Nice try, but you haven't gone deep enough.  It's really the Illuminatti working through the trilateral commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

I read Erv's statements and I do not think they are unreasoned. I read the veiled vicious attacks on LSU's President by the responders on this site. Its clear what the agenda is and the agenda is fear driven. The ones who are posting the protests clearly want the GC to come in and start an inquisition and the outcome of that process would hopefully serve as fair warning to all those who engage in biological sciences and research.  The warning is they dare not seriously discuss the theory of evolution and supporting evidence for this theory.

When Galileo was forced to recant his position on the heliocentric model of the solar system, he privately held his position to be the correct one. Thus, Pope Urban the VIII failed to "control" the mind of Galileo but forced him to publicly submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. From the comments rendered by fundamentalists on this topic it seems they want to have a similar forum to really find out how deep the evolution heresy runs and then engage in a purge.

I applaud the current GC for resisting this type of approach. In time we may find that some of the 28 fundamental beliefs may be untenable and the list may be pared down. After all the Catholic Church finally had to recognize that Ptolemy's view of the earth being at the center of the solar system was not correct and then had to readjust its theology accordingly. 

The science underpinning the theory of evolution should be taught at SDA schools. Furthermore, the traditional SDA understanding of genesis, literal vs non-literal translation of the bible and the science faith conflict also needs to be discussed in SDA schools. However, the latter belongs in a theology or religion course not a science course.

In keeping with David's sarcasm I just cannot resist. Maybe some SDA's educated in the sciences who are teaching evolution reflects the latent expression of conserved rebellion genes of the Anti-Deluvians. After all are they not our distant cousins? Far fetched idea since we cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that they even existed. However, the remains of dinosaurs are abundant and the evidence in no way suggests a co-existence with humans. Humans and dinosaurs separated by 65 million yrs seems the most reasonable explanation. To make the 10,000 yr model work you have to "invent" Anti-Deluvians and their supposed "genetic engineering feats" and give the fantasy a sophisticated packaging. Good stuff for fundamentalists.

I think Erv's theory is a little too sophisticated for what is going on. I mean really there has been a traditional Adventist contengent for a number of years that think the SDA church has gone to the dogs. I doubt they think that getting in their man at the GC will change much. Right now they seek to assert the power of tradition upon the church that is growing most rapidly in third world countries. And by setting up the Adventist educational system as the problem here in America they can seek to abtain the leadership role among the third world Adventists as the true representatives of the Adventist church.

Actually that might be more sophisticated then the idea of installing their own GC president. Or maybe they are the same as the results might be similar. The real point is that it is a continuing battle for the heart and soul of the Adventist church. Though I am not sure that either side really wins a prize by getting the Adventist church. At least not with it's current set of problems. 

Ron,

I could not agree more. The "prize" may in the end may not be worth the fight. Blood lettings like these usually result in life long bitterness on both sides.

There is no “bashing” going on.  Allthat is being done is what LSU should have been doing all along - honestlyadvertising what is really being taught in its classrooms so that parents whowish to send their children to LSU know full well what they are paying a greatdeal of money to acquire for their children. 

And, if the SDA Church, as an organization,doesn’t really consider a literal creation week to be all that fundamentalafter all, certainly not worth taking a decided stand to promote from itspulpits and classrooms, then perhaps it should remove this doctrinal positionfrom its stated set of “fundamental” positions . . .

 Let's just stop playing games here withstudents and parents and tithe payers.  Let's just put all the cards outon the table and be more open and honest about what is going on at ouruniversities. The truth is that the LSU professors are in fact promoting theidea that there was no literal creation week; that life on this planet did infact evolve, in a Darwinian manner, over the course of hundreds of millions ofyears of time.  They are actively tryingto discredit the young-life view that has been stated to be fundamental toSDAism.  So, if that is considered to benecessary for LSU education, let's just be up front and open about that.  Why not even be proud to make this factgenerally known?  Why try to hide it orkeep it under wraps?  Aren't the parentsof LSU students and even all those who financially support LSU entitled to knowthe truth? 

Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

And then continue to put the cards on the table by announcing what books the Literature department will read...better be even more careful and put up whatever book or author is referenced because I believe Ellen white tells us not to read fiction except for Pilgrim's Progress.

That should apply for history courses too, we would hate to see them reference some old fictional stories or ancient pagan practices because then someone might assume that if we teach about an ancient story or pagan practice we are endorsing it as an official Adventist belief.

We probably need to do something similar in all the disciplines, math, chemistry,engineering and be very careful with physics which is filled with all kinds of dangerous ideas, quantum physics, multiverses etc.

I suppose the easiest thing to do with all these disclosures is to create a position of education czar for the Adventist church. Obviously only Traditional SDA's need apply and of course only elected by Traditional SDA's. So we better start by creating an electorate of Traditional SDA's I suppose by having them sign a document that they accept the 28 fundamental beliefs without regard for the preamble. Of course we will lose those Arian Adventists who are certainly historic Adventists, but they are the black sheep of the TSDA camp anyway.

Hi Ron,

It is very disingenuous of you to suggest thatthe LSU teachers are only teaching "about" the theory of evolution.  The truth of the matter is that they areopenly telling their students that this is the actual truth - that there was noliteral creation week as per the interpretation of the SDA Church.  That life on this planet did in fact evolveover hundreds of millions of years of time. That is what they are telling their students.  Anyone who tells you any different is lyingto you.

Now, there may be those who think this is agood thing since it is obviously "the truth".  That's a whole different issue entirely.  The point is that whatever is being taught atLSU as "the truth", it should be presented to the parents andfinancial supporters of LSU very openly. It shouldn't be hidden or deflected behind language like, "We allbelieve in God here" - like that somehow changes the fact that they don'tbelieve in a literal creation week and are in fact deliberately underminingthis concept with their students. 

Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean,

Speaking to Ron you state..."It is very disingenuous of you to suggest that the LSU teachers are only teaching "about" the theory of evolution.  The truth of the matter is that they are openly telling their students that this is the actual truth - that there was no literal creation week as per the interpretation of the SDA Church.  That life on this planet did in fact evolve over hundreds of millions of years of time.  That is what they are telling their students.  Anyone who tells you any different is lying to you. "

If this is true, it should be part of the LSU catalog describing the course selections. It should be known by the Board of Directors. It should be openly known by any support from the SDA church and parents sending their children to LSU.

I suggest at the present time of "knowledge" the "fact" of origins is not known and anyone presenting it as fact (as to human origins) would better represent a secular college or an institution holding that view.

regards,

pat travis

Sean wrote:

--

Hi Ron,

It is very disingenuous of you to suggest that the LSU teachers are only teaching "about" the theory of evolution....

--

Disingenuous? Really can you tell me where I suggested anything about what they are teaching at La Sierra? I don't know I don't go there and I have made no claims about what they do or do not teach. I do say that our schools need academic freedom but for you to make the above charge simply shows that you have lost any objectivity to the issue. You are running on emotions and eagar to brand those who disagree with your view as disingenuous. 

Personally I think it is a bad idea for any science class to  say there is no literal creation week or a literal 6 day creation week. Neither are science related they are faith related and entirely speculative. If one wants to review the different creation stories that is fine, not particularly relevant to a science class however. There are areas where speculation are interesting but still entirely hypothetical such as all the theories about what took place 1/16 thousands to 1/8 thousands of a second after the Big Bang. 

Just as we don't want to spend a lot of time speculating about the micro seconds following the singularity we don't what to define our science classes by what our denomination thinks about creationism. Creationism covers a lot of ground. And still most Adventists have not studied the issue enough to give relevant answers to questions let alone be telling Science professionals what they should be believing. Education should never be focused upon the lowest common denominator. But that is what it appears some want for Adventist Education.

Hi Ron,

You wrote: 

"Someone might assume that if we teach about an ancient story or pagan practice we are endorsing it as an official Adventist belief." [emphasis added]

The problem you see, is that LSU teachers arenot just teaching "about" the theory of evolution with an actual emphasis on a literal creation week. They are actuallypromoting long-age theistic-type evolution (in a Darwinian style) as the "truth" and are in fact claiming that there was noliteral creation week in recent history. That's what they are teaching.

So, all that has to be done is for LSU to beopen about what its professors are in fact promoting in their classrooms - thatwhat they are promoting as "the truth" is directly counter to whatSDAs, as an organization, claim to be fundamentally "true". 

As it currently stands, this is not beingdone by LSU.  It doesn't matter if the science teaches are right or wrongin their beliefs or in what they are teaching.  Whatever they areteaching, it should be fully known by the parents and those who are financiallysupporting LSU.

I think even you would agree with thismuch.  I mean really, what reason is there for LSU to be embarrassed andtry to cover up what is really being taught in their science classrooms? Why not just openly be honest about it and admit it up front?

Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

No I get it Sean, you don't like what the contemporary science is and you don't want the prevailing science taught at Adventist schools. I guess it might be true that some Adventists don't realize what the science is and you feel that the school should announce to them that our schools will teach modern scientific theories.

La Sierra University states:

--

The University educates its students through a broad offering of studies in the liberal arts and sciences and in selected professional areas. It promotes research through encouraging and facilitating original investigation, critical reflection, and scholarly publication. It serves its various communities through adult education, resource centers, cultural events, nontechnical publications, and professional consultation. Among these varied activities, the University maintains as a vital concern the education of its undergraduate students.

Thus this University does the things most other universities do. But it does these things as the fruition of its Adventist heritage and commitment, even as it welcomes students from all religious and cultural backgrounds. The University’s religious orientation provides a perspective for its educational programs and projects, a motivation for its intellectual vitality and rigor, a framework for its moral values and lifestyle, and a basis for its social consciousness and public service. Convinced that God is the author of all truth, the University maintains an atmosphere of freedom and openness for intellectual exploration and expression.

http://www.lasierra.edu/about/aims.html

--

You simply don't like the "freedom and openness for intellectual exploration and expression" and would rather see captivitiy to traditional SDA thought on science and religion. since that of course is not the intent of the school they don't make the kind of announcement that you are now demanding from them.

I am thankful that the major decision for where a student goes to college is still largely left up to the student. I suppose there are some Adventists who decide where their children will go and the student has no say. In that case you would be doing those parents a service by telling them that science is actually taught at La Sierra University and that if they don't like science they should avoid the science curricula or go to some school that rejects science. Of course then we would not be having this debate, you could just publish in "Our Firm Foundation" or through "Amazing Facts" and 3ABN.

Hi Ron,

Exactly.  I couldn't agree more. Justpublish what LSU actually stands for and is teaching in its classrooms. That is all we are doing right now.  We are just making it clear to all,as best as we can, what is actually being taught as truth at LSU even thoughLSU is evidently trying to cover up what is really going on there -- for somestrange reason? . . . 

Except, perhaps, that if all LSU teaches as the gospel truth is mainstream science in its classrooms, perhaps parents aren't too dim-witted to figure out that they could get the same thing for a tenth the cost and much less cognitive dissonance down the road at UCR?  You do the math . . . because, I can assure you, parents will - especially in these exceptionally difficult economic times . . .

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean wrote:

--

Exactly.  I couldn't agree more. Just publish what LSU actually stands for and is teaching in its classrooms.  That is all we are doing right now.  We are just making it clear to all, as best as we can, what is actually being taught as truth at LSU even though LSU is evidently trying to cover up what is really going on there -- for some strange reason? . . .  

--

See Sean that is where you are disingenious David Asscherick's letter is not meant to publicize what LSU is teaching it is a call for them to stop teaching modern science. The school has not tried to hide anything. What they teach is what they teach, it is not a secret, it is not hiding. The aim states they want intellectual freedom, that that freedom is the result of our Adventist heritage. We were allowed to pursue our search for the truth and we establish schools with the same intention.

I really don't understand this desire to indoctrinate college student with only SDA beliefs. If you want to indoctrinate it is way to late when they get to college. Valuegenesis has shown that the indocrination process is pretty much done by 7th grade. As they get older they value being able to ask questions and get intelligent answers. This assumption that College students are unthinking grade schoolers seems to be the basis of the Traditional Adventist desire to limit knowledge at Colleges.

I would be very willing to wager that should the Traditional Adventist win on this issue that the science departments at Adventist colleges will become ghost classrooms. Ultimately offering nothing but introductory classes to fulfill requirements for no science majors. Maybe they can restrict the biology department to physical biology emphasis classes to feed our medical school. But that is about all. 

Regardless of political views or interests within this school IF it is Biblically based and/or supports God's Word, they should NOT promote any ideas or theories of any form of evolution!  Cutting edge teaching should reveal God's creation, not demean it to man's understanding of  nature and science.

 ~ Suenell

Hi Ron,

The whole point of having Adventist schoolsis to promote the uniquely Adventist perspective within them.  That is what most parents are paying for whenthey send their children specifically to an SDA school that costs up to tentimes as much as a public university in the same area (which usually has evenbetter facilities - especially when it comes to the science departments).

Now, if a school that thinks to carry the titleof a SDA institution decides, for some strange reason, that it is not going tosupport this or that stated fundamentalposition of the SDA Church in its classrooms any longer; that it is in factgoing to start promoting just the opposite, teaching that this or thatfundamental is in fact obviously mistaken, then this school needs to do one oftwo things.  It needs to stop callingitself an SDA institution.  Or, at thevery least, it needs to publicly say that it is mostly in support of the SDAfundamentals except for certain ones which are listed along with the counteringposition of the school.  This needs to bedone so that parents can intelligently choose where to send their children withfull knowledge of what they are purchasing at a very high price.

This has not been done at LSU.  LSU continues to carry the title of a SDA institutioneven though it is in fact arguing in its science classrooms that one of themost historically cherished fundamentals of the Church is in fact wrong -painfully wrong.  LSU is presenting thesearguments without full disclosure of its position on the issue of origins.  It has not published this fundamentaldisagreement with its namesake.  In fact,Wisbey and others at LSU have tried to argue that LSU is not promoting thetruth of the Theory of Evolution (ToE), but simply are teaching"about" this theory.  Ofcourse, this simply isn't true.  The LSUscience professors are not simply teaching about the ToEwhile actually supporting the SDA position on origins in their classrooms.Rather, they are strongly promoting the truth of theToE in the classrooms and are in fact arguing that the Church's stated positionon origins is ludicrously mistaken.  Therefore, LSU is in fact guilty of falseadvertising.  It claims to be somethingwhich it is not - at least not in the full sense of the term. 

That is stealing.  False advertising is a form of lying - ofdeliberate deception.  That's a moralwrong in anyone's book.

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com

I absolutely love this, old Prof. Taylor.

You enjoy stirring the pot so much, that when there is no news of substance, you make up hypotheses to breath new life into the story. Give us a break.

 Peter Marks

"The warning is they dare not seriously discuss the theory of evolution and supporting evidence for this theory."

That is funny Pickle, you are taking Gentry's word for it aren't you. I understand why when you contacted the writer who debunked Gentry that he did not respond to you, you don't really know what you are saying. It is very much like the eisegesis you do by saying that God destroyed the plants and animals with the flood because you read in the King James version that all flesh was corrupt which meant amalgamation of man and beast which you even asserted as been taught for 2000 years.

Of course that would also include those on the ark but that does not seem to enter your mind. Nor does the fact that the Bible is not a code book for people to take a sentance here or there out of and make as the support for their fanciful theories. Speaking of which I did note that if a person took the Genesist story of the flood literally they would have to have all representative creatures on the ark, not just some, all because it repeats that "all" quite a few times. But you don't talk about that and it is not advanced physics, it is simple language of a story.

Technology has advanced so far that we all take the word of others, most of us don't have the expertise to do first hand research, but when the research has been done by so many for so long you can be pretty sure it is accurate and reliable, maybe not answering all questions but certainly not in need of constant double checking. And certainly not aided by the spouting of complete amateurs as if they really know what they are talking about.Which seems to be your preferred method.Simply because you can't drag other people down to your irrational methods does not indicate your position is superior.

I have a hypothetical situation that I'd like to present to everyone on this forum. I welcome all comments.

Lets say that the Adventist church went down another path in its theological history and as a result one of the fundamental beliefs was the refusal of blood products for medical purposes. In the beginning this was satisfactory for the membership as the risks associated with these types of medical procedures was not fully understood. But, over time it became abundantly clear, from a medical standpoint, that the benefits of these procedures far surpassed the risk and for some individuals this literally becomes a matter of life and death.

Now, although the medical community of the church has been convinced that these procedures are safe and can be reconciled with their belief in God, the official church doctrine still prohibits there use. This starts to cause a lot of anxiety for regular members and raises the question of who to trust in these matters, their church or their doctor. Even worse, you are a member and a medical doctor, therefore putting you right in the middle of this controversial issue.

The question is, do you continue to endorse the church's position, based on its historical merit or do you try to help members come to terms with how these procedures and their faith can co-exist?

Cheers, 

Dav

Disclaimer: Obviously there are church organizations that sincerely hold this belief based on their interpretation of the Bible. Let me say that I am in no way judging their belief, just using it to illustrate a thought.

It is your hobby horse Pickle, when I mentioned this on my blog it was radiometric dating. You carried it over to Gentry's halo's, saying that one does not have a current answer for an observation is far different from saying that the only answer is evidence of God's instant creation. Radiometric dating can be compared using various techniques and the dates are pretty similar.

Pickle wrote:

--As far as the possibility that Gen. 6:2 refers to amalgamation, I found that idea in a book around 1981 in the SAU library. It certainly sounds plausible. But if you disagree, propose another way that all flesh could become corrupt and thus fit what the text says.

--

That you have a hard time understanding Genesis 6:12  is kind of telling because it repeats it's self, making it evident it is talking about the actions of the people.

(Gen 6:11 NIV)  Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. (Gen 6:12 NIV)  God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. Gen 6:13 NIV)  So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

That the flood story is inconsistent with itself I would certainly agree, it was not likely ever written to be taken literally. But when modern Christians say they are taking it literally and then ignoring that it said take pairs of every living creature then they are not being any too literal by saying that the flood was used to destroy the dinosaurs.

You can see all the examples on my blog article:

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-6-literal-day-creationists-really...

In the midst of all the scientific techno-speak and theological jargon, which admittedly, for me as a layperson is tough to follow, I've tried to understand how this particular topic garnered more discussion than "If only my mother had bought me a vibrator" and "The Gay Lover."

But I think I'm beginning to grasp the source of the panic...  If there is not a literal, 6 day creation, there is a fear that the whole "7th Day" in Seventh Day Adventist loses its significance.  Our church has hung its proverbial hat on the Sabbath.  However, is this Covenant, this Sabbath, marginalized or invalidated if the 6 day creation doesn't somehow tell the whole story with regards to the development of the earth and its myriad of ecosystems and life forms?

On the flip side of the coin, Adventist scientific scholars likely spend tens of thousands of hours studying first hand, primary sources of information about our world.  If they see or learn or believe something that is different than what our church teaches, they are obligated to teach what they have learned in their research.  That is the very definition of academic freedom, and any institute of higher learning that doesn't allow for this isn't worth supporting or attending. 

Here is one possible solution.  LSU should actively seek to hire a qualified biological sciences professor who believes in and teaches creationism in the context of modern scientific thought (perhaps some of the posters here might apply...)  This Professor can teach a class that fulfills the same academic requirements as the evolution-based class, and students can choose to take one or the other or both.  After all, academic freedom should include not just a professor's ability to choose, but also the student's, no?

But before solutions, whatever they may be, can be implemented, I think LSU should acknowledge the issues at hand.  It shouldn't take a "leaked letter" to expose an evolution-only curriculum at a church-sponsored institution, and the response to such a letter should include more than a politically savvy bob and weave.  I think the President of LSU has taken the "President" in his title a little too literally.  He owes the church organization and members an apology for not having the courage to stand for academic freedom, but rather protect it by sliding it by, underneath the radar. 

And the membership, whose debate has been "lively" might consider putting down their torches and pitchforks, and reflect on the reaction that LSU likely used as justification for being less open about the curriculum being taught there.  We don't have to fear evolutionary teachings, especially in our universities.  Evolution, especially in this context, doesn't invalidate or chip away at our Sabbath Covenant with our creator.  The spirit of this type of controversy is the exact reason that in 1861, JN Loughborough cautioned against setting up something like the 28 fundamental beliefs, saying that

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such."

Our institutions, students, and constituents should be grateful that a professor who holds a view opposed to our traditional SDA thought would be stubborn enough to remain at the lecturn of our universities.  We shouldn't foster an atmosphere where they fear to teach.  We should celebrate them for their courage, while at the same time ensuring our students are exposed to our church beliefs, within a scientific context, as well.

Pickle,

There is all kinds of evidence and no I do not have to take other peoples word for it. We do gene expression studies all the time and one thing that happens when you do what is known as a BLAST search of a gene in a particular species you see overlap of the same genes in other life forms right up the ladder to family and order. This is what evolutionary theory predicts.

The evidence in the paleontological record is also clear. Humans and Dinosaurs never are found together. These data suggest two things. One Dinosaurs existed before humans and Dinosaurs ceased to exist quite some time ago.

You do the typical thing of attacking a scientific theory that can not satisfactorily explain all aspects of evolution to you. No one ever said it could. But, this is an ongoing process and our understanding improves over time. This type of approach reminds me of the typical fundamentalist Christians who say "see, see science cannot explain everything." Then armed with that certitude they are off to the races telling me "how God created." Science cannot explain everything, but it explains a lot and science does not tell us how God does anything nor can we expect it to do so.

If you want to have an ark containing "all kinds" isn't if funny how the reptiles were left off of the boat, but here they are now? Evolution? Another special creation?

Taking genesis literally and ignoring science hardly appears reasonable. But, the SDA church and its theology is still very young. In 500 yrs I doubt many SDA's will be taking to much to the current theology, literally. 

Sean,

There is nothing wrong with an SDA institution presenting "a unique SDA perspective." But, evolutionary theory, the concept of deep time and the data that support these paradigms should also be discussed. Evolution of gene sequences is discussed in weekly seminars at LLU all the time. No one has their jeans in a twist over this and just because its discussed does not make people atheists or in rebellion against the church.

The book "Understanding Genesis"which you are aware of, suggests that the SDA view of genesis and the flood in a literal sense may not be correct. What did you expect when Adventists opened rigorous institutions of higher learning? These schools opened Pandora's box when they started teaching theology, science, history and philosophy. Is it any wonder that some questioning minds might not find some of the 28 fundamental beliefs untenable? Does any rational person expect that ALL students coming out of our institutions and later becoming competent faculty would necessarily support a blind adherence to every tenet of the Church? A mature person has to recognize that they are not guaranteed a comfort zone where they can rest assured that they have all of the "truth." 

Ron,

What an ominous wish. Your comment regarding LSU, PUC and LLU "destroying themselves", almost suggests that you would revel in such a demise. That said you probably will not get your wish especially with regards to LLU. Doing better than ever in science grants to basic science faculty. No one is distracting or denying anything at LLU. Just because the science supporting evolution is discussed does not necessarily make one an atheist or in open rebellion against the church. Your hyperbole is "well said." 

Statefarmsteve,

I appreciated your comments and smiled with your reference to "technospeak and theological jargon". I am a scientist and it gives me a headache at times myself.  That said, you are a smart man and I think you have really hit on something. Isn't it interesting reading what appears to be a metaphorical "call to arms"? I think you are right about a "creed" being the first step to apostasy and you grasp quite clearly what is going on here. 

Dear Dr. Taylor,

I appreciated the choice of the word “hypothesis” to describe your recent commentary on the controversy regarding La Sierra.  I found it surprising, then, that your sweeping opening paragraph is stated as if factual, with the only suggestions relegated to the realm of hypothetical are the motives involved.  Maybe I’ve just been left out in the cold; but do you have any evidence whatsoever of a coalition, or of careful orchestration going on behind the scenes? The executive editor of a magazine purporting to provide open reporting to Adventists should model the highest journalistic ethics, wouldn’t you agree?

It seems that you pay the non-rational, un-reasonable “fundamentalists” considerable recognition by crediting them with forming a “coalition” and “conducting a carefully orchestrated assault” that, according to your hypothesis, could even sway the upcoming election of church leaders!  That would be quite an accomplishment, if it occurred, for this mystical group whose cognitive abilities you seem to disdain.  While history has seen its share of even more sinister plots, let me explain in this email why I think you’re completely mistaken – at least about any of the Adventists I know.  Maybe the conspiracy theme of your piece got to me, but I found myself wondering if the real motive of your piece was to link the unnamed but clearly-identified potential candidate with a conspiracy and at the same time create an early sense of his front-runner status – both clear detriments to his election.

Let me back up a little bit here.  I’ve never met you, and my first introduction to you as a person came over two years ago through the ATNewsbreak of March 2, 2007.  In that emailed update from AToday was included an interview with you by Julius Nam.  I want to thank you for your honesty and transparency in that interview.  But to be frank, I found it both surprising and troubling.  The most basic of beliefs that I hold as a Christian are apparently either foreign or repugnant to you, and through some of these very teachings of the Savior I have experienced peace in my heart and hope for the future, and watched as thousands others have done the same.  I wondered, Can this man really be happy?  Can his heart be filled with the peace that passes understanding as is mine? Is such peace and joy possible with these beliefs? I don’t know you, but I have been praying for you.  Not until reading your recent piece, and realizing that you were possibly including me (or ASI, at least) in this conspiracy, did I feel impressed that I should make personal contact with you.

I’m currently out of the country, and don’t have my copy of that interview in front of me, but the substantive ideas that were impressive to me were:

My friend, these are not the teachings of “fundamental Adventism” that you apparently are at variance with, but of Christianity.  I can confidently speak not only for the beliefs of “fundamentalist Adventists” (whoever they are) but indeed for mainstream Adventists and for mainstream Christianity when I tell you that I have fear for your soul.  We believe there is such a thing as sin, and, praise God, such a wonderful miracle as salvation to those who believe!  I cannot think of any precious belief more mainstream than this!

And, we believe with all our hearts that the Church is not a human institution, but is one of divine origin and of special, continuing divine interposition!  It is this belief that really sets your view on the upcoming elections apart from mine.  We believe:

We believe, because of our faith in God’s Word, that no power on earth will triumph over God’s Church.  It is the apple of His eye, the object of His supreme regard, the nearest and dearest thought to the throne of the omnipotent Ruler of the universe.  No sinister plot, no half-baked human scheme, not even a carefully orchestrated assault can threaten God’s Church.  The truth, which has never changed and can never change will triumph gloriously throughout eternity, and God’s Church is destined to triumph with it!  We believe that the God who sets up kings and takes down kings (Daniel 2:21) still has His all-wise hands over His Church –  even at the time of General Conference elections.

If we saw the Church as a human institution, as in your words you have said you do, then we too would be worrying about who would be the next GC President.  But we don’t.  And we aren’t – worrying or scheming.  Those who believe God is dependent on them and their human institution must scheme to make sure the right man is elected, while those who believe themselves to be dependent on God must rest in the assurance of His taking care of His own.  “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” Ephesians 5:29.  One might think this to be self-evident, but then, the “natural [faith-less?] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14. 

I want to be explicitly clear here: If you think that the recent letter from ASI in any way reveals an agenda to change or undermine church leadership you are wrong. ASI has a close relationship and genuine respect for the men and women who God has seen fit to burden with the tremendous and often thankless task of leading His Church. We are here to support them.  We are here to encourage them.  We will stand shoulder to shoulder with them in defending this Church, and in the defending and spreading of the clear beliefs about Jesus which they have been elected to facilitate around the world.  They have the right to know that we are right here with them in accomplishing this task. We have no agenda for who should be the next GC President.  Wherein we as individuals have votes on that matter, we will prayerfully and individually vote our conscience for the best available candidate.  And we are confident that the Holy Spirit can take care of the results without devious human efforts.

And, by the way, we have the same confidence in God’s ability to take care of His truth, even regarding origins.  Did it ever occur to you that the powerful movement you yourself are reacting to might not be fueled by carefully laid human plans, but by the moving of the Spirit of truth? That, as has so often occurred in history, men and women could be moved by the Holy Spirit to make statements and take actions in concert with others who they had never met and with whom they had no collusion? That the system of truth might once again sweep away the most humanly-powerful assertions of the most educated men and the most humanly-influential institutions?  Have not societies and nations been radically changed before by faith-filled, plain-speaking, humble individuals who, though disdained by the worldly-wise, rejoiced as human philosophies and theories crumbled in the presence of the simple-yet-eternal truth of God?

You haven’t seen anything yet.

“Truth, passing by those who despise and reject it, will triumph. Although at times apparently retarded, its progress has never been checked. When the message of God meets with opposition, He gives it additional force, that it may exert greater influence. Endowed with divine energy, it will cut its way through the strongest barriers and triumph over every obstacle.”  Acts of the Apostles, p. 601.

My prayer is that, when truth triumphs, I – with you too, my brother – will by God’s grace triumph with it.  I’m praying for you.

Sincerely,

Chester Van Clark III
ASI General Vice President

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."  C. S. Lewis

Deleted by moderator

Erv,

I have not interacted with any material from the people that you are writing about other than the video that you made available on the AToday site, so I am not directly familiar with them or their communiques.

I am an Adventist who finds it very important that we accept the Genesis account of creation as literally as Jesus Christ did. I believe He took it to be historically accurate and worthy as a basis for practical theology, such as His teaching on marriage and divorce. So . . . I believe that God created life on earth in 6 literal days and rested on a literal 7th. I find that to be the clearly held teaching of our church as well--just one of the many reasons that I am a member and a pastor in this faith.

As a devotee of science, I am keenly aware of the apparently ridiculous position that places me in vis a vis the accumulation of evidence and constructs supporting the evolutionary model in some form or another. I would counsel that, if one is open to seeing it, the formidable edifice of evolutionary theory is not as free of cracks as its defenders would like to present to the public. Just notice the growing rift between morphological and genetic taxonomists as one example.

While I pay attention to the activities and publications of the scientific community, my faith is built on the record of the Bible, which I accept as the Word of God.

Regardless of the approach and possible agenda of the people that you are talking about in your commentary, I believe there are many, many more who would also be concerned about the implications of Adventist teachers teaching that the evolutionary construct is the true story of the origins of life and our planet. Of course I have no issue with Adventist students being fully conversant in prevailing theories of origins, but I would hold it to be non-negotiable that every Adventist-employed professor would be able to sincerely teach the truth of the Biblical account and how that interfaces and even possibly disconnects with the data as presently understood.

Forgive me for being tempted to consider another hypothesis that easily comes to mind when reading your commentary. You have placed yourself perilously close to coming across as creating your own smokescreen when you couch these concerns as entirely ascribable to GC presidential politics--even if you're right!

Truth Seeker

Dr. Taylor's comments evince remarkable arrogance, and disregard for the fact that, what he deems "largely discredited fundamentalist objections to the contemporary biological sciences" are embraced by the overwhelming majority of SDA Church members - probably well over 90%.  Even if they are wrong in their beliefs, how can the scientific Left in the Church justify a stealth attack on the values, beliefs, and culture of those whose commitments and sacrifices built the institutions from which they earn a living? How is it that, when "fundamentalists" call for academic institutions to exhibit the same sort of transparency, openness, and honesty that progressives demand of clerical administrators, they become pariahs - enemies of academic freedom and truth? The tergiversations of the Left never cease to amaze and amuse me. 

Dr. Taylor seems to believe that, if Dr. Pitman's concerns are taken seriously, it will lead to scientific obscurantism and religious fundamentalism. Therefore, circling the wagons, conjuring conspiracies, belittling and demonizing the opposition is justified by the ends.  I wish the Church could be more open to scientific challenges to Biblical literalism.  But I also wish the scientific Left in the Church would realistically acknowledge that much of evolutionary theory is simply that - theory, not empirical science. Correlation is not causation, and the problem of an uncaused cause provides a shaky foundation on which to build a science of origins.  

SDAs who actually read the lectures of the biology professors at La Sierra (rather than Dr. Taylor's assurances that there is no problem), will pretty easily see that there is a big problem - and it needs to be openly and honestly confronted.  Demagoguing the demagogues is unworthy of those who would claim the intellectual and moral high ground.   

Pickle,

Where do I get the idea no reptiles were taken into the ark? Simple, no mention of "creeping creatures" taken aboard. Please edify me where the reptiles are on the ark. You want to try for some dinosaurs on the ark also? You take this story literally I do not.

Questioning evolution being wrong because of the "instant crystallization" argument? What credible scientist says the rocks in the triassic period "are much younger?"

 Paleontologists have discovered a new dinosaur with a parrot type beak and may have been eating nuts. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090616-new-dinosaur-parrot-nuts.html Birds and dinosaurs have numerous common features. But, I forgot you don't accept evolution. From a genomic perspective, I do.

With further regards to the theology behind a literal interpretation of genesis which assumes "descendency" of humans from a "perfect" state. Even if you want to argue all of creation happened more recently there is not a shred of evidence in the human record that humans were created in a high moral and physical state and then "descended" to our current state. Comparing modern humans to our closest ancient relatives suggest just the opposite. Furthermore, the anti-deluvian concept is just laughable and only seems to exist as an argument within a microcosm of Adventism. Unless there are a few Jehovah's witnesses out there arguing the same. But, I do not know. 

Chester,

Just as science swept away the geocentric based theology of early Christianity it is sweeping away many other misconceptions. So you honestly think that humans having no collusion and coming up with similar propositions is not merely random but the "guiding of the spirit?" Think a minute. There are over 6 billion people on the planet with many thoughts running through their minds at any one time. Its highly likely that non-colluding individuals will come up with similar ideas at any one time.

When you make the comment "God will take care of his truth", that appears to be a statement of great hubris. Truth according to your view or Gods? How do you know what is "Gods truth"? You also spoke of "teachings of the savior." Does that include a literalistic interpretation of genesis? I do not think Christ was to concerned about such issues. 

In the end this issue is in the hands of the theologians, not scientists. The science underpinning evolution which suggests that there is commonality of structure and function from genotype to phenotype among life forms and that species can change over time appears convincing. 

Markham,

You call yourself a "truth seeker." Your post sounds as if it is coming from someone who would like to be an "enforcer" of the "truth" or a grand inquisitor. In your mind "responsibility" is professors teaching the "truth" which is contained within the fundamental doctrines of Adventism. 

From my perspective publicly calling oneself a truth seeker while at the same time appearing to be an advocate for enforcement within the SDA community of higher education seems a bit contradictory. Adventism in institutions of higher education cannot live with its head in a bag of fundamental "truths."

Fundamental "truths" that you speak about only exist in the microcosm of Adventism. 

Pickle,

First a single article saying dinosaurs did not evolve into birds? Are you kidding me? And there you have it. What you are missing here is that the article you cite is an ARGUMENT and it is plausible. There is evidence that argues for some dinosaurs evolving into birds. But, the discussion is in flux. Its called "science." I just published an article in a physiology journal. My data argues for a particular calcium metabolism pathway. Does this mean the discussion has ended? No its ongoing and our view of how the pathway works is in a state of "evolution."

To answer your questions:

1. No I have not studied genomes of all birds. But, looking at calcium regulatory proteins in humans, birds, rats, ovine, fruit fly etc they all have a common genetic origin. Hmmm, so we use the same regulatory proteins as lower animals. Its called conservation of genes necessary for life. Evolutionary theory predicts such.

2. There is no evidence to suggest a devolutionary state of man. If evidence becomes available then we will discuss it. But, telling me that man was created in a high moral and physical state when the evidence says otherwise is not convincing.

3. Is there anything in the bible I consider authoritative? Yes and No.  Yes, when Jesus tells me to love my neighbor and to do unto others as I would have done unto me. No with regards to a literal creation story and a universal flood. These stories parallel other myths.

4. Do I believe Jesus was born of a virgin? No. People are not made that way and it requires the contribution of genetic material contained within the haploid genetic sets from sperm and eggs. The idea of  Gods coming from humans and virgins in particular predates the time of Jesus.

5. Was Jesus killed? It appears to be that way but the "historicity" of Jesus is still argued among theologians. These arguments aside, I still believe that some of Jesus' teachings are "authoritative" in terms of how I should live and my relationship to others.

6. Was he resurrected? I do not know. Its a salvation story and the hope is within the story. Besides its not my problem. Its Gods. After I am gone if God wants me to know something then the ball is in his court. I did not care before I existed and I doubt I am going to be all to concerned after my time has come. Then? I "sleep" until God figures out what to do next. From my statement I wonder if I have more faith than most of you literalists. 

Dr. Greig,

I read your post with fascinated curiosity. Your depiction of conspiracies was most interesting and logical. There are literary critiques of scripture within Adventism. One recent book is "Understanding Genesis." I am thankful for books such as these because I can begin to really understand biblical stories within their historical context. I would have loved to have taken a course from you on critical analysis of scripture. I wish I had more time to engage in such things.

I agree with you that the "infallible" truth that Adventism is betting its existence on is untenable. This is most disconcerting to many but not to people like myself. I realized in College that I had no "rights" to infallible truth. What science has taught me is what you write about in "paradigm" shifts. To put it simply, "never say never." We are constantly adding new data to the literature and when a theory or paradigm can no longer explain the data its time for a shift. This occurred in the oxidative theory vs the chemiosmotic theory for ATP synthesis in the 70's and early 80's. The latter theory emerged as best explaining all previous and current data, the former was cast aside along with the careers of some of its adherents. 

I think you are correct in your statement that Adventism attacking science to maintain is "truth" will not stand the test of time. But, then again Adventism is a very young religion. We will see where its theology is in 500 yrs. I only regret that I will not be around to see 500 yrs of evolution of Adventism. 

With your post I reiterate a conversation that I have been having with my friends within the Dept of Religion and Theology. That is, this argument regarding literal interpretations of genesis within Adventism is in the hands of the theologians and will be resolved there, not in the world of science. 

For what it is worth I am sorry that you were a victim of a Grand Inquisition in Adventism. I hope that you have gone on to better things.

Have you written any books on critical analysis of old testament or new testament writings?

Regards and thank you for the post. 

Pickle,

 You keep citing the 210 Po halos in coalified strata as "evidence" that coalification may have occurred much faster than the 60-100 million yrs accepted by most scientists. This is Gentry's explanation and he has been adequately pulled apart by other geophysicists such as  Lorence G Collins. First if the coalified strata are really only 10,000 yrs old then we should be able to find fissionable C14. But, alas we do not because this coal is of course much older. Also Gentry begins from a proposition that Bishop Ushers calculations of the earths age is indeed correct. Then he tries to find anomalies so that his explanations become plausible. 

It won't work and Gentry's argument is not enough to overturn the current idea that the Jurassic period is 60-80 million yrs ago. The finding of 210Po in the coalified deposits makes sense as this period was very volcanically active.

The arguments you present will not stand the test of long periods of time. After all it took the Catholic Church a few hundred years to drop its geocentric based theology. 

Another piece of data arguing against a young earth model is glacial ice deposits. We know of at least 4 glacial periods in North America and Europe and the volumes of ice are estimated as well as their thickness and there are bucket loads of fossils in North America and Europe.  For glacial ice to have been deposited to the depth of approx 18,000 feet in 4 different periods within 6-10,000 yrs the descendents of Noah would have had to endure winters of 40 feet of snow fall followed by periods of blow torch heat to melt all the ice before they were reformed again. With the current model you do not need "God caused floods" to argue the data. The flood story is a parallel of other ancient deluge stories and does not appear to have a historical basis what so ever.

Devolution with regards to language being more complex? Oh come on! Just because a language is more or less complex does not necessarily argue for devolution. English has evolved into being a more efficient language and gender and plurality are very clear.

Anyway, you keep looking for the remains of those early super humans and please tell the rest of us when you discover them. Science cannot test for the supernatural. Science assumes natural causes and that is the limit of its detectability. What you are doing is engaging in the same old tired SDA game of looking for things that are not explained by natural science. OK, but unexplained does not necessarily mean inexplicable and there are many phenomena that we cannot necessarily explain but that does not mean that they will not succumb in time to an explanation.

Pickle,

As I have said before you are not offering "new evidence." What you are offering is a different interpretation made by particular people who can look at the same data and declare that it supports a "truth" position that they "know" is correct based on the "infallible" word of God. What a joke. You have no guarantee of "knowing" and there is no place of refuge where you can run and be "assured" of your position. Life, theology, science methodology and language all evolve. Never static always changing.

Adventist seem to  suffer from a derangement syndrome when it comes to geochronology.  Most SDA scientists and other Christians (Phillip Johnson, Behe) do not deny evolution, which is the change in biology over time. But, wether it is naturalistic or "theistic" (i.e. evoked by God) and the time frame is the issue. In the SDA fantasy God creates a biosphere with no death and predation. Then "sin" comes along and species evolve very rapidly into predators, parasites etc. The cycle of life and death is now upon us. So you have to accept under your paradigm that life changed very rapidly from creation after the entry of "sin."

We have  no evidence that there was a "perfect, deathless" biosphere. All you have is a story. That is it. The biological record is replete with death and predation.

Maybe Adventists and other young earth apologists become very afraid when they look back into the abyss of long ages. I wonder it this makes them feel insecure or lost in the large time scale? Do you really need a 24 hr cycle so as to get your sabbath hours correct? The story taken literally is a joke. How do you have a "day" on the first day? There is no sun and no indication where the "light" came from.  Did God interpose himself as the sun? The whole thing falls apart with a literal translation.  As you and I go through this dialogue I can now fully understand why my wife recoils in horror at the thought of being an SDA. While she appreciates its Christian heritage these arguments about "meaningful Sabbath worship, age of the earth and remnant church" are a complete turn off. SDA's remind her of traditionalist Catholics. I am beginning to see her position more clearly and that is the one good thing coming out of this discussion.

To me the evidence is clear. Many life forms existed long before humans did and there are hominids that predate our current human race. As a member of the SDA church I refuse to state that "I believe" in a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. Furthermore, I have no problem with geochronology. There are a plurality of views on these matters developing within Adventism and you and all the fundamentalists are powerless to stop it. That is what really is the issue here with Ascherliss and Goldstein and others, power to enforce a belief system, not truth and understanding.

The President of LSU did nothing wrong and I applaud his efforts to see that modern biology is being taught at our institutions. Read John McLarty's response to this bru ha ha. Very reasoned.

The hypothesis mentioned above may or may not have merit.  However, I do not believe it addresses the bottom-line issue.

 Professors have the right to believe as they wish.  But if professors choose to teach in a SDA institution of higher learning, shouldn't they be expected to teach what the SDA Church teaches?  If professors no longer believe what the SDA Church teaches, why would they want to teach at a SDA institution of higher learning?  Why should the SDA Church pay them to teach ideas contrary to what the SDA Church teaches?

It does not seem unreasonable to me to require professors who teach in SDA institutions of higher learning to teach what the SDA Church teaches.  If professors not longer believe what the SDA Church teaches, I wish they would have enough credibility to resign and teach elsewhere.  That is bottom-line issue in my view. 

Pickle,

 Can you please send a link to or copy of your arguments with Collins?  I've obviously missed the first part of this discussion somewhere.