"apostasy" was a nice way of putting it. great move michigan conference!

Well, well, well. So evolution is now a "disturbing issue" to some. Do they have an alternative? Not really. Therefore the text should read that truth is a disturbing issue to the Michigan Conference. How narrow-minded, and how sad.

If an Adventist wants to become a biologist, a geologist, a natural resources explorer, a geneticist, a climatologist (not to mention countless other professions), she or he will have to know about evolution, as it is a model that works. In fact, it is the only model that works. If we were looking for oil or diamonds based on "creation science", or if we were trying to develop cures of diseases using "creation science" we would have achieved next to nothing. If we used the E G White model and proposed that volcanoes and earthquakes were caused by underground coal fires, the results would be the sam - still next to nothing.

Perhaps knowledge about the natural world (and the universe) as well as the professions I mentioned earlier should be declared as "demonic" then and declareed out of bounds for orthodox Adventists?

The gospel proposes to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to give God what is Gods. It would seem a good application of this rule to give to science what is scientific and to religion what is religious. Tracing the origin and development of life on our planet is the domain of science, not religion.

Lemme guess...

Michigan is where ANDREWS UNIVERSITY is!

They see a chance to undercut the competition, they shoot, they score...

/Bevin

What does a conference president do after he politically and financially attacks a sister institution?

He heads off to join Doug Batchelor, Bill Knott, Danny Shelton and David Asscherick at the 3ABN Camp Meeting running May 26-29, 2010.

http://www.3abncampmeeting.org/bios.html#JayGallimore

Also, so now, if an employee's child wants to get a degree that's only offered at La Sierra among the Adventist schools, what happens? Who is Jay Gallimore and the Michigan Conference leadership actually hurting?

The underpaid families who work for them.

Michigan leadership: financially cutting their workers, to politically spite their face.

Is that what Jesus would do?

I KNOW that 25-30 years ago, the Andrew's Biology Dept was teaching their students about evolution. They had a great hall display about it.

/Bevin

What a disgrace. "We're taking our ball and going home". It's a sad day to be an Adventist.

Adventism is at war with itself. Christ said that any house divided against itself will fall. Who will come to our rescue to make sure we make it till the end of this new century still intact and not splintered into two or three different camps? God save the 7th-Day Adventist church from itself.

The Georgia Baptist Convention did a similar thing to Mercer University when they departed from Southern Baptist teaching.

They have that right.

http://www.christianindex.org/1759.article

regards,
pat

Alex said: "What Would Jesus Do?"

A question La Sierra University should have asked years ago before it started down the road it's on.

I'd be interested in knowing what degree is offered by LSU that isn't offered by any other Adventist university. If by chance there is a class, it might be a good idea for that student to go to a local Cal State or community college. It's cheaper. Why pay for a non-Adventist education at Adventist prices?

I was told by some RCC students that the RCC science department teaches biology better anyway and doesn't rub the theory of evolution in their face. They deal more with science over there apparently. This is coming from students who have taken classes from both schools.

In reality, Gallimore probably isn't hurting anyone financially. I'm guessing not that many students whose parents are employees of the Michigan Conference attend LSU, but I could be wrong. Its the symbolic message that has the greater impact.

I wonder who was consulted before this decision was reached. Where the presidents/administrators of other Adventist colleges and universities asked for their opinion on this decision? Were the leaders of other conferences, unions, and divisions consulted? Were the employees affected by this decision asked for their input? It would be nice to know more of the story behind this vote.

/Bevin--Andrews is a GC institution, not a MI conference or Lake Union institution. So MI doesn't really have a vested interest in AU. Actually, MI conference doesn't think highly of AU, either.

Alexander--what degrees does LSU offer that no other SDA college/university offers? I'm unfamiliar with LSU's course offerings--do they have one/some that nobody else offers? Seems like there are very few SDA schools that have unique courses (with obvious exceptions like engineering at Walla Walla or IRR at Union).

