Ervin:  Shane Hilde has accurately captured Wisbey's sense and meaning.  The context of Wisbey's meaning is in his first paragraph where he writes:

Another way in which we faithfully serve the best interests of our church involves the integration of Adventist thinking with a vast array of intellectual disciplines. . . . One example of how the church needs this integration is in the vexing issue of the relation of Adventist thinking to the natural sciences as pertains to the history of life on planet Earth. On the one hand, for more than a hundred years Adventists have believed that “the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.” [citing Ellen White]  On the other hand, we recognize that “creationists do not have an adequate explanation” for “radiometric dates of many millions of years . . . . The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers.” [citing Gibson]  What Adventist colleges and universities can do is to provide a supportive environment and conceptual assistance not only to their students but also to the whole church in addressing this issue effectively by reexamining our understanding of both the “book of nature” and the “written word.” In the process, Adventist colleges and universities can be examples of thinking faithfully.

The only way to read this statement is the way that Shane Hilde (and I, and anyone else who can read) reads it:  The Adventist Church needs to integrate long-ages geology into its world view, and the Adventist Universities can help it do that.  That is the only fair and reasonable way to read Wisbey's statement. 

As to who is quoting whom out of context, I would argue that Wisbey is taking Gibson out of context.  Gibson does not say that the world is as old as conventional geo-chronology would have it, and does not suggest that Adventist theology must accommodate, or "integrate," long-ages geology.  In the same paper, Gibson says that Genesis is intended to state that the world was created in a literal week, seven literal days, that the world contains plenty of water for a world-destroying Flood, that there would be plenty of room on the ark for the creatures that needed to be there, and that Oard has made a good case for a post-Flood Ice Age.  In context, Gibson clearly has not abandoned a young earth (or young life) creationist model of origins fully compatible with traditional Adventism.  In context, Gibson is merely saying that he is not satisfied with current creationist efforts to explain radiometric results, not that no such explanation will ever be forthcoming and the world is as old as conventional geo-chronology makes it.  But because Gibson's statement is too strongly worded, Wisbey seized upon it as cover for his position that Adventism must "re-envision" itself and integrate long-ages geology.  If anything, Wisbey quotes out of context, not Hilde. 

There really is only one simple question here:  Are the science professors telling their students that the stated SDA position on origins is clearly mistaken? -  Yes or No?  It's a very simple question.  Why not answer it in very clear unambiguous langauge and clear everything up here?  

Going after Shane Hilde by suggesting that he diliberately tried to miscolor Wisbey's true position on this issue doesn't address the issue.  The issue is that LSU professors are in fact telling their students that the stated SDA position on origins is mistaken.  That's the issue.  Wisbey is obviously sympathetic with this position regardless of who he does or does not quote in reference to it.

Also, since when is one not honest in referencing a speach or paper if one doesn't also reference the references of the reference? - especially if the reference itself makes the position of the author or speaker quite clear by itself in context?  

In any case, why not simply admit that the LSU teachers are actively opposing the SDA position on origins in the classroom? Why not simply make this clear?  Why not lay all the cards out on the table? 

Yet, if you go to the LSU website and read the advertisement there from the biology department, you will see something that is not so clear.

http://www.lasierra.edu/departments/biology/important_reasons.html

This ad seems to suggests that LSU does not actively counter the stated SDA perspective on Genesis.  Of course, the truth is that LSU is strongly promoting mainstream evolutionary thinking from its classrooms.  Now that's the actual truth.  Why didn't the LSU ad at least mention this fact?  - Why hide it or attempt to make it less than open?  Why not proudly advertise this fact since it is LSU's actual position on origins after all? - at least in its science departments.

Telling Lies for God?  If anyone on "my side" of this issue is knowingly doing this, I myself would call them on it. I think the same should hold true for those on "your side" of this issue. Wouldn't you agree? So, I'm asking you, personally, to help me to get LSU to really step up to the plate and be completely transparent, open, and honest about what it is promoting as the truth in its science classes.  That's all.  Is that a problem for you? I would think that we could both agree on at least this much - on supporting oppenness and honesty from both sides of this issue as a starting point to resolving it.

Sean Pitman, M.D.

www.DetectingDesign.com

Hi Ervin,

Rather than speculate what Dr Wisbey's view on the literal creation week is, why don't you just ask him and publish this.  That would be the most effective way to remove any speculation.  Dr Wisbey has chosen to be in a public leadership position representing the church.

With the background of Jan Paulsens statement, it is in Dr Wisbey's best interests to reassure the members that his personal believes concur with the church.  Open letters appear to be the order of the day, so lets continue being open and bury this controversy once and for all.  I also think it would be handy to clarify the LSU's promotion on the Genesis creation account?  Being ambiguous with promotional material on their website in light of the recent focus is nothing short of arrogant.

 As an aside, it is frustrating to witness the school system here in Illinois where funding and infrastructure is appalling.  These places are run by very committed Adventists who cant even find the funds to fix basic plumbing.  When reviewing the LSU website, there is no question in my mind there are funds available.  Ironically these funds are probably contributed by members who still believe in tithing and giving offering to promote the good news.  Yet another one of those annoying foundational beliefs. 

Regarldess of your personal opinion on the issue Erv (and I suspect you think that a 6 day creation is not possible?), church money should not be promoting views that are contrary to the churchs stated believes - there are plenty of needs elsewhere.  

So the fundamentalist crusaders do not want to deal with the subtle lying on the named website and instead repeat the attacks on LSU. This controversy is not going away. There is just to much access to the science of biology, paleontology and physics. 

I took Sean's advice and went on the LSU website. It says that BOTH positions are presented. The SDA view on creation is presented and the theories of evolutionary processes and speciation are also presented. Where is the cover up? I suggest the cover up is only in the angry and febrile minds of the inquisitors.

Genomics like paleontology confirms that life forms are interconnected in a common tree of life with the branches reflecting the different tangents of evolution. The data are clear, we did not exist with the dinosaurs but humans did exist with other extinct creatures of the genus smilodon (saber tooth cat) of which there are 3 subspecies. The paleontological data are unequivocal and show that humans existed with smilodon out to 1 million yrs ago. As we go further into the layers once again, humans disappear. Sorry, the data does not argue for fundamentalist SDA views or views from Baptists that think Noah's sons rode around on flying dinosaurs. If we are going to make up explanations then should we not give due credit to other fundamentalists who have explanations that make SDA fundamentalists smile? Oh but I forgot. We have the "truth." 

So why can't we discuss in an open manner the schism between the traditional SDA view and the science? There are numerous explanations for any phenomena but some explanations make more sense than others. One can make up conclusions such as "antideluvian" super races that engage in genetic mischief. While that is one explanation it hardly fits the data.  SDA theology does not and cannot have all the answers anymore than science does. But, at least science continues to evolve in the  finding of truth. The SDA fundamentalists seem to think that they have some corner on truth which comes from a literal translation of genesis. Even the theologians know that the bible is not a history book of life and genesis is not literal. 

-Deleted

- sp

I don't think I'd be quoting Ian Plimer (or showing the cover of his book) on anything to do with ethics.  Consider this review by a reviewer hostile to creationism:

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html.

"while previous books have generally been written in a straightforward, factual manner, Plimer's new book is a shoddily-written polemic that, in places, verges on the hysterical."  "While decrying the ignorance of creationists, Plimer himself makes some elementary mistakes in terminology."  "There are many typographical errors, missing references, and spelling errors." 

"Even more serious is the lack of attribution for large sections of the book."  It seems Plimer borrowed passages from other writers, Joyce Arthur and Robert Moore, to name two, without proper attribution. The reviewer states, "If this is not plagiarism, it is awfully close to it."  So Plimer is probably not the best person to quote in relation to matters of proper citation.

Dr. Pitman,

I must admit that I don't see Shane Hilde's transgressions (as presented here by Erv Taylor) as being as sinister as Erv sees them. They are non-issues at best and molehills at worst, from my perspective. Since both sides of this debate agree that the issues under discussion are of major magnitude, it seems unfortunate to be ducking down alleyways that really take us nowhere. Let's keep the debate focused on substance.

Which raises another question in my mind. I note that you seem determined, in this blog as well as in others, to "out" the person who writes under the blogospheric label "doctorf." Why is "outing" him so important to you?

I happen not to be fond of the blogospheric practice of writing under "pen names." I prefer to know who's speaking. But the creators of the blogoshere have rather firmly and universally established the right of people to write under such monikers, not requiring them to publicly reveal their true identity. And there may be some good reasons for such a practice. A conservative working in a liberal environment might run into difficult if he or she was openly identified. And the converse is equally true. Or someone may highly interested in participating in the discussion but could occupy a position within the church that would make "open" discussion (i.e. with the writer identified) too overpowering or perhaps too pontifical. Or someone could just be shy. And I can think of several more reasons why a writer might prefer anonymity.

While my preference is open discussion with identified participants, I understand the rationale of those who have created a different approach. And I respect their right to anonymity in much the same way that, I'm sure, you would safeguard certain confidential information as a medical doctor.

So I am baffled by your treatment of "doctorf." What purpose does it serve? Perhaps you could shed some light on how your approach fits in with the Golden Rule.

Jim 

I wanted to catch this early so we're not off track and in violation of our guidelines. Lets keep the dialogue pertinent to the blog's topic.

Thanks,

Marcel - Online Editor, Adventist Today

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

I am surprised that LSU science teachers have opted so far not to defend themselves from the repeated accussations leveled at them. If the charges presented against them are false, they would by now have asserted their innocence and publicly declared their allegiance to the Adventist teaching on creation.

I conclude that they do in fact teach evolution not as a theory, but rather as the only credible interpretation of the facts of nature dealing with origins. I find in the Bible a call to worship God because he is the Creator. If there was no special creation, then what claim does God have to demand our worship?

Since times immemorial, all pagan religions have exhibited a common trait: They all have had a tendency to atribute to nature the glory which belongs to God. The basic tenet of evolutionists is that everything can be explained by the activity of random genetic  mutation and natural selection; that we do not need to give credit to God for what we find in nature. This represents to me paganism in its most deceptive form.

If God did not create Adam and Eve, then there was no moral fall; if there was no moral fall, then we have no need to repent and ask God for forgiveness; if we have no need to be sorry for our sins, then the Plan of Salvation makes no sense and Christ's mission on earth is meaningless. If this is the case, then we might as well disband and use our finances to feed the hungry and clothe the naked instead of wasting our hard earned dollars to preach a mythical gospel.

If our common ancestry goes through lower forms of live all the way to an original ameba, then we have done quite well thanks to random genetic mutation, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest; and there is no need to feel shame for our moral condition. We seem to be on a course of continuous progress, and have no need to be saved from anything. If we are not the result of a special creation, why would God bother to come to our rescue? The forces of evolution will continue its natural course, and we may eventually become like gods.

Both LSU and the Adventist Church need to make a choice between the science worship of nature and the worship of God who created both the heavens and the earth. I see no other reasonable alternative.

Hi Nic,

I find your conclusion that because the profs aren't commenting on these "issues" that they are indeed "guilty" of teaching evolution as fact very disturbing. This propositional disjunction is not a solid or valid argument and does little to prove anything other than the fact that they haven't commented. I also feel that the allusion of guilt and innocence is completely inappropriate for a discussion on this topic. I'd guess that the profs are smart enough not to be baited into a endless argument with people that view their work as heresy.

Secondly, your assertion that natural selection leads to a zenith of development is complete off base. Anyone who has taken a basic evolutionary biology university course knows that natural selection does not lead to perfection. This idea is a throwback to the eighteenth century schools of Lamarck and teleology. These ideas and many more that still permeate throughout popular culture concerning evolutionary biology were all settled during the evolutionary synthesis of the mid twentieth century.

Just my thoughts,

davgill

Hi All,

Did everyone on this forum take the same debate class?  And was the "straw man" fallacy the only thing on the syllabus?  I wish someone would burn the "straw man" :) Seems to me that there are many more logical fallacies floating around these forums than that particular one. What about the one that seems to have started the collective "evolution crisis" discussion of the past several months?  That being the false dilemma between creationism and evolution and its friend argumentum ad nauseam :)

Just some thoughts,

davgill

Erv,

Rather than attacking others, what I would find helpful is if you could explain a little more where you are coming from.

Doctorf was kind enough to state that he does not believe in the virgin birth, and does not know whether Christ was resurrected, and whether any of us will be resurrected. Are you of the same opinion on these matters?

You have been accused of being one of the presenters at LSU that has been teaching evolution as fact over millions of years. Rather than defending yourself by stating that you believe God created the world in 6 actual days and that there has been a worldwide flood since, you have instead been putting out pieces like the above.

If I recall correctly, Chester Clark said you believe in 4 1/2 of the fundamental beliefs. Which ones do you believe in and which ones don't you believe in?

What part of the Bible do you believe in? Do you believe the gospels were written in the 1st century AD by Levi Matthew, John Mark, Dr. Luke, and John? Or is your thinking more in line with Scweitzer when he wrote, In Search of the Historical Jesus?

I'm just curious how far out there you have gone. But more than that, I'm curious as to why you decided to believe what you do.

"But the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. ... It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form ...." (PP 111).

What led you to personally decide to embrace "infidelity in its most insiduous and hence most dangerous form"?

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

-

-

1. “Will study with professors who all deeply believe in God as the Creator of everything.”

2. “Will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God.”

3. “Will study with professors who will help you navigate issues of faith and science, in and out of the classroom, so that your faith in God is strengthened?”

4. “They aren’t teaching evolutionary theory as fact at LSU.”

[Quoted from “Deceptive Advertisement?” http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/526/ ]

On one occasion I publicly asked one of the LSU science teachers whether he informed his students about the creation alternative explanation for the origin of life on our planet. This is what he answered:

“I was hired to teach science and the facts of science. Teaching religion is the task of the teachers in the religion department.”

-

As I have read the responses to the posting of the "Telling Lies for God On educatetruth.com?"  it strikes me that those who are attacking La Sierra University are there own worst enemy.  They convict themselves by their own words.

Pitman: "I really don't see what Shane Hilde did or is doing that is so deceptive"

Hilde: "There is no need to make reference to the original author of a quotation within a quotation."

Every reader can decide what to make of these statements.

On the other hand, Erik has it right.  The LSU science and theology "faculty will continue to be accused of teaching the wrong answers, the faculty will continue teaching ways to ask good questions to stimulate research and more good questions, and  the rest of us will argue about which they are doing and how they should do it." 

And, Davegil makes an important point: It is indeed a logical fallacy to talk about creationism (the creationism of the Bible not that of modern fundamentalist "Creationists:" and evolution as if they were "mutually exclusive categories". 

Right now it appears that LSU enrollments will be up next year.  The educatetruth.com attack appears to have seriously backfired.  Parents and students are a lot more intelligent than Pitman and Hilde think they are. It may be that some have done the "smell test" on educatetruth.com and have come away with the conclusion that if that represents LSU detractors, the LSU administration and faculty must be doing something right and this is the future-oriented Adventist institution of higher education that they want to attend. 

By the way, I am not sure why I would want to defend myself, as Pickle said, "by stating that [I] believe God created the world in 6 actual days and that there has been a worldwide flood."  I don't ask Mr. Pickle to defend himself by asking him to state that the world was created over millions of years and that there has not been any recent worldwide flood.  I am not sure what asking each other these kinds of questions accomplishes.    

Also Pitman makes an interesting point: "That's what science is all about - a method used in an effort to separate truth from error when it comes to what one believes is most likely true. "  It appears to me that LSU faculty are doing a great job of teaching students how to separate truth from error which includes how quickly to spot a propaganda campaign using a web site such as educatetruth.com.

Erv,

The enrolement of LSU isn't the issue.  LSU may go on to be a very popular secular university.  It is well down that path right now . . .

The point of all of this is to put all the cards clearly on the table.  The deceptive advertising presented by LSU and on LSU's website suggesting exposure and promotion of the stated SDA doctrines is just that - deceptive.  The SDA Church, as an organization, has a duty to is membership, to include parents and students, to make sure that all of its institutions and paid representatives are being, at the very least, transparent and honest.

And, we'll see if the SDA Church organization is really willing to maintain LSU as a recognized SDA institution if LSU continues in its current course on the issue of origins - i.e., teaching that the SDA position on a literal creation week is clearly mistaken since the evidence is overwhelming that life did in fact evolve on this planet over the course of billions of years. 

Were just getting started here.  This issue isn't going to go away any time soon . . .

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

I have been lurking on this subject since its start and I think it probably mirrors what happened to the university I am attending which until a few years ago, was a  very expensive (still is) prominent Baptist school. The "controversy" here, was its Music Industry school and the links to that evil country music biz--the school is located at the end of "Music Row"--altho in the past couple of decades they also provided internships (free labor) to the burgeoning contemporary christian music industry. Also, many courses here tiptoe around evolution. They do, after all, teach BIology as a pre-requisite for the School of Nursing  which I am attending. They also pray before giving the exam which mentions evolution. ;) Reading these posts, I have been baffled by the lack of mention of accreditation requirements. What sane parent (or student) would shell out the kind of money required, to go to a university whose credits wouldnt be recognized, if necessary, at another one? In the case of my university, the school paid, or I should say is paying MILLIONS of dollars to buy separation from the church in order to maintain its credibility/accreditation.. Last year it was host to the last presidential debate and lifted for the first time (as a debate requirement only), the alcohol ban that has been in effect since, I think, about 1948. For an organization that still identifies itself as Baptist in flavor, that's pretty progressive...er, liberal, uh, non-conservative, um, non-Traditional! Labeling...gotta love it ;)

That being said, I fall on the side of the above notion that LSU might become a great secular university, along the lines of my hopefully soon to be alma mater, Belmont University. I fail to see the evil in that notion, however.

Deceptive advertising? Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. Even my dear elderly SDA pastor's widow mother has decried the church's habit of that practice in its evangelizing, and I guarantee you she's the most loyal Tradventist you'll ever meet. 

Erv,

Why should the president of La Sierra's call for a "re-envisioning of Adventism not be a source of deep concern for Adventists, but when a layperson calls for a top to bottom thorough investigation of our educational system, it evokes hyperbolic fears of an Inquisition (why not a holocaust or genocide?)? What if you came home and told your wife that you would like to re-envision your marriage, and begin exploring together ways to meld her views on traditional marriage with your view that the scientific basis for exclusivity is highly dubious? If she started questioning your commitments, and asked for clarification of where you stood, wouldn't your characterization of her questions as an "Inquisition" simply tend to confirm her reasonable suspicions?

You see, for most Adventists, the Church is not simply a set of beliefs or values. It is a covenant relationship, a way of life - a shared pathway to God. They are perfectly willing to explore what that means in the context of shared faith and mutual trust with others who are committed to that pathway. But progressives often send signals that they've abandoned the pathway. And from a safe, smug perch above, which goes nowhere, they delight in telling those still on the pathway what's wrong with the path.

Now don't get me wrong. I love progressives, and I think the Church needs their perspective. But if they are going to ask me to entrust my children to them, I want to "feel" that they are on the same pathway that I'm on, that they are committed to fundamental Christian beliefs, and that they love their Church, with all its faults, more than they love their own truth claims. I need assurances, before I give them power, that they are not seeking to transform the Church into a repository of abstract universal "Truths" d'jour by which they would redefine the Church and attenuate its identity.

Is that too much to ask? I'd hate to see SDA higher education taken over by reactionary traditionalists. But I think the questions and challenges of educatetruth.com are legitimate. The need to attack their character and integrity, rather than directly responding to their questions is disturbing.

I am a little confused here. I went and read the biology department's statement on its website. Assuming there is no DiVinci code in these words their meaning, at least to me, is quite clear. Yet some are saying that such is not the case, assuming I am understanding these comments correctly. Now if the comments on this site are true the the biology department is flat out lying. That is a serious charge for which no evidence other than the integrity of the author, which I do not question, is put forward. In fact, if unprovable at best this is propoganda and at worst slander and libel.

I really think we need to be careful what we say here. In fact, I think what Ervin is trying to say is that the footnote suggests that the speaker is trying to show that asking questions for which no conservative answer can be given is a denominational way of thinking, which by the way it is. To read any malign intent on Ervin's part by suggesting hidden motives and clever nuances of wording is a tragic ad hominem put forth by people who belong to a movement that claims to hold truth as its priority.

Disagree, yes. But let's be fair here. Reactionism only clouds the issues. Don't deal with issues by maligning personalities or making unproven statements.  Those of us familiar with rhetorical techniques are going to see through this and not be impressed by it.

Comparing the tone of the Dr. Wisbey's words with the diatribes I have read here makes me think that objectivity is not excessive at this objective  Let's be fair and deal with issues.

It is true that words can be used to distort the truth about circumstances and it is always prudent to be wise as a serpent, but there is a very real difference between reform and inquisition. God have pity on those who cannot tell the difference.

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Erv,

After reading your article in which you ask the following question: “Is educatetruth.com spreading statements which are intended to deceive its readers?” I am tempted to ask you the following:

Are you suggesting that a simple failure to properly acknowledge a source by educatetruth.com is morally equivalent to the deceptive way in which LSU is advertising the content of their science courses? Is LSU deceptive behavior lessened if it could be proved someone else is guilty of deception as well? Do you realize that by condemning the alleged deception by educatetruth.com you are in fact also condemning what LSU is doing?

Have you read the claims made by the LSU Biology Department website? Here is what prospective students are promised:

“When you study biology at La Sierra University, you:

My question to you is: Are science teachers at LSU teaching their students the “Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account”?

Dr. Taylor,

I've spent little time on both websites (AToday and Educate Truth).  However, I've had a chance to read through both of your articles on this issue (educate truth/evolution/etc.).  If anything, Educate Truth can be credited for their intent to stick to addressing the issue (of addressing people who seek to teach as truth, things that go contrary to what the world church holds as fundamental to its teachings).

Whether I agree or disagree with your stance on the issue of creation/evolution, the approach you've adopted seems to be in line with what negative aspects of the approach you accuse them of adopting.  And, rather than engaging the issue, you have only sought to poison the well:

 1.  Have you ever responded to General VP Chester Clark's comments on your first article on this issue?

 2.  The "hypothesis" of Educate Truth making the issue popular again as attempt to set the stage for Ted WIlson being the next GC president was more of a comedy than a hypothesis.

 3.  Some of things you've said about Standish could also be said about you.

4.  Your articles (on this issue) give the impression that you are projecting: maybe you are on an agenda against Ted Wilson being president.  I don't want to say that you tell lies for God, but... 

You addressing the issue while at the same time swerving from it and making comedic "hypotheses" while trying to subtly attack the characters that you claim are subtly attacking others is a surprising approach from a man of letters.  

Sean,

There you go again with the deception accusation.  I offered a response on McLarty's feature article, but though you responded to my postscript you didn't respond at all to the main point about deception.  I don't think you can rightly accuse these profs of deception, for the reasons I gave in the earlier post.

Nathan,

You talk about us being in a relationship, on a shared pathway, etc., that Adventism isn't simply a set of beliefs.  Isn't it then odd that those of us who believe differently on creation are asked to leave the relationship?  Which is primary--a relationship or a set of beliefs?  Particularly for those of us born and raised in the SDA church, it is definitely more than beliefs.  Especially when we have seen those beliefs change during our lifetimes, not to mention within the lifetime of the church.  Beliefs will change.  Is it necessary to kick people off the shared pathway if they disagree on beliefs?  Isn't doing so tantamount to saying there is no relationship really other than the shared beliefs that you were arguing isn't all that Adventism is about?  I find your argument contradictory.

Sean,

Sorry I took so long to answer. I have been battling with peer review and finally prevailed in getting a paper in J. Appl Physiology. I looked at the website again and I do not see it as dishonest. You want a simple "yes or no" answer to the question of whether SDA theology is wrong on the issue of the age of the earth, how long life has been here and whether or not species evolve.

I cannot answer that question for my colleagues. But, I can answer for myself. The answer is, YES, I think that SDA fundamentalist beliefs in a young earth creation, world wide flood and that all creatures existed within a 6,000-10,000 yr temporal framework is wrong. Recognizing that we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God and given that many scientists believe in one, I have no problem in believing that God would create the ability of life to evolve. So I am more in the modern Christian camp of Francis Collins and Catholic theology that have accommodated the paleontological record and evolution into their belief structure.

I suspect that my answer will only solidify the notion that "their are demons everywhere" within the SDA community. As for the "inquisition" suggested by a well intentioned essayist quoted by Erv, I think that would be the wrong thing to do. The road to hell is often paved with debris of good intentions. 

In the end as our young people become educated they must stand on their own in terms of what beliefs they will hold onto and which ones they will relinquish.

Elaine Nelson

Is the average SDA member qualified to evaluate science teachers at the university level.  It's no different than claiming that the average member should be able to evaluate or qualify a physician for her ability to practice. 

Teachers who have attained the doctoral level in order to teach in these disciplines have jumped through all the "hoops" that have already qualified them for the position.  If the average SDA member is the one to evaluate them, God help us all! 

This is reminiscent of the "Florence Woolcock Inquisitions" at Southern College back in the early 80's.  Quick recap - a behavioral science professor expressed doubt that the more extreme consequences (liver, lung, kidney disease, blindness, mental decay, to name a few) described by EGW in A Solemn Appeal could scientifically occur as the result of young people committing "the solitary vice."  Florence Woolcock took this as a challenge to the divine inspiration of EGW, and a hubbub ensued. 

Like many Adventists, I do believe in the divine inspiration of EGW, but understand that some error in her hundred of thousands of pages of writing is revealed by modern science.  I can believe in the inspired nature of her writings, while completely understanding that masturbation doesn't cause cancer or blindness or insanity.  This doesn't degrade her inspiration in my eyes to any greater degree than the inspiration of the Bible is degraded by the possibility that a literal 6 day creation may be disproven, or in the very least seriously questioned, by modern science. 

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

On July 31st, 2009 you asked the following question: “Is the average SDA member qualified to evaluate science teachers at the university level?”

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Elaine Nelson

If creation should be taught from the Bible, why insist on only one version--as the second chapter of Genesis is totally different, with man being created before anything else.  Since this is the earlier version, it would seem that we should teach it as the Creation story.

 I very much thank Curt Allen for posting the excerpt from a manifesto issued by the Michigan conference president, Jay Gallimore, a well-known enthusiastic supporter of the agenda of the Adventist Theological Society and activities of Samuel Koranteng-Pipim.  Elder Gallimore says he was profoundly shocked (I will here resist the temptation to quote the entire famous line from the film "Casablanca") to have found out that "certain independent magazines have began to defend the alleged right of Adventist universities to teach evolution . . . as the preferred world view."

There are two points that merit comment since Elder Gallimore seems to be confused:

First, I hope that he knows that all Adventist colleges and universities, at least in North America, that have biology departments (I think that would be all of them) teach about evolution.  But that (hopefully) is not what concerns him.  If it is, then we really have a problem.  I would hope that what we are talking about is specifically his allegation about Adventist colleges and universities teaching evolution "as the preferred world view."

As far as I know, no biology department of which I am aware-Adventist or not-teaches evolution as "the preferred world view."  What competent biology departments-Adventist or not-- teach is that evolution is the best (if you wish, preferred) scientific explanation for how biological systems have developed over time and Neo-Darwinian model of how evolution proceeds is currently the best scientific explanation. "World views" are taught in philosophy or religion departments, not in science departments.

Secondly, I can't speak for any other magazine except Adventist Today (AT), but, as a magazine, AT does not support or defend any particular point of view-except, among other principles, the free expression of opinion.  Let me quote a paragraph from the recently posted Guiding Principles: "What is published in Adventist Today or posted or emailed on behalf of Adventist Today may or may not reflect the personal views of those responsible for the various functions that make Adventist Today possible.  The views expressed by Adventist Today personnel represent a wide spectrum of convictions related to both theological and church administrative issues.  All members of the Adventist Today family of editors and administrative personnel respect the freedom of colleagues to share their diverse opinions and are pleased that Adventist Today is understood to be a place where ideas can be safely shared." I know that this is not a common feature of SDA journals which mostly are "house organs" so I can understand that Elder Gallimore may have been confused or is thinking about some other "independent magazine."  

An excellent illustration of this are the views expressed on this series of comments by Nate Schilt.  Nate is a very valued member of the Adventist Today Foundation Board and Executive Committee of that board.  His comments are always carefully and well argued reflecting his highly regarded stature as a member of the legal profession..While I respect his arguments, I personally disagree with some of them.  That is the nature of a group dedicated to the freedom of expression.

The answer to Elaine Nelson's well-phrased question "Is the average SDA member qualified to evaluate science teachers at the university level" is obviously "No", but that has never hindered critics with destrutive agendas to advance. 

Finally, I have been profoundly remiss in not replying in a timely manner to the comments and questions of Chester Clark, ASI Vice President, for which I very much apologize.  He raises important points. I will respond in detail to his extended commentary and questions in my next blog posting.

Elaine Nelson

Shane writes:  "Adventists do not interpret Genesis as depicting Adam being created before everything else."  Which is to say, that Adventists disregard the Bible story of creation as told in Genesis 2.  It is very different, so it is simply ignored. 

Should there be an "Adventist" or biblical position  >) 

Ervin, evolution is the best scientific explanation of origins only because science incorporates the philosophy of naturalism.  You are correct that biology departments don't teach about philosphy or world views, but that only means that the philosophical naturalism undergirding Darwinism is taken as an unexamined axiom in biology classes.  It is not discussed at all, but it should be.  And the idea that, in an SDA college or university, the assumption that God does not act in the world, and has never acted in the world, should go unchallenged is truly bizarre.  It is a bedrock asumption of the Adventist world view that God created and sustains the living world.  Thus, a science of origins that accepts as axiomatic that He did not and does not would seem a very poor fit with Seventh-day Adventism, even if Samuel Pipim and the ATS say so. 

I posted a reply to Jay Gallimore's Presidential Perspective which you might find interesting

http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-evolution-in-education.h...

Nic Samojluk, Editor www.sdaforum.com

Elaine Nelson

The Jerusalem Bible:

 "At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven there was as yet no wild bush on the earth...Yahweh God fashioned man of dust from the soil.  then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of ife, and thus man became a living being....Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden....Yahweh God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone.  I will make him a helpmate.  So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven.  These he brought to the man to see what he would call them....But no helpmate suitable for man was found for him"  Gen.2-21.

In the first chapter of Genesis man is the last act of creation; in the second, he is the first.  The NASB also agrees with this order.  Not sure what "modern" version you are quoting. 

 So, yes, there is a definite discrepancy in the order of creation. 

The quotation you supply states that the man was previously formed, in order to have the animals brought to him, which is the reverse of the first chapter.

 The question has been asked about my reply to the comments and questions of Chester Clark.  Here it is:  

TO: Chester Clark III, ASI Vice President

Thank you for your questions and comments. They were significant and asked in a serious context.  I have been remiss in not responding more quickly for which I very much apologize.

 You ask whether there is any factual basis for my "hypothesis" about what is really behind the scurrilous and unprovoked attacks on La Sierra University.  The answer is Yes.  There is evidence based on information which has been received and continues to be received from time to time by representatives of Adventist Today from various sources, including individuals who have access on a daily basis to the informal "rumor" network within the General Conference building and certain other Union conference offices.  As to whether the hypothetical will come to pass-we will have to see what actually happens at the next General Conferencein Atlanta in 2010.

 You suggest that I have expressed disdain for the "cognitive abilities" of fundamentalists.  I do not recall that I have ever characterized any Adventist fundamentalist as having cognitive deficits.  If you can locate any such statement which I have written to that effect, I would very much appreciate you calling it to my attention.  There are, in fact, a number of articulate and intelligent Adventist fundamentalists.  I probably should emphasize again that I do not use that term in a pejorative sense.  I simply believe that it is a misguided point of view based on a problematical reading of Biblical narratives.

The term "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist" is employed in materials which I write as a convenient descriptive term with a specific meaning based on the explicit historical and sociological contexts of how it originated and was initially employed.  

To restate the usual definition, a fundamentalist in the modern American Protestant (and thus Adventist) historical and sociological context is an individual who believes that the Bible is inerrant, i.e., there are no contradictions or factual, scientific or historical errors in any part of the Bible. (There are four other core theological positions advanced by classical American Protestant fundamentalism, but the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is, in my view, the most seriously problematical tenet which is at the center of creating a number of theological problems inside the contemporary Adventist faith tradition.)   Some conservative evangelicals have distinguished between infallibility which posits that the Bible is free of any error involving faith and practice and/or that it contains all of the information needed to be "saved."  My understanding is that many, if not most, moderate evangelicals view the Bible as being infallible in terms of its teachings about faith and practice, but reject the view that it is inerrant.

 You refer to answers that I supplied as part of an interview by Dr. Julius Nam. As to my view that I do not posses a "faith gene," that understanding would take too long to unpack   However,let me just mention quickly that it seems to me that an individual's theology reflects, to a great degree, his/her personality type which, I would suggest,is largely a biological given. Obviously, this view does not argue that ones culture and unique experiences do not have an important role, but just that all of us have an underlying genetic predisposition to exhibit certain personality characteristics which, in turn, predispose us to have certain views and, most importantly, affective or feeling tones, about many things, including religious issues. As you know, this is a topic that many people much smarter than I have argued long and hard and about which I do not have any new or innovative ideas.

 You seem to be particularly concerned about my view that the church is a human institution.  Let me be clear that my comments were directed at the "the church" as the contemporary, organized,visible, institutional church of whatever historical denominational tradition one wishes to address.  This includes the contemporary, organized, visible, institutional Adventist Church.  Our church is an institution created by dedicated individuals who believed they were carrying out the will of God.  This would be a true statement about any historic Christian church.

 I would submit that your quotations from the New Testament are addressing a very different "Church" concept.  The New Testament Church is all of the things you cite.  It is composed of all who respond to the "Spirit of Truth."  That Church has no human presidents, priests, or bishops. I understand that some theologians use the term "invisible Church" to characterize this body of Christian believers.  That "Church" is, at best, very indirectly linked to any modern organized institutional, visible, religious body-including the institutionalized Seventh-day Adventist Church.   That is not to say that these human institutions,which in the English-speaking Christian tradition we will call churches, are not or can not be important vehicles for God to work in the world.  For that reason, the church to which we belong should be respectfully supported for the good that it does.  How one supports that church-whether at the local or parish level or at some other level-is up to the individual member.  It seems to me to be important to have at the head of any such institutional church an individual of intelligence, integrity, compassion, and honesty.  We are very fortunate that the current SDA General Conference president, Dr. Jan Paulson, exhibits these traits.  Regretfully, certain previous General Conference presidents did not.

I hope you view my comments as being responsive to the major questions and points you have raised.

With respect,

Erv Taylor

There are, in fact, a number of articulate and intelligent Adventist fundamentalists.  I probably should emphasize again that I do not use that term in a pejorative sense.  I simply believe that it is a misguided point of view based on a problematical reading of Biblical narratives.

As to which Biblical narratives are trustworthy, would not all agree that the ethical statements of Jesus as collected into what we generally call his "Sermon on the Mount" would be the most trustworthy of all statements for Christians that are contained in the Biblical texts?  

As to which Biblical narratives are trustworthy, would not all agree that the ethical statements of Jesus as collected into what we generally call his "Sermon on the Mount" would be the most trustworthy of all statements for Christians that are contained in the Biblical texts? 

I find it extremely interesting that Erv has managed to attract quite the pitchfork and torch wielding mob to this website.  Perhaps I shouldn't be, as he adopts a position outside of the norm for a group so accustomed to conformity and homogeneity. 

I am unsure of why contradiction exists among the inspired words of the Bible, and I wonder why substantial error exists in the inspired writings of Ellen White.  I still believe the Bible and EGW's writings to be inspired by God, but it leads me to question the confident translations and inferential conclusions reached by theological scholars equally as much as I question the scientific methodology-based conclusions reached by progressive scholars.  I'm not saying I'm bright enough or have spent enough time studying to declare either party wrong, but I have questions and doubts for both sides of these arguments. 

My favorite time in my life and my educational experience was elementary school - around the age as my kids currently enjoy.  Addition, subraction, spelling, basic history; all were fun, concrete, clear, and for all intents and purposes, incontrovertible.  There was no debate about politics, theoretical suppositions, or hypothesizing.  Life  was a prima facie presentation.  Although I continued my education way beyond the 6th grade, I don't think I use anything on a daily basis that I learned after Mr. Perry's class: not  physics, geometry, constitutional law, Strunk and White, or anything else. 

As an elementary-minded Christian and Adventist, I'd be hard pressed to find comfort and joy outside of the very basic tenets of our religion.  Love God, and Love your neighbor pretty much covers everything I personally need to live a good life and find confidence in my salvation.  Though I'm perfectly happy to observe and sometimes engage in debates like creation v. evolution, I'm not inclined to hinge my happiness or my faith in my salvation on the conclusions. 

Jesus said that kids hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Kids don't know or care about the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Adventist church - they are humble, trusting, forgiving, and sincere (from focusongod.com.)  He didn't say theologians, scientists, church elders, fundamentalists or progressives have the keys to the kingdom.  We can't study or research our way into Heaven, but we sure can study and research our way right out if we allow the hubris, the pride, the vanity, and the sheer brilliance of our grown up human nature to overshadow the simple plan for salvation. 

Statefarmsteve brings a helpful breath of fresh air to this series of comments.

I am absolutely fascinated by the statement of Mr. Pickle (who I suspect is not alone in his point of view) who seems to be more focused on the need to be absolutely sure that the Jesus' ethical statements contained in the "Sermon on the Mount" were literally preached in one sermon at one time and this defines what is "accurate and authoritative as written." (It might be helpful to Mr. Pickle to realize that the account of this sermon as recorded by Matthew is about three times as long as that recorded in Luke.)

And then there is Dr. Pitman and his allies who want to make sure that every professor in every Adventist college or university and every Adventist clergyperson must always and without fail not only teach but must believe every single word without question or reservation of all of the 27 Fundamentals or leave the employment of the church.

Why is it that those of us sometimes called "liberal" or "progressive" have no problem with people with the views of Mr. Pickle or Dr. Pitman teaching in Adventist colleges or being SDA pastors (if they have the appropriate degrees, professional education and experience) while Mr. Pickle and Dr. Pitman insist that any professor or pastor who questions their interpretation of one or more of our traditional doctrines have the moral obligation to quit. At the very least, my suspicion is that we have very different personality profiles represented. Anyone wish to guess what categories of Myers-Briggs personality type each of us represent?

 And then there is Dr. Pitman and his allies who want to make sure that every professor in every Adventist college or university and every Adventist clergyperson must always and without fail not only teach but must believe every single word without question or reservation of all of the 27 Fundamentals or leave the employment of the church.

... while Mr. Pickle and Dr. Pitman insist that any professor or pastor who questions their interpretation of one or more of our traditional doctrines have the moral obligation to quit.

I think most of you already are aware of the article that was posted on InsideHigherEd.com about the controversy around La Sierra. Here is a link to the article for those who haven't read it yet.

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

The biology teacher was hired by La Sierra University to teach biology, not religion. Those are two entirely different disciplines.  If the university is unhappy with their teaching of science, it the administration that will either choose to retain, or to fire them.

It would be totally improper for the religion teachers to teach science courses; it is equally wrong to expect that the science teachers teach religion.  Those students wishing to learn a subject, take those courses fully expecting to be taught the best and most available knowledge in each discipline.  To do otherwise would be to misrespresent their credentials--credentials which do not cross over into other areas.  Just as no one would go to a civil engineer  to diagnose and treat a medical condition, just so a teacher who moves out of his discipline into another is abusing his academic qualifications.