamity like a world wide flood. Or how bout the ultimate proof that God and evolution are not 1 in the same, by Jesus Christ dying on the cross. If evolution was his model choice for creating things, why did He end up dieing? Was he not fit to be the fittest? And how did this unfit creature raise Himself from the dead? Some sort of unseen powerful energy that suddenly came out of nowhere. Oh yeah... like creation.

Scientists are saying the complex structure of the cell as we know it could only come about by intelligent design. Really you think? ;) I think we all already knew that.

..."where do you think the weekly cycle came from?"...

a suggestion was made here...that astrology had much to do with it.

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2010/01/08/time_and_myth

..."The best lies are the ones no one can prove, which is always the case among the ignorant and uneducated"...

how bout this story:
...the Hebrews claimed that their God told them take the "promised land", and to kill all the inhabitants ...including the men, little boys, and any women who had had sex...but to SAVE the virgins..presumably to use!!!

so here's the problem:

either that is true, or not. hard to prove such a claim after so many years, and even then, there would not have been direct evidence of such a claim..only people claiming that God had told them.

if true, that God told the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants, then God could be described as a Saddaam-like butcher, a terrible ogre, and He did not understand the nature of conception, because "using" foreign virgins to raise more kids for soldiers for the Israelite army would dilute the genetic uniqueness of His alleged favorite tribe....

if NOT true...because our God is a Loving God, and He would never do that, then the Hebrews lied to us....because they WANTED to take back the land their ancestors had left 400 or so years earlier due to a drought which neither they, nor their God were able to overcome forcing them to leave for Egypt.

but how do we "prove" that the Hebrews made up the story to justify all the killing and the retaking of the land they claimed their God had given to them....????

unfortunately there are not many choices here:

either God was complicit in all the killing, if the story is true that He commanded it and actually at times helped with the massacres,

or

the writers of the story took self-aggrandizing editorial liberties to claim, like the Nazis, that God was with them ("Gott mit uns") and they, and only they were the butchers of their neighbors....in their efforts to forcibly conquer the Promised Land.

last question:
what CAN be proved?

it seems that archeology does not even support the conquest of Canaan, much less the "40" yrs lost in the Sinai.
try reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/produc...

leaving us with the possibility that the story told by the ancient Hebrews MAY not be all the truth, and nothing but the truth....if they took liberties with the claimed appeal to a higher authority..."God made me do it", then maybe God is not the terrible ogre which they presented.

dont' you like that idea? that our loving God may not actually have been literally responsible for all the killing and violence in the Old Test? that would also help explain why there is almost no evidence for a world wide flood....
meaning that maybe God has more patience than to just try to kill everybody because He became sorry He had made people as the Hebrew story says.

I'd like to believe in a "loving God", my "heavenly father", somewhere up there in the sky, looking over me, protecting me from Islamic terrorists and car crashes and swine flu, but that borders on impossible to rationalize if we insist that the Old Test is literally true...

The seven-day week is not invariant or really ancient. The oldest evidence appears to the Jews in Babylon during the captivity there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

The biggest obvious issue is the lack of a seven day week in either ancient Egypt or ancient China

Isn't it strange that an SDA, where the 'sabbath' is a critical issue, would be ignorant of the evidence for the origins of the week - tells you something about whether the SDA really value education

/Bevin

These postings from the link provided by Bevin above:

"The cycle of seven days, named after the sun, the moon, and the five planets visible to the naked eye, was already customary in the time of Justin Martyr, who wrote of the Christians meeting on the Day of the Sun (Sunday).[3]

Emperor Constantine eventually established the 7-day week in the Roman calendar and in 321 CE.[4]"

There are many nations or cultures that had varying lengths for a week and the Jewish 7-day week is by far, not the earliest. They adopted the 7-day week during the Babylonian Exile when the Creation account and most of the Torah was written.

To assert that the 7-day week is the earliest known account of a week is an assertion that cannot stand up to scrutiny.

John said:

"Shane...do you want biology teachers to teach that all life was created in Oct of 4004 BC?"

That's very specific, but irrelevant to biology. We live in a free country in which we can teach whatever we want. The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in a recent, six-day creation. They decided to build educational institutions to pass on their worldview.

So, until the official position of the church changes it is unethical for an employee to undermine the official position in the classroom. It is not the intention, at this time, of Adventist education to officially promote the theory evolution.

Creation, evolution, seven day week, these are all irrelevant to this issue. The issue is simply church employees misrepresenting the official position of their employer. As I see it, they need to quit what they're doing and begin doing what they are being paid to do, or find a place of employment that is supportive of their worldview.

So far though they (LSU admin and some biology professors) have effectively thumbed their noses at the church's position and blatantly defied the boards decision in November 2009. There might still be time for them to change their minds, but I have my doubts. Sorry, you just can't tell your employer their wrong and you're going to do it your way without any consequences. Real world people! Absolute academic freedom is an idealistic myth that has never existed.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

I'm not an SDA, I'm a former Baptist/non-denomonational and the Saddleback church I attend believes in the entire Bible and in creation as do many christians around the world. With nearly 5 billion Christians in the world, it's no oddity to believe in Jesus Christ.

Is there some sort of cross-denomonational communication taking place in strengthening our common beliefs in the Bible? If not there should be. I certainly don't want it to be the pope or the papacy, that's for sure.

If indeed the catholic church is correct in saying that the SDA's are the best church for understanding the Bible, we would all appreciate some leadership from the SDA church in reaching out to its fellow brothers and sisters in various denominations in helping us all to unite in spreading the word of God. thank you.

So far the LSU and other SDA universities are continuing to do (a) what they have done for at least 30 years, and (b) what the people who pay the fees to send their children there want them to do - teach evolution as a scientific theory.

They are not "thumbing their noses" at anyone. They are not even ignoring Shane et. al. Instead they are giving them all the respect they deserve.

/Bevin

Bevin,

The governing body of the university has publicly declared their affirmation of a recent, literal six-day creation; however, some LSU biology professors continue to promote the theory of evolution to the exclusion of presenting the creationist worldview.

If LSU was really doing what it is paid to do, the church wouldn't care a hoot about what is going on. The fact that what LSU is doing became an issue once made public demonstrates that the church as a whole disagrees with what they are doing. Keep in mind the issue is not that they are teaching the theory of evolution, but that they are promoting it over the church's position. In fact, is there even one class that presents the creationist worldview? I haven't heard of one, and I certainly haven't seen one in the bulletin.

And I certainly don't feel ignored. I am extremely happy that the board is now aware of this issue, and I have every reason to believe that they will address this issue and seek to rectify it.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Shane,

there is a HUGE difference between

(1) the Board members affirming that they personally believe YEC
- The politically savvy and scientifically illiterate members of the Board will have no trouble doing this

(2) the biology/geology professors being asked to publically state that they believe YEC
- If this happens,
(a) the credibility of the university will be badly damaged, and
(b) the quality of the education will be badly damaged because they won't be able to get the professors that they need

(3) the biology/geology professors being asked to teach YEC in their classrooms
- This would require reputable scientific material supporting YEC. There is no such material available. I know you think there is, I know a bunch of fanatics think there is, but (sorry) there isn't

(4) the biology/geology professors being asked to not teach evolution in their classrooms
- VERY few SDA want this, because they know that understanding this theory, whether you believe it or not, is key to understanding modern geology and biology

/Bevin

ps: Presenting the best possible case for both evolution and YEC will inevitably be perceived as "promoting evolution" because the case for it is extremely strong, and the case for YEC is extremely weak

"I am extremely happy that the board is now aware of this issue, and I have every reason to believe that they will address this issue and seek to rectify it."

And what would you suggest should rectify that situation? Who is to be the governing board of the university if not the elected board members? That is the one that handles such questions, so if you are not a board member but only a (dis)interested parent or constituent, what is your proposition?

Any suggestion made must be with the important consideration of academic credentials as demanded by WASC. If these can be met, then so be it. However, if the science faculty can not support recommended changes of teaching religion (YEC IS a religious faith statement, not scientific) be prepared for the students preparing for such graduate schools to no longer attend. How will this affect the furthering of La Sierra?

Bevin,

That's my point. There is a huge difference between what the governing body of LSU says the school should be supporting and what some LSU biology professors are supporting.

Also, this isn't necessarily about getting the professors to make a public declaration of their scientific worldview. While it would be helpful toward transparency for potential students and their parents, it's somewhat irrelevant to the issue.

As to your points 2a and 2b, you couldn't be more wrong. Southwestern Adventist University and Southern Adventist University don't have credibility issues the quality of their education is at the very least equal to that of LSU's.

Point 3 is irrelevant because it's not the issue. Educate Truth certainly isn't asking that the theory of evolution cease from being taught.

You said: "Presenting the best possible case for both evolution and YEC will inevitably be perceived as "promoting evolution" because the case for it is extremely strong, and the case for YEC is extremely weak."

Of course that's your opinion, the official position of the church is based on what they think is substantial evidence for a recent creation.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Elaine,

Well, as I already stated in my last comment I think the situation could be rectified one of two ways: the professors quit what they're doing and begin doing what they are being paid to do, or find a place of employment that is supportive of their worldview.

WASC has nothing to do with this issue. I have personally spoken to the NAD VP of Education on this issue and he assures me that accreditation has nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution is taught or even promoted.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

So,

you don't want the professors to be required to be YEC. You don't want them to stop presenting the incredibly strong evidence for evolution.

All you want them to do is present an equally strong version of YEC?

There is two ways that they can do this.

(1) Lie - precluded by "Thou shalt not bear a false witness against thy neighbor".

(2) Have some strong evidence BUT THERE ISN'T ANY!

In short, you are asking for the school to either stop teaching the subject, or get people incompetent to teach it as their teachers.

>>> Of course that's your opinion, the official position of the church is based on what they think is substantial evidence for a recent creation.

No, the position stated by the administrative officials of the SDA Church has nothing to do with their understanding of the science - it is everything to do with their understanding of the majority of their members, who believe in YEC regardless of the science.

The result of the Faith and Science conferences was the discovery by the Administration that the science was missing. They are now in search of this science - taking years and millions of dollars to find and write up the material - thereby buying some time before having to admit THERE ISN'T ANY!

/Bevin

What science textbooks are recommended for teaching YEC?

If both evolution and ID or YEC are taught, the overwhelming evidence would point to evolution. In that case, both concepts would be taught and students could accept the one that makes the most sense. Let the chips fall where they may.

How is it suggested that geology be taught? By ignoring all the radiocative carbon dating? All the fossils found in ancient rocks?
Believe what you're told and not your lying eyes?

Bevin,

I don't think equal presentation is possible, and thus I think the bias should be in favor of a recent creation, which is the church's official position.

Under the surface of all this creation vs. evolution talk is the real issue: some LSU biology professors are not supporting the Seventh-day Adventist position on a recent, six-day creation. And at the moment evolution isn't even up as a viable alternative. It's moot issue for now.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Why is it not acknowledged that the entire foment surrounding YEC is foremost because of the SDA position on sabbath: the Gen. 1 story has to be adopted or the entire sabbath belief falls flat on its face.

When sabbath is no longer the entire reason for Adventist beliefs, all the discussion of an imperative week as recorded by ancient writers and instructions ONLY to the Israelites, will there be a final reckoning that the NT church was, and has never been instructed to obey the feast and special days given solely to the Jewish people.

Elaine,

I would direct your question to the two known Adventist universities that are teaching science from a creationist worldview. My understanding from one scientist from GRI is that there are already good curriculums out there, and he thought that LSU's resolution to create a curriculum was a waist of time. I think he has a point.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

>>> I don't think equal presentation is possible, and thus I think the bias should be in favor of a recent creation, which is the church's official position.

How do you suggest they do this? By not presenting much of the evidence that points to evolution, or by inventing the "evidence" that points to YEC?

>>> My understanding from one scientist from GRI is that there are already good curriculums out there

The GRI specializes in ignoring most of the evidence that points to evolution, and focussing on "possible problems".

Since there is a long list of possible problems, they simply drop each one as it gets resolved and pick up the next one.

They spend as much time as possible on each problem, hoping against hope, betting against history, that THIS ONE (unlike the previous thousand) will be THE ONE that survives the scrutiny.

They can keep up this game for a very long time... and simply ignore the 5000lb gorilla in the room - the fact that there is no science that points to YEC, just unresolved interesting details in the theory of evolution.

/Bevin

Bevin,

Like I keep repeating over and over, the issues surrounding the validity of creation or evolution are irrelevant to this issue.

What does count is what the church is wanting to teach and whether or not those they hire are teaching it. The fact is that some LSU professors aren't doing what their employer wants, plain and simple.

This is not a hard concept to understand, but one an extreme minority of Adventists have a tough time swallowing.

Argue evolution all you want, but whether or not evolution is a viable theory for the church isn't the issue.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

>>> The fact is that some LSU professors aren't doing what their employer wants, plain and simple

If you really believed this, then you wouldn't be needing to raise the rumpus that you are raising. An employee who is nett effort is going against their boss's wishes won't stay employed for long. They won't have to resign because of some 'stealing from their employer' argument. They will be fired.

I suggest you let their employer decide what their employees should and should not teach - it is perfectly possible for the employer's position to be "we believe in YEC, but we want our science teachers to teach science"

>>> whether or not evolution is a viable theory for the church isn't the issue

...unless their employer wants them to teach a viable theory

/Bevin

I agree with Bevin. If the university was unsatisfied or unhappy with their present science faculty, they would not be rehired. It's that simple.

All the tea in China and all the time wasted attempting to do what is not in anyone's power outside the university is flailing at windmills: it gets attention from some, but is a non-issue with most. So far, what has the university decided? If they are content, then let it be--unless those who continue to waste time there should be more important activities (or maybe there aren't?)

Elaine has a valid point: the problem with LaSierra isn't just the biology faculty. It is also the President, Randal Wisbey, and especially his predecessor Lawrence Geraty, who undertook a conscious policy of liberalization and Darwinization. There obviously has also been a problem with extremely lax oversight (if not intentional subversion of traditional Adventism) by the board, probably including Pacific Union president Ricardo Graham and some of his predecessors.

I cannot conceive that the biology department could have gotten in the condition it is without encouragement from the administration and at least very lax oversight, if not tacit consent, from the board. If any of these persons/bodies had had anything short of an extremely liberal approach to Seventh-day Adventism, the Darwinist biology professors either would not have been hired or would have been fired.

Truth doesn't matter. We should only teach what the church says is true.

Did I capture that right?

Its not as simple as not rehiring according to institutional positions.
Tenure is involved. As the liberals decry Pastors who they say are muzzled into not speaking out on the party line, why is it not the same when Professors say the support the party line until they get tenure and then they go off the reservation?

I was just googling SDAs being fired and found this site:

http://www.bible.ca/7-white-inpsired-100-pastors-fired.htm

Ellen White was a member of the Baptist Church when both SDAs and Baptists were formed in the late 1800s. SDA's stand up for truth wherever it resides. SDAs and Baptists should merge.

These teachers preaching evolution at LSU are going to get fired. It'll happen and it may very well serve as a precedence for things to come. Keep shaking it up. The demons are screaming in fear.

The fact that these individuals who identify themselves as atheists happen to be shaking and flailing about is no coincidence either.

Any thoughts on officially handing the plate over to LSU's superiors, you know the ones who said these teachers should resign? That is if the SDAs are not satisfied with the results of LSUs next actions in February or March or whenever that is.

Move over Ellen, we have a new prophet:

"These teachers preaching evolution at LSU are going to get fired."

When does that prediction occur? If it doesn't will that be evidence that it is no prophetic? Even prescient?

I don't know, why don't you tell us new prophet Elaine.

Sara,

Had you been a careful reader you would known who made that predicition; it was Joe, above, not me who made that statement. Ask him.

Enjoying your hot seat Elaine?

People ask me how I can support an individual such as Shane Hilde when he ran a porn site, recording detestable things from his dorm room at La Sierra University. The conversations about this have been running in the background for quite some months now and I'm tired of rationalizing it.

How can someone attack students for following the current curriculum, when he was off promoting his porn site and describing people as objects while he was a student at La Sierra?

There you guys can hash it out publicly now and leave me out of it. I'm putting this whole educate truth thing on hold. I've got better things to do with my time.

Joe wrote this prediction:

"These teachers preaching evolution at LSU are going to get fired. It'll happen and it may very well serve as a precedence for things to come. Keep shaking it up. The demons are screaming in fear."

It's the demons on the hot seat, according to Joe. As for me, If that's the hottest seat I've had, there's nothing to worry about. Maybe it's fun! Better than getting the cold shoulder or hot tongue.

LOL...

I don't know anything about educate truth personally or any individuals hiding behind the website but it sounds typical of individuals who have something to prove.

The whole angst or urgency of the topic of evolution "taking over" seems a little farfetched, outdated and behind the times myself. For those currently attending popular Christian churches such as Saddleback, you know that most Christians when you study the Bible together or talk to them face to face do not believe in evolution. You cannot have a group of people who are actively attending church and carrying their Bible into church every week also believing in the book of Darwin. That's just not reality, pure and simple. It never has been, and it never will be.

For those who have left the church, any church, yes they characteristically like to hold onto arguments such as educate truth is in beating everybody who passes by over the head with. But for those of us who are Christians, we know its just silly.

Perhaps everyone's time would be better spent in sharing the good news of Jesus soon return with your fellow neighbors rather than wasting precious time beating an already dead horse to death...

If SDA's truly believe in the Bible, than they should simply fire the professors and be done with it. They don't need the excuse of an angry mob, however small it may be, to do what they have known all along. They will either do it or not do it based on their own principles, not because of anything else. And I think we have an idea of what the SDA leaders are willing to stand up for thus far, not much.