I don't have a vested interest one way or the other, but in following this from a long distance, it does seem to me that LSU has been somewhat disingenuous in its handling of the situation.

As my boys (about age 5 and 7 at the time, so about 6 years ago) and I were watching a Discovery show, the narrator said that the researcher and his students were from La Sierra University. I said, Oh, that's an Adventist school. Not 2 minutes later, the researcher was talking about looking for the evolutionary link between snakes and lizards. My oldest son looked at me and said, he's Adventist?

This is why I see LSU as being disingenuous. They are trying to avoid taking a stand. If they want to teach evolution as a fact, let them state this openly. But it seems to me they're playing games, which is why this has gained so much publicity. Well, it would have gained publicity had they been open in what they were doing, but seriously, while there are holes in the attacking side, there are also holes in the defending side. Those of you who think it's no big deal to teach evolution in LSU, please write to them and encourage them to be open and take responsibility for what they are doing. They end up looking just as pathetic as those who are on the attack.

Wow. I have only two quibbles with the "whereas":

"Whereas, the Adventist Review (in the article by Mark Kellner in April 15, 2010) has now publicly addressed the issue of evolution being taught at and supported by La Sierra University; and, whereas their board of trustees and constituency have collectively been unwilling to rectify this vital spiritual issue . . ."

First, La Sierra University has never officially "supported" evolution. No, it has not. (Note: Teaching something does not mean inherently supporting it.) Second, La Sierra University has been willing to rectify this issue, and has actually done so in a way that stops short of truth squads and creedal statements.

So, Michigan bats 0-for-2 on the rationale. No conclusion can be strong when built on faulty premises.

Chris said: "Second, La Sierra University has been willing to rectify this issue, and has actually done so in a way that stops short of truth squads and creedal statements."

Anyone can say they're willing to do something, but there is no evidence that LSU has done anything to rectify things. If you're talking about their failed attempt with the BIOL 111A, then you'll have to think of something else. Besides, the class doesn't address their primary problem: biology professors promoting the theory of evolution to the exclusion of the biblical model, thus undermining the church's position on origins and the authority of the word of God.

Teaching about evolution is dramatically different than believing in it. Why must one believe in evolution to be a biologist? Isn't that what science is for? To take a disbelief and prove something else? How about if you were the doctor who made the connection between vaccines and autism? Could you be a doctor and not believe it? Of course! Silly! This doctor has been proved wrong and is now banned in the UK. Believing in evolution has nothing to do with being a biologist. And being a biologist has nothing to do with believing in evolution. No more than not believing in some of Einstein's theories precludes one from being a physicist.

Shane,

I agree that Adventist professors should not be condoned in teaching anything at all; e.g. that rape is excusable, that Satanism is a noble pursuit, that Barack Obama (or Sarah Palin) is the antichrist. I also agree that the traditional view of creation-in-seven-days should receive the best plausible presentation in Adventist biology classrooms--that topic should be addressed with fairness and integrity and not "excluded." (Although I wouldn't expect it to be the featured topic in every biology class.) Accountability is laudable. We probably agree to this point.

But as I've written before, the rub in all this comes in the implementation of the "doctrinal purity clauses" we professors must sign, the truth squads that will be checking up on us, the mistrust and innuendos and dysfunctional fear-based climate that will inevitably result--that already has resulted. THIS CURE IS MORE TOXIC THAN THE SICKNESS.

Please, in humility, before you take out the hatchet, give La Sierra some space and time to work it out. As Jesus' parable in Luke 13 puts it: "'Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and fertilize it. And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.'" There's already been PLENTY of fertilizer applied. Let's wait a year and see what develops.

As a side note, individual professors will conjecture "beyond the pale of the 28"--you can find that in many areas of the church, including Michigan Adventist pulpits. I personally prize that freedom; it's one of the main reasons I'm a Christian. I also personally prize many professors at La Sierra: They had a major part in one of my son's born-again experience in Christ. I am profoundly grateful to La Sierra for the education it provided and would gladly send my child there again.

Good for Michigan Conference! I hope KS-NE Conference will follow suit in their next constituency meeting.

Chris Blake,

You are a voice of reason here but you are dealing with very unreasonable people. The parable you chose from Luke 13 illustrates the issue well, but these people think they already have all the answers. Clearly, God needs them more than they need Him.

And the unCivil War has just begun. Officials from other conferences, unions, and the GC--not to mention the universities--may soon be taking off their gloves as well. The question is how far retaliation will be allowed to go until the unsensible people begin to realize how much damage they have done to the Church. Pretty far, I'll bet.

Can someone help me out? The letter says,

The only article I can find matching this description is Honoring the Creator God by Angel Rodriguez.

I have searched through the Adventist Review's author index for 2009 and have found no other articles by Goldstein, Paulsen, or Rodriguez matching this description. (There are several by Goldstein dealing with origins, though none of them mention Adventist higher education.) The relevant indices for the Review are here:
http://www.adventistreview.org/thisweek/Jan-June09index.pdf
http://www.adventistreview.org/thisweek/Jul-Dec09index.pdf

I can't find an author index for Adventist World, and a search through their online archive hasn't been fruitful. Can someone tell me what articles are being referenced here?

How many times in the halls of spectrum have people said, dont give your offerings and then see what they do. Don't pay your tithe until they see the light. What a bunch of hypocrites.
The conference just did what alot of you are always suggesting here.
You praise some conferences when you agree with them as if they are savant. I'm not aware of anything sold cheaper than Spectrum praise.
Spectrum scorn is worth even less.

Hey friends,
While we're busy labeling La Sierra University so many things, let us remember that there are young eyes watching how the "adults" play.

Let us not forget that there are still real people who work at La Sierra and pour out into the students every day. DESPITE the debate, God is still very alive and student's lives are being changed for sake of the Kingdom. Young people are still learning to love JESUS and teach others to do the same.

We should strive to not let the STUDENTS of La Sierra University become mere collateral damage in this debate.

The WAY this issue is resolved may have a bigger impact than the resolution itself.

MI conf is the most conservative conference in the
NAD...in my opinion, CCC is a close 2nd, but even THEY haven't been talking about taking such drastic measures. I hope MI's actions don't catalyze any ideas to do so...but I doubt (and don't hope) other conferences will be following this "example"

Chris Blake, those same 2 issues with the "whereas" statements occured to me as well.

Shane, you may not like the last incarnation of the intro bio class, but less than a week ago reports were given that LSU was making some changes. Unless the MCEC was present at the LSU planning session, how could they (or you) make an evaluation that "there is no evidence that LSU has done anything to rectify things"? You may say that you don't LIKE their attempts. You may DISAGREE with their course of action. You may say that you have BETTER suggestions. But to say "their board of trustees and constituency have collectively been UNWILLING to rectify this vital spiritual issue " is simply false.

Pat, I didn't know MI Conference was in a position to declare the apostate nature of another Adventist entity (especially when the World Church has made no such declaration). Openly disagree with, fine--but to feel a "responsibility to notify...conference members" that "La Sierra can [not] be trusted" seems out of bounds. When do constituents have the chance to decide (or THINK) for themselves?! What's with the Michigan dictatorship of doctrinal purity?

Notably, the decision in the GBC matter was done after a duly called meeting of the appropiate stakeholders AND through constituent vote--not by the desires of a few Executive members. If MCEC's decision was made after the recommendation of action through their constituency, I will humbly stand corrected. However, from what has been presented thus far, it appears as though it's the few deciding for the many.

By the way, it seems like the GBC is always cutting ties with SOMEONE anyway! ;)

First lets be clear - teaching about evolution is ok and is being taught in all our schools. It's the teaching of evolution as truth and NOT teaching the SDA church's held beliefs on the subject (ie Creation in a literal 6 days)as the better explaination that is not acceptable in our schools.

To Professor Kent. Lets turn your question around to read.
"The question is how far will LSU be allowed to go until the sensible people begin to realize how much damage this school has done to the Church. Pretty far, I'll bet."
The answer is that thousands of our future generation of SDA's now don't believe in the Bible due to the kind of thinking they were exposed to at LSU in the last 10 or more years.
Like the oil leaking into the Gulf, we can't allow this to continue without significant negative results.

Thank God there are still leaders who are willing to stand up to the misleading influence being handed out by "some" of the teachers at LSU.
Note that I said "some". There are still good teachers at LSU and good things happening there. Even the teachers teaching long age evolution as truth may be sincere and we need to treat them with kindness. However they are teaching contrary to our beliefs and they either need to resign or return to teaching science in the context of our beliefs (literal Creation in 6 days by God, short age of the earth, Noah's flood as fact etc).

For all the talk we've heard about the potential to split the church, my first guess would not have been that it would be Jay Gallimore who would take up the scissors.

But hey, why not. He is something of a Maverick, evidently.

Michael, I don't advocate withholding tithe as a matter of protest...I think you wind up hurting more "innocent" people than the ones you intend to aim at.

However, even if I DID, I still think there's a difference in an INDIVIDUAL making that decision, and an organization making a drastic change in the established pattern of distributing MEMBER'S money. And ESPECIALLY without even giving said members an opportunity to review or weigh in on those changes. Remember, if there are workers who send their kids to LSU, their tithe is getting factored into that equation too!

Also, MI has had a longstanding colporteur program in which a portion of funds earned get applied to the SDA school tuition of choice. Will this also be affected? I take it that this will also effect the 3-way scholarsip program...how far reaching is this "edict"? and were all those whose monies are being redirected given the chance to review the evidence and share their views?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Mat. 12:25. I believe this church cannot endure permanently part Darwinist and part creationist.

I do not expect the church to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of Darwinism will arrest the further spread of it within the church, and place it on the road to ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall taught in all the SDA colleges, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

Sorry. The cannons of Ft. Sumter are echoing so loudly it seemed a little paraphrased Lincoln was appropriate.

In fact, it is the only model that works. If we were looking for oil or diamonds based on "creation science", or if we were trying to develop cures of diseases using "creation science" we would have achieved next to nothing.
______________________________________________________
Jag, your arguments here must be challenged. Exploration for oil or diamonds is based on the integrity of the geologic column, not on issues like creation science. And evolutionists (not creationists) have hindered cures for diseases with their promotion of such concepts as "vestigial organs" and more recently "junk DNA."

How many needless tonsilectomies have been performed because of these erroneous concepts?

I'm just wondering what the response of the NAD and GC would be if Southeastern California or any other Conference issued a statement charging Michigan Conference or one of its official institutions with "apostasy" for allowing the heresy of Last Generation Theology to flourish in its territory unchecked.

At some point the leaders of the Adventist church are going to have to decide whether or not they are committed to ALL of the fundamental beliefs, including belief number 14--unity in the body of Christ.

A sad day for Adventism and a shameful day for the leaders (perhaps especially the college and university presidents) who have remained silent and watched as we move ever closer to the division of the church some on this site have said they eagerly await. As an Adventist young adult I keep asking myself: where is the spirit of Christ in the Adventist church today?

I do not see or hear Christ in the words and actions of those who say they know Him best.

Once again: What if they called for war and no one showed up?

Have any of you sat in the biology class at La Sierra that taught evolution? I have. I will never forget that experience.

It was January 2007 and I was entering a new quarter with a new outlook on life. That past December, I decided that I would give Christianity a try, even though I was raised in a Seventh-day Adventist home. I hadn't opened a Bible in more than a year and didn't really pray. I had an experience with God that December and I decided I wanted to get to know Him.

I entered the second quarter of Biology a bit excited to see what we learned. Right off the bat, the professor stated his views on the creation story and how he did not believe in a literal six-day creation. He presented statements from fellow Seventh-day Adventist scientists to back up his belief and also stated that he did not believe that Genesis 1 and 2 were part of the same week of creation, but there was a time gap. I was shaken. I remember sitting in class with tears forming in my eyes because everything that I had learned growing up about creation was being torn apart. I felt like my faith was being tested for the first time.

For a couple of weeks, I wandered around both confused and angry. I praise God that I was able to find friends to talk to about this situation and who also encouraged me to continue to believe in Creation as it is written in the word of God.

I've been reading about the situation of La Sierra University for a long time in this online magazine and this event always come to mind. After reading this article, I felt the need to respond for the first time.

I agree with a post that was written above that there are other teachers that have reflected Christ and are a good example. I love the time that I spent at La Sierra University because that was the place where I began my walk with the Lord.

However, I will not forget that experience that I had in biology and my heart goes out to those who have left that class questioning the Bible and their faith. I believe that they should present evolution and remind students that it is something the world believes in, but they should also reinforce the literal six-day creation story. I have read that they are beginning to do that, and I hope it continues.

It saddens me to read about the split that is happening in our church regarding this situation. I pray that we all may seek God's guidance before we speak or respond to these things.

Blessings.

I'm just wondering what the response of the NAD and GC would be if Southeastern California or any other Conference issued a statement charging Michigan Conference or one of its official institutions with "apostasy" for allowing the heresy of Last Generation Theology to flourish in its territory unchecked.
_______________________________________________________
Last Generation Theology is considered conservative, while Theistic Evolution is considered liberal. But the truth of a proposition should not be determined by whether it is conservative or liberal. Christ is THE TRUTH (John 14:6), so the truth of a proposition should be determined by whether it is Christ centered. Last Generation Theology and Theistic Evolution are just more of the same. They are united in their antipathy to Christ!

However, I will not forget that experience that I had in biology and my heart goes out to those who have left that class questioning the Bible and their faith. I believe that they should present evolution and remind students that it is something the world believes in, but they should also reinforce the literal six-day creation story. I have read that they are beginning to do that, and I hope it continues.

It saddens me to read about the split that is happening in our church regarding this situation. I pray that we all may seek God's guidance before we speak or respond to these things.
________________________________________________________
Thanks for speaking up. You have voiced your concern about the situation at LSU without expressing bitterness or hate. God bless you for that! And I'm glad that as a baby Christian, you survived spiritually in that biology class. It is never wise to accept without question what professors or other authority figures assert. Sadly, not all students display your kind of wisdom and maturity. Let's pray for LSU and for this situation to be resolved to the glory of our Creator God!

Ahahahahahahaha oh man, Atlanta is going to be FUN.

Bob,

I always appreciate it when my views are challenged, it gives me the opporunity to re-examine and perhaps even modify or change them - so thank you.

However, in this case, whether you like it or not, there are vestigial organs. Quite many. But it is in the nature of science to make assumptions and then test them. An organ may wrongfully be assumed to be vestigial when it isn't. And also organs do not become vestigial overnight - they lose their function gradually, and veeery slowly. I do not understand how this would hinder cures for diseases. And I understand even less how the creationist model is helping. Any "creation scientist" came up with a cure for disease recently? Was Gardasil, for instance, developed by creationists? Also, are you saying that no creationist has ever had a tonsiloctomy? I would be interested to see a list of medical achevements of, say, Loma Linda Uni, based on the creation model. How many Nobel Prizes have LLU creationist medical scienitsts received, and how do they compare with other medical schools in this respect?

So much is obscured by labels. The Adventist Review shows its bias when it reported "Evolution Controversy Stirs La Sierra Campus". It is not an "Evolution Controversy" it is a "Creation Controversy" or a "Chronology of Creation" controversy.
Short Term Creationists may try to tar fellow Adventist long term Creationists with the dirty brush of "godless evolutionists" much as politicians try to defame their opponents as socialists, communists, or right wing radicals.
But 21st century Adventists who study nature usually come to two conclusions. One is that there is more and more abundant evidence supporting Intelligent Design, and leaving them fully confirmed Creationists. The other is that there is less and less evidence either in a careful reading of the Bible or in the book of Nature, that it all happened in 144 hours, 6,000 years ago. They find themselves Seventh-day Adventist long term Creationists.
How deplorable that a segment of Adventism should try to forbid the progression of Present Truth. What right do they have to enforce a blind adherence to the traditions of our elders? How greatful an alive and thoughtful church should be to the Adventist Creationists at La Sierra for challenging a 17th century Chronology of those 6 great Creation events.

So Ron,

Let me get this straight: it is not within the "Spirit of Christ" to stand up for truth and humbly/prayerfully/lovingly hold other religious leaders accountable? What Gospel are you reading? Christ was not simply "gentle Jesus, meek and mild." You remember, don't you? "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matt 23:33).

Were He alive today and saying the same thing, many of us would accuse Him of being very "un-Christlike," I fear.

Evolution undermines and invalidates every Christian belief, not just the beliefs of the SDA church. I applaud the Michigan Conference for standing up for Christ and can only hope and pray that the rest in this great Adventist movement will do the same.

Ahahahahahahaha oh man, Atlanta is going to be FUN.

Posted by: Jerry (not verified) | 27 May 2010 at 7:32

I know what you mean.

"There is a whole lot of shakin goin on"

Then : Shake n Bake

The problem and the solution are the same.

Origins is not part of biology. Chemistry and Biology are subjects about how things are made and to determine a use or purpose. The issue of when, by whom, through what process is
metaphysical. Cat lab is an excellent beginning to the study of human anatomy for those considering a career in the health sciences. The understanding of the properties of minerals is critical to engineering in all of its dimensions.

When I taught at LLU there were several faculty who personally believed in an evolved biomass. Yet they kept that belief system out of their lecture and lab. It just wasn't germaine to the subject matter at hand. Several left to a less confining environment. If I were to believe that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole--I wouldn't have to share that belief with my class in the biomechanics of tooth movement. If I believed that Christ died for the guy or gal bringing up the rear of the class, I would treat that person as gently as and supportivily as Christ would. In my forty two year career in the classroom I had to advise only two students that they should seek another career. Teaching is not to make sausages stuffed full of yesterdays news but to create and develop the skills and abilities to think and to do in an expanding market place of ideas and skills. I still lecture on the history of Orthodontics--watching the young residents at work, I am amazed at the progress in biomechanics since I last twisted a piece of wire. Evolution is not making something out of nothing, it is about constantly prefecting the way man copes with his environment and perfects his talents and skills. For either the creationist of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionists--to go around mocking the other--saying I know something you don't ha ha ha! is pure vainity.

Everyday we learn something we come face to face with yet a greater unknown.

Where did I come from--why I just left the breakfast table!
Toast/cream cheese, homemade strawberry jam, blueberry yogurt, a banana, and Columbian Roast Coffee with half and half. Lunch: lettuce, tomato, two slices of american cheese, two slices of sour dough bread and a bottle of osomotically purified water bottled by Coca Cola. Then check Spectrum to see what gems have been posted. The point is life is in the present not in light years in the past. The point of education is to make the present as productive and pleasant has humanly possible and leave with the lights on for the next generation to profit from your mistakes and victories. Let the dead past bury its dead. Tom

Fence straddling no longer allowed! Decide which side you are on and hang on tight. It looks like it is going to be a bumpy ride.

WHY PAY FOR AN ADVENTIST EDUCATION AT ALL... ITS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS...

The Georgia Baptist Convention told Mercer.

"You can teach anything you want, just not on my nickle."

Seems fair and resonable in a private institution.

The Michigan Conference has learned that "money talks." Be careful you do not forget and are yourself at a future date bitten. When ignored...you walk.

regards,
pat

Jag,

(May 27.), please add "physicians" : The complete ( !) medical science, as dominating the WHO standards and the worldwide research ist "Naturalism" (or "Positivism" since the mid - 19th century. The "alternative medicine" - or all what is subsumed there - has other basics. Some SDA do expressively reject every diagnostic - