Similar to the recent political populism, religion is a subject intensively, even passionately held.  The stronger the feelings, the more vociferous the protests.  This is represented most vividly in the protest marchers and slogan bearers against almost any change in the status quo.  Fear is often the driving factor.  Fear of the unknown is most visceral, eliciting the survival instinct within each of us.  "How will any new change affect me?"  "What if destroys my entire belief system."  "How can I function in a totally new environment--whether health, new taxes or a new and different theological direction?"

 Had there been such a fear when Abraham received the call of God to leave his idols and go to "he knew not where" would there have been a Hebrew Bible or Hebrew history?  Where was Paul's fear when he felt called by God to abandon all his previous religious life to begin preaching of a man he had never seen or heard?  Would there even be a Christian today, were it not for Paul?

 A fearful people accomplish nothing.  It is only the risk-takers of the world who "boldlly go where no man has gone" and think new thoughts; dream new dreams; see visions others can not.  They are the Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the astronauts, and hundreds of pioneers who faced fear and and moved on in spite of those fears. 

 Have Adventist members, several generations since the founders, now become so fearful of any new reading or interpretation of the Bible that they have neglected searching for truth because it has already been found and is now locked away securely in an inpenetrable fortress?

Gordon Short

Comments on Clifford Goldstein and Evolution

I am endlessly fascinated by the cerebrations of Clifford Goldstein. Which is, I suppose, why Adventist Today sees fit to give him a bully pulpit. Other readers, or at least the editors, must also be fascinated. May I present another perspective to some of his recent rants?

Goldstein states in fairly definitive language that “Folks among us who believe in the current typical model of evolution (millions of years, natural selection, random mutation, ascent from lower to higher life forms, the whole spiel) don't belong in the SDA church. Period.” Since that includes me, and since Goldstein seems to have set himself up as one who can judge as to who should or shouldn’t be an SDA, my interest, not to say my hackles, was raised.  May I make several observations on the perspectives Goldstein offers to his readers?

Point One: Mr. Goldstein is a relative newbie to the ranks of Adventism. By contrast it is most probable that I first began attending an SDA church when I was still a zygote — and that was well over three quarters of a century ago. I didn’t choose to become an Adventist. I was born one. Although most of my lower education was in non-SDA schools, I graduated from the Brooklyn SDA Church School and spent 4 years at La Sierra and 4 years at Loma Linda where I was indoctrinated (brain washed?) by the likes of J. C. Haussler, Edward Heppenstall, Wil Alexander, Robert Olson, Arthur Bietz, et alia. Which means nothing except this: I was born and raised in America. I am an American. I am a Caucasian American. Now, I could renounce my American citizenship and emigrate to Poland or to Japan or to Timbuktu and take out citizenship there, but I would still always be an American — to the Poles or Japs or Timbuks — as well as to myself.  I would have difficulty passing myself off as other than a white man. Goldstein was born a Jew, so I’m told. And as near as I can tell, he’ll be Jewish when he dies. And may still be in the resurrection. So why am I an Adventist? I can’t help myself. I was born that way.

Sure, I could become a Presbyterian, or Catholic, or Unitarian. And maybe even be able to reprogram my brain to going to church on Sunday. But why should I? Those churches all have almost as many problems as the SDA church, so I would just be jumping from the frying pan into the (hell?) fire. What’s the advantage? Instead I have opted to remain true to my roots and stay in the SDA church. (Given Goldstein’s permission, of course.) And while sojourning in this imperfect society, I have attempted in my own small way to implement some improvements.   

Point Two: I see no real conflict between Darwinian evolution and SDA creationism. They can both be accommodated by a suitably flexible and agile mind. Let’s start with a simple analogy. Having walked on this orb for almost 8 decades, I have observed the sun set in the west thousands of times (but I never counted). I have also observed — on many fewer occasions — the sun rising in the east. So there you have it: the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. I’ve seen it. That settles it. Except for one little complication. People who call themselves “scientists” tell me that the sun is stationary with respect to the earth and that what is really happening is that the earth is revolving around the sun. Heavens to Betsy! Now what do I believe? My own eyes or some unchristian, maybe atheistic, scientist who just wants to throw dust in the air? No problem. With my suitably flexible, agile mind I believe both. The sun sets in the west (I’ve seen it) and the earth revolves around the sun (that’s what those wicked scientists say). Now I can sleep at night — peacefully yet even.  But what does this have to do with evolution?

Point Three:  I believe in evolution because I have seen it in operation within (God forbid!) the SDA church. Maybe Goldstein is too new a member to recall that the first Adventists were Arians, not trinitarians. And they believed in the “shut door.” And in “systematic benevolence” and not tithing. And in my brief tenure on this troubled planet, I have heard Adventist preachers inveigh against TV (“It will be like a rattlesnake in your living room.”). (Where are you, Fagal and Vandeman?) I have read articles in SDA magazines on the evils of rock and roll. Which we have now baptized and integrated into our worship services. I have known pastors who would not baptize a woman while she was wearing a wedding ring. Does any pastor — and his wife — not now wear a wedding ring? (And in my part of the world most of the good SDA church ladies wear earrings and necklaces to boot. Heavenly days!) And no good SDAs would go to a movie because their guardian angels would have to stay outside. And then what might happen? Earthquake? Flood? Fire? Holy smoke! Now I’m told by reliable sources that the GC brethren go to movies! Can you believe it? And certainly we would not permit drama at any of our schools. Goodness, that might create an appetite for the theater. And now we have drama departments in our colleges. Including PUC, source of the marvelous Red Books (which I was honored to be able to support in a small way). And even a film department in that bastion of conservative Adventism, Southern Adventist University. What is the world coming to? (And did I remember to mention that Turkey is King of the North?)  Examples could be multiplied, but I spare you. Evolution is change. And like some other stuff, it happens.

Point Four:  All knowledge is tentative. Take, for example, Darwinian evolution and the DNA hypothesis. Time was when DNA was thought to encode everything that made an organism or plant what it was — or could be. And there was no possibility of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Only characteristics that resulted from the spontaneous mutation of DNA could be inherited. And now we learn of epigenetics and directed evolution and all kinds of neat stuff. There are even some who claim that Lamarck, that discredited schmuck, is smiling in his grave. (And if you don’t know what epigenetics is, I recommend The Biology of Belief by Bruce H. Lipton)

When I was taking physiology in med school, a professor told us that half of what our professors were teaching us wasn’t true. And unfortunately, nobody knew which half. Being very young and naive then, I though he was just being melodramatic. Then the years rolled by and I discovered that he was exactly right. 

The beauty of science is that it is ultimately self-correcting. Sadly, the church does not see itself as needing any correction. Truth is truth. The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it. And this in spite of irrefutable historical evidence that SDA theology has indeed evolved.

But what does the Bible really say? What did the Bible writers really intend? What scientific knowledge and scientific vocabulary did they possess to tell the story of origins? If you don’t believe that language evolves, and often very rapidly, then I suggest you watch John McWhorter’s Story of Human Language recorded for The Teaching Company. And if you think we have the Bible preserved for us to perfection, you might want to catch The Teaching Company’s Luke Timothy Johnson, Story of the Bible. But maybe Goldstein thinks we should appeal to gematria to unravel any uncertainties in Genesis.

My theologian SDA brother-in-law says, “If you do away with Genesis, what happens to the Sabbath?” 

But that’s the point, the ultimate point (thankfully). You don’t do away with Genesis. With flexible thinking you hold on to it. For dear life. So what if you hold on to some evolving theory of evolution? You can always hold on to the Bible, too. The Bible and scientific theories are both imperfect, but they are all we have. I have seen the sun set. Many times. And I have read Genesis. Many times. (Very beautiful. Very meaningful.) But it is just possible that scientists, too, have something useful to say to us. Since all knowledge is tentative, I accept, provisionally, evolution and creation. And look forward to the day when the One who really knows explains to us what actually happened. Until that day, my only advice to Clifford Goldstein is, “Lighten up.” (Unless you can present credible evidence that God Himself has appointed you to decide who should or shouldn’t be an SDA.)

Gordon Short.

Ervin, I disagree that EducateTruth.com has a strong populist flavor.  The postings are mainly by highly educated theologians like Randall Younker and Samual Koranteng-Pipim.  About the closest it gets to populism is in articles by evangelists, but Doug Batchelor and David Asscherick are in the top ranks of that field.  The whole site seems pretty elitist to me.  The comments section may be different, but, just as on this site, anyone can comment at EducateTruth.com. 

As to the complaint about people thinking they can understand Scripture for themselves, that really is the heart of the Reformation.  The Catholic Church also believes, with you, that interpretation of Scripture should be left up to the experts; they never wanted the common people to have access to Scripture to begin with.  But then Gutenberg invented printing and the church's control over the written word was shattered. 

DOCTOR Taylor, 

Your haughtiness in nitpicking about the grammar and spelling of others seems really misplaced, especially when your headline isn't even correct. It's educatetruth.com, not educatetruth.org. I could say more about this misplaced arrogance, but enough for today. Proverbs 16:18. 

Ervin, I have recently begun to browse Adventist Today, in large part because I was dismayed at what I was reading at EducateTruth.com. I was stunned particularly by the Inside Higher Ed.com article, which Shane Hilde and others at EducateTruth boasted of. The story of the student, Carlos Cerna, and his now-public battle with his La Sierra University professors, was praised as a turning point in their battle to purge evilutionists from the Church. Their cause had, at last,  "gone secular" and elevated their visibility. Obviously, there is one purpose to the website: to publicly shame individuals, an institution, and a denomination into capitulating to their version of "truth."

Sadly, the majority of posters there show complete ignorance of very basic biology, a fact that I and others like Bravus have made a sincere effort to point out repeatedly. This week, I have been repeatedly blocked from posting. They claim to educate "truth" but fear any challenge that points out how untruthful they often are.

Last night, the completely unnecessary and over-the-top dissection of Gordon Short's thoughtful posting there (and posted here as well) proved to me how viscious believers in "truth" can be. If this is the side of Adventism that the world is compelled to see at public, highly-visible websites, it's absolutely appalling. I fail to see any love of Christ there; it's all about fear, anger, condemnation, judgment...and endless select quotations from the Bible and Ms. White. I choose to believe there are reasonable people within Adventism who are more inclusive; I hope I find them here.

 By the way, Gordon Short, I loved your post, and so did my wife. We appreciated your humor, your human insight, and your open-mindedness. You deserve more respect from your fellow Church members.

 "You can consult the web site of the Adventist Theological Society and Adventist Affirm for the voices of the traditional/conservative/fundamentalist wing of Adventism, 3ABN for Pentecostal-oriented Adventism, and Adventist Today and Spectrum for progressive Adventism."

"Going back 500 or 2000 years is anything but progress"

 Have you ever watched Back to the Future? I'd be impressed if you could do this..

Pickle - your cross examination skills are stunning.  I think you've finally backed Erv into a corner, and you may just get him to capitulate and rename AToday. 

Might I suggest you unwad your undergarments instead, and cease and desist from your attempts to control all things relating to God and Church?  You're horrifically unqualified to present anything more than mere opinion, and your willingness to not only engage (which is encouraged) but berate, insult, and dominate (which is not) is nauseating.  Any publication worth reading must establish a perspective from which to present its ideas.  AToday's happens to be a more liberal perspective, while others Erv mentioned come from different perspectives as well.

And who is to say that the majority of Adventists don't share the views espoused by AToday?  The SDA's that I know certainly are more closely represented by what you might term "progressive" views, especially with regard to social and political issues.  Do I disagree with their views on Creation?  Yes, and I even studied evolutionary theory at an SDA college in science class.  But it doesn't bother me that they taught it, that I learned it, but chose to stick with my traditional views of Genesis.  I understand that my view of Creation doesn't jibe with modern scientific views, but it doesn't negatively impact me in any way, shape or form.  In fact, I'd prefer that the Science department focus on Scientific views, and I certainly insist that experts in science maintain academic independence from experts in doctrine. 

Regardless of whether or not the majority of Adventists are "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" or "fundamentalist", the vast majority of well educated Adventists certainly support the establishment of multiple forums to discuss church issues freely and openly.  This freedom is often a stated goal, but few moderators or operators really allow the freedom granted by AToday.  Pickle, your frequent presence here is the best evidence of the true free exchange of ideas that exists here on AToday, and I find it intriguing that you would strap a muzzle on Erv or anyone else, when it is painfully apparent that if there was a desire by the editors to shut anyone up, censor any ideas, or delete any posts, you and yours would be first in line. 

What I would suggest is that you find it in yourself to be grateful that you are free to express your opposition and ideas on someone else's bandwith. 

Well Erv,  I hope and think you're wrong.  By branding these views as populist, you imply that they resonate with a significant number of mainstream Adventists, if not a majority.  I don't think you have any evidence to support such a conclusion.  Even adjusting for the fact that my Adventism weather station is firmly planted in Southern California, I am confident that relatively few North American Adventists would rally around that sort of divisive, hateful rhetoric. I am not a historian of populism, but it seems to me that the term originated to describe a grab bag of political positions that were not united by any coherent philosophical or ideological framework, but were randomly selected because they played well with the focus groups.  

You're use of talk radio as an example reflects your own emotional investment in misuse of the term.  Are populist sentiments simply popular ideas that you don't agree with?  Mike Huckabee and Ross Perot were appropriately dubbed populists because there was no philosophical rootedness in their ideas.  They took their cues from what they perceived to be popular sentiment regarding hot-button issues.  Ron Paul also had a large loyal following, but he was not a populist because most of his ideas cohered under the label "libertarian". You may not like conservative talk radio, but for the most part the hosts are solidly grounded in the ideas of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and William F. Buckley, Jr., to name but a few conservative hall-of-famers.

The educate.com folks are anything but populists.  They come across as hardline ideologues who seek to purify the Church.  I don't think they make any effort to reflect mainstream Adventist views.  There is great consistency and predictability in the positions they espouse because they are rooted not in populist sentiments, but in the revealed Truths of traditional Adventism.  Would you also suggest that Thomas de Torquemada was a populist because his ideas were popular in extremist quarters?  You have showcased some pretty outrageous statements which may or may not be characteristic of the tenor of educatetruth. But I am troubled that you want to smear the Church I happen to love - despite its flaws - with a brush dipped not in populism, but in fanaticism. 

Nathan, I agree with you that Erv may be overstating the accepted nature of fundamentalist ideals.  I think he definitely gives them more credit than is actually due. 

I do take serious issue with the idea that Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, or Sean Hannity are rooted at all in Burke, Kirk, or Buckley.  Burke would hardly embrace modern conservative politics, Kirk expressly rejected modern conservative politics late in his life, and Buckley distinguished between conservatives and Conservatives, the latter with which modern talk radio has no commonality at all. 

But you are right on with your characterization of a certain segment of the SDA church, who I readily embrace as my brothers in Christ, while rejecting their hardline views without qualification.  Of crourse, it doesn't mean that I am embraced back, but I'm ok with that. 

Erv, I, like Nathan, am a great admirer of your work, your courage, and your bold, bright intellect.  But I do strongly believe that the folks at EducateTruth are nowhere even close to representative of the mainstream, popular views of the Adventist Church.  Even if there are shades of common Adventist viewpoints, the nature of the site, the manner in which their views are expressed, and the overt calls for censorship and banishment of individual thought are well outside the norm.

Of course, the founders of EducateTruth know this, and their site exists merely to whip up congregations into a frenzy in an attempt to force the EducateTruth agenda forward.  It's the cyberspace version of a two-year-old's temper tantrum in isle 9 of the local grocery store, and it should be treated as such.  For the most part, it is.  The GC doesn't seem to be capitulating, and most people that happen upon the scene simply turn away, embarrassed for the ill-mannered tot rolling around on the floor.

Statefarm, Elaine, you guys are living in a fantasy world of your own creation.  I guarantee you that at least 85% of SDAs believe in a recent creation in six literal days.  I would bet my life on that in a heartbeat, and not lose a moment's sleep.  If Darwinism is true, Ellen White was a malignant fraud and a liar, just like God, who was lying to us when he wrote the Fourth Commandment with his own finger, telling us He created the world in six evening and morning literal days.  I guarantee you that nothing anywhere close to a majority of SDAs is willing to go there. 

The average SDA is not as energized as the educatetruth crowd because they have no idea what is going on.  I didn't have any idea how deeply Darwinism had penetrated our colleges until I wrote a book on origins and talked to some of the conservative scientists in the denomination.  The colleges are not truthful about the issue.  I was at ASI in August, and they were all saying, "me no Alamo, me no Goliad."  They all wanted us to believe that the issue was localized at LaSierra, but that isn't even close to being the case.  PUC is at least as bad as LaSierra.  Feckless church bureaucrats don't want a confrontation, either.  But don't mistake, based upon the rottenness of the bureaucracy, how upset the laity would be if they knew about this situation.

AToday's happens to be a more liberal perspective, while others Erv mentioned come from different perspectives as well.

Even adjusting for the fact that my Adventism weather station is firmly planted in Southern California, I am confident that relatively few North American Adventists would rally around that sort of divisive, hateful rhetoric.

The Educatetruth group are the Don Quixote's of the church:  trying to whip up enthusiasm for their position which is of no concern for most.

Statefarm, Elaine, you guys are living in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Pickle - I'm not going to argue with you about the name of AToday.  We've already established that it is both legal and appropriate in that it is a forum for discussion of topics affecting Adventists today. 

With regards to the roundabout reference to you having your panties in a wad, such a colloquialism was not intended to be "hateful, divisive rhetoric."  That you would label it as such causes me much mirth. 

David said......

" Feckless church bureaucrats don't want a confrontation, either.  But don't mistake, based upon the rottenness of the bureaucracy, how upset the laity would be if they knew about this situation."

People don't want any confrontation that could or would demand some dynamic action on their own part. We think it is fine to challenge other Christian communities to re-think their spirituality and make a life changing decision concerning the Sabbath and other bible doctrines. But not us.

Is that duplicity, or what? People find a "comfort zone" in their church and don't want any dynamic confrontation. Yet we chide other Christians for their "lack of commitment" to the bible because they remain loyal to their church.

So our colleges teach evolution and more than a few people know it. Will they demand accountability at least on some level? NO.

EGW said, "Keep your children away from Battle Creek." They were corrupting the students with false doctrine. So, how many care enough to do anything about it?

The church is imploding and exploding. Most leaders keep their head in the sand and almost none have the spiritual stamina to "cry aloud and spare not."

Perhaps it is inevitable. And God can't do anything about it consistent with His character of allowing individuals freedom to self govern themselves individually and corporately. And as long as church members believe in "unconditional election" for their church, they will remain "dumb dogs who won't bark".

"Be loyal to the church, it can't fail" holds many in superstition and ignorance just as this same theory corrupted the Jews and eventually they crucified Jesus. Only when we take seriously that there is no unconditional election for an individual neither is their unconditional election for any church commuity will people begin to take seriously the implications of what they must do for themselves and the church they belong to.

The church can triumph, but only if this evil idea of unconditional election is abandon and people begin to act responsibly. If not,  we can be sure "the church" is doomed as history has shown again and again.

Bill Sorensen

David - I think you are failing to understand the crux of my comments regarding EducateTruth. 

Since I have repeatedly stated my personal belief in a literal 6-day creation, you'd find me lumped in with the 85% figure in which you place your confidence.  I'd even guess that figure to be higher.  But EducateTruth doesn't exist to promote Creationism so much as it exists to quash the teaching of current scientific theory in our Universities. 

Where you won't find consensus is with EducateTruth's position that 1) To even explore other scientific or historical basis for origins is blasphemy, and 2) Such blasphemy must be purged from our Universities by firing science professors that teach evolution in any capacity other than fable, and furthermore 3)  That religion must dominate all facets of education, from science to literature to art.

David, I know you have a dog in this fight as the author of a book on Origins.  I can also understand your somewhat agressive stance when it comes to defending your position, since you come to the table arguing facts with PhD's unarmed with any educational background whatsoever in the sciences, a fact that causes your quick dismissal from most conversations regarding origins. 

Your passion is admirable, but your fire is misplaced.  Nearly every church member realizes that Bible content is an inappropriate limitation for college and university-level education.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If we allowed fundamentalists to control university education, we'd have no literature classes, no art classes, no music classes, and certainly, no science classes worth their salt. 

Perhaps the EducateTruth witch hunt could be expanded to include the "feckless church bureaucrats" that you have such disdain for.  Why not name these co-conspirators and post their photos on EducateTruth? 

Realistically, the average SDA is not as energized as the EducateTruth founders because they disagree with the EducateTruth point of view, not regarding a 6 day creation, but regarding the need for a purification of our Universities. 

"But EducateTruth doesn't exist to promote Creationism so much as it exists to quash the teaching of current scientific theory in our Universities. "

"Where you won't find consensus is with EducateTruth's position that 1) To even explore other scientific or historical basis for origins is blasphemy, ...."

"I can also understand your somewhat agressive stance when it comes to defending your position, since you come to the table arguing facts with PhD's unarmed with any educational background whatsoever in the sciences, a fact that causes your quick dismissal from most conversations regarding origins."

Pickle - How can a science class teach current scientific theory as anything less than what it is currently held to be?  If current scientific theory is that the world is millions of years old, then that ought to be taught in science class.

Current artistic understanding of Michelangelo's David holds that it is a masterpiece of Renaissance scupture.  Biblically, public display of the male nude is pornography.  Current literary understanding of Defoe's Moll Flanders is that it is a masterpiece of literature.  Biblically, it is justifiable to censor it out of existence (and it was on a censorship list...)  Wagner and Beethoven were banned at one point for their supposed association with the Nazi movement.  What college art, literature, or music class could be considered complete without these works, and many others like them?  Do we pixelize David's privates, eliminate Defoe, Shakespeare, Emerson, Thoreau, and others, and silence Beethoven? 

The clear answer is "NO."  We can still teach the evils of pornography, pulp fiction, and Naziism, but not in the context of university level learning. 

Pickle - I don't believe you have the authority or the knowledge to speak for the founders and purveyors of EducateTruth.  In any case, you're mistaken when you state they don't rail against the exploration of other theories.  They have highlighted an article by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim that denounces historical or scientific testing of the Bible.  He even goes on to state that the Church has only authorized us to study the bible within its stated guidelines.  Talk about red flags.  

I'm not sure why you are bringing Kuhn into this discussion, unless it is for the purpose of elevating David Read to his equivalent.  I've looked at both of their CV's, and they don't really seem to be on the same level.  Neither do David's book and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 

 "I see no real conflict between Darwinian evolution and SDA creationism. "

 I have to wonder where some of the "progressive?" SDAS get their ideas. Whoever said that most SDAS believe in the seven day creation story as related in the Bible is, I believe, absolutely correct. Ask a few (not those very few who appear to dominate the leftist views and comments consistent with AToday philosophy) church members about their view and it will soon become evident that truth still prevails regardless of those who denigrate Bible truth.

 Cliff Goldstein was totally correct about those who no longer embrace SDA church doctrine. Why these progressives (destructives?) don't start their own synagogue is puzzling.

Truth Seeker

There is no conflict between Darwinian Evolution and Creationism, at least for me, because I don't believe the Darwinists are any more able to reliably translate the mountains of scientific data from carbon and strata than biblical scholars are able to reliably translate the bible in its entirety.  There is just as much conflicting information in the biblical record as there is in the scientific record of the earth. 

Funny enough, but I do believe that evolutionists are closer to understanding the origins of the earth than our theologians are to understanding the inner thoughts and workings of God. 

Cliff Goldstein, while admittedly brilliant, is also admittedly arrogant, and that arrogance shines brightly in his call for the expulsion from the church of people that don't buy into the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.  He's smart, and an academic, whose ability to beat me in verbal and theological jousting no more makes him the arbiter of church membership than my ability to thrash him in a boxing ring. 

I've probably spent more time wondering why the Church even published a codification of their fundamental beliefs than you have spent wondering why everyone doesn't buy into them.  Of course, Cliff knows full well the dangers of having a creed, he knows our church founders intentionally refused to do so, and yet he ignites those flames anyway - which makes me wonder who is more damaging to the health of the church:  Cliff or the Evolutionists?

I guarantee you that at least 85% of SDAs believe in a recent creation in six literal days.  I would bet my life on that in a heartbeat."

 Unless you, or someone else has surveyed a disparate population of SDAs, it is only a guess, even if an educated one. It also depends on whether they are NAD or world SDAs, which would be a totally different population.

 There are many who do not make their decisions of form their opinions and beliefs on popularity contests.  Nor, do I believe that either side decides opinions by polls.  Each of us has come to our positions based on our studies, philosophical and logical reasoning as well as our heritage and personality.  Each of us should make our decisions based on the best and only reasoning we have:  our God-given minds.  Emotional persuasions are ineffective on either side. 

Is the success of Adventist Today and its blog site which is being envied?  If so, and 85% of the SDA population is more conservative, surely a new site and publication would be a perfect endeavor for those of that persuasion to present their ideas.  Adventist Theological Society and the Review consistently present the conservative position, which would be a much better fit.  One shouldn't bite the hands that feeds it (or represents a free press by presenting all views). 

Elaine, I wasn't imlying that truth is arrived at via a majority vote, and I think you know that perfectly well.  I was reacting against the people who implied that the position taken at educate truth is not a majority position in the SDA church.  It certainly is. 

You also make a good point about geography.  Probably the figure falls to around 65% in extremely liberal pockets like southern CA and Mass, whereas in the rest of the country it is probably closer to 95%.  In Europe, it is probably around 75% whereas among SDAs in the southern hemisphere (except Australia), meaning Africa, central and south American, it is probably around 98-99%. 

Statefarm, I love the irony of that post directed at me.  You sort of made an argument from authority, implying that I can't participate in the conversation on origins because I don't have a Ph.D. in one of the relevant sciences, but the gist of your larger argument is that an 18-21 student is not going to be influenced by a Ph.D. teacher telling him that Darwinism is truth, and that the Adventist version of origins he's been taught in Sabbath School since he was a toddler is a fairy tale. 

You're also furiously spinning the facts in a very lawyerly way.  You're characterizing it as a case of fundamentalists wanting to control every aspect of university education.  I would spin it as asking tithe-supported institutional employees not to undermine the teachings of the church that pays their salary, asking Ford salesmen not to sell Chevys, an issue of basic integrity.  How the average layman reacts to the educate truth/LaSierra controversy depends on how you spin the facts, on who's conducting the push poll and phrasing the questions.

David - I don't personally care if you declare yourself to be a dinosaur expert, or if you claim to have studied enough about medicine to perform brain surgery.  But I won't buy the dinosaur book you wrote, and I won't let you saw on my skull, because, in my personal opinion, you're not qualified to do either.  There - no implication, just a clearly stated position.   

Now, that being said, you're as qualified as I am to participate in the banter here on AToday, and your opinion with regards to the teachings of Origins is just as valid as mine.  After all, I think we hold very similar educational credentials. 

I also want to be clear that I don't just worry about fundamentalists trying to control every aspect of University level education.  I worry about them controlling any scholarly aspect of it outside of the Religion department.  I don't want our Opthamology professors teaching that preventing masturbation will improve a patient's sight.  I don't want our Psychology and Psychiatry professors teaching that preventing masturbation will improve a patient's mental health or cure insanity.  Fundamentally, these are beliefs of the Adventist church, but they have no place in modern education outside of the religion department. 

I'm not sure if your Chevy/Ford analogy is an oversimplification of the issue, or if it really just summarizes the extent of your grasp of the situation.  The reality is that a college professor's duty cannot be distilled down to the duties of a car salesman.  There is no similarity between the two occupations, and I don't think encouraging our Adventist professors to embrace the ethos of a Ford salesman is helpful to your side of the debate. 

There is an established, widely accepted value in academic freedom in Universities and Colleges.  If there is a case to be made to restrict that freedom, I'd suggest that you begin by conducting a study that shows that students and/or the church are being harmed in some way by the teaching that occurrs at La Sierra and other schools.  If you can prove a link between the teaching of evolution in science classes and some tangible harm, then you will have the basis for some sort of action or change.  Until then, academic freedom should prevail. 

I was reacting against the people who implied that the position taken at educate truth is not a majority position in the SDA church.  It certainly is.  - David Read

Law school teaches a class on how to tell 1/2 truths somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd year of the program.  We need to be clear on the actual position of EducateTruth, which is not "we believe in creation."  Their actual position is "Proclaim your complete allegiance to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, or we will work like mad to get you fired." 

EducateTruth is fulfilling the prediction of our Church forefather, JN Loughborough, who had the prescience to see their actions 150 years before they occurred.  Because of his foresight, he resisted the publication of anything like our 28 Fundamental Beliefs.  Here is what he wrote in the October 8, 1861 issue of The Review and Herald:

"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."

I believe that most Adventists understand the danger in persecuting members of our own church.  I believe that most Adventists understand that disagreements can and will occur within a church body.  I believe that most Adventists understand what the people at EducateTruth don't - that throwing a temper tantrum and screaming "Off with their heads!" is not the way to resolve those conflicts. 

This is why EducateTruth is irrelevant, pointless, and silly.  It's why they've failed to ignite the righteous indignation that they thought they would.  It's why the only traffic they get at the site is from links posted within AToday.  It's why they are trying to get 10,000 signatures on their petition from a church membership of 16,000,000 (and I'd be interested to know what their progress is...)

I would like to think that the people behind EducateTruth are well intentioned.  But they don't give any indication that they are.  Their nasty words and intentions are showered liberally on the professors (they lack integrity), the university administrators (cowardly), and the SDA church leadership (feckless bureaucrats). 

Statefarmsteve,

Surely you can't be arguing that "current scientific theory" should reign supreme in  SDA science classes.  If science gets to define the parameters of its own discipline, then why can't religion also define the parameters of its own discipline?  After all, what could be more appropriate to the realm of religion than the supernatural.  And if current religious belief by churchgoing Christians holds that the earth was created in 6 literal days within the last 10,000 years, then surely, by your reasoning, that's what should be taught in religion classes.  Do ever the twain meet?  Or do we simply compartmentalize the truth claims of religion, quarantining them from "respectable" academic disciplines?  The "scientific" herd also believes that there is no God, and they've got some pretty compelling science to back it up.  Should atheism also be advocated in our science classes if that's what most scientists believe? With due respect, I think the implication in your third paragraph, that university level teaching should be value neutral, is sheer nonsense in theory and actuality. 

I doubt that most educatetruth fans would argue that evolution shouldn't be taught.  The issue is how it is taught.  You conflate the issue of whether religion should control the science curriculum with the question of whether it should influence or have a constraining effect on what is advocated in SDA science classrooms.  Science is not equipped to tell us much of anything about origins, because ultimately it encounters the uncaused cause, which cannot be explained by science.  Is science better equipped than religion to tell us about the nature of man, even though it has not the slightest inkling of how those qualities that differentiate us from lower species "evolved"?  It certainly claims such qualifications.

Arguing that science is closer to explaining the origin of life than theologians are to explaining the nature of God is a like arguing that Michael Phelps is closer to being able to swim the Pacific Ocean from California to China than I am.  Your assumption that "explaining" the nature of God is within the realm of theologians says quite a lot about your elitist instincts.  Most religious folks, myself included, would argue that the nature of God is best understood by looking at Christ and His followers.

Statefarmsteve, you regularly indulge the fallacy of judging present religious views by the quality of religious judgments of the past. If religion was wrong about science hundreds of years ago, or less (cf. Galileo, your perennial favorite), you argue that religion forfeits any moral or intellectual authority in matters staked out by science. Shall we explore the nonsense that was the scientific consensus of ages past or present, and thereby deny current scientific claims a place at the table of knowledge and understanding? Of course not! So why muzzle religion with that argument? When I went to Union College, quite conservative in the late 60's, the works of literature and art that you reference were were solidly ensconced in the curriculum. Darwinian theory was also taught. But it did not reign supreme. Nor was creation science denigrated.  So why do you insist on "slippery slope", all or nothing arguments? Isn't this the precise type of fearmongering of which you accuse the fundamentalists?  By the way, most of the canon of Western Civilization is no longer even part of the curriculum, much less required, at major universities in America.  And when taught, it is from a deconstructionist perspective.  I take it you don't believe that fact should be a concern for those of us who are taxpayers and consumers, but don't have PhDs? 

I find it fascinating that, when progressives are out of power, dissent is considered speaking truth to power; it is the highest form of loyalty and patriotism.  But when progressives are in power, dissent suddenly falls into disrepute, and demonization of the character and motivations of the dissenters obviates the need to actually deal with their arguments on the merits.  This has always been the methodology used by totalitarian governments and elitists to manipulate the masses and avoid transparency and accountability.

Nathan -

Surely you can't be arguing that "current scientific theory" should reign supreme in  SDA science classes.

Actually, I am arguing that exact point. 

It would be untrue to suggest that SDA University students would be subjected exclusively to the rigors of science class, since religion classes are required at every SDA University.  The "twain" meet at each and every student that signs up for the curriculum in Adventist University.  If University students are incapable of reconciling the two, then critical thinking is indeed dead, and university level learning is pointless, rendering this discussion useless. 

My "sheer nonsense" that you refer to is taken from an actual scenario that occurred at one of our institutes of higher learning within the last few decades.  When a faculty member stood up in a week of prayer meeting, and stated that EGW was inaccurate with regard to masturbation causing blindness and insanity, a literal witch hunt ensued to root out those faculty members who didn't wholly embrace EGW's teachings.  Or would you have EGW's religious insight on Opthalmic Science and Psychiatry taught in those departments, forgoing science like cataract surgery, eye glasses, or other modern therapies? 

If I didn't entertain you with my musing regarding the nature of God and the Origins of the Earth, I sincerely apologize.  As an elitist, it is difficult for me to stoop to the level of my audience at times, existing as I do on that Mount Olympus of intellectual thought, Insurance Sales.  I had never thought of myself as an elitist, but now that you mention it, I am starting to like the idea.  I may even have the title put on my office stationery and business cards. 

Once again, you would pull this conversation away from the realm of religion and education, and move it into the political realm.  In the interest of keeping the post on topic, I won't answer your accusation of canons of Western Civilization, taxpayers, consumers, totalitarian governments, and elitists. 

Conflating science and religion classes is fraught with infractions on academic freedom.  Each has its own sphere and trying to mix the two should never occur in the classroom.  Religion should be taught by a qualified instructor, just as the sciences classes should be taught by qualified instructors:  qualified by the school administration and board.

 At any time if the instructor of either class is asked or prevailed upon to wander into the other territory, he would be overstepping the academic bounds and should be reprimanded.  Unfortunately, that is what is being asked, even expected at La Sierra.

If someone who feels qualified, wishes to offer a new discipline combining the two disciplines, what should it be called?  And who is sufficiently academically qualifed to take the position, IF it were offered?

Shane - I sincerely apologize for misstating the official position of EducateTruth.  It appears that I have given undue weight to commentary following the official posts of EducateTruth.  There has been an alarmingly frequent call for the firing and/or the resignation of professors that don't swear allegiance to the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, some going so far as to attack the integrity of professors and others who won't.  I can see that you've noticed the same thing.  The post you've added this evening to many of the EducateTruth forums will go a long way to clarifying the actual purpose of your site. 

I, too am concerned with a perceived need for anything less than transparency when it comes to what is taught.  I think science professors should be confident in their course material, and I think administrators should proudly stand up in support of the faculty they have selected.  Anything less lends itself to the appearance of skullduggery and deception, even if this isn't the intent.  Even if certain responses (not necessarily the response of EducateTruth) contribute to the unjust justification of a less than aboveboard academic and administrative approach, academic courage, the brother of academic freedom, would dictate a more direct and open response. 

If I can find the confidence that your petition and your site aren't being hijacked by fundamental nut jobs, I'd happily add my signature to support your efforts. 

It may be worth noting that if transparency is your goal, you might work toward helping create an environment where transparency would be more safe.  Promoting the cause of academic freedom, and helping the laity understand its significance and importance would go a long way to doing that. 

Hi Statefarmsteve,

What I characterized as nonsense is the notion that higher education should be, or can be, value neutral. Scientific theory is heavily laden with value judgments, as are all academic theories. Your anecdote simply fails to address that issue.  The fact that regressive values are often promoted in classrooms is hardly an argument for banning values education from the classroom altogether.  Furthermore, your belief that personal values should not influence university curriculum or its content would seemingly preclude any "lay" judgment as to whether a particular class is a value free zone.  Just who, in your academic utopia, will be responsible for deciding what is a value, and making sure it stays out of the classroom?  I guess we'll just have to catch up with the times, adopting speech codes and appointing thought police, to protect students against religious indoctrination outside quarantined areas. 

Elitism has little to do with degrees or education.  It's simply a form of authoritarianism.  Just as fundamentalists use Ellen White and Church authority as trump cards, so the favorite trump card of elitists, next to ridicule, is a PhD. The subject matter of the PhD doesn't much matter, nor does it matter how much of a person's graduate work might actually have involved specialized attention to the topic at hand.  All that really matters is that the person is a "respected scholar", and thinks like the academic herd.  We rubes aren't really anti-intellectual; we're just against intellectual authoritarianism. 

In your SDA academic utopia, does it matter if any of the non-religion professors believe in God?  I assume the answer would have to be no, since faith has no legitimate voice outside the religion department.  You presumably would see no reason why the college or university should hire SDAs to teach classes other than religion.  I also assume that you would be fine with having A.T.S. theologians running the religion department at La Sierra.  After all, we wouldn't want non-experts (even progressives) telling the folks in the religion department what theology they should be teaching.  

Some of you here may recognize that Shane took exception to my posts at Educate Truth. Here is an example of a post he was quick to delete: I don't understand his fear of dissenting views. 

I once dated several of your ladies in my youth and attended some of your services. I have raised my own kids in a conservative Church, and they have been in both private and public education. I have taught for many years at both teaching and research universities. From my experience, I can tell you with certainty that many of your college men are addicted to computer gaming and internet porn, and that work and gainful employment to them are anathema. Many view women as sex objects, as reinforced daily by their devotion to popular media, and treat them as such. Many of your college ladies are addicted to text messaging and idle chat. They devour People magazine and talk with endless fascination about the lives of others. Some resent being treated as sex objects but many learn how to take advantage of it. Many of your college men and women prioritize socialization ahead of time with God. They indulge Facebook on a daily basis and look forward to weekends as a time to party. Rave parties, with loud music, dancing, and ecstasy in abundance (I'm talking about a drug, not joy), are the "in" thing today. Let's face it: with so much excitement available to them, making time to read the Bible, or listen to a sermon, are the most boring things in the world. The devil knows how to wet their appetites for excitement, and your Church's worship style and beliefs simply don't compete well.

Your youth are walking away from your Church in droves. And you think that "evolution" is the single biggest issue? That expunging your apostate professors, who teach only a small minority of your students, is the numero uno solution?

I don't see how the goals of Educate Truth can be separated from the vocal majority who post comments there without rebuke. Many individuals who post have called for the outright firing of faculty, as have many who signed the petition. The "management" of Educate Truth can claim innocence on this matter of firing, but they provide a wiling forum for others to make the plea. They concede in "Frequent Questions and Answers" that "we recognize many in the church feel this should happen," but stop well short of saying they are opposed to this solution. I personally conclude that they--whoever "management" is--would welcome this solution.

 The "management" ordinarily steps in when statements are made about science or evolution with which they disagree, or when someone complains that the website is overboard. Some of my posts, before I was blocked, certainly generated responses. When tyranicals like Bob Ryan and Jonathan Smith make repugnant statements, such as Jonathan's insistence that one absolutely cannot be a Christian unless they believe in a literal 7-day creation week, the views go unchallenged by management, suggesting approval. Call it guilt by association if you will, but many of us take a negative view of the website and those perceived to be loyal adherents largely because of the extreme and intolerant views of the majority who post there. In my lifetime, I've never seen anything more disturbing. As a Christian and a biologist, I can't help but take it personally.

Nathan, try as I might, I can't seem to find any post I've written that includes the words "value-neutral."  I believe this is the term you assigned to my opposition to the idea that Ministers should write the syllabi in Adventist science classrooms.  You see, in spite of the fact that you are trying to paint a picture to the contrary, I oppose the idea of thought police. 

I find it interesting that you would accuse me and others of authoritarianism, which I believe is defined as "blind submission to authority."  I was under the impression that I was arguing against science professors being forced to blindly submit to authority.  As for using ridicule as a tool, what would you suggest your sarcastic use of the terms "academic utopia" and "academic herd" entail?  Hmmm.  I believe you even hold a Doctorate degree.  It seems as if you just exposed yourself as an closet Elitist, making you, according to yourself, an authoritarianist.  Or is it an authoritarianismist?  Erg.  Such big words.

In the world of academic utopias, it would probably be just as silly to have an atheist science professor at an Adventist University as it would be to have a professor teaching at Hillsdale College who doesn't believe in the absolute moral and mental superiority of the white race.  These situations may pop up once in awhile, but it's definitely not the norm.  You may even have 1 or 2 atheist students at an Adventist University, just as you may have 1 or 2, nah.... there might be 1 black student at Hillsdale College, but the atheist kids and the black kid would undoubtedly understand that they're in an environment that is inherently hostile to them.  Same thing goes for the atheist or non-aryan nation professor.  They might work there, but their work situation would be constantly hostile.  I don't know how long they'd want to stay.

If your suggestion that the ATS take over the religion department at La Sierra is not serious (and I'm assuming that it's not) I would guess that you're once again poking fun at me.  Even ridiculing me from behind your Juris Doctorate degree.  Hmmm.  Your trump card is becoming your calling card. 

Statefarmsteve,

So you think I'm guilty of the tu quoque fallacy?  Well, it certainly is one of the favorite fallacies on this website, but I must take exception.  Yes, I do relish sarcasm, as do you; I am blessed by above average intelligence and education; and I love language. But that does not make me an authoritarian elitist. As I use that term, it refers to a mindset that employs advanced degrees or specialized experience to immunize elites and intellectuals from criticism by, or accountability to, those who do not have post-graduate degrees or unique experiences. It serves the purpose of de-legitimizing the critics without having to respond to their arguments. Despite the fact that I easily come across as snide and arrogant on paper, I am decidedly against intellectual authoritarianism.  Like William F. Buckley, Jr., I would far rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University.  A highly intelligent, well-read lay person can have equal or greater expertise in evolutionary theory and science than someone with a post-graduate degree in biology, physics, or anthropology.

I hear you making two arguments: 1)that legitimizing conservative criticism of SDA university science curriculae is equivalent to giving fundamentalists control over course content; 2)that non-scientists should have no voice in what is taught or advocated in SDA science classrooms, particularly if they are using biblical principles to constrain or guide course content.  I strongly disagree.  Few conservatives - certainly not myself - would argue that true believers or theologians should control what is taught to students in SDA university classrooms.  But we would contend that professors should respect and teach the best of both Creationist and Darwinian science theories, honestly and sensitively pointing out the strengths and limitations of each.  Such teaching should be grounded in a strong Christian commitment of which the students are keenly aware. If this expectation feels coercive to faculty, I think they probably should find another place to teach.

No, you never used the term "value-neutral."  Here is what you actually said:  "The beliefs of the Adventist Church have no place in modern education outside of the religion department."  "We teach the evils of pornography, pulp fiction, and Naziism, but not in the context of university level learning."  Call me dense, but I don't think it's unfair to conclude from those statements that you are advocating values-neutral higher education.  

It would surprise me greatly if Professor Greer's classes at La Sierra are not heavily sprinkled with what has been, at least in the past on this website, his obsession with an environmental, climate change agenda.  Assuming that to be the case, should he be above criticism because it's his classroom and he's a biologist? I know in the past, if not the present,  La Sierra has had professors who indoctrinate students with radical feminist theory, Leftist political and economic views, and deconstructionist analytical grids through which to view history and literature.  How far does the "academic shield" that you wish to confer upon SDA higher education extend?  Is there ever a point when the ordinary folks in the pew, upon whose support the enterprise is dependent, can  peer into the innards of Adventist higher education and say, "Hold on, something doesn't smell right here."? 

Gordon Short 

EducateTruth — a Tale

On 24 Sep 2009 I posted on this site a blog about my reaction to something Cliff Goldstein said some time ago. It was also posted on the EducateTruth website and their were two comments that I thought merited a response by me. That response was as follows:

Rich and Jonathan:

Wow! I am flattered and humbled. I didn’t suppose that I had said anything very profound and yet Rich Constantinescu has spent a great amount of time and effort to dissect my poor offering.

And Jonathan Smith adds, “I beg of you to humble yourself and turn from those dangerous beliefs. Why should you discard eternal life?”

I am confused — which is why I am so humbled — by the idea that because I believe in dinosaurs (and what they imply) which I have seen with my own eyes at Dinosaur National Monument, God is going to reject me for all eternity? Or is it because I steadfastly refuse to believe that there is a “great chasm fixed” between Hades and Abraham’s bosom across which rich men in Hades communicate with Abraham to turn down the heat and send water? Somehow the God I worship and revere is a loving heavenly Father who loves even me with all my warts and “pride.” (Although I’m not quite sure that searching for truth is something calculated to generate much pride.) And if God is not my loving heavenly Father, well then, what have I lost if I go to the other place?

In my simplicity and naivete it seems to me that all this discussion about creation vs evolution misses the larger point. I have not yet met any person who was alive during creation week and has brought back undoctored photographic or other evidence demonstrating what actually happened. Have you? Has anybody? Lacking observable scientific evidence, let’s just say that we are entitled to believe what we want to believe. And I have no problem with your believing in a literal six day creation week. I, too, believe in Genesis 1. Just as I believe in Luke 16:19 (the rich man and Lazarus). But here is the larger point: In Matt 22:37-40 it says that “you shall love the Lord your God” and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And then Jesus added, “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” The whole Law and the Prophets? You’ve got to be kidding! The whole Law and the Prophets hangs on these two pegs? Unbelievable!

So shouldn’t we be spending a bit more time discussing how we are to love our neighbor? In what way does a belief in evolution disqualify a person from loving his neighbor? In John 10:10 Jesus said, “I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly.” Does the abundant life have to do only with a literal belief in a six day creation week? 

And how about failed marriages? (Are Adventist divorce rates less than in the general population?) How about child physical and sexual abuse? (Are Adventists free of this plague?) How about caring for the wonderful creation God has blessed us with? How about attacking the needs of our communities in hunger, homelessness, and helplessness? How about helping with prison reform? How do we love our homosexual neighbors as ourselves? How do we help prevent the need for abortions? (Just say No?) How do we help care for children born to mothers who don’t want them? How do we maintain freedom in our society without allowing the strong man freedom to abuse his weak brother? How do we decide how much we are responsible for global warming and what we should do? How do we help to prevent war? How do we learn to eat healthfully and responsibly? How do we make our church congregations into mutually supportive communities? What are the meaning and method of worship? How do we prepare for disasters? Etc.

Aren’t these subjects worth some time and effort? Or are we only interested in controversy in which neither side has irrefutable proof and in which neither side is unlikely to convince the other side? What is the advantage?

Yes, I am a doctor, Jonathan. I was a board certified pathologist yet even. And you know what they say about pathologists. “Pathologists always know the right diagnosis. But only when it’s too late.” My autopsy of the Adventist church is that it is seriously sick. For one thing too many members are only interested in their superiority in knowing exactly what happened 6000 years ago, how big the Flood was, what kind of sanctuary exists in heaven, how the King James Version was divinely inspired, what kinds of entertainment are permitted, how bad homosexuality is, etc., etc. And these members would be happy to “purify” the Church (and its educational institutions) no matter how destructive the process. If we were busy loving our neighbors as ourselves, would we have time for this other stuff? Or is our problem that we don’t even love ourselves well enough that it would make a difference?

Submitted in sadness.

Gordon Short (BA, MD, DNB, FASCP, FCAP. Does it add or subtract from the argument?)

My response was posted on Friday, 25 Sep 2009 but had disappeared by Saturday, 26 Sep 2009. Not, however, before it generated some intriguing comments that felt to me as if I could feel the nails being driven into my hands and feet and the flames lapping at my legs. Here is what Jonathan Small had to say (representative of many):

I note the call from many for politeness, niceness and restraint, but how would you deal with someone trying to destroy your spouse and children?

The belief in evolution is one thing but to teach it to others and destroy their faith in God is quite another issue altogether.

Paul calls some grievous wolves and Jude & Peter (2 Pet 2) had the strongest words for them. Even kind, gentle loving John (2 John) say we must not even entertain them.

False teachers from withing the flock are the most deadly especially when they sincerely believe they are right. It is often said that the worst abusers of children are close relatives – the ones who are loved and trusted. The Bible gives no command to treat them nice.

Over the course of time, I have contributed thousands of hours of service and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the SDA Church. This doesn’t make me a saint or the son of a saint, of course, (some think that I am the son of a certain domesticated quadruped) but I might have thought that it was an indication that I had some beneficial interest in the welfare of the Church and what the Church supposedly stands for. Things like “Love your neighbor as yourself” and even “Love your enemies.”

In this world we choose what we want to believe in. I have no problem with those who believe in a six day creation story. I believe in it also. And I can’t remember ever saying I was trying to marry creationism to evolutionism. But I have read a few books by Gerald Schroeder, Francis Collins, Bruce Lipton and others on evolution and have listened to lecture series by John McWhorter, Seth Lerer, Luke Timothy Johnson, Bart Ehrman, Robert Hazen and others on linguistics, the history of the Bible, and the origin of life. My (tentative) conclusion is that we are all blind men trying to understand the elephant. Our knowledge is always incomplete. Understanding the miracle of life and the origins of the dinosaurs is above my pay grade, but I do try to give these subjects respectful consideration.

In the meantime, I was intrigued that what I thought was my larger emphasis, how do we love our neighbor as ourselves, apparently drew nary a single comment.

Yes, God wrote the ten commandments with His finger on tablets of stone. But I am confused about the account in Deuteronomy. What happened to creation? And where did those Egyptians come from? Did God’s Alzheimers bubble to the surface and He forgot the True Story? (And by the way, wouldn’t it have been nice if He could have written all the important stuff in the New Testament in stone — with English translations — so that we wouldn’t have to argue about Paul vs James and all the accounts of the resurrection and which translation to use. Wouldn’t that be better than forcing us to pore over thousands of fragments of manuscripts that are copies of copies of copies? But maybe He wore His finger down too badly on the stone when He did the Ten Commandments. Sorry. Just kidding.)

What is it that gives me the sense that the world vision of the EducateTruth folk is what they see when they look down the bore of a rifle? And that whenever a naughty word like “evolution” or “homosexual” comes into view they reflexly load a round and pull the trigger? Whatever happened to brotherly love and the Golden Rule? And civil conversation? 

In my status as an agnostic believer, I confess to seeing through a glass darkly. But the believing part of my nature expects to see Him face to face when all will be revealed. Will there be some surprises? I’m betting that there will be and that they will be very exciting. In the meantime if any of you feel inclined to enter into conversation with the EducateTruth congregation, be advised that beneath their white robes of righteousness there may lurk hammers and nails and matches. My experience there made me feel as welcome as a nudist at a White House dinner.

Gordon Short 

Nathan, I stand corrected.  You're not guilty of using your advanced degree combined with ridicule.  You merely use your "above average intelligence and education" combined with ridicule - which is entirely different than how you described as intellectual elitism.  I personally rely on the fact that I was blessed with above-average good looks and a strikingly masculine build when I'm confronted with intellectual questions. 

I agree with you that professors in Adventist Universities should teach the best of Creationism and Evolution.  I just think that Creationism should be taught by the Religion department, and Evolution by the Science department.  There's simply nothing scientific about creation.  It would be the shortest science class on the planet, one that even I could pass.  Concept number 1, God is all-powerful, beyond our comprehension.  Concept number 2, Memorize the 1st several verses of Genesis.  Class on Monday, Final exam on Tuesday.  Done.  In religion class, one can delve into the purpose of man, the Great Controversy's role in our existence, the wages of sin, and the value of the Sabbath.  All of these things are concepts that go hand in hand with Creation, but not with Science. 

RE: Values.  I believe that our Christian values should enter into everything we think and do.  Everything we learn, read, or absorb should be viewed through the lens of our life perspective as Christians.  But that filtering should occur within each person.  It certainly shouldn't be spoon-fed to college age, adult students.  "You may think this, because we have vetted it for you and found such thoughts worthy..."  is a horrible concept for a university to operate from.  When we're babies, moms crush our food for us before putting it in our mouths.  Some momma birds swallow food, partially digest it, then vomit it up into the mouths of their waiting hatchlings.  I don't want an academic mommy doing the same thing for my kids when they're in college.  I don't want an academic mommy for them at all when they go off to college. 

Once again, you close your post with a few sentences protesting the socio-political liberal bent of institutes of higher learning.  Feminism, leftism, socialism, communism, naziism, all are outside the realm of this forum, so again, I'll politely decline to comment.  Although I did take a free potshot at Hillsdale, which you ignored.  (Go ahead, try to find a black person in any of the pictures on the Hillsdale website.  There isn't even one on the basketball team!)

We've created a certain beast in our Adventist Educational system.  Higher learning is by its very nature independent of Church control, much in the same way that the Healthcare system operates out of necessity outside the direct control of the General Conference.  Many things occur in Healthcare that good, God-fearing people would protest.  Profiteering from boob-jobs, face-lifts, and tummy tucks. Profitting from abortions.  Sending people into bankruptcy when they can't pay their bill.  Prescribing and selling pills when lifestyle changes would be more appropriate.  Why fill a prescription for Crestor, when you should sell them a salad and a veggie burger instead?  These certainly aren't church-approved activities, but they are part of the function of the Healthcare system as a whole. 

Likewise, education has functions that appear to be outside the constraints of biblical education requirements.  But again, a student should learn about evolution, and that knowledge passed on by his professor should pass through his eyes and ears, through the filter of his Christian upbringing, and then be processed.  That filter should receive the appropriate, thorough maintenance in midweek Chapel, every evening in worship, every Friday in vespers, every Saturday in Church and Sabbath School, and in Religion classes during the week (all of which were required when I attended SDA university.)  

If all of that religiosity is not enough to maintain the integrity of Adventist education, then we need to document the harm that is occurring to our youth.  We need to quantify it and then put a stop to it.  But in my opinion, no such harm is taking place.  Until real effort is put into finding and proving damage, my opinion is like everyone else's assessment of the damage: it's just an opinion.   I may be wrong, but I'd say the impetus is on the ones who are crying out for a more restrictive academic atmosphere to prove that harm is indeed being done. 

Gordon Short

EducateTruth.com

ProfessorNot Kent says: By the way, Gordon Short, I loved your post, and so did my wife. We appreciated your humor, your human insight, and your open-mindedness. You deserve more respect from your fellow Church members.

Thank you for your unusually kind remarks. (Unusual because you are in a crowd of one.) But be advised that your supportive sentiments may just indicate that, apparently like me, you are standing on quicksand. I’m praying for you.

markham says: Cliff Goldstein was totally correct about those who no longer embrace SDA church doctrine. Why these progressives (destructives?) don't start their own synagogue is puzzling.

Well, I hadn’t thought about starting a synagogue, but I did wonder about taking a lead from the Catholics. They have a multitude of disparate orders under the umbrella of catholicism: Franciscans, Dominicans, Trappists, Jesuits, etc. Maybe we should form two orders of adventism: the Dogmatic Doctrinaires and the Phlegmatic Freedomaires. The former would include the IndoctrinateTroooth group. (Notice the subtle way the doctrine of the Trinity is incorporated into their name.) The former could congregate at Andrews and the latter at La Sierra. Maybe we could develop some intercollegiate sporting events. Like total contact boxing/wrestling/kicking/gouging/biting/scratching/hurling insults/clobbering with proof texts from the Bible, EGW and Dawkins. Wow, the more I think of this, the more excited I get. Pipim vs Greer. Not only conservative vs liberal but a grand opportunity to play the race card. (I was going to suggest Erv Taylor but he is obviously too ancient to draw a crowd. Unless they’re into dinosaurs.) We could stage the battle on 3ABN with Danny Shelton as referee since he has already been through the wars. Or, better yet, just dispense with a referee since there needn’t be any rules of fairness. Maybe we could get Jan Paulsen to sell hot dogs, I mean Vejalinks. Think of the money we could raise from hapless members, “the ordinary folks in the pew, upon whose support the enterprise is dependent,” who would think that this was serious and a prelude to the Second Coming (of Truth and Purity). Wow! But now I’ve got to quit before I get myself too overexcited. Except that the ideas just won’t quit. On Friday night we could have Sabbathy Night Live and parody Goldstein and Guy and Batchelor and Boonstra and. . . .  This could be BIG. We could cLAim the whole cockeyed world in this generation. And all go to Heaven and gloat over all the evolutionary suckers who didn’t evolve enough to make it. (Well, maybe I better be careful on this point — at least until I have time to check the thermometer.) Are you with me, markham? What do you think?

Gordon Short

Gordon Short

 Erv Taylor called Cliff Goldstein's attention to my post and got the following reply from Cliff: 

"Fair enough; a cogent, intelligent response, given certain presuppositions. What can I say?"

I have the feeling that if I had the opportunity to meet Cliff one-on-one, I would quite enjoy him. Fair-minded people with strong opinions give spice to life. Thank you, Cliff.

 Gordon Short 

Gordon, I appreciate and enjoy your pithy and humorus comments.  We need to be able to laugh at ourselves more and you elicit the laughter.

 My late roommate was also a forensic pathologist and you reminded me of his frequent remarks that it is always the pathologist who makes the final diagnosis.  If only they spoke to malpractice lawyers! 

Someone mentioned that SDA schools should teach Creationist and Darwinian science theories.  But how and where should a non-science course be taught?  There is no such thing as "Creationist Science" so it should be taught, perhaps, in philosophy departments?  It really doesn't seem to belong to any of them, but is an orphan looking for a parent.

Gordon, I'm absolutely appalled that your second letter to Educate Truth was deleted, and I'm pleased that you have taken the time to duplicate it here. I'm going to read it to my wife shortly, and she will also be appalled at your treatment. Again, you deserved to be treated much better.

 Why is it that those who post comments about love and tolerance, as I did, as you did, and as Bravus frequently does (the brave soul), are the ones that are met with such anger and vehemence? I agree with you that the responses there betray the sick obsession with "rightness" in near-complete absence of love for fellow Christians. Shane Hilde can try to elevate the "purpose" of his website by, for example, claiming that they are only bringing forth evidence and raising awareness, but he is complicit in the total message that the website generates. That message, as communicated most articulately by Jonathan Smith, is hatred plain and simple. It is, in essence, "you can't be a true Christian; you're going to hell; go away and start your own Church." The message makes Adventists look horrific.

 Despite all this, I choose to believe that Adventists are, by and large, beautiful people. I think the fanatics at Educate Truth truly represent the "lunatic fringe." 

And here are the final two posts that I uploaded repeatedly at Educate Truth. Because Shane Hilde was blocking me, I had to upload them from different ip addresses, and he deleted them each time as quickly as he noticed them. I could have continued playing this game but gave up. These were in response to his making clear publicly that, not being an Adventist, I had used up my grace and was no longer permitted to post there.

 The first post:

 Shane, let's get something else straight. If you look closely at the url box, you will notice three alphabetical letters after "http://." Look closely. The letters are "www," which stand for "World Wide Web."

Let's contrast this with "SDA," which stands for the Soap and Detergent Association, Speed Demos Archive, Survey Documentation Analysis, Surface Design Association, and Seventh-day Adventist, among other things. WWW and SDA are two very different things. One is extraordinarily inclusive; the other extraordinarily exclusive.

I know that to be a "true" Adventist and a "true" Christian, you must believe in SIX DAYS, a young earth (SIX THOUSAND YEARS), and the impossibility of ABAGOFGENITALS and AMOEBA-TO-MANNY RAMIREZ. Well, as you just might have noticed, some of us take exception to these characterizations of Christianity. I happen to be one such person, and I'm not the only one. The only difference in my case is that I am a zebra of different stripes than you. I don't think it's my stripes, however, that have earned your disfavor. I think it's my willingness to point out junk science when I see it. There's a lot of creationist claptrap guised as science at this website. This was but one example, from Bob Ryan, your church's authority-on-all-things-biological: "WE have already debunked the wild claim that bacteria are not acquiring antibiotic resistance via plasmid DNA that is EXTERNAL to the DNA of the animal." (WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. OBVIOUSLY.)

The second post:

Bear in mind that you guys are the ones with the brazenness to make all of this a hugely public issue, an attribute that you have boasted of. You guys got quite excited when you went "secular" and were featured in an online educational journal. You cheared Sean Pitman (and others) who took on the secular evilutionists at their blog at Pharyngula. (By the way, the guy closed the discussion of Carlos Cerna at post #800 with the following: "The copy&paste without attribution that you and other creationists do isn't so much a crime as it is an indicator of a poverty of imagination and lack of scruples...I'm closing this thread since Mr Pitman seems to be running on fumes.") But when someone of a different stripe comes to YOUR site, even though he is a creationist who believes in SIX DAYS and doesn't object to a young earth, you cry "foul." I don't understand why you want to make up new rules as you go along, nor do I like it when friends grab their marbles and say, "I'm taking my marbles home and you can't play with me any more."

Your tactics are to publicly smear individuals, an institution, and a denomination. Obviously. This website isn't about "educate truth;" it's about shoving "truth" down people's throat until the only way to get air is to capitulate. Well, my tactic is also quite transparent: to call an "apple" an "apple" and a "zebra" a "zebra" and all organisms in between by their right name, whether they've microevolved or macroevolved.

Hearing of your experience, Gordon, it's crystal clear that my (presumed) Church membership was NOT the issue. I could add, however, that there is some irony in this. I never stated that I was not an Adventist. I didn't think that it truly mattered, but in the minds of those who are hypervigilant about the Church's creed and grazing rights in the meadow of pews, it matters supremely.

I am puzzled that educatetruth censors such benign, seemingly balanced viewpoints.  Not having visited that site, and really having no interest in doing so, I'd love to know if they have a statement of mission or principles that explains such narrow-mindedness.  Not that I expect them to be broad-minded.  I am just surprised that they would only want posts from hard-liners.

So just who is it that decides what is science and what is non-science?  Is it consensus?  By that standard, Galileo, not to mention many other great thinkers and scientists throughout history, would have seen their ideas banished from the scientific community.  It is amusing to see the flag-waving scientific imperialists on this site, who know next to nothing about science, insist that creationism is by definition not science. And I'm sure the God of all creation must get tears in his eyes from laughing at the foolishness of those who arrogantly insist that His actions have nothing to do with science. The scientific conclusions and inferences of creationists may be wrong.  And if that is what you believe, how could you possibly say it belongs in the religion classroom?  I'll guarantee you that religion students without scientific training would be no better equipped to understand or interact with the arguments of scientific creationists than most of the readers and contributors to this blog site.  Perhaps I underestimate Statefarmsteve's and Elaine's level of scientific sophistication, but I think I would pay to hear them "debate" a creation scientist, and then argue that there's nothing scientific about his views.  Their extremist wall of separation between the church and SDA higher education would render progressives even more irrelevant to "mainstream" Adventist sentiment than the educatetruth fanatics.

As to values, Statefarmsteve, I did not intend to make a political statement.  I was simply pointing out that values indoctrination - particularly of the anti-Christian variety is ubiquitous in higher education in this country.  Do you dispute that?  You have retreated to a redoubt of cognitive dissonance, refusing to recognize the cesspool of values indoctrination that passes for higher education, so that you can maintain your illusion of SDA higher education as an antiseptic venue where SDA values must be checked at the classroom door.  All other values and beliefs, as long as they have nothing to do with the bible, are of course welcome.  

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, please tell me you didn't mean what you said when you argued that religious,  non-scientific filters should be used by university students outside the classroom to process and constrain what is taught in the classroom.  Wow! Let's see if I have this straight. You believe in a literal 6-day creation as taught in Scripture.  But you insist that your factual belief is totally non-scientific, so it should not be entertained in science classrooms, even if all the students believe it.  Nevertheless, when they leave the classroom, pumped full of Darwinian theory debunking their beliefs, they should gird themselves with the grid of their non-scientific beliefs to filter and constrain what they have learned in the classroom, thereby maintaining the integrity of Adventist education.  Makes perfect sense to me.  Sounds like higher education, on steroids, in outer space.  

I do have to observe that, even though the left wing of the church at times sounds just as nutty as the right wing, it is a whole lot nicer, and tons more fun.  

One thing Statefarm seems to be arguing is that Darwinism should be taught in science classes and a literal view of Genesis in religion classes, the implicit assumption being that on the same campus where one finds Darwinist biology/geology teachers, one finds conservative religion/theology teachers. 

 Alas, the truth is the opposite.  Liberal theology and Darwinism go hand in glove.  Campuses that have liberal theologians also have Darwinist science faculties, whereas campuses that have conservative theologians have conservative, creation-affirming science faculties.  The Southern religion faculty has a very strong Bible affirming statement here:  https://www.southern.edu/religion/Pages/facultystatementoncreation.aspx.  I don't think a Darwinist would like that campus, although I don't know much about Southern's science faculty, other than Lee Spencer, whom I know to be a creationist. 

The west coast campuses would never have gotten the way they are without a great deal of support from liberal theologians like Raymond Cottrell, Frederick E.J. Harder, Fritz Guy, Graeme Sharrock, Richard L. Hammill, etc.  In fact, I would argue that the liberal theologians precede the Darwinist scientists and give them the green light. 

Nathan - Must be nice to "be sure the God of all creation must get tears in his eyes from laughing at the foolishness of those who arrogantly insist that His actions have nothing to do with science."  He might also giggle at those that are arrogant enough to presume they have an inside track on his sense of humor, along with binding him into the human-brain-sized box of PhD level-science.  How many times must He say to Himself, "Didn't I tell these guys that they'd never "get" Me, and that they shouldn't even try?" 

I can't speak for Elaine, but let me assure you that it would be impossible to underestimate my scientific expertise.  A debate between me and a creation scientist would certainly be a battle of un-epic proportion, a certain "lamb led to slaughter" scenario.  I fear the admission that you are willing to pay would be too steep at any price.  But most in the scientific community would say they're more likely to see me do battle with a unicorn or a fire breathing dragon than a young-earth believing Creation Scientist, as they exist on the same plane of reality. 

Of course, you spend an awful lot of time with unicorns and dragons in Fantasyland, where I hope higher education is of a better quality than that found here in America, land of Cesspool Universities.  Here in America, we check our values at the classroom door, like we do our coats at restaurants and our guardian angels at the movie theater. 

I'm not going to bail out on the rest of your post, as I truly enjoy our discussion.  I'll have to return later today (I've got a tee time...)

Excellent point David. You are so right!  Of course Statefarmsteve would, I'm sure, be the first to admit that he does not speak for any viewpoint but his own.  I suspect we'd see some apoplectic blogging by Dr. Taylor if La Sierra University decided to expand the religion department curriculum by adding Creation scientists to teach literal 6-day creation science.

It's really quite amusing to recall how recently progressives were solemnly pontificating on the need to integrate faith and science so that we can enrich our faith traditions and enter into intelligent dialogue with the world. Now that progressives have the votes on faculty governance committees, and their finger on the nuclear accreditation button, they begin to show their teeth, and growl about how vital segregation of science and religion is to the integrity of Adventist education.

The word "fanatic" comes from the Latin, fannum, which means temple.  In the classical period, some people were so devoted to their god that they would spend all their time in the temple of that god.  They were called "temple dwellers" - fanatics.  Is devotion to making the classrooms of higher education temples of secularism more responsible fanaticism than devotion to turning them into temples of religious indoctrination?  I say no. 

But in the meantime, may I suggest a boutique business for those SDA progressives who view such an endeavor to be a reasonable strategy: Design a tinfoil hat (no - better find a biodegradable alternative) for students to wear around Christian university campuses that will protect them from religious radiation.  Any defective hats with holes or tears can probably be safely marketed to some SDA universities, where religious radioactivity is very weak.  There should of course be hat racks at the doors to science classrooms where the hats can be checked. We certainly wouldn't science bunkers stigmatized with the inference that protection from religious radioactivity is even necessary there.

Nathan, are you suggesting that science can be applied to or even prove a supernatural event? I don't think we can test the hypothesis that in an instant a herd of sheep appeared from out of nowhere on a mountain pasture. Sure, we can test some rather basic creationist hypotheses that relate to time, or a flood, such as the fossil forests of Yellowstone being preserved by a catastrophic flood (we've argued this), but where does this get us? We've supported there was indeed a flood in Yellowstone, which secular scientists now recognize, but not a global flood. We can hypothesize there are no beneficial mutations (we often claim this); but science now shows otherwise, We can argue that species, genera, families, and higher levels cannot evolve (we often claim this, as we're talking macroevolution); but we are then left to explain how some 500 species of an entire family of molluscs--the highly venomous cone snails--came about in just 6000 years (unless God made them that way), or how 143 species of amphibians found exclusively in the West Indies/Caribbean managed to hop or swim there from Mt. Ararat without leaving a trace (a "remnant" population) behind. Fine, many thinking creationists will agree that a lot of new species DO evolve, but actually at enormously faster rates than secular biologists would ever concede. Does this make "creationists" the most extreme "evolutionists" of all? Absolutely!

 I found it ironic that when I was in Bible school, I was taught that change happens so slowly that we could never see the amount of change from a single-celled organism that represents today's diversity and complexity in just 600 million years. When I got to Bible college I learned that change happens with extreme rapidity to explain the levels of diversity (apparent in biogeography) and complexity (obvious in venomous creatures) that we see today in only 6,000 years. And God is laughing at...who?

The biggest irony of "scientific creationism" is where we are left if the science takes us where we do not expect or want to go. If the data strongly support an old earth and gradual but substantial biological change, does that mean we abandon our cherished beliefs in creationism and God? Or do we abandon the science? Do we really want to base our faith on science?

To many of us, it is obvious that God chose not to reveal to us all answers. He wants us to seek Him experientially, not prove Him scientifically. I could easily picture God shaking his head and weeping more than laughing at us. I think Steve and Gordon have it right: let's win souls to Jesus, not minds to "truth."

Statefarmsteve says, "But most in the scientific community would say they're more likely to see me do battle with a unicorn or a fire breathing dragon than a young-earth believing Creation Scientist, as they exist on the same plane of reality." 

And that same plane of reality also contains the Seventh-day Darwinians. 

This would seem to be argument by definition, but if Steve is allowed to say that no young earth creationist is a scientist (despite the existence of people like Kurt Wise, Stephen Austin, and Marcus Ross--not to mention Art Chadwick, Lee Spencer and Leonard Brand), then I am much more justified in saying that no real Seventh-day Adventist is a Darwinian.   

Arg - David, I didn't say there was no such thing as a young earth creationist scientist.  Please, please, please, please quit putting words in my mouth. 

You're more than welcome to join in our conversation, but please at least make an honest attempt to be accurate when you quote me or attribute ideas to me.  Now I'm forced again to state that I have no science background whatsoever, beyond Bio 101 which was a prerequisite for my English and History degree, and it was a class in which I performed exceedingly poorly.  I'm unqualified to judge or rate the quality of science or scientists.  Any reference to a good or bad scientist or science is mere parrotting from articles or books that I have read. 

A great article to read on "straddling the line" between Evolution and Creationism was a NYTimes article feature on Marcus Ross, one of the Scientists you mentioned.  I'd encourage you to read it, as it is extremely interesting, and very much on topic with regard to this post. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

BTW, I parred 7 holes in a row from hole 12 on to shoot a tidy 11 over par 82.  But I snapped my driver in 2 pieces in anger on hole 9 and threw it in a lake.  So now I need a new driver, but I know that a clubhead will float when thrown into a lake. 

Statefarmsteve, I copied and pasted your own post.  If that wasn't an accurate enough quote to suit you, blame Bill Gates. 

You were saying that you're not qualified to judge, but that most scientists, i.e., the people who are qualified to judge, do not believe one can be both a creationist and a scientist.  What is the purpose of that statement if not to argue that  a creationist cannot be a scientist?  You're trying to money-launder your arguments, but they're still your arguments.

As to Marcus Ross, I just linked to that NYTimes article in a thread over at Spectrum.org.  I don't think Ross is straddling the line; he seems to be fully in the creationist camp.  But he is conversant and literate in both the creationist and the Darwinist paradigm, and can do science within the Darwinian paradigm. 

 BTW, sounds like you don't need a new driver, if you parred in without it.  Leave it in the lake, and learn to hit your 3 wood like Tiger.  Or do like Kevin Costner in "Tin Cup" and break all your clubs except your five iron; it worked for him.

David, thanks for including me in the "scientific community" that I referred to - I can't thank Bill Gates for that, and I'd never put myself there.  Your cut n paste function is working great, it's your read and comprehend function that seems to be on the fritz.

And the driver is floating amongst the fishes and gators - I feel a little bad for littering, but I'm sure someone will fish it out and enjoy it.  And Costner broke everything except his 7 iron. 

Actually Kent, my facetious remark about God laughing was more a reference to the dogmatism that permeates scientism than a statement of belief.  I do not have sufficient knowledge to truly have an informed opinion on the nuances of creation vs evolution.  I think there is some science in each and a lot of theory.  The problem with evolutionism, at least as argued on this website, is that there is no candid acknowledgement that the claims of evolutionary science go way beyond the age of the earth and development of life.  Evolutionary theories are foundational to determinism and philosophical materialism, theories that claim to be scientific, and are diametrically opposed to the teachings of scripture.  It seems to me that SDA progressives are not only indifferent to these consequences, but these consequences have become the agenda of progressives throughout the curriculum of SDA higher education, including the humanities departments.  

I'm not arguing that "creationist" science is superior to evolutionary science.  I simply think it is preposterous, arrogant, and dangerous for supporters of "evolution" to claim the debate is over, and scientific creationism is no more worthy of being taken seriously than unicorns.

To answer your question, I don't know what the church will do in the future if science refutes the claims of scripture. I know that God will do just fine, and that's what really matters.  But I do know what science does when reality gets in the way of scientism: Suppress the truth, trust theory, and make up evidence.  How many frauds have been committed to advance evolutionary claims?  All you have to do to see how scientists react when their pagan gods are threatened is to follow the global warming wars on wattsupwiththat, climateaudit, and realclimate, et. al.  You will see eye-popping manipulation of data, demonization of opponents, and refusal to acknowledge contrary evidence by eminent scientists who are true believers.  Science may not lie, but scientists certainly are as prone to religious zeal as anyone on educatetruth.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Kent, about the impotence of propositional truth when it comes to the salvific work of God in our lives.  However, what we are talking about here is not soul saving, but formal Christian higher education.  Education may not bring people to Christ, but it can be a powerful deception to turn them away from Christ, as the story of the Fall clearly demonstrates.  How our children view themselves, ultimate reality, and the world around them is of vital importance.  The curriculum and teaching in SDA university classrooms is of most germane to the question of how our childrens' faith will fare in the war that reason and science wage against religion.  The argument that faith should sound a retreat to the religion classrooms is an argument for unconditional surrender.  

Nathan,

Of course, the behavior of unscrupulous scientists--whether they are investigating evolution, climate, or persistent sexual arousal syndrome--should not form the basis of judging the enterprise of science, including evolutionary theory. Nor should the behavior of unscrupulous Christians--whether murdering those of other faiths, defrauding the IRS while peddling Creation theory (e.g., Kent Hovind), or posting private email exchanges between faculty and student to public websites--form the basis for judging religion, including creationism. The issue of fraud has no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution or creation is closer to "truth." I think you'll agree with me on this.

 I totally agree with you on the importance of buttressing the faith of students. I absolutely agree that the Church's doctrines should be taught and treated with respect in the universities. I even like the idea of interjecting faith (not so-called creation "science") into a science classroom when it is at a Church-owned institution. I have no problem whatsoever with the goal of Educate Truth. Unlike some posters here, I'm sympathetic with a 7-day creation week and even (though nowhere near 100%) a short-term chronology. I'm a huge supporter of private education. It's the means--virtually anything is justified--rather than the end that troubles me. I believe the management there has gotten carried away. Private email exchanges, for example, should be considered sacrosanct. Public humiliation of individuals, particularly on religious and philosophical grounds, is unbecoming of any professional educator. The Banning School District, which employs Shane Hilde, has computer use policies that forbid these very activities by their students. Should not the same ethics apply to their employees? Here are some policies that I'll paste verbatim:

 3. Students shall not access, post, submit, publish, or display harmful or inappropriate matter that is threatening, obscene, disruptive, or sexually explicit, or that could be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based on their race/ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or political beliefs.

7. Students shall not use the system to threaten, intimidate, harass, or ridicule other students or staff.

10. Students shall not interfere with other users' ability to send or receive email, nor shall they attempt to read, delete, copy, modify, or use another individual's identity.

I feel that a high school teacher, as a public steward and an example to students, has an obligation to adhere to the highest standards. I also feel that standards should be higher yet for Christians. Can you imagine the reaction of parents, or students, who Google their teacher, Shane Hilde, and discover a website full of attacks and ridicule on those who do not believe in a literal 7-day creation week, a short-term chronology, or even the seventh-day sabbath? Would their reaction be any different if their child's teacher maintained a website denying the holocaust, or attacking homosexuals? As I have pointed out before, the way Hilde would be judged has less to do with the claims of his actions and goals (we are told, for example, that he has never sought the firing of university faculty) and more to do with the posts by others that appear to meet his approval.

One lady who I particularly respect, Marci Hamilton, has written a book (God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law) that documents how, in the U.S., religious groups and individuals routinely place themselves above the law that governs ordinary citizens. Our government actually perpetuates this practice. In the case of Educate Truth, I have no reason to believe that any laws are being broken, but I do question the ethics of the way Hilde and others are dealing with their issues. Even if we as Christians truly possess "truth," that doesn't give us the right, or make us look good, to bludgeon others who disagree with our view. I think the folks at Educate Truth have made their score, turned a lot of heads, won their battle (insofar as it can be won), and need to find more appropriate means to gain their desired end.

I think that Educate Love should always transcend the goal of Educate Truth. I hope you would agree with me on this.

Kent,

Your concerns are well articulated and, as you anticipated, I agree with all your points - except that I think scientific and I.D. theories which call into question the broad claims and theories of science should certainly be presented in SDA science curriculae.  I seriously question whether creation "science" is or can be stand-alone scientific theory.  But I do think that creation scientists and philosophers have pointed out, through science and logic, many problems with the diktats of evolutionists and the widely accepted inferences that have been deduced therefrom.  The failure to thoroughly acquaint SDA students with these Christian critiques is, to my way of thinking, academic malpractice in a Christian university. 

Long before the SDA health message had any scientific support, prescient, spirit-filled SDA students of scripture hypothesized that particular behaviors and diet had significant impacts on health and longevity. These "revealed" convictions led to a search for scientific support.  We know the rest of the story.  Semmelweis was greeted with contempt when he made the unscientific assertion that hand washing would ameliorate infection. Today, it is not the body, but the soul and spirit of humankind that are suffering from  the dessicating nihilism of modern "scientific" theories.  Is it not imperative that SDA scientists and the church support the efforts of those who use the scientific method to expose the totalitarian claims of science and reason as enemies of what scripture tells us about the nature of God, and the nature and origin of man?  Might we not proceed with such inquiries in faith and humility, at least until such time as the science is overwhelming, as it sometimes is (cf., Galileo)?  After all, isn't that what happened with the health message?  Had the "limit-science-to-secular-consensus" mentality prevailed in the early days of Adventism, I suspect the "crown jewel" of the Church - Loma Linda - would not exist.

Nathan, I'm all in favor of ID being presented as an alternative to the broadest meaning of the word "evolution." (Bear in mind that the word "evolution" has a number of meanings and uses, as even Stephen C. Myer of the Discovery Institute, the intellectual home of ID, summarizes nicely in a book chapter at http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf; this paper, though I might take exception to a few points, should be mandatory reading for all wannabe "creation scientists.") I'm also in favor of exposing students at Christian universities to the basic ideas of so-called "creation science," which I did in fact make clear in my previous post (I think you simply missed this). I do feel, however, that the term or phrase "creation science" is an oxymoron (for reasons I've made clear in an earlier post) and that much of the evidence that is routinely presented simply does not qualify as science.

 Some of the so-called "progressives" here are opposed to presenting these ID and creationist ideas in biology courses at La Sierra and elsewhere, and I would have to disagree if that's their stance. But maybe they are reaching a bit, over-reacting, out of concern for other issues (I am prone to over-reacting myself, which gives the wrong impression of what I am actually opposing). Maybe they would object less if the "creation science" was presented humbly and truthfully, while admitting that there are great difficulties in supporting scientifically a recent and literal creation (in other words, teach the material very differently than  some self-pronounced experts at Educate Truth are advocating). I personally feel that the preponderance of scientific evidence favors long ages and gradual change, but the evidence, of course, falls short of "fact" (many scientists and hard-core evolutionists concede this), and my faith compels me to view things differently.

Ultimately, I think that it is essential to teach science as science and faith as faith, and not force one to shape the other. I get the feeling that all of us posting here would agree with this (it's quite a different story at Educate Truth).

 Another thought: you touched on global warming, and I don't want to engage in a debate about it (because I think that a lot of evidence supports it; that the jury is still out; and that the issue is highly politicized and controversial on both sides). What I will say is that if Christians were more concerned about the very clear Biblical mandate to be stewards of this planet, they would be more concerned about saving the creation (from our own direct actions more so than any possible climate change) rather than being obsessed with trying to prove it really happened. Given the well-documented reticence of Christians to support environmental causes, I think we are missing the opportunity for a FAR MORE EFFECTIVE witness by failing to advocate stewardship of the creation. The creation-evolution debate is remarkably divisive and brings harm to God's cause. Engaging in environmental and conservation advocacy would unite us with secular scientists and generate the good will essential for accepting our most important beliefs and doctrines: love of God and all fellow men; the ultimate sacrifice by Jesus Christ; and the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus' blood.

Okay Kent,

Now I think I pretty much agree with you on all your points, even stewardship of the earth.  Conservation is by definition conservative, and I think Christians should be concerned about it.  But I suspect there are likely to be deep philosophical differences among Christians as to what constitutes exploitation and devastation, and what is responsible development of resources for the betterment of humankind.  Rachel Carson, for example was considered a saint by progressive Christians in the 70's, and Paul Erlich was hailed as a prophet by them.  But the reality of history and science have not been kind to either, a fact that is largely lost on those who were devoted to them.  Millions of African lives lost to malaria due to the "religious" attacks on DDT are hardly the legacy I suspect Carson had in mind when she wrote "Silent Spring".

Sorry to digress into a bed of hot coals, but I simply want to  illustrate that noble sentiments such as "Save The Earth" - or "Preserve Academic Freedom" - do not  automatically validate the policy solutions springing from those sentiments.  Neither political "virtue" nor high-minded sentiment allow one to lay claim to the moral high ground.

"Sorry to digress into a bed of hot coals, but I simply want to  illustrate that noble sentiments such as "Save The Earth" - or "Preserve Academic Freedom" - do not  automatically validate the policy solutions springing from those sentiments.  Neither political "virtue" nor high-minded sentiment allow one to lay claim to the moral high ground."

 Hence, the need for quality science to address these problems in an informed manner while learning from the lessons of history. Sure, the faculty at Christian universities can share their faith when teaching students and devote some time to questions of origins and change, but let's not water down the quality of science or the respect students should have for what science can accomplish. I don't think that science gives us all of the relevant answers for the world today, but I do believe God wants us to use it for our own betterment.

 Thus, rather than create an atmosphere of contention in science, I wish that Christians would seek to excel in science and take on more visible leadership in a diverse range of topics (biology is remarkably broad). By focusing relentlessly on issues of origins (a very narrow piece of the pie), we have greatly handicapped ourselves and damaged both our credibility and witness. I should point out that Adventist biologists do some stellar science, publishing in high-quality journals, including medicine, neuroscience, animal behavior, ecology, ornithology, herpetology, marine biology, and conservation. I have visited the websites of many, perhaps most of your faculty. Okay, maybe some deserve criticism if they are too "progressive" and advocating too much for evolution, but where is the praise? Why no balance? At Educate Truth, I believe that I was THE ONLY ONE to praise your biologists other than the few who had published on fossil whales. I even posted my impressions university-by-university (though I'm told I missed some and made a few embarrassing gaffes; apparently one university I found is an online/correspondence-only type of university; my apologies!). The message at Educate Truth was that biologists were of value and worthy of praise only if they did creation-type research. I was surprised and deeply saddened by that message: surprised because I thought that SDAs were so focused on medicine, and saddened for the reasons I have already stated.

Friends, I would like to apologize for posting so much here. I don't want to dominate the discussion. Forgive me. I hope that an "outsider's" perspective might be appreciated by some. I know that others of you probably detest me, in part because I come to you as an outsider, and in part because I defend honesty in science, including some levels of biological change that fit the more limited meanings of "evolution." Whether you like me or not, we are brethren in Christ and I am grateful to be in your company. Please pray for me, and I in turn will pray for you.

 Oh, and one more clarification. I ventured onto Educate Truth as Professor Kent, but one nameless soul (an unrelenting debater) clearly did not appreciate my title, so I decided to change it. Far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether I am a professor or not...but I have to say it was fun to write "I am not Professor Kent; ProfessorNot Kent I am." I don't think anyone there saw humor in this. C'est la vie.

Please, no apologies, ProfessorNot Kent!  It's not like we're destroying forests here.  As one who is not overly shy about expressing my own intuitive, but non-expert, views, I appreciate enormously the obvious superior depth and knowledge you bring to the discussion.  We are not exactly a captive audience. 

One question that the interlocutors here seem to touch on, but never really answer, is whether it is important for science teachers in SDA universities to be, at a heart level, God-fearing, committed Christians.  For those who protest the need for definitions, the answer is probably no. 

You see, I would presumptively trust a science teacher like ProfessorNot Kent, who begins science class with: "Whether you agree with what I say or not, we are brethren in Christ, and I am grateful to be in your company.  Please pray for me, and I in turn will pray for you."  Such a confession and witness would be a strong clue as to Who is in charge of his mind and heart.  And that reality would make the "what" of his knowledge and beliefs far more credible and compelling.

ProfessorNot and Nathan - I love the direction this conversation has taken, even though I have had precious little to add as of late.  I agree strongly with Nathan that it's not too much to ask our Administrators to work their fingers to the bone to find professors with both a strong science background and a willingness to acknowledge their faith.  I'm starting to believe that iff locating professors with such a unique combination is too heavy a burden to bear, then perhaps the administrators need to find another occupation.  At least an honest attempt should be made, and would show a sincere desire to balance our denominational faith with the need to properly educate our students.  I would think that the vast majority of our church members, if this was understood, would be willing to support the inclusion of evolutionary teaching within our schools, and even students with the weakest of faith would find some way to balance their educational pursuits and their faith.

Some will always argue that teaching any part of Evolutionary Science is admitting what EGW called all sorts of bad things, and would even include Macro evolution and Intelligent Design as subject matter that attacks our core beliefs.  But Nathan's suggestion is, as I see it, a sensible approach.  By any chance, is ProfessorNot job hunting?  I'd be happy to provide a letter of reference...

Maybe most of the people who have studied the Creation/evolution issue as scientists find the creation scenario unbelievable.

Now and then a "scientist" appears who favors creation. How can anyone be sure that he believes Creation as a scientist? Perhaps he just believes what EGW says and shapes his views of science around that mold. It happens in theology. Adventism is full of people who shape their interpretation of Scripture around EGW and then purport to teach the Bible. They are frauds, simply reading into Scripture what EGW told them. Creationist scientists could be doing the same thing.

If I remember correctly, the son of Robert Pierson, former GC president, was a science teacher at Andrews. I would guess he's a fairly conservative person. Why not ask someone like him what they believe about science and Creation?  

Gordon said......

"I still regret that so much time and effort is being spent on the subject of evolution vs creation where no one has, or can have, any irrefutable scientific evidence that will be coercive to the other side. Why don't we spend more time and effort on those things that we can change and ameliorate rather than on those things where each side feels that the other side is just blowing smoke?"

I agree with this comment. I think the devil has created a diversion from other issues and caused "bickering" on this issue so people will ignore "present truth" that applies to the SDA church.

The Pope as antichrist and the apostacy of early Christanity is not "present truth" to SDA's. Nor the second coming, nor the state of the dead.......etc.

Neither is the 7 day creation account "present truth" in the SDA church. We have made our statements clear and those who oppose it have made their non-biblical points as well.

The bible Sabbath is clearly tied to the 7 day week cycle which is tied to creation week. Anyone can see this and it need not be "over-proved" again and again while present truth issues within the church are ignored and glazed over.

Celebration worship styles, music, dress, jewelry, women elders....etc, are "present truth" issues in modern Adventism. We need to clean our own house before calling the world to clean theirs.

As Matt. 7 states, "Caste the beam out of your own eye and then maybe you can help others see their errors and misunderstanding about truth and salvation."

We hold evangelistic meetings and almost no one comes, not even church members. Indifference in the world is reflected by indifference in the church.

I am sure in some cases, even when people see and understand the SDA position on some of these subjects, their response is "Who cares?" "So what?" And they see the issues as trivial and meaningless in light of other more dynamic issues confronting the world today.

No doubt in the future, some of the issues will become more relevant as certain events transpire. But even then, few will be impressed and our present duplicity in other important matters in the church is causing many in our church to doubt what we have to say is relevant. It is likely that more will leave than will come in.

Politics and money control modern Adventism. Coupled with a false idea of "unconditional election" for the SDA church. There can and will be no change in policy until this false idea is abandon and moral accountability is demanded of ourselves individually and of the leaders corporately.

Bill Sorensen

(There are, of course, exceptions from all the expected sources, several of whom have some deeply unresolved need to vent their fear, anxiety, and insecurity-and quote their favorite Scripture. I hope that each of these individuals have been referred to professional therapists for help in their anger management. Let the rest of us continue our rational dialogue.)

I've been intrigued by several well-constructed postings by Nate Schilt, Statefarmsteve, Elaine, and several others, all of whom have raised interesting and important points. I wanted to comment on just a couple of them.

In addressing Nate's points, I know I am stepping into dangerous territory. Being a distinguished member of the California bar and an experienced trial attorney, one wants to make sure that ones arguments are carefully crafted and logically formed before offering them to him or they will be torn to shreds in cross examination.

Nate takes issue with my use of the term Populist to describe one aspect of the ethos of EducateTruth (sic) enthusiasts (which I will from here on label as the "Eduths"). He views Populism as a "grab bag of political positions that were not united by any coherent ideological framework, but were randomly selected because they played well . . ."

I assume he thus disputes my view of the Eduths website as Populist because he views it as reflecting "hardline ideologues . . . rooted in "revealed Truths of traditional Adventism." I infer that because the Eduths are ideologues (which imply to him someone with a "coherent ideological framework") they can't be Populists.

Our problem seems to be in the area of our respective definitions of "Populist." "Populism" is not related to "popular." I agree that it has been used in a journalistic mode to identify some point of view which a writer does not like

However, political sociology uses the term to mean an ideology which pits "the people" (usually full of "native truth" or "holy wisdom" or some such quality) against elites who reject some selected set of values held by these "ordinary people." In this case, the Eduths view themselves as a courageous and virtuous group standing up against elite "professors" who are disparaging "The Truth." held by "Real Adventists." On this basis I characterize them as Populists. They are also, as Nate says, ideologues and fanatics and, I would add, fundamentalists as well. These categories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go together.

I wish to agree with both Nate and Statefarmsteve that Eduths types are not representative of mainstream Adventism. If I have given that impression in earlier statements, I recant and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Nate's narrative that begins "Surely you [Statefarmsteve] can't be arguing that ‘current scientific theory' should reign supreme in SDA science classes?" introduces an interesting set of assertions.

Nate takes exception to Statefarmsteve's statement that "Evolutionists are closer to understanding the origins of the earth than our [I assume he means Adventist] theologians are to understanding the inner thoughts and working of God." I think Statefarmsteve is really on to something here. (On the other side, in light of several other comments he has made, in light of several of his other postings, I must say I don't understand his statement about believing in a literal 6-day creation. I wonder if he might explain).

One might ask Nate what else than the "current scientific theory" should reign supreme in SDA science classes? Now I would admit that at a SDA university or college, just as at a Catholic or any other denominationally-sponsored institution, because of its confessional history, a professor might wish to take a few minutes at the beginning of a quarter or semester in a science course to quickly review the historical or philosophical contexts of the subject matter vis-à-vis the unique history of the faith tradition of the college. In an evolutionary biology class, this historical review would certainly note the basis of the cultural or theological objections to certain consensus conclusions of the scientific field being taught. At the end of the day, however, if this is a science class, then it would seem that for the rest of the class the only data that should be communicated is scientific data. One of the reasons for doing that has already been noted by Elaine when she says that conflating science and religion classes is fraught with several types of dangers.

During the almost 35 years that I taught at a campus of the University of California, I would start out with a historical overview of the subject matter and always take time to distinguish between scientific vs. non-scientific approaches to the study of the subject matter and explain that this class will use scientific criteria to evaluate questions and issues. I suggested that if a student wished to learn about how other world views other than science approached and understood the subject matter, there were courses in the history, philosophy, or religious studies departments that considered those topics.

Nate later in the thread notes that "Just as fundamentalists uses Ellen White and Church authority as trump cards, so the favorite trump card of elitists, next to ridicule, is a Ph.D. The subject matter of the PhD doesn't much matter doesn't matter . . . All that really matters is that the person is a ‘respected scholar' and thinks like the academic herd." May I respond to this assertion by saying clearly and forthrightly: Moo . . .!

On a more serious note, I think Nate misunderstands the values of the academy or at least the parts of the academy I know something about. Perhaps his criticism is valid outside of the academy, but inside it carries no weight. If someone has a Ph.D. in say English Literature that individual has no standing as a "respected scholar" outside of English Literature. I think Nate correctly objects to a situation where a scholar in one field expresses opinions outside of his area of specialty. In areas outside of his specialty, his opinions are no better or no worse than any other individual of similar general background. I think that Nate really does not like the statements of scientists when they enter into debates over public policy. I do agree with Nate that this is a very difficult area to evaluate and since all of the scientists I know are all human, their objectivity should be suspect.

I'm sorry if it seems that I am picking on Nate, but his prose narratives are always interesting to read For example, in one of his responses to Statefarmsteve, he says: "Most religious folks, myself included, would argue that the nature of God is best understood by looking at Christ and His followers" rather than following some elite opinion.

That statement might seem helpful until we remind ourselves that we only know anything about the teachings of Jesus through documents written in Greek more than 2000 years ago by a number of very interesting assortment of personalities who were hardly dispassionate observers. Then a Greek-speaking Jewish intellectual took some of these statements and crafted a theology containing (at least to some of us moderns) some very puzzling elements. And then there is the scary person who wrote the Book of Revelation! As for understanding the nature of God from Christ's followers, how many professed Christians do you think reflect in their behavior "the nature of God"? I'm not sure I want to go there and think that Nate might want to rethink that suggestion or at least put some provisos around it.

Finally, please let me say that I wish I could create the turn of phrases of Statefarmsteve: For example, his description of Eduths as projecting the "cyberspace version of a two-year-old's temper tantrum in isle 9 of the local grocery store." I can't beat that.

By the way, I'm thinking of having J. N. Loughborough famous 1861 statement about "The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is . . ." inscribed on a plaque and prominently displayed in the Adventist Today Foundation office.

On a final note, Statefarmsteve mentioned in one of his postings his view of Cliff Goldstein as "brilliant . . . arrogant . . . and an academic. The first two items are right on -my good friend Cliff is certainly a brilliant but arrogant apologist (you should read sometimes what he call's me!), but Cliff is not an academic. He does not have an appropriate degree (Nate: Sorry about that!) and his presentation of self would not fit in to an academic subculture-except perhaps at someplace like Southern Adventist University where his son attends. Nevertheless, I like Cliff's honesty in expressing himself in print. He is a convert to Adventism and proud of it as he has every right to be. Regretfully, he thinks everyone should adopt his take on Adventist theology. But that is exactly what we would expect for a convert. But that discussion should take place elsewhere.

Erv - Thanks for the kind words.  You are right on about the care with which one must take in posting, especially when exchanging ideas with someone as talented and witty as Nathan.  He's someone that keeps me anxiously checking my computer for AToday updates, for exactly those reasons. 

I wanted to answer your question regarding my personal beliefs in the traditional Creation story.  I'm woefully unqualified to tiptoe into the realm of almost any science discussion from a technical standpoint.  The discussion between Sean Pitman and DoctorF, for example, was so far over my head from a scholarly viewpoint, but I certainly could feel the passion that was underlying the exchange between the two.  I understand the ideological and theoretical differences, but the technological side makes me feel like Ariel from the Little Mermaid (I've got gadgets and gizmos aplenty, I've got whozits and whatzits galore!  You want thingamabobs?  I've got twenty!)  It's all cool stuff, but I really don't know what it is!

At any rate, I've grown and become self-aware enough to admit that my underlying laziness and lack of interest in Science Class was cloaked in a philosophical "I'm too smart to waste my time" attitude.  In reality, I'm just not wired like a scientist.  I never cared how stuff worked (my brother was the take-our-toys-apart guy in our house.)  Now, I regret not having paid better attention, and I wish I could participate on a deeper level in the conversation.  I've actually spent way too much time doing some basic research, trying to keep up with the conversation. 

Creation is a part of the world I grew up in, and I never "learned" my way out of it, largely due to unfortunate laziness on my part.  It's easier for me to wrap my head around it than it is the various radiometricologicalized tyrannasauricalolgicalized dating techniques.  But participating in this conversation has forced me to take a closer look at the issue, and I'm really not satisfied with my earlier willful ignorance of the subject matter.  At this point, I still consider myself a Creationist, but I'm in no way dismissive of the Evolutionists.  I guess I'd have to admit a certain level of intrigue with Evolution, but I don't know that as a layperson I'll ever become well-versed enough in the science to either entirely dismiss it offhand or embrace it fully.   

From Shane Hilde:

It has never been the intention of EducateTruth to try to get anyone fired.

Hi Shane - I'm a guy who, perhaps to the point of being naive, tends to believe what he's told.  Unfortunately, after spending time on EducateTruth, I'm realizing that you may have told the truth, without really telling the whole truth. 

You very recently posted a video on the site of Professor Lee Greer  under the headline "LSU Professor Doubts Christ's Divinity."  You introduced the video with the question, "Do you want your kids being helped to navigate issues of faith and science by a professor who believes and teaches evolution as the best explanation and on top of that doubts the divinity of Christ?" 

The video post was quickly followed by a rash of bizarre "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin"-type arguments, including one that called Professor Greer an Agent of Satan.  Now I understand that you don't want Greer and others executed.  You'd rather they perform harakiri to regain their honor. 

If they won't, you'll use EducateTruth to run them out on a rail.  Like our recent ancestors, if a person committed a wrong that maybe fell outside of the criminal code, they'd tar and feather the goodfornothing and run him out on a rail.  They'd dip him in boiling tar, roll him in feathers, strap him astride a fencepost, and run him through the city streets for ridicule on his way out of town.  He wasn't just banished from his community, but he was also unwelcome elsewhere, his evils exposed by the long wearing stains of the tar, and by the lifelong scars covering his body from the burns resulting from the boiling liquid. 

I won't be adding my signature in support of your intellectual and spiritual tarring and feathering of Lee Greer individually, or LSU institutionally. 

I don't mean to disparage your efforts, especially when you seem so sincere.  But from the numbers you've given, I can see that less than 1.7 percent of the the people that visit your site are "concerned" enough to add their signature, and the comments in the petition show that many who sign do so with reservations.  Your goal of 10,000 signatures, which you have yet to reach the halfway point, would only represent 2 hundredths of a single percentage of the Adventist membership.  No matter how much bluster accompanies your presentation of this petition at the LSU board meeting  next month, I hope they take into account the miniscule numbers represented, and understand that more than 98 percent of the constituency appears to be more than satisfied with the quality and content of the education provided by the University. 

Interesting observations, statefarmsteve; I couldn't agree with you more.

I would bet that Dr. Greer does not go home each evening with the mission to post character attacks on other people. Now if he did that, I'd definitely say he was not fit to teach at an SDA university. In fact, I'd say he was not fit even to teach at a public high school, such as the one in Banning, California.

 I wonder what students, parents, colleagues, and potential employers in the future will think when they Google "Shane Hilde." What will they learn about his character? His capacity to serve as a role model? His ability to treat others with fairness and dignity? I hope he does not name his son "Shane."

THROUGH FAITH WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORLDS WERE FRAMED BY THE WORD OF GOD, SO THAT THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR.

or

IF THE LORD BE GOD, FOLLOW HIM: BUT IF BAAL, THEN FOLLOW HIM.

or sister White-

"The greatest minds.........become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation. ....and because they cannot explain by natural laws, Bible history is pronounced unreliable......Those who question the reliability of the scriptures have let go their anchor and are left to beat upon the rocks of infidelity.....

GIRD UP NOW THY LOINS LIKE A MAN; FOR I WILL DEMAND OF THEE, AND ANSWER THOU ME. WHERE WAST THOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH? DECLARE, IF THOU HAST UNDERSTANDING...This is where you as the creation say to the Creator...BEHOLD, I AM VILE; WHAT SHALL I ANSWER THEE? I WILL LAY MINE HAND UPON MY MOUTH.

Again to point out....Darwinian cross-species evolution is incompatible with Christianity-For if you look to the fossil record and see evolution instead of the global flood, then you see sin before man-and the whole Bible is a joke then, since sin entered through man, not monkeys, or dinosaurs or concestors as Richard Dawkins would call them in Ancestors Tale. (Sorry, you intellectual types aren't the only ones on here who can read, we pizza delivery drivers can read too).

So let me ask.....FOR SINCE BY MAN CAME DEATH, BY MAN CAME ALSO THE RESSURECTION OF THE DEAD. FOR AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, EVEN SO IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE.....If Christ came down to succeed where Adam failed (Adam ate the forbidden fruit, Christ was able to resist tasting the forbidden fruit around Him) then why did Christ come as divinity cloaked as a man rather than as a monkey, dinosaur, "concestor" or something else from the fossil record? This(Creation) is what we need to teach in OUR SDA schools. How can our light shine if it is the same shade as the light of the world? There are many good resources out there for SDA science teachers, from Answers-in-Genesis, to Creation Magazine and on down the list. It is UNACCEPTABLE in todays modern world to be so closed minded as to buy into a fading turn-of-the-last century unprovable fad as evolution. Today there are scientific alternatives to it. Why does this website seem to harden its heart towards God? President Warren G. Harding was raised a 7th Day Adventist but left the church when he studied evolution in a secular college. The story is repeated over the decades since. Our education system is THE LAST PLACE we should be tolerating this non-sense as SDA Christians. I don't know about all this getting rid of a teacher or something on here. I just stumbled on this site last week. But I am truly stunned by what is going on here, while using the name "Adventist" where anyone else can stumble across this site from around the world.

FOR I KNOW THIS, THAT AFTER MY DEPARTING SHALL GRIEVOUS WOLVES ENTER IN AMONG YOU, NOT SPARING THE FLOCK.

"If Christ came down to succeed where Adam failed (Adam ate the forbidden fruit, Christ was able to resist tasting the forbidden fruit around Him) then why did Christ come as divinity cloaked as a man rather than as a monkey, dinosaur, "concestor" or something else from the fossil record?"

Two reasons come to my mind: 1) Adam was a man, and 2) we might have caged Him for intrigue or eaten Him for dinner.

In all seriousness, while you and I might disagree, dvddvdd, with those who believe that humans evolved, I think we should celebrate the fact that they want to join us in Christian fellowship and partake in the worship of Jesus as our savior. I don't take their words here as an effort to force others to accept their views; i think they are primarily saying "don't push us away." Let's not forget that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in a six-day creation week, Adam, a young earth, or a world-wide, all-encompassing flood.

Incidentally, I was taught that Jesus came as both divine and human (100% of each). As a human, he experienced and suffered fully what we go through, yet depended wholly on God the Father and lived a sinless life. As God, he bridged the gap between earth and heaven and paid the ransom for the sins of man. It would be nice if we could spend more time discussing the mystery of our redemption rather than the intrigue of our origin. We should be more concerned about where we are all headed than where we all came from. Somehow, I get the feeling we can all agree on this; the problem, I'm afraid, is that it's a lot more fun to argue about things we disagree on.

Profess or not said......

"Let's not forget that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in a six-day creation week, Adam, a young earth, or a world-wide, all-encompassing flood."

This is a "false dilemma". It assumes faith in God's word can be seperated from faith in Christ. But the only way we can know who "Jesus Christ" is, is by the teaching of the bible and all He says about Himself and the bible itself.

Simply put, you can not have "faith in Jesus Christ" while denying any other bible concept and/or doctrine. This would certainly include what scripture says about creation. So, to assume what a person believes about creation has no relevance to "faith in Christ" is what I said, "A false dilemma."

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

 False dilemma, eh? Very interesting, as I don't think there is any dilemma at all. My statement qualified salvation, not faith in Christ, and I stand by what I wrote. I think a ton of people will be in heaven who believe in Jesus and reject a literal creation. I can't really conceive of anyone insisting otherwise, but have it your way if you wish.

Kent, Bill and dvddvdd have a valid point.  You cannot engraft a pagan origins myth onto the biblical doctrinal structure and have it make sense.  I discuss the problems that long ages geology causes for Christianity and Adventism here:  http://www.clarioncallbooks.com/page10.html.

I also discuss the problems that Darwinism creates for Christianity in my book "Dinosaurs -- An Adventist View": 

Those Christians who would so casually discard the doctrine of creation do not seem to appreciate its centrality to the core doctrines of the faith. It is central to the doctrine of Christ, because, first of all, Christ is the Creator. The opening chapters of Hebrews and the Gospel of John confirm that God created the world through Jesus Christ. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” John 1:2. “In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” Heb. 1:2. The bible clearly teaches that Christ is God and was with the Father from the beginning, and the Father created all things through Christ. Yet if Darwinism is correct, the universe created itself, and Christ created nothing. Darwinism demotes Christ from His office of Creator.

All attempts to reconcile Darwinism and Christianity founder on the doctrine of the Fall, a doctrine that, as Herman Melville noted, is “now popularly ignored.

Bill and dvddvdd are not as articulate as I would prefer, but they know something you deny:  There is something deeply dishonest about insisting that Christianity, especially the full biblical Christianity espoused by Seventh-day Adventists can logically cohere with Darwnism.

From Bill Sorensen:

"no one will be in heaven who does not acknowledge Jesus as the creator and the method explained in Genesis."

Professor - I'm fairly sure you understand what I am about to tell you, but I think it needs to be said anyway.  Bill doesn't speak for Adventism or Adventists.  His views tend to be extreme, and usually include some sort of expression of condemnation for everyone who doesn't agree with him.  While I admire his conviction (like I admire the conviction of flat-earth theorists) I kind of despise his delivery and attitude.  He's "censured" the SDA church until they "come around" and embrace his interpretation of scripture.  He's quite convinced that his views are the only path to heaven.  He's a less-heavily armed, more poorly socialized, but equally convicted version of David Koresh - the likes of which our Adventist church seems prone to churning out. 

Don't take his attacks too personally or too seriously. 

Statefarmsteve, Bill's response left me speechless. I'd point out the thief on the cross and his presumed lack of knowledge about Genesis, but that would be roundly declared another "false dilemma," so there is no point going there. I know enough about Adventistism to recognize that his view is as unique (perhaps a bit Waco) as his "professor or not" is clever.

Well, let me say if EGW was alive today, I believe she would state that Bill Sorensen is one of the few SDA's alive who really and truly understand bible Adventism, its implications and spirituality.

Since most SDA's do not "believe" in EGW, and I include those who claim they do while ignoring her testimonies and exhortations, I would not expect many to affirm my confession of faith in the church today.

Whether she would agree with me on the issue of my statement that the SDA church as a corporate denomination is in the process of commiting the unpardonable sin, I don't know.

I do know she understood clearly that there is no "unconditional election for the church" even though many in the church do not take this reality seriously as it applies to Adventism.

Neither did the Jews, nor did the early church, nor do Protestant denominations generally. We know the Catholic church would never consider this possibility since they freely and clearly claim infallibility for "the church".

Neither do I have any doubt that all true believers will be equated with David Koresh and his kind before the controversy is ended.

The devil has created more than a few scenarios of "quacks and ducks" who have no affinity for the bible or its meaning. And has done this for the specfic purpose of discrediting the true faith when it suits his purpose.

So I am prepared for all  the false charges and lies people tell to undermine the true faith when it is presented and defended. You must remember, I have heard the dragon roar before, and it wasn't Rome. In fact, I see in history the SDA church has roared like a dragon on several  occasions.

And I am not so dumb that I assume that all the sudden the leaders will eventually all be converted and stand up and be counted for Jesus when the chips are down. EGW tells us otherwise, and I believe her.

By the way, when it is revealed and demonstrated that people like Bill Sorensen are the true historical SDA's who defend the traditional SDA faith and the bible, these same leaders and those who follow them will run  away from truth and most will fold like a cheap unbrella in the wind.

Truth was not popular in the past, and it certainly will not be popular  today, nor in the future. Eventually, people will be either "forced" by circumstances to stand up, or get out.

For the most part, you can profess anything you want and still be a SDA in good standing in modern Adventism. Even hold positions of influence and authority in the church. There is no discipline in leadership, either corporately nor individually. Since they can not govern themselves, they have no right nor ability to govern anybody else.

And those who refuse to discipline evil, soon discipline righteousness. Cain always kills Abel. It is an unchanging law of sin and righteousness. All who obey God will surely "hear the dragon roar" and it won't necessarily be Rome. You can count on it.

Bill Sorensen

From Bill Sorensen:

Whether she [EGW] would agree with me on the issue of my statement that the SDA church as a corporate denomination is in the process of commiting the unpardonable sin, I don't know.

Bill, before you publicly condemn the men and women who have dedicated their lives to leading the church and publicly condemn the church you profess to be a member of, I'd suggest you get sure.

You just seem to have such a beef with people with influence or authority in the church, and you often assail those that have refused to acknowledge the authority you deserve by virtue of your extensive knowledge, commitment to the truth, and true righteousness.  The fact remains that even if you were given authority to lead, your abrasive nature, caustic personality, and harsh words would alienate anybody within earshot.  If that didn't do it, the fact that you refer to yourself in the third person probably would. 

Bill Sorensen: "If EGW was alive today, I believe she would state that Bill Sorensen is one of the few SDA's alive who really and truly understand[s] bible Adventism, its implications and spirituality."

"Really and Truly? "I have no training or expertise in psychiatry, but I wonder if he can be serious? He speaks of himself in the third person. Is that some indication that perhaps "Bill Sorensen" is a gigantic put on? Is this possible?

I guess we will never know. We can only just move on and wish Mr. Sorensen all the best.

Dr. Taylor quoted.......

 "Bill Sorensen: "If EGW was alive today, I believe she would state that Bill Sorensen is one of the few SDA's alive who really and truly understand[s] bible Adventism, its implications and spirituality."

And what is so "outrageous", about what I said, Dr. Taylor?

That fact that "you worship, you know not what?" and I know what I believe and defend?

Truth is always "outrageous" to an unbeliever. Why is that different today. People have such a convoluted view of scripture and fail to see the real implications of the truth.

Let's take Elijah for an example. No doubt the people in his day considered Ahab and Jezebel such wonderful, loving, kind and condescending leaders of the people. Who could be more charasmatic than Jezebel? The people in general no doubt adored the king and queen and sang their praises for all the "good" they did for the kingdom.

And how did they view Elijah? A trouble maker from the hills. A quack and nut case. Few, and I mean precious few really understood the seriousness of the spiritual condition of the nation and could only doubt Elijah's sanity considering their present prosperity.

And he simply represents any and all of God's people who take seriously the bible and its exhortations.

People get massive doses of affirmation from each other and soon abandon the clear teaching of the bible. And the more wicked the church becomes, the less they see of their own sinfulness. The more they justify sin and say to each other, "I'm OK, you're OK".

And so the false gospel is used to dumb down the law until everyone is going to heaven. There is no "salvational standard" and no one can "judge" anybody else.

 The bible teaches no such convoluted philosophy. God gave us the bible so we can determine who is a Christian and who is not. And we can know who to warn of the judgment to come, and who is walking in the light.

No, we can not judge who will be saved at last, simply because we can not know who will repent and who will not. But to suggest we have no standard of right and wrong to determine bible faith is far from the reality of what the bible teaches.

And the best you can come up with is that I used my name in the 3rd person when I suggested what EGW would have said if she were alive today?

And Steve don't like my method? I am not concerned whether Steve likes my method or not. I don't have to answer to Steve for my method. I am willing for God to judge if I have stood firmly for Him and His word and whether I have represented His character or not.

I guess you think Jesus  was some kind of sissy who feared to offend those who opposed Him and His Father's kingdom. Adventism is rapidly becoming a "sissy" religion with no back bone or any serious conviction of truth and error. And many who know the truth are simply afraid to stand up for "fear of the pharisees" and their reputation and "influence" in the church.

Consider the parents of the blind man in John 9 and you will see the majority of SDA's today. They "fear the church" more than they "fear God and give glory to Him."

When they were ready to burn John Huss' friend they were about to light the fire behind his back. He said, "come boldly forward, if I was afraid I wouldn't be here."

Well, I doubt I have  that kind of faith. But it is inspiring to see what the Holy Spirit can do in a life given totally and completely to God and His service. And yes, there are some SDA Christians who fear no man and God only. Many of them are over seas doing their Father's business and not supported by "the church" in any official capacity.

As the saying goes, "those who stand for nothing, fall for everything." And the church in America "falls for everything" simply because they "stand for nothing."

I know it, and so do you.

Bill Sorensen

Bill - you're a lonely, lonely man, badly in need of some huggy time. 

AnitaPacificNW

Okay, now Bill Sorenson has really gone too far, even excusing his harsh language on the basis of his devotion.  When he says, "The bible teaches no such convoluted philosophy. God gave us the bible so we can determine who is a Christian and who is not. And we can know.......etc." -  I absolutely have to take exception to that.   Surely Bill cannot be serious with that statement.  God determines who is a Christian and who is not.   The Bible was given for our inspiration, for instruction in righteousness - as a means of learning about God.   Our business is to develop our own one-on-one relationship with our Father in Heaven.  He is our Sovereign Lord and as such is beyond any ability of the human mind to understand His ways.   Even the things which we cannot in this present day understand, are not subject to  interpretation by us, no matter how much we would like to intellectually challenge ourselves, with study and research, learning all of the appropriate languages and finding out the history, context and culture of the immediate time when something was written.  It is a blessing to be able to attempt to do all of those things, but still God is God, and as such He is not accountable to us for His decisions.   If He were, He would not be a God to worship, but someone we could manipulate.    I believe in Creation - but when and how it happened is not something we will ever know for sure until God Himself explains it to us in Heaven.   And does it matter?   The entrance of sin, the giving of the Sabbath, the death and resurrection - all of those things are matters of faith and reason, and I have the absolute conviction that we will ultimately be able to reconcile the bits and pieces in God's way and in His timing - not because of a rigid certainty that someone thinks he has all of the right answers.   Jesus  Christ Himself in the New Testament portrayed the change in the way He dealt with sinners - should we decide we know better?  If Bill worked as hard at portraying truth the way Jesus did, and in loving those he perceives as sinners, in the way Jesus did - then perhaps those others, and leaders,  would be willing to listen to his message.   In this case, however, I have to say that it makes me feel like "shooting the messenger" !!!   (Tongue in cheek....whatever.)     Bill maneuvers, roils, mixes, and manages to make the Gospel unattractive - we are supposed to be winsome and loving in order to draw others to Christ.    We are not to sit in judgment on our fellow men. 

I have not ever felt that any of my responses to Bill in other venues even, have ever made a dent in his rigidity and harshness.   Even so, I feel compelled to say something because of not wanting anyone reading these postings to think that he represents what the Adventist church and its people are all about.   Science, education, theology, doctrines, creation, theories......and whatever else, will someday be reconciled.  

 In the meantime, what powerful ideas and concepts are out there for incredible research and study.   Scientists and Christians will ultimately have the answers - but in God's timing!  And I for one think that God appreciates the challenge of the atheistic mind, and the challenges of those who  want to know the proofs of things.  We are so close to the time when those proofs will be ours!  In the meantime, God is still in charge, and He still blesses.

Bill is a blowhard. He has always been a blowhard, going way back to other boards. I've learned to skim his posts for a chuckle and move on. Most of us have issues, so he is not unique. It's just that the wind coming from his direction is at times a bit more malodorous and chilly than the wind coming from other directions.

You take care now, Bill

Wow.....An awful lot of anger on here...and for what? I don't know much about this "Bill" guy on here everyone keeps bashing. I haven't read all the posts on here, just skimmed a few, I'm new here. But people are calling people names like "blowhard", etc...Where is the SPIRIT on here?

Well, we need to get our souls to where we WEEP BETWEEN THE PORCH AND THE ALTAR CRYING SPARE THY PEOPLE OH LORD. 

Well, as for the evolution stuff, HE did write the 6 day CREATION with HIS finger into the 10 Commandments. So let me ask those with advanced degrees this; If there are parables to make a point, symbolic prophecy, and things to take literal, to which group do the 10 commandments belong? Don't we take literal HIS law? Don't we take literal when He says in it not to steal, commit adultery, keep Sabbath, etc? So why should one reject as literal that one little point in the 4th about Creation?  

Those of you in our education system have been given a great responsibility. Especially in the sciences. We should be teaching creation science. NOT so that our kids go to a secular college and argue with their worldly professors. But rather so they are armed so as not to be led away by evolution. They should be taught the science of creation to keep the heart guarded from the seeds of doubt that are planted by those who profess this nonsense of a bitter angry man like Charles Darwin.

It just seems that some of you on here have lost your first love and allowed truth to be fallen in the streets of your heart. But please, please, don't let it fall in the hearts of our youth that you as educators will be held accountable for one day. For you cannot point below the feet of our youth and claim the fossil record came before Adam, if sin entered te world through man-or the scriptures lie....

Arm them so as not to be led away by the error of Darwinian evolution. Prepare them for that day when they look up and see Him that HATH ON HIS VESTURE AND ON HIS THIGH A NAME WRITTEN, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Guard our youth

Bill - you've equated yourself with Ellen White, Noah, Elijah, and now Jesus Christ. 

No one here has tried to deny you your right to be offensive and rude.  Please just don't be surprised when 1)  People call you offensive and rude, and 2) When people work hard to keep your offensive, rude nature at arms' length. 

Your "woe unto you" quote is one of my favorites, but you left out the prior verses where Jesus says:

You aren't a "teacher" - there's only one Teacher, and that's Me.  You who think too much of yourselves will take a fall - only in humility can you achieve great things.  You legalistic "teachers" are hypocrites - you think it's your job to slam the door of heaven in other men's faces.  But you'll never get in yourself, and you'll never help anyone get there.

"You legalistic "teachers" are hypocrites - you think it's your job to slam the door of heaven in other men's faces.  But you'll never get in yourself, and you'll never help anyone get there."

Well, it is certainly nice to know that you don't "judge" Steve. And I am sure everyone sees your point.

Bill

By the way, where do you think people like Steve learned to call people who are conservative Christians "legalists"?

From the SDA church. That's where.

Ford and his kind began the tirade against EGW and the law and began to tell everyone that if you support EGW and bible Adventism, you are a legalist.

Venden picked it up and formulated a theory of "sanctification by faith alone" and like Ford, accused anyone who supported the law as a rule of life as a legalist.

All the flaming liberals in the church made capitol of this idea so they could advocate and advance their celebration movement and sold most people on the idea that if you oppose them and their agenda, you were "judging" and then convoluted this idea and wrested it from its true meaning in the bible to intimidate people with their liberal agenda.

Most church members are too cursed dumb and so illiterate in reading and understanding their bibles, they bought into this lying deception of the devil as advocated by the SDA church.

Now Paulsen and his administration are anxious to push young people into positions of influence and authority. They are equally for the most part ignorant of bible Adventism and the bible, so they can easily be manipulated by the statis quo. They have no qualification to lead, but this is just what the liberals want.

The parallels between U.S. politics and the SDA church are so obvious I am amazed that few seem to see it.

The church establishes "celebration" churches and they can not support themselves financially, so "the church" bails them out and gives huge subsidies to keep these churches in operation.

And members who had assumed these were fundamental SDA churches began to complain about the music, dress and other off the wall activity and were told to "hit the road".

And of course, anyone who opposes the conference agenda is a "legalist" and has no knowledge of the gospel or what it means or how it is applied and appropriated in the Christian experience.

In case some of you may have an interest in what the word  "legalism" really means and how it is applied, here it is.

It simply means anyone who thinks they can merit heaven and/or earn the favor of God by anything they can do is a legalist.

It does not include Christians who carefully follow the law of God and seek to do His will and hold a conservative view of how to worship God and "do" church.

But the apostate SDA church has now included the former "new legalism" which is a new interpretation of legalism to include all conservative Christians who believe it is their duty to obey God and keep His commandments.

People like Martin Weber who is the editor of "The Outlook" magazine is typical of the deluded element who thinks any conservative view of the law with anyone pointing out sin and "judging" is a legalist. And he represents the majority view in the SDA church today.

Someday, at least some church members will wake up and demand some accountability for the evil the leaders advocate and support by way of false doctrine and Satanic delusions.

In the mean time, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the clear parallel between modern Adventism and American politics.

Bill Sorensen

AnitaPacificNW

It must be completely exhausting to maintain the tirades against the church and its members the way you do, Bill.   And I must say I am shocked.....shocked......shocked (!) that you would dare to be so critical and defamatory against a lot of people that you do not even know, and set yourself up as an arbiter of their behaviour and thinking.   My gosh, where are the bears when we need them!

Oh, gawd, not the bears again.

From Bill Sorensen:

 You coulda fooled me....Steve.

Bill - you should make more frequent use of the words "me" and "fooled" in very close proximity to each other.  It suits you.

Thank you also for clarifying my "garbage" belief about judging others.  The whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is very easy to take out of context, being worded in such a complex and convoluted manner. 

Bill, your arrogant independent streak has been addressed by EGW:

There have ever been in the church those who are constantly inclined toward individual independence. They seem unable to realize that independence of spirit is liable to lead the human agent to have too much confidence in himself and to trust in his own judgment rather than to respect the counsel and highly esteem the judgment of his brethren, especially of those in the offices that God has appointed for the leadership of His people. God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God. Those who are inclined to regard their individual judgment as supreme are in grave peril.

Again, I'm not judging you.  I don't know that this passage from Acts of the Apostles applies to you.  It sounds like it does, to me, but I know my opinion is irrelevant in the big scheme of things.  It's out of my concern for your soul, and out of concern that your demogoguery may mislead other people that I am presenting Ellen White's point of view for consideration. 

IF this passage applies to you, Bill, you are in GRAVE PERIL! 

AnitaPacificNW

I better apologize for the "bears" comment.  

Steve said.....

"Thank you also for clarifying my "garbage" belief about judging others.  The whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is very easy to take out of context, being worded in such a complex and convoluted manner. "

Steve, I won't keep "bickering" with you. But I will comment on this one passage that seems to be so popular with liberals.

Matt. 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Jesus goes on to compare one who has many faults of his own and fails to see his own blatant errors while feeling qualified to judge others in some less flagrant condition.

He goes on to say....

 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Now if the SDA church would follow this councel instead of ignoring many flagrant diversions from the bible in the church itself, it would correct its own errors before feeling highly qualified to call Rome the antichrist and condemn every other community as a false system of worship.

But, perhaps this is exactly why evangelism in modern Adventism has such a weak impact on society in general. And our call for people to "come out of Babylon" is highly hypocritical since much of "Babylon" is in the SDA church itself.

The final point is this. At no time did Jesus deny the necessity for true believers to "judge" any and all claims of spirituality, but warned that we must individually and corporately examine ourselves carefully for our qualification to do this work of judgment.

People  wrest one quote from its biblical context and then impose their false understanding on everyone else.

This is what the SDA church has done in the past, and continues to do today. The attitude is this, "What we have to say is important, but what you have to say is not relevant."

The wheat and tares may grow together until the harvest. But the tares have control of the church and its present spirituality.

How does the EGW quote apply to me, when you deny her authority. I am well aware of the quote. And many more like it. In fact, I consider her the definer of SDA church doctrine. You obviously don't and reflect the liberal philosophy and agenda.

In this case, EGW is "the church" and it includes those who agree with her in doctrine and teaching. And those who do not, are not "the church", even though they may hold present power and influence.

If the bible creates the Christian community, then EGW's understanding of the bible creates Seventh-day Adventism. Since I agree with EGW's understanding of the bible in doctrinal issues, then let anyone show where my doctrine and her's are different.

And must "judge" for themselves  who is a SDA and who is not.

Bill Sorensen

Bill - First, I strongly disagree that the bible passage that I quoted suggests that after you have repented for your sins, that you can tee off with abandon on your fellow man. 

If this were the case, Jesus would have simply said repent, then fire away at your bretheren. 

Instead, he described a scenario that was quite literally impossible for you to achieve (you will never simply pull a beam out of your eye) to illustrate that you will never, ever achieve a spiritual state that qualifies you to judge your fellow man.  And in spite of the limited availability of opthamology services and the relative early stages of opthalmic surgery ca. 20 BC, I'm assuming that Jesus was pretty sure that self-service beam extraction from one's orbital socket was a medical procedure with limited chances of success. 

You also mention the wheat and the tares.  There is absolutely no excuse to mistranslate this parable, as Jesus fully explained it, leaving nothing for us to guess.  We, the membership of the church, are the wheat and the tares.  The wheat cannot seperate itself from the tares - Jesus specifically says that his angels - and his angels alone - will handle the seperating duties.  Yet you purport to be on a mission to not only identify the tares, but to publicly expose the leaders of our SDA church as tares, and to censure them until they both apologize to you and repent to God. 

I've never heard of Ellen G White described as "the church."  Interesting approach...  I've always understood her to be divinely inspired, but understand that first and foremost, her writings are intended to add clarity to the Bible, not replace it or supersede its authority.  Secondly, I understand that not all of her prodigious volumes of work were direct record of visions from God.  Some of her writing consisted of observed or commonly-held beliefs that haven't proven to be true.  One example I can cite is her assertion that masturbation causes blindness, insanity, and death.  While I don't recommend masturbation as a substitute for a healthy sexual relationship between a married couple, nobody has produced any evidence that suggests that any of these things could ever happen or has ever occurred.  I also strongly disagree that children, like mine, of mixed-race heritage are inherently disadvantaged, doomed to a life of humiliation, or bitter toward me and their mother.  Quite to the contrary, my kids are bright, stunningly beautiful, and very, very healthy in both mind and body. 

So, no.  I don't deny her authority.  I deny her infallability, but you're alone on a philosophical island that holds her to be "the church," unerrant and wielding authority equal to that of the Bible itself.  I can assure you that EGW herself would avoid your lonely island at all costs. 

And that's EGW philosophy that I can agree with!

statefarmsteve, just wanted to thank you for clarifying your very sensible views toward Ellen White. Much appreciated!

David,

The people you address are living in a fantasy world? Hmmm, what about the 85% of SDA's that you mention that are biblical literalists? So you take comfort in numbers do you? What happens to you if the statistics concerning the views of SDA's go the other way?  I think in time they will.

If what E White has said concerning her visions is not literally true then she is a fraud? William James in his book the Varieties of Religious Experience would not agree with you. I do not think E White was an intentional fraud. She really believed in what she wrote and her "visions" of the creation story are interesting. I very much doubt they are "true" but they are consistent with her doctrinal predisposition. That said, science does not support a literal interpretation of the genesis story. Honest scientists including myself struggle with this issue. For the most part the bible and SDA doctrine have nothing to do with the science that goes on our laboratories on a daily basis. 

Human reasoning and the scientific method is all we have for understanding a changing universe and changing life forms. The bible is woefully inadequate for explaining "how the heavens go."  

A number of posts have debated whether the percentage of SDAs supporting young earth creationism is 85% or 95% or whatever.  As a member of the minority, I'm comforted by EGWs statement:  "It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner."  Pity David, Shane and the rest of the 85 or 95%.  ;-)

TXalchemist:

I agree that we should all have pity on those poor misinformed and misguided individuals who are so sure of themselves. As for the percentage of those "being in the Truth" on this matter, we all know that a majority does not determine "The Truth."    

TXalchemist is another of the Seventh-day Darwinians who likes to quote Ellen White.  I just can't get past the gross inconsistency of ignoring all of Ellen White's statements about origins, which she made with perfect knowledge that the scientific world of her time (as also today) believed in Darwinism and long ages geology, while quoting her as authority on some tertiary issue. 

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

Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time."

I just find it remarkable that someone could ignore these statements, and scores of others to the same effect, and yet treat some other statement of EGW's as authoritative.  I don't understand what's going on in the minds of people like that.  If I get to decide what in the Spirit of Prophecy is authoritative, and what is not, then I am the authority, not Ellen White.  That being the case, why would ever I bother to quote 19th Century woman with the 3rd grade education?  Why wouldn't I just say, "This is what I think, and I am the authority." 

David,

 You crack me up!  Did you not see the ;-)  icon?  No, I'm not quoting EGW as an authority.  I quoted her for amusement. 

Speaking of amusement(s), you probably DO use EGW as an authority yet you are selective of EGW quotes on "worldly amusements" (movies etc.) like many others who post on both sides of the creation/evolution debate.  So don't be a pot criticizing THIS kettle!  ;-)

Seriously, I consult the opinions/interpretations of others (a benefit of this forum, btw), but I identify truth best I can by examining the data, not polls.  (And yes, EGW has a nice quote about that too, something about being true as a needle to the pole and standing for truth though the heavens fall.  Gotta admire the faculty at LSU for doing so when many are now calling for the heavens to rain fire upon them).

David,

When you quoted EW speaking of being taken back to the creation, do you really believe that? You honestly think she was flying around the universe in vision? The other question is this statement "teaching of nature." If anything nature in the predatorial world looks cruel. But, if you consider it in terms of "balance" what appears to be cruel is not.

My other comment on your view of some of us as Darwinianists, if you actually started doing molecular biology in terms of gene regulation you would come to a particular problem. That is selecting molecular probes to examine expressed genes in an organismal model whose genome has not been sequenced. What to do, what to do? Answer, use the evolutionary principle of conservation in gene sequences. For example of which our lab had to deal with recently, we could not find probes that would allow us to study the genetic expression of particular genes in an ovine (sheep) cell model. So we went to the conserved regions in human and mouse, made the probes and they worked in our ovine cell model. You can use this scheme all the way to bacteria. Fascinating stuff. I think if you did this type of work on a regular basis your views might be changed a bit.

In the end the "study of the book of nature" as EW suggests, is useless in the 21st century of modern biology, pharmacolgy, physiology and biophysics.

Steve,

I read your input. I was shocked at the vitriol that supposedly people like Shane hold towards someone like Lee Greer. I know him personally and he is nothing like what is being presented. Furthermore, this malicious signature effort seems appropriately going down in flames. Science professors are not there to bolster an individuals faith. Each of us has to work out our own issues with regards to faith and spirituality. I think its amazing the pandoras box that has been opened when the SDA church started higher academic institutions. My professors, science, math and religion, taught me scholarship and how to think. Its no wonder some of us have "strayed"? 

DoctorF:

I get a kick out of "the evolutionary principle of conservation of gene sequences."  The idea that there are "conserved regions" assumes the truth of common ancestry, it is not evidence for it.  I could call it "the creationist principle that God used the same off-the-shelf modules of genetic coding in many of His creatures."  We're both making statements of faith that have the same scientific content---none. 

But what's funny is that evolution depends not upon conservation of gene sequences but upon genetic mutation, genetic change, which is what is supposed to change one species into another.  So when DNA changes, it is evolution, but when DNA is "conserved," is is evolution.  Heads I win, tails you lose.  This is a good example of the proves everything/proves nothing nature of Darwinism.