John McLarty doesn't seem to grasp the main issue here.  He argues that the "great enemy" of traditional Adventism is "Geochronology, the science of dating rocks and fossils... Geochronology, not evolution undermines our traditional apologetic in defense of the seventh-day Sabbath."

This is a very strange argument since without mainstream interpretations of the fossil record and the geologic column having been produced over the course of hundreds of millions, even billions of years, even mainstream scientists would admit that Darwinian-style evolution is untenable.  The modern theory of evolution is therefore built upon and tied up with long-age interpretations of life on Earth - without which, it wouldn't exist.

Also, Mclarty's complaint the Asscherick "lumps theistic evolution together with naturalistic evolution" is rather misguided since the difference is not "crucial" in the context of Asscherick's main point.  Asscherick is arguing that any form of long-age notion ideas for the origin of life on this planet is directly contrary to the stated fundamental SDA position on origins.  It doesn't matter if you believe that God directed this evolutionary process or mechanism or not.   You're still in fundamental disagreement with the organization of the SDA Church if you are a theistic evolutionist or a purely naturalistic evolutionist.

Of course, McLarty argues that, "The whole people of God include students and professionals in the sciences [to include theistic evolutionists]. They may be a minority in the church, but they are every bit as much members of the family as evangelists and revivalists."  And, I would agree.  Everyone is a child of God and deserves respect just for that reason alone.  We are all, in this sense, part of the great family of God.  However, this doesn't mean that all members of a family are equally qualified to be part of all subgroups within the family of God. 

I like to use marriage as an example here.  Marriage is an exclusive relationship within the overall family of God.  Not everyone qualifies as my wife - just ask her!   The same thing is true of a hospital.  Not everyone qualifies as a heart surgeon - not even my dearly beloved mother.  Just because I dearly love her doesn't  mean I want her doing heart surgery on me or anyone else.  And, the same thing is true in a Church organization. 

All are welcome to come and worship with the SDA Church regardless of their personal beliefs or qualifications or background.  We want everyone who wants to come to come.  In this sense, the SDA Church opens up a very big tent.  However, not everyone who comes is qualified to officially represent the SDA Church as paid representatives - i.e., pastors or teachers.  Without some governance of what paid representatives do or say, there is no organization.  I think anyone who approaches this question with a candid mind would agree.   All viable organizations require a certain degree of control over paid representatives. 

Are such controls restrictive of personal liberty?  In a sense they are.  However, I really don't see the problem here since these restrictions are freely engaged - just like the restrictions of married life.  A married person does not have the same liberties as a single person.  However, these liberties were freely given up in order to obtain the advantages of a more restricted life in the marriage relationship - restrictions that produce a new form of liberty which would not be possible without the restrictions.  Exactly the same thing is true of paid representation.  No one is forcing anyone to be a SDA teacher or preacher.  The restrictions should be considered ahead of time before they are undertaken.  And, even afterward, they can be freely released at any time.  A pastor or teacher who finds that he/she can no longer effectively represent the SDA Church as an organization is perfectly free to go - and certainly morally right to do so rather than to remain and deliberately misrepresent or undermine the stated goals of the SDA Church on the Church's dime. 

In short, I think McLarty has a misconception of Asscherick's main purpose and of the extreme cognitive dissonance that is being tolerated in certain organizations which have taken on the title of "Seventh-day Adventist".  Asscherick and I are only asking that the Church clarify its position on these issues so as to remove the extreme degree of cognitive dissonance that is causing great confusion for many of us - especially our youth. 

If the Church still wants to maintain a literal creation week as fundamentally important, then it should do so by only hiring those who are actually willing to present that perspective as currently known truth within all Church organizations.  If the Church no longer sees the notion of a literal creation week to be fundamentally important, then the Church should make this quite clear so that those of us who do still see this doctrine as fundamentally important to us as individuals can go elsewhere to form our own organization which does still recognize this idea as something worth promoting in a consistent manner within the entire organization.  

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com

 "If the Church still wants to maintain a literal creation week as fundamentally important, then it should do so by only hiring those who are actually willing to present that perspective as currently known truth within all Church organizations.  If the Church no longer sees the notion of a literal creation week to be fundamentally important, then the Church should make this quite clear so that those of us who do still see this doctrine as fundamentally important to us as individuals can go elsewhere to form our own organization...." 

 John McClarty did not dodge the issue. He presented what he thinks are the issues. Some may not agree. Theologians know that the creation story cited in genesis is borrowed from other creation stories. These stories are not literal but Adventism in its myopic desire to have a "meaningful sabbath" needs to proclaim to the faithful that the story is literal. SDA theology is not immutable, it will most likely evolve.

Good luck on trying to control the people that draw a salary from an SDA institution. Do the institutional control advocates honestly think that all professors are going to march in lock step with Adventist doctrine, education be damned? Good luck on that.

Sean,

Indeed you are correct but there are also many professors within the SDA community who do not hold to a literal creation week. Good luck on your control crusade. In the long run it will not work. Adventist schools have done a great job in educating their youth and preparing them for higher education. Education is one sure way NOT to have uniformity of belief. What the Catholics did is form theological  "orders" which argue with each other within the umbrella of the organized Church. Maybe Adventism if its around for a 1000 yrs or more will be able to do the same thing.

You seem to have trouble with my moniker. I explained it to you one time. You also do not even know how to spell my name. Focus more on the conversation and less on the person.

Doctorf

Why not use your real name . . . John Buchholz?

Also, if you don't draw the line somewhere, you don't have an organization - period.  What's the point in calling yourself a "SDA" if that name means nothing? - if that name adds no clarity of who you are or what you stand for when someone hears it?  How can you tell if you're really a "SDA" or a "Catholic" or an "agnostic" for that matter if there really is no substantive difference?  Is it possible to be a "Catholic SDA" for example? - or an "agnostic SDA"? 

You see what I'm getting at here?  If the name means nothing, why use it?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Good grief Sean. It was just a nickname. Can I use it? Please? The people who write here know who I am. Some do not and if they ask me my name I tell them. Most are not to concerned about me in particular but do focus on the issues at hand. I do not care if someone calls themselves, "pickle" or "Statefarmsteve" just to mention a few on this site.

You seem to have a lot invested in "titles." I still worship on Saturday and sometimes on Sunday, with my wife and at times we switch off when I get over churched on a weekend. I was brought up and schooled on the east coast and treated to a sumptuous feast of the mindless SDA rhetoric of the evil Roman Catholic Church. But, then something happened. I started looking into their theology and faith tradition and getting to know a few. The monsters began to evaporate. Indeed the Catholic Church was built on the ashes of an empire and some of its history is rather sordid. But, I suspect if the Adventist Church had grown up starting 2000 yrs ago, and having enormous political power would have engaged in the same behaviors as did the early christian church.

Leaving the 28 fundamentals out of this an Adventist is someone who believes in salvation through the gift of Gods son and believes in the 2nd advent of Jesus. Also SDA's like 7th day Baptists and Jews, engage in formal worship on Saturday. The writers of the SDA review can proclaim that the creation story in genesis borrowed from Pagan stories is "literal" until its blue in the face. I personally think the evidence weighs in favor of the biblical genesis being a story about God bringing the universe into existence and it does not appear to have occurred in 6 literal days. One can take the Bible seriously without taking it literally. 

Yes, there are "agnostic SDA's." I know a lot of them. They believe but are reserved on the issue of "knowing." Sound like honest people to me. Do you honestly think that Adventists within the church do not represent a plurality of views on their faith tradition, especially the more educated ones?

Most likely the GC is not going to engage in an inquisition of the LSU President. We are on the west coast with numerous theologians who have been schooled outside of Adventist higher education such as the Claremont School of Theology and Notre Dame. I am happy that we have access to such people. Like it or not, change is afoot.

Sean,

There is nothing wrong with cognitive dissonance. I am experiencing it right now in the non-systematic nomenclature regarding store operated calcium channels (SOCC) also called calcium release activated channels (CRAC) or transient receptor channels (TRPC). Some CRAC's are TRPC's but not all CRAC's and TRPC's are necessarily SOCC's. Fun hugh? Try writing a grant on this as I am doing now with all the cacophony. 

Cognitive dissonance is what is required when change occurs and new paradigms emerge. Some of us can live with this others have a hard time. Living with cognitive dissonance and not over reacting to it is a factor in maturity be it religious or scientific. 17 yrs of operating a funded laboratory and getting kicked around by peer review has taught me so.  

Have a good wknd and go have some fun. 

John,

There's a difference between living with extreme cognitive dissonance and being happy about it or actually promoting it.  It is nonsense in the extreme for any organization to say it takes a fundamental stand on something like a literal creation week  while, at the same time, saying that it also supports the Darwinian view of origins where creation took place over billions of years of time via a mechanism of random mutation and natural selection - i.e., survival of the fittest.  

That's illogical John.  It makes no sense.  One should always work toward logic and not simply be happy to live with such nonsense.  It is not productive and causes extreme confusion.  It should be resolved if possible.  

And, don't come off all high and mighty suggesting that such a view is "immature".  That's also a nonsense pejorative - a classic debating tactic. After all, isn't it you who loves to end your comments in these forums with the little phrase, "Now, back to science"?  You see, you don't like what you believe to be cognitive dissonance any better than the rest of us.  You just like things to be the way you personally see as "the truth".  That's all.  You are very exclusive in your inclusiveness.  That's right, you believe that you are right and others, like myself, are wrong and you're willing to expend a fair amount of energy to get people to see things your way.  If you really didn't care about living with a bunch of "cognitive dissonance" coming from people like me, you wouldn't frequent forums like this one spouting off your views on how others should see things like you see them all the time.    

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Those who are biblically ignorant of the dynamics of the SDA message are the ones calling for change. Basically, they want a "me too" religion that fits "the world, the flesh, and the devil's agenda".

It is ultimately a crossless self-serving agenda that panders the human ego and advocates an "irresponsible freedom". For such, sin is simply a small issue easily resolved with a little concession on the part of both sides. A demand for accountability is totally out of line and there is no standard to call for such an accountability.

This is the liberal agenda. Both in politics and religion. In religion, the clear teaching and mandates of the bible are claimed to be beyond understanding and so anyone's ideas and interpretation are all equally valid. A "spirit ethic" takes the place of clear biblical exhortation. So, just "let the spirit lead" and where ever it goes, it will be right.

This, of course, supports basic Roman Catholic theology, where the leading of the spirit in the church community transcends the clear written word. "Babylon confusion" is the ultimate result. And the only viable authority is the church itself. "The church" is sinless, infallible and immortal. "Unconditional election" as long as you are a member holds people in bondage and fear with a false hope and false assurance.

This same spirit reigns in a large degree in modern Adventism and is preparing many to abandon the historic faith and opt for spiritual delusions looking more and more to Rome. The spirit of Rome is reflected in Adventism today. Before "the church" can succeed, it must first fail. Just as it has always done in the past. Only when "unconditional election" is washed out of the minds of the true believers once and for all and forevermore, can "the church" eventually demand accountability of itself corporately and individually as well. "Unconditional election" destroys accountability and repentance is virtually impossible as long as this false idea is embraced and nurtured.

The most wicked activity is allowed without disciple and no one dare challenge its ongoing corruption of the church community. Only a "Martin Luther" movement can restore the SDA church to its calling and purpose. Anything short of this will be woefully inadequate to accomplish what needs to be done and must be done for a restoration of true bible Adventism and the final finishing of God's work in the earth.

Keep the faith

Bill Sorensen

Sean and Doctorf - I am proud to say I attended our distinguished alma mater at the same time as the both of you.  I am happily semi-anonymous here on AToday, as Doctorf once was, before being "outed" of his non-closet by Sean.  Like Doctorf, I don't fear my own eventual "outing" but I enjoy my nickname, or screen name, or alter-ego, or whatever it is. 

I personally enjoyed the Adventist Pastor's Reply.  Perhaps I over enjoy dissonance, or I am too tolerant of dissenting views.  However, I believe I am representative of the bulk of the Adventist lay people.  I neither have, nor expect to get all the answers while here on earth - not from the Bible, though I believe it is God's Word.  Not from the SDA Church, though I believe they are preaching the right message of God's soon return and our love for Him and His love for us. 

I'll never be able to contribute to the finer points of debate between the two of you, as I can barely keep up with the debate.  However, I like that both of you are both members on paper and in spirit of the same church body.  I'm sure that both of you spend a lot of time shaking your heads, wondering how the other ended up so wedded to such crazy ideas. One of you questions how the other can be Adventist and Evolutionist, and the other wonders how the other can be both Scientist and Creationist.  Some side with one, and others side with the other.

 Am I the only crackpot on here wondering if you're both wrong?  You're both a lot smarter than me, and wow, it would be something else if in Heaven, an insurance agent, who is barely qualified to hock car insurance for a living, ends up telling a Physician and a Scientist "I told you so!"  I promise that if you both ARE wrong, when I say i told you so,  I'll do so in the spirit of brotherly love and in good taste. 

StateFarmSteve,

We're talking about paid representation here for an organization that claims to have specific, even fundamental, goals.  Why claim to have fundamental goals that are extremely important if they aren't really important enough for your own paid employees to consistently promote? - rather than doing just the opposite?  How is that not completely idiotic?

Even the organization of a post-modern journal like Adventist Today is not that cognitively dissonant.  You don't see someone like Clifford Goldstein on the AT staff - right?   Even Andy Nash resigned after only a short time on the job as AT Editor because of the cognitive dissonance between his views and the views of AT.  You also don't see young-life creationists teaching biology or geology at UCR. Why not? Because, no organization gets very far with such extreme cognitive dissonance between itself and its paid representatives.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean - If i work for, hypothetically, State Farm, you won't see me doing Geico commercials.  But if State Farm endows the business department at an  educational institution, the company should have no expectation that the school will not teach other ways of doing business, or even that they would promote State Farm as the best of the insurance companies.  That is the very nature of the world of higher education.

A University is not a post-modern journal like Adventist Today, and while it is under no such obligation to encourage breadth of thought as a University, I believe AToday would welcome staff with conservative views as much as they have welcomed posts and commentary from conservatives, such as yourself, Dr Read, Mr Sorensen, and others.  If Andy resigned (I noticed he is still listed on the editorial staff) I have not heard it presented that he was run out on a rail for his conservative viewpoints.  Please, for my comfort level, please post a link to something that verifies your assertion that he resigned because of "cognitive dissonance" between his views and those of AT.

UCR quite likely doesn't have a young-life creationist on faculty because of the dearth of such professors in the pool of applicants.  I'd be willing to forgo this assumption of the absence of young-life creationist PhD's in academia if you were able to point me to a source indicating otherwise.  Most high-quality institutions of higher learning go out of their way to seek out a wide range of viewpoints on every bit of subject matter taught in their halls.  It's why at UNC you'll find an agnostic professor of religion.  At Harvard Law, you find both strict constitutionalists and advocates of an activist judiciary.  Attorneys from both sides of the OJ Trial have lectured there. 

I encourage you to maintain your position on Creation.  Not being a scientist, I actually agree with you, since I have trouble comprehending the process of evolution and the odds associated with genetic mutations resulting in the various species of plant and animal. 

But I encourage you even more fervently to do two things:  First, add a simple disclaimer to your passionate arguments, that allows people to oppose your thought without fear of ridicule or questioning their personal honor or their individual faith.  Secondly, don't fear that opposition will undermine the foundation of your faith or your church.  I understand that this second request asks you to lower the stock you place in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of our church (when you and I were at SC, when it was SC, there were 27 taught to us by Dr Leo Van Dolson, a number that has since miraculously increased...)  Our church has historically been reticent to publish a tome such as the 28FB's, for exactly this reason - such a book has much more potential to be a divisive tool than a clarifying tool.  I'm not sure why our church leaders were more recently willing to do what our church forefathers refused to do, but I believe we need to carefully avoid giving the 28FB's more weight than it deserves.

As I said earlier, I am a Creationist.  Being more artistically than scientifically minded, I've never had the option of my mind wrapping around a more complicated version of how the world came about.  But I also believe that God gave man an inquisitive mind.  According to Mrs White, God and Adam cruised around Eden, discussing things.  I don't believe these were one-sided lectures, with God talking and Adam listening.  Adam was created with both the capacity and the tendency to ask questions.  As a Church, we have no right to forbid or curb the asking of questions.  Actually, particularly with regard to our institutions of higher learning, quite the opposite is true - questions should be encouraged.  Diversity of though should be rewarded.  We also shouldn't have the arrogance to declare our conclusions incontrovertible.  We should enter into discussions with passion, but with an open heart, if not an open mind.  It's what we were made to do.  Enjoy it!

Hi Statefarmsteve,

I read your comments and they are humbling. Your writing belies a mature man and I view you as a seeker. Its possible that our views of geochronology are wrong or they are going to be subject to change. One thing about science is it continues to amass data and in time there very well may be a paradigm shift and the conclusions we hold today may indeed be subject to modification. 

Like you I read John McClarty's comments and he is seeking to engage in dialogue with disparate groups and in essence hold his church together. It is sad that some are summarily dismissing what he is saying. 

The people making these attacks are driven by fear and angst and they want an example made out of people they think are vulnerable so as to threaten anyone with views that are discordant with traditional SDA theology. There has been talk about the issue of "cognitive dissonance" and the need for all of us to "be on the same page." I discussed some of this ongoing issue with one of the faculty, a biochemist, at LSU and I will be having lunch next week with the former Chair of Biology next week. Its clear that they are distressed by this attack. These are good people and they see the threat clearly. That is no matter what sciences says, you are to reinforce fundamental SDA interpretations of genesis to the students and you better shut your mouth, or else.

Students in higher education usually figure out that life is full of "cognitive dissonance." If one is going to be in science then one has to be tolerant of schisms that occur with regards to interpretation of imperfect data or they will never survive peer review. 

As far as "outing" me indeed that was childish. Good heavens the editors of A-Today know my writing well and any faculty member from the School of Religion would instantly recognize me by my writing. I just used my nickname because of how I acquired it. For what its worth I enjoy reading your posts and I listen to you. Please keep contributing. Mature people such as yourself who do not have all the answers are necessary for the growth of the church.

The faculty at UCR teach science and the issues mentioned are discussed in other venue's namely religion courses. My son graduated from UCR and I encouraged him to take ancient biblical history while at UCR. He loved it and came away with a very different view of the bible following that course.

The same is happening at LLU. No one teaches "young life creation" here and the issues regarding the clash between science and literal interpretations of scripture are discussed openly in theology classes, and sabbath school classes. Most of the science faculty at LLU believe in God as creator but they speak the language of science and are not threatened by the conclusions reached by study of genomics and paleontology, although most of us are not paleontologists. The same is happening at LSU and the science faculty and religion faculty are equally engaged in the dialogue regarding the implications of modern science on religious thought.

The genomic record and paleontological record, to me, make sense. It suggests that life forms are interconnected at a genetic level, different creatures lived at different times and large epochs of time separated the existence of different life forms. Yes, there is cognitive dissonance between my view and scripture only if I take the genesis story literally. I accept the story but I do not think it is an historical record of the beginning of life. 

Secondly I took some time to actually read books written by theologians who can actually read and interpret ancient script. From these excursions I have come to the conclusion that the genesis story in particular is not literal. Indeed the Church has taken a fundamental view on this story, but it is also tolerating other viewpoints.

In the end traditional science does not hold to the premise that truth is static. Its progressive. I think in time the "fundamental" view of Adventism will be that genesis is not literal. Its going to take some time to get there but Christianity has made progress since its inception 2000 yrs ago. 

The view of creationism being "science" does not work within the definition of what science is and does as a discipline. God arguments are for religion classrooms and I enjoy these discussions. Assuming that a super being called God created all life is fine, just not testable. Furthermore, if God is complex and all complexity requires a complex creator, you end up in a redundant ad infinitum argument that collapses. So to escape this problem we assume, one God and all things start with God. OK, no problem there. I can believe in the one God, but not have a literal view of a man made story such as genesis. After all humans wrote the story and I think we expect way to much from it.

In the end I think the fundamentalists writing here are very annoyed they are not getting their way. The GC does not seem interested in threatening anyone at LSU or bringing down the hand of authority on its administration. 

Bill,

I read your comments. There is another way other then the blood letting you suggest. I do not think God is in charge of the charge that you and others are making against the good people at LSU. You talk about "false ideas", what are they? The genesis story not being literal? What scares you so about the interpretation of the paleontological record? 

Your view of accountability appears to me that we all must adhere to a strict theology with no deviations. The Catholics saw that this was not possible, enter the era of theological orders. You want a simple truth  and I think you are beginning to understand that there is none.

I suspect the Church will survive without letting loose the metaphorical dogs of war. You say that some have no accountability. On the contrary I am accountable to my conscience. There is nothing wrong with an SDA saying, "I do not think everything in the bible can be taken literally." Why is that so evil? 

DocF, you're very kind. You're also very right about the church being able to withstand questions and debate without falling apart. No place is more appropriate for such discussions than our colleges and universities. I, for one, am glad to see such topics as geology, biology, and paleontology getting the full scholastic treatment, marinating and stewing in our educational institutions.

I believe in the bible, and confidently try to base my life on what I believe is its unerring Spiritual guidance - I believe it is God's Word. At Southern, I double majored in English and History, and I'm sure I was one of Dr MacArthur's least favorite students, but I learned enough to confidently say that while my faith in the spiritual direction of the Bible is 100 percent confident, as a historical document, the Bible leaves much to be desired. I would imagine that as a God-fearing scientist, you also trust the Bible as a spiritual compass, but like my skepticism for some of the Bible's historical record, you may feel its usefulness as a Scientific textbook is limited, at best.

My other course of study, English, also has gone through an inquisition of sorts. With so much literature, like Shakespeare, having "pornographic" or "immoral" connotations and content, and Ellen G White's stance on fiction, one could hardly obtain a literary education at an Adventist university if our original church doctrines were the standard to which the English department was held.

I hope I didn't call Sean exactly "childish" for "outing" you here, but it seems I was clear in stating my disagreement with what he did. The semi-anonymity of this forum is one of the things that allows for starkly open discussion of "sensitive" topics, and any name "revelation" should be at the whim of the individual.

DocF - please, when you speak to the people from the university faculty, please let them know that an equally vocal group of Adventist laypeople support their right to teach and believe in their duty to teach science in the Science Departments of our institutions.

As a pastor, I frequently encounter science students and professional scientists who have been wounded by the pontifications of people like Asscherick who declare: You cannot be a real Adventist Christian unless you are dismissive of the overwhelming physical evidence regarding geochronology.

Hey Sean - I think we're arguing pretty fine points here.  But I believe if the Church was simply wanting to educate with regards to the "truth," we'd not bother with trite subject matter such as literature, music, mathematics, etc.  We'd not bother with having the school accredited, since religion and SDA fundamentals would be the only subject matter at hand.  We might focus simply on Bible-based subject matter, with practical training restricted to mission work, evangelical activity, and church support.  We might even name our school Southern Missionary College.  

Your argument that the Church has created a University system for the sole purpose of hiding our youth amongst conservative thoughts is just something I can't buy into.  There is great value in an Adventist University beyond that of teaching fundamentalist theology.  The general atmosphere of an SDA college is markedly different from that of a secular university.   You are learning amongst people and from people that share your spiritual goals.  Many activities we participated in, such as week of prayer, mid-week worships, weekend worship activity, etc are absent in a UCR, or a FSU, or a UTC.  Even on the athletic field or in the symphony, we spent hours in recreation and artistic endeavors among other young SDA's.  

And equating tolerance to anarchy is a stretch I'm unwilling to concede, as well.  Again, I'm not advocating no rules.  In fact, I appreciate them.  What I don't agree with is a group of Adventist scholars, no matter how devout or well-intentioned, creating a man-made framework for acceptance into God's remnant church.  I believe that if there were 28 Fundamental Beliefs necessary to be saved, God wouldn't have wasted his time etching 10 commandments into stone tablets.  I think when asked, Jesus would have said "Which commandment is greatest?  Actually, there are 28 fundamental beliefs you need to be concerned about, one of which is accepting a literal 6 day creation story..."  instead of boiling the 10 down to 2.  

Sean, I can't help but be skeptical about the 28 fundamental beliefs, when everything I've studied and learned about the character of Jesus runs the opposite way from having human scholars boiling Jesus' character down into a big set of rules.  At no point in the record we have of Jesus' life did he show any appreciation whatsoever for the advanced rules-writing capability of the pharisees and the sadducees.  Everything he did and said about salvation took the opposite track - simplify, simplify, simplify.  

Sean, as difficult a time as I have grasping the scientific discussion between you and others, I have a very complete grasp of the human aspect of what is occurring with the discussion.  It's nothing that a session with Dr Phil couldn't solve, so don't feel as though you are beyond help.  Dr. Phil talks about the human desire to "right fight," meaning that it's more important for us to be right than be happy.  You're arguing about stuff that soon enough, we'll have the answers to.  As much as our church leadership would like to sell the idea, I'm not buying that one has to accept a literal 6 day creation in order to gain admittance to heaven.  So much of our concept of God is restricted by our human limitations.  The idea that we've gotten him pegged exactly right with the limited capability of our simple minds is ridiculous and silly at best.  Be patient - your argument will be settled in time. 

My Dr Phil advice?  Help your fellow worshippers in their journey toward a Christ-like character.  Everything else is just details.  

I see you have John's pyre built, who will supply the match?

Bill,

My conscience being "educated" by the bible? . What rubric of education regarding the bible do you want to use? Yours? The 28 fundamentals of SDA belief? Conscience with regards to being honest is innate and causes a degree of discomfort when one is not being being honest.

Pickle,

There are many in the area of radiometric dating that can do this. Look them up. I gave you one.

Also if those carbon deposits are only 10,000 yrs old there should be detectable C14. There is not.

We can see out to 10 billion light yrs into the past. Avg stars are around for 4-6 billion yrs. So what we are doing is looking at extinct entities. You want to tell me now that the speed of light is no longer a constant? Or that God altered it? What stupid game could God be playing by doing this? We know the speed of light and we can estimate distances and time scales using this constant. You can twist like a flag in the wind all you want, but the idea that the whole universe was created a short time ago is not supported by the palenotological or astrophysical records.

Our existence is "very recent" when you consider the great expanse of time for the evolution of the universe. 

One has to love SDA eschatology. Shaking times, which of course we never really know when these are going to occur, anti-christ's and demons everywhere. What paranoia. One thing is a mathematical certainty and that is life on our earth will be extinguished. Maybe God will start all over? 

Somewhere in all of this the simple message of Christ's redeeming love is being missed. Sigh. Good luck to the present day "Grand Inquisitors." 

Steve,

You go straight to the point. There are no specific clauses in contracts that say there is to be no diversity in teaching and we are to reinforce traditional SDA theology regarding genesis. At the graduate level the issues with genesis are not discussed in science classes but in theology classes where they belong.

I wrote to the former chair of Biology at LSU regarding this silly bru ha ha. Taking from Monty Python, "NOBODY EVER EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION." A little self depricating humor here would seem refreshing.

Sean,

Your metaphors are indeed colorful. There is no anarchy at LSU or any other SDA higher educational outlet. People "choose" an educational institution for a diversity of reasons. 

Pickle,

Where is the C14 in those coalified deposits if they are much younger, such as 10,000 yrs?  If one looks at ALL dating methods, radiometric, amino acid racemization, relationship of distance to our light detectors, this universe has been around for what appears to be billions of yrs. 

Sean,

"...and without the hastle of having to explain the cognitive dissonance of why an "SDA School" is teaching that the SDA Church is fundamentally mistaken on one of the most historically cherished doctrines that forms the basis of the very name Seventh-day Adventist."

That is just the issue. Its a cherished doctrine, but it has no rights to immutability or being inherently, "true." So what if we have been fundamentally mistaken? Change the theology. But, I forgot, you want absolutes in terms of SDA theology. Time for the SDA church to grow up. We do not get any absolutes with regards to SDA theology being absolutely, true.  Do you honestly think that most of us chose SDA higher education on the basis that our professors would support this cherished doctrine of a 6 day literal creation? I went to LSU in the 70's and my science professors never reinforced this cherished doctrine. 

Bill,

Ha, diversity of "truth" within the fundamentalist camp?  I am with Sean on this one. There are other paths to God. You have go to be kidding me, right? You think that only those embracing the SDA message will be saved? There are fundamentalists, and then there are fundamentalists. Wow.

P.S. Sean you see what is going on here? Your brother in arms is now telling you that your view of others not of this fold are also saved is just not the case. I am solidly in your camp with regards to this detail. You see, there is diversity of "truth" even within the fundamentalist group. You and Bill could start your own theological orders with this schism. Watch out! This is where it starts. A group of "like minded" SDA people saying "brother I fully agree with everything you state, but on this one point, I take leave with your view." When that happens the fish start swimming in all different directions and you have chaos.

john thomas mclarty

Sean,

I agree businesses and other human organizations have the right to choose their employees.

The church is a business. However, the church is more than a business. Church employees are not only employees; they are also stock holders. As such they have a responsibility to speak out on issues of governance, production, research and development, etc. It is their duty not only to further the historic goals of the business, but to move the business forward to greater effectiveness and ever closer alignment with the mission of God.

The church is a human organization that people may choose to join or leave.  However, it is more than a human organization. Most of us in the church believe we are members of the church not merely because we, of our own free will, chose. In addition to our choice, we believe God has been active in placing us in this family--whether we arrived through birth or conversion. We are not free to leave church membership or church employment willy nilly. Leaving would mean  abandoning our calling.

Those in the employment of the church who take seriously their calling can never bow without reservation to its historic, official, classic formulations of truth. In addition to teaching the "faith once delivered to the saints," pastors and teachers are called to learn those things which the church at an earlier time "could not bear." Jesus did not set any particular point beyond which the Spirit would cease "to guide you into all truth."John 16:12-13.

I agree the church as a community must exercise oversight of its employees. As a pastor I have had to set limits on participation by members and visitors and have supervised the expulsion of people from formal membership. Perhaps the church should expel, defrock or fire me. I must leave that decision to others.

However, I would remind you and others who are eager to expel dissidents and eccentrics from the employment of the church that according to the Biblical record, the power structure of God's people has poor track record in getting this right.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!"  Matthew 23:29-32

Adventists have often compared ourselves to Israel. We see ourselves as their spiritual heirs. We are "the people of God." If this is so then we must learn the lessons not only of the danger of apostasy found in their history, but also the dangers of persecuting those who challenge the status quo in their search for truth.

"Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?" Acts 7:52

Growing up in the church I often heard the assertion that scientists believed in long ages because of their immoral desire to escape accountablity to a moral God. As a science student and a friend of scientists I found this untenable. Most scientists I know are as committed to truth as the theologians I know. It is dangerous spiritual pride for theologians or lay biblicists to suggest that the difference between their view of truth and the scientists' view of truth is rooted in the defective moral character of the scientists.

I would enjoy a simple, pure church with a homogenous dogma/theology/philosophy/exegesis/culture--if it aligned with my own convictions and culture. However, such a church would fail miserably to represent Jesus. I suspect that if there was a simple, pure church congruent with your beliefs it would be only marginally better.

Pickle,

You assume the palentological column is static. Its not. Contaminations from carbon based materials happen at fault lines and with plate movements which cause earthquakes. Also along fault lines things can get mixed up which is why digs are done in areas that are more stable. I read this before in a Science article. I need to get the URL for you. My view is more based on the astrophysical view of the universe. That along with paleontology reinforces my position. The problem here is I have my own grants (funded 17 yrs) and publications etc and I have to keep up with modern molecular biology, biophysics (because measure ion fluxes with dyes) as well as electrochemistry. With all of these surrounding issues I am not able to spend as much time with some of the finer details. I gave you a retort to the halo issue from a geophysicist. You do not accept that explanation. Thus, you only accept one view of the data and do not consider other explanations. Indeed you are not a scientist and would never survive peer review.

John,

I appreciate your reasoned response to your critics. The current inquisition possibly defrocking or expelling you which I doubt will happen, but, if it did happen I would be appalled at the incredible stupidity of such an act. 

Hi John,

You write:

"It is dangerous spiritual pride for theologians or lay biblicists to suggest that the difference between their view of truth and the scientists' view of truth is rooted in the defective moral character of the scientists."

I completely agree with this statement.  Did you not see where I already argued (with StateFarm) that this isn't about any sort of moral judgment? Making a judgment about the correctness of a person's ideas isn't the same thing as making a moral judgment about the individual. Of course the vast majority of the scientists involved with this issue are honest morally upright men and women.  That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that however honest and sincere they may be when it comes to their own ideas of "truth", they are not supporting the SDA Church's stated position on "present truth" or its fundamental goals as an organization.  In this respect, they are actively undermining what their employer has clearly stated to be its primary goals.  In continuing to publicly counter these stated goals, they are in fact rebelling against the stated wishes of their employer and are therefore misrepresenting their employer as paid "representatives" - i.e., they are not accurately representing their employer. 

And, more than this, La Sierra University, in hiring theistic evolutionists to teach some of their science courses in a way that promotes Darwinian-style evolution occurring over hundreds of millions of years of time, in direct conflict with the stated SDA position on origins, is not being forthright with parents and other supporters. How is that? Because LSU does not clearly explain the fact that it fundamentally disagrees with and openly opposes the SDA Church on the issue of origins.  The actual advertisements on the LSU website, and other materials, seems to suggest that all LSU teachers support the specific SDA take on origins in their classrooms.  Well, that's simply not true.  These advertisements are deceptive at best.  At the very least, what is actually being promoted as "the truth" should be clearly spelled out by LSU so that no parents are deceived as far as what they are actually paying a great deal of money to acquire for their children.  Isn't it right, at the very least, that parents and SDA Church members at large, as essential sponsors of LSU, are aware of what is truly being promoted at LSU as the "truth"?  

That's the problem here - deliberate public misrepresentation by paid employees who are, at the same time, trying to hide their activities from the overall organization.   No organization can long tolerate such blatant disregard for its most fundamental decisions on issues it considers to be of basic importance as an organization -- and yet remain viable.

Now, this does not mean that those who are out of line with the Church's stated position on this or that "fundamental" issue are therefore outside of God's family and grace - or that they are morally corrupt.  That's not true at all.  It just means that they are not in line with the goals of one particular organization within the Family of God.  There may be plenty of other organizations within the Family of God which could use their services quite effectively.  It is just that the SDA organization, as it is currently organized and upon its currently recognized basis of order and government, is not one of these - nothing personal.  It's just a matter of order, organization, and government viability. 

In short, one cannot go too far in "advance" of the organization and yet remain part of it as an official paid representative - even if you're right and the organization is wrong.  If this were tolerated for too long, the "body" of the organization would most certainly fragment into a million pieces and the "body" would die.  

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Pickle:

 Thanks for your kind words about my book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View", I'm very gratified that you are enjoying it.  But just to clarify, regarding my claim that one cannot tell a priori whether a given rock sample is or is not suitable for radiometric dating, this is an inference based upon the fact that scientists very frequently test rocks that give "wrong" dates.  These "wrong" dates are then tossed in the garbage, and often another rock sample is tested, which hopefully will give a result that falls somewhere in the expected ballpark.  I would assume that if dating scientists could tell beforehand, just by looking, which rocks were suitable for testing and which were not, they wouldn't waste so much time testing "unsuitable" rocks.   I think that is a pretty reasonable assumption.

John McClarty writes that "Many creationists that Adventists cite in their critiques of Darwinism or naturalistic evolution--people like Michael Behe and Philip Johnson--readily accept the standard ages assigned to fossils by paleontology."  It is confusing, and unfair to Behe and Johnson, to call them "creationists."  Intelligent Design is not creationism.  Behe, Johnson, and Dembski are the architects of the Intelligent Design or "ID" movement.  It is helpful to confine the word "creationist" to those who believe in a recent creation and a fossil record created mostly by a literal, universal Genesis Flood.  Adventists are creationists, but Intelligent Design theory is not creationism.  In point of fact, calling ID theorists "creationists" is a rhetorical strategy that Darwinists use to try to saddle ID theorists with biblical baggage that Behe, Johnson, & Co. have deliberately decided not to carry.     

That said, I wonder how long the ID people will maintain there current stance.  I just saw that on one of the ID sites, an Access Research Network blog, they pointed out that bird tracks have been found in the Triassic:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/06/16/did_birds_fly_in_the_late_triassic.

The ID blogger points out that this finding makes it very unlikely that birds evolved from dinosaurs, because the descendants would be older thant their putative anscestors.  I cited the same research for the same purpose in my book, "Dinosaurs - Adventist View", but as I think about it, this evidence is best used to debunk the whole long-ages geochronology.  What we have here is a situation  where bird tracks precede bird bones into the fossil record by 55 million years!  Think about it:  How likely is that birds were  walking around leaving tracks 55 million years before any, and I mean any, bird bodies were ever buried and fossilized?  These purported long periods of time are simply not real.   

David,

What a dishonest presentation of the article. I read it. The authors never said they were bird tracks. They said "bird like tracks." Nor did the article state conclusively that these tracks were made by birds. What one could be seeing is a small and undocumented type of dinosaur. It is also possible that we may not have discovered all types of dinosaurs and some were quite small like compsonathagus about the size of a chicken. Even smaller dinosaurs have been discovered such as Caenagnathasia, Microraptor and Parvicursor. These are even closer to the early bird relative, Archaeopteryx. This is what amazes me about people like you and the ID group. OK something new. Fine, but its an ongoing discussion and this article in no way overturns any of the current paradigms supported by the paleontological record. You write some non-peer reviewed book and suddenly you think you have credibility in such areas and furthermore you come up with unadulterated nonsense such as "antideluvians" engineering dinosaurs? So in keeping with your bold statement I think its about time someone calls your conclusions what they are, unsupported and ridiculous fantasy. Your antideluvians are simply not real. 

Doctorf:

Scientists typically use tentative language, as you well know.  But I would suggest that in this case, the tentativeness is partly due to the fact that these guys don't want to get kicked out of the scientific fraternity for definitively identifying these tracks as bird tracks, when that identification creates problems for the new pet theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.  But their description of the tracks is not tentative.  Consider this passage:

 "The presence of flight trace fossils (Volichnia), i.e. footprints with elongated hallux impressions that are interpreted as representing low angle landing, associated with probing marks and a similar morphology of Gruipeda dominguensis with tracks of modern shorebirds, strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks."

In other words, some of the tracks were made when the bird came in for a low angle landing.  You still want to argue that they were made by an imaginary flying dinosaur?

john thomas mclarty

Sean,

I'm troubled by what seems to me to be your reductionistic characterization of the Adventist Church as a purely voluntary, business-like organization. The metaphors of family and kingdom are more biblical and, I think, more apt for helping us understand the nature and proper role of the church.

Having said that, however, I will agree with you that an educational institution ought to be transparent about the content of its instruction. If LSU teaches conventional paleontology as the best interpretation of the fossil record and evolution as the best theoretical basis for biology, to suggest otherwise in its marketing is kind of like Adventist evangelists who carefully camouflage their church connections in hopes of enticing non-Adventists to attend. Deliberate obscuring of one's identity for marketing purposes is wrong.

David,

Hallelujah! Of course scientists use tentative language. Because truth is not static. You fundamentalists who have the "truth" ought to try it sometime as opposed to being so sure of your positions.

 There may have been small dinosaurs fitting an avian profile capable of flight that are not documented because we have not discovered all possibilities.  From my reading of the article the authors are not suggesting a complete overhaul of the conclusions based on the paelontological record. This article was not written for ID people. It was simply taken from the internet and posted on their site. In essence the ID people are suggesting, that there were birds in the triassic period and now the ID adherents try to rewrite the history before the scientific community with expertise in such issues has a chance to fully react. It will take years to sort out this new finding.

Oh here is something for fun. A baptist group thinks science supports their fantasy that Noah's sons flew on large Dinosaurs. Wow, I knew we were missing something. But, then again you believe in anti-deluvians so you may have something in common with people who come up with this type of boulderdash. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0605/flyingdinos.html 

So back at you. You still want to argue that we have discovered every single species of dinosaurs? I doubt the real scientists, palentologists, would necessarily agree that all species of dinosaurs have been found. I will ask Dr. Sumida at Cal State San Bernardino his views on the subject. Oh by the way there were small flying dinosaurs, Genus Rhambphorhynchus, species Anurognathus which was only 30 cm long. Cute little guys. I recognize that with this new finding we may or may not be talking about a dinosaur that fits an avian profile. That is for the Paleontologists to sort out. But, David Reade suggesting that we abandon the conclusions of the Paelontological record, to put it mildly, is not credible.

If there is convincing new evidence that causes us to rewrite some conclusions so be it. However, we have all kinds of irrefutable evidence that 1. Human remains disappear as one goes deeper into the paleontological record. 2. Dinosaurs have not been shown to exist in the same record as humans, suggesting non-overlapping time frames. 3. The evidence for devolution of humans from some higher form is non-existant.

In the end you may regard the biblical text as "data" for the record of life, most scientists do not. 

As an aside I was taught in SDA academy that Dinosaurs were "monsters" and "unnatural." Products of the "devil tinkering with life's forces or antideluvians making mischief." Give me a break! To me they are marvels of evolution or creation if you wish, existed at their proper time and then disappeared. After they were gone, life started over. If you want to deny evolution, fine, but at least invent a few epochs of creation. What would be so bad about that? After all SDA's invented antideluvians.

 I am not saying science is infallible. But, long time periods make sense especially when one gets into astrophysics. I have heard all kinds of interesting arguments from young earth creationists to refute claims of deep time. Evidence for deep time comes from light that takes billions of years to arrive on the surfaces of our detection equipment. Knowing the fuel capacity of average stars one can calculate how long ago they probably existed. In the end the more we know about the universe the more strange and wonderful it becomes.

What has SDA's such as yourself in such a panic? These attacks on good people like John McClarty and the LSU establishment reeks of vindictiveness and fear. I know the writings of frightened people when I see them and they are right here. Creationist ideas as well as issues such as literal vs nonliteral translation of the bible ARE dealt with at our institutions such as LSU and LLU but in a different venue. So when I hear on this blog that there is only a one sided discussion in our schools I know this is not the case.

In keeping with open mindedness you might want to get a book from a great skeptic, Michael Shermer. He wrote "why people believe in weird things." Our theology class had him as a special guest and it was interesting as he artfully helped some SDA true believers in the class face their demons of fear.  

Ella M

Wow, what an interesting discussion in spite of the snide remarks and putdowns by some of you. 

I want to say I especially appreciate the comments by StateFarmSteve who tries to be logical and kind.

I have a question for Doctorf. You said "Theologians know that the creation story cited in genesis is borrowed from other creation stories."  I know some say this like Ehrman who admits to being agnostic, however many don't.  My question has always been, why do they think the creation story came from pagans when there was no doubt an original source that became distorted by time and evolved into many stories--they all seem to have similarites?  We don't have that original story but if God is the God of Abrahm, it should be the biblical story.  It wasn't put in writing til later.

Now, I don't have the answers and can't discuss on scientific bases--I have an interest in quantum physics and have read about it as a layperson, but that doesn't make me any expert. I doubt that anyone on here is an expert.  There is much that even science experts don't know about life and the cosmos.

I tend to believe stories tell truth but are not always factual in our way of thinking. Jesus told stories of truth in parables. The Bible is full of symbolism and metaphor.

But when I go along this road, I come up to the Cross and all its meaning.  And then I wonder if all is metaphor, what about Christ, His birth, life, death, and resurrection?  Is it scientific and provable? Does it not sound just as outlandish as the Creation and Noah and the flood?  Yet without it we are lost and have no hope. How do the so-called "liberals" deal with this story?  Could one denial lead to the ultimate one? 

In my opinion LSU should teach evolution as well as creation and give students a choice without promoting one over the other.  Is it right for an educator to pressure students with his/her own belief system on controversial issues?  Wouldn't this amount to brain-washing?  I know that is the secular way.

We know so little--there could have been other creations on this earth before this one.  There are so many possible scenarios, and God has lovingly left us in the dark so that we can make choices as free individuals.

Sean,

I, as a Board member of AToday, and a member of the executive committee, have never heard that Andy Nash resigned over philosophical issues.  We were enthusiastic about his leadership, loved the direction he was taking AToday, and consider much of our current success to be a product of the freshness he brought to the magazine and website.  Of course he was to the right of some of the Board members. But on many issues, I'm sure he is more liberal than I, who certainly qualifies as the most reliably conservative voice on the Board. I don't know what Andy may have divulged to you.  But he was given complete editorial control, and as far as I know, every member of the AToday Board was not only very sorry to see him leave, but hopes that his absence will be temporary.  

I am disappointed to see you attacking AToday as a bastion of post-modernism, when I believe our editorial staff bends over backwards to include all viewpoints, even if they are expressed ad nauseum.  As one who frequently takes issue with the mindset of post-modernists and progressives, I am proud that AToday is a place where the extreme right and extreme left in the church can dialogue without thought censorship.  Surely you agree that such an independent forum is a good thing for the Church - or do you?

By the way, thank you so much John McClarty for a wonderfully stimulating, respectful, and thoughtful article! 

Sean,

As a personal friend of Andy Nash's, I can say that your claims are untrue, and your assessment of Adventist Today as a "post modern" journal is very misguided.  Do you subscribe to the print magazine, Sean? The current issue has four perspectives of what an Adventist is, including, by my estimation, one of the most extreme-right voices of historical Adventism imaginable--pastor Larry Kirkpatrick. 

One more thing. Cliff Goldstein gladly accepted our invitation to be a regular AToday blogger for nearly one year for the exact reasons Nathan Schilt so eloquently stated above. We wanted a conservative perspective. You can read his great musings here (or click on the "blogs" tab at the top of the page).

This is the reason we have brought onboard our other esteemed conservative blogger, Dr. Herbert Douglass after Cliff resigned.

Sean, do you have a copy of the latest issue? Send me an email and I'll mail you a complimentary copy.

Cheers, 

Marcel -- Online Editor

Thanks to both Nathan and Marcel for clarifying the prior comments regarding Andy's relationship with AToday.  I too, consider Andy to be a very good friend from childhood, although I've lost touch with him in recent years.  He is someone I admire for his multiple talents and his upright character, as much as his sense of humor and his (in the best Minnesota tradition) sharp yet subtle wit and sensibility.  I worked for him in one of his earliest incarnations as editor of the college newspaper - so I was subject to his sharp editorial pen as well as his withering glare when my submissions were late (which was too often.)  After high school and college, I grew to admire his work, including his work here on AToday.  I would have been extremely disappointed had Sean's assertion proved to be fact. 

Andy, If you happen by here, you know who I am.  And all that stuff I said about liking you and your work and admiring your talent and stuff was just fluff and bluster. 

Doctorf:

Hallelujah!  You admit that there are fossils out there that haven't been discovered yet!  Let me hasten to agree with you; we certainly have not discovered every fossil species that there is to discover.  With that in mind, I trust you will no longer harrass me about the lack of "antidiluvian" fossils, because I assure you the fossils are out there, they just haven't been discovered yet.  All theories can be supported by reference to as yet undiscovered evidence.  In fact, this was one of Darwin's favorite kinds of evidence. 

But until some fossil species is found in the correct stratum that could have made those tracks, we have an anomaly.  We have a situation where some tracks that look awfully like bird tracks are found in the fossil record 50 million years before any bird bones. Except that it isn't really an "anomaly" in the sense of being unusual, because it is a general phenomenon.  Many tracks are found great chunks of "geological time" before the bones of the trackmakers enter the fossil record.  It is an anomaly in the sense that it does not fit into the dominant paradigm of earth history.  To me, it is not anomalous, because I don't think "geological time" is real.  The tracks are real, but they were made by the same animals who were buried, a few days or weeks later, further up the geologic column.  

By the way, Landover Baptist is a satire website, created to make fun of fundamentalist Christians.  If you thought it was real, the joke's on you.

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

Sean, are you implying that as a paid representative of the Catholic Church, if I were a patient, and you came to bring me a grim pathological diagnosis, you would be required by your status to suggest I go to confession, request a priest to absolve me of my sins, recite the rosary, and do a couple of hail mary's?

StateFarm,

There's a difference between actively countering the position of your employer and actively supporting it.  I may not be personally supportive or in line with some of the positions of this hospital, but I also do not publicly counter or act against them either.  If I did, I certainly would not expect to long remain credentialed by this hospital.  See the difference? 

 Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

JB, I just replied to your e-mail you sent me on 6/26 regarding Coleman Sabbath school, but it bounced like all the others have recently. The failure notice says your computer has blacklisted my server, sbcglobal.net. Can you get that fixed? How can I  get in touch with you? If you send me a phone number by e-mail, I will call you. Any other idea, send it to me by e-mail, because I get yours; you just don't get mine.

DH   

The "heart surgeon illustration might be refined in this way: Should the heart surgeon have his medical license taken away because he transplanted a baboon heart into a human baby?  Many people at the time thought it was unethical.

In our search for truth there are two related questions:  how much latitude should be allowed and who should decide?  Should the parents who pay the tuition decide or should the administration that must uphold academic standards decide?

lynn heath

Nathan - I happen to agree with you that the term "representative" does not necessarily apply in either situation.  With regards to certain intellectually-driven pursuits, the term "representative" should never apply.  A couple of good examples are Journalists and Professors, who ethically cannot deliver news, information, or education restricted by the whim of their employer.  If a journalist did, they'd be in the business of advertising and marketing, not journalism.  It may be difficult to believe, but both FoxNews and CNN are often very correctly cited as examples of journalistic ethical failure. 

Likewise, Adventist Universities, like all institutes of higher learning, are ethically bound to resist enforcing traditional Adventist perspective in their various educational Departments.  Imagine if an English professor was forced to classify The Iliad and The Odyssey as trashy old versions of Rambo-style gratuitous violence.  Or Othello as trite interracial pornography.  Or an Arts professor forced to teach a lesson on Michelangelo's David as inappropriate, homoerotic male nudity, produced by not perhaps the greatest sculptor in history, but by a Biblically condemned homosexual. 

My 100% absolutely favorite English professor, Helen Pyke, told us that while she understood the place of sex and violence in the great classical literature we studied and its place in the contemporary literature we read, she hoped we'd be able to produce great work for her without either.  BUT, she always said that she remained open to the possibility that we could write passionate love stories or exciting battle scenes, even if they might be deemed "inappropriate" by a reserved person such as herself, or if they fell outside the lines of "Adventist ideals." 

Higher education, by its very nature, requires not simple tolerance, but an actual active search for diversity in thought.  Because of this requirement, good university leadership actively seeks out a diverse faculty.  Because this natural requirement applies to everyone in education, from administrators to professors, to even students, our best, most promising pastors often attend divinity schools and post-graduate education at institutions outside of our SDA system.  We've had Adventists attend divinity school at Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, and other fine institutions.  This diverse education doesn't undermine their Adventist faith, it contributes to their growth.

Evolution may not be palatable to us as traditional Adventists.  I have stated before that I believe in the traditional Adventist position on Creation.  I personally find it easy to believe in a six day creation, because my eyes glaze over when I go to Sean's website, or when DocF talks about when rocks were born (no offense intended to either gentleman!)  But this should not preclude me from encouraging others to question and probe this particular tenet of Adventism.  And I shouldn't encourage their exclusion if their questioning and probing reveals trains of thought that conflict with my beliefs.  In support of quality higher education, I support the debate between DocF and Sean.  I believe that Adventist campuses are the absolutely most appropriate of places for such dialogue. 

This questioning, probing, and the sharing of the results of this questioning and probing is the very foundation of all education, Adventist education included.  An Institute of Adventist education cannot exclude it.  On the contrary, Adventist institutes of higher education must constantly seek out professors who are questioners and probers and sharers, and just as importantly - students who are open-minded and committed to participating in this process of education.   Otherwise, we'd simply have a system of  institutes of Adventist indoctrination, instead of Adventist education, and who really wants that?

Sean,

I read with interest your analogy of marriage and the church as family.  You said, "Not everyone qualifies as a heart surgeon - not even my dearly beloved mother.  Just because I dearly love her doesn't mean I want her doing heart surgery on me or anyone else.  And, the same thing is true in a Church organization."  I agree.  For that reason, I want science curricula prepared and taught by well-trained PhD biologists, physicists, and chemists having experience with research and the peer review process-NOT pastors, doctors and lawyers!

There seems to be no room in your vision of the church and its paid employees for a process to learn new things if that involves correcting mistaken understandings of the past.  Faced with ever-stronger evidence contrary to one of its teachings, you would have employees quit their positions rather than share with the church what they've learned and help the church to evolve to a new understanding.  You, Clifford Goldstein and others accuse professors of a lack of integrity for continuing employment in an SDA institution when they don't agree with an SDA teaching, yet for them to remain silent despite the contrary evidence or to leave their students to face the evidence later without preparation in an Adventist setting also would indicate a lack of integrity.  If the church were a low-lying city surrounded by a dike, and a professor found a growing hole in the dike, you would have him leave the city (or at least to cease using his talents for the betterment of the city) rather than point out the hole or attempt to plug it, since the majority of residents think there is no hole and you believe that due to the dike's Maker a hole is theoretically impossible.

Your problem (and Asscherick's) isn't really with the lack of integrity involved in a professor teaching something you believe is against the church's fundamental teachings.  Your problem is that the professor's teachings don't agree with your beliefs.  You would have a professor deny his calling and violate fundamental belief #16 ("God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each member is to employ in loving ministry...") because you think he is violating #6.  Furthermore, people like you [I don't know where you personally are on these; I'm just referring to the company you keep] have attacked other beliefs enacted at GC sessions, such as modifications to our teachings on wedding bands, adornment, music, women elders, divorce and remarriage, etc., while also accepting ("don't ask, don't tell") tithe funds to support their ministries.  These attacks violate fundamental beliefs #11 ("The Church") and 13 ("Unity in the Body of Christ") particularly.  Yet, because these attacks are in the name of "truth" and "purity" in the church, it is not self-understood as representing a lack of integrity when they are engaged in by those paid by the church, or working for the church in a volunteer capacity, or taking the name of the church, etc. 

Just as a recent personal example, when our conference encouraged a course in spiritual disciplines and growth among its pastors and laypeople, using a text/workbook written by a non-Adventist, several members of my local church refused to participate and some even stopped attending church.  Why?  Because "we don't need to be reading books from Babylon when we have enough good material in the Bible and EGW and other SDA authors to study."  Where did they get these ideas?  From DVDs and satellite broadcasts, and from a phone call to a leading Adventist evangelism ministry in central California to ask specifically about this book and program, with the result that (they said) they were advised to resist and to find another church if our pastor didn't withdraw his participation.  What I'm telling you is that many of those on your side of this argument are paid pastors or other employees of Adventist institutions, yet they have undermined the church and its elected leadership, violating fundamental beliefs #11 and 13 every bit as much as you accuse La Sierra professors of doing with #6.

You've even said that if the position on teaching creation is not resolved to your satisfaction, you and others would leave and form your own organization.  How is that consistent with EGW's statements that the church is not Babylon and will go through to the end?  How is it consistent with fundamental belief #11 on the church, a community of believers?  [I'm not in agreement with the idea that we must all support the 28 or even the idea of having this creed in the first place, nor am I claiming agreement with EGW's statements about the church.  I'm just trying to show you that you aren't either, despite your protestations about other's lack of integrity.  Or are you immune because you don't work for the church for a paycheck, as if the paycheck is the key issue on integrity?].  You're "spouting off your views" (using your expression from another post) about an alleged departure from our fundamental beliefs even while openly threatening to do the same.  Clearly, the issue isn't about fundamental beliefs but about your beliefs and your need for others to agree with you in order for you to stick around.

Integrity in the end is not just about being truthful, but about being whole.  You argue against the cognitive dissonance you perceive in an SDA institution teaching evolution, but you don't seem to have a problem with the student or others living their lives with the cognitive dissonance that arises when we recognize that the physical evidence all around us supports a long period of life on earth, whereas our church tells us differently, and so we are left to compartmentalize our thinking, or to set the physical evidence on the shelf "in faith" that it will one day be resolved.  That is cognitive dissonance of a higher order (and longer lasting in life) than that faced by those who study evolution in a Christian setting and come to an integrated understanding of science and faith, of physical evidence and theological understanding.

If the Holy Spirit is he that guides us into truth, is setting "truth" on a shelf because it doesn't agree with our expectations a form of rejecting the Holy Spirit?  Would a biologist who after years of careful study--validated against numerous other studies by peers in various disciplines--set that evidence and best explanatory model aside in favor of a patchwork scheme of "explanations" that don't hold up under interdisciplinary investigation, be sinning against the Holy Spirit?  If that biologist had prayed diligently to be led into the truth, and yet that direction is against the direction of the majority of non-scientists in his church, would he be sinning against the Holy Spirit if he ignored the truth to which he'd been led and didn't share it or find ways to integrate it with his faith to create an integral whole, i.e., to maintain his integrity?  Is that really what you want that individual to do? 

TXalchemist

P.S.-your protestation against Adventist Today for using the name of Adventist when it publishes views you think are opposed to Adventism is ironic when "your team" used the name http://www.lasierrauniversity.net/!!  And that despite your agreement with John that, "Deliberate obscuring of one's identity for marketing purposes is wrong."  

I gave you a retort to the halo issue from a geophysicist. You do not accept that explanation. Thus, you only accept one view of the data and do not consider other explanations.

... our editorial staff bends over backwards to include all viewpoints ....

 In popular contemporary discussions, the word "creationism" has acquired a connotation that has severely narrowed its meaning to describe a belief that the world and/or all of its life forms were created in the relatively recent past (less than 6000-10,000 years) in seven literal, 24-hour days and that there has been a even more recently, a world-wide Flood.  This more restrictive understanding of creationism has been adopted by some fundamentalist-oriented Protestant denominations and the fundamentalist wings of others.

Although some highly conservative elements made a concerted attempt to add fundamentalist language to the official fundamental Adventist statement of belief, these efforts were not successful and the official summary of belief continues only to quote the Biblical expression used in Genesis to describe the origin of the world.  

Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6:20. (GC 522)

Dear TXalchemist,

I also agree that trained scientists should teach science courses - not doctors or lawyers or pastors.  And, there happen to be plenty of well-trained SDA scientists who actually support the SDA Church's stated fundamental position on origins - i.e., the validity of a literal creation week in recent history.

As far as "my team" using the deceptive website name of "LaSierraUniversity.net", no one on "my team" was responsible for this.  I myself also suggested that they change the name of their website so as to avoid any hint of deception on their part.  I suggest that La Sierra University and AdventistToday should do the same thing - drop any semblance of representation or affiliation with the SDA Church as an organized body since they are both, in fact, directly undermining key doctrinal positions that the SDA Church claims are "fundamental" to the organization. 

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com 

PIckle,

You write, "I have yet to find an evolutionist who can refute the Po halo evidence that the earth crystallized instantly instead of cooling over millions of years."

Certainly there is scientific evidence that can be cited in support of a recent creation. However, Po halos are not part of that evidence.

When Gentry first presented his research on Po halos, it appeared promising. However, in the decades since he published his findings, his conclusions have been so thoroughly discredited that even GRI agrees Po halos are not evidence of an instantaneos creation.

john thomas mclarty

Hi Sean,

"Deliberate obscuring of one's identity for marketing purposes is wrong."

I really do mean it. And we do agree on this. I agree that LSU should be forthright in describing the content of their courses.

john thomas mclarty

When Gentry first presented his research on Po halos, it appeared promising. However, in the decades since he published his findings, his conclusions have been so thoroughly discredited that even GRI agrees Po halos are not evidence of an instantaneos creation.

I see that you completely ignored the main thrust of my post, i.e., answering your charges of lack of integrity.  Since that has been such a key part of your accusation in many posts, I'm surprised you chose not to respond.

As for Adventist Today or La Sierra dropping any semblance of representation or affiliation with the SDA Church, I'm amazed that you think it is only YOUR definition of what is sufficiently Adventist to be associated with the church in name that counts.  By the same token, you would say I should drop my membership (much as Goldstein has editorialized) because I don't measure up to YOUR definition of what an SDA should believe.  I reject your claims to such authority.  I am an SDA, and AToday and La Sierra are SDA, just as much as you are.  At least we are until the church chooses to narrow its definition and run us out.  I suppose you are praying for that.

Sean,

I see that you completely ignored the main thrust of my post where I answered your charge of lack of integrity amongst professors.

The only reason for Adventist Today or La Sierra dropping affiliation or representation of association with the SDA Church is if we are all to roll over and agree that it is YOUR interpretation of what is SDA that all must adhere to.  But why should we do that?  If you want AT and LSU to drop the affiliation, then for sure you probably want me to drop my membership in the SDA Church, since I don't believe the same as YOU do.  But I have as much right as you do to define my beliefs and to seek association with others of like faith, and if that is within the SDA church (just as it is for you), then who are you to tell me I can't/shouldn't?  If the church isn't big enough for all of us, then we'll have to split.  Is that what you really want?  Where will the fragmentation of Adventism end, once it begins?

Mr. McKlarty seems to want the church to "evolve", just as most of "christianity" wants to 'adapt' to the teachings of this world. I see nothing wrong with being educated on the "THEORY" of evolution in SDA schools, but to try and comprimise with evolution to stay current is absurd! God did not use death to help create. If that's true then death came before sin as Pr. Asscherick has stated in his messages. Why is it that people can beleive that Jesus healed the sick, raised Lazerus and rose from the dead Himself, but can't or wont accept a literal 6 day Genesis creation account? What will I read next from an SDA "minister", that maybe the Sabbath doesn't really matter so much..?

Sean Pitman has it right:

"I suggest that La Sierra University and AdventistToday should do the same thing - drop any semblance of representation or affiliation with the SDA Church as an organized body since they are both, in fact, directly undermining key doctrinal positions that the SDA Church claims are "fundamental" to the organization."

Likewise, the entire North American Division should also disassemble and drop its affiliation with the SDA Church, as its constituents have long been undermining a key policy of the SDA Church, namely that women should not be ordained as ministers (voted twice at world congresses of the Church, and still disrespected in North America). Sean has frequently complained about the Church becoming schizophrenic in its tolerance of diverse views. It's time to do it Sean's way. The North American Division needs to either shutter up or fire all of its leaders who advocate for women's ordination.

(And if someone had told me months ago that I would be promoting such a bizarre viewpoint--for the sake of consistency--I would have laughed in their face. But now I see the light. Pitman's brilliant arguments have won me over. It is so very difficult and unnatural for me to become an accuser of the brethren...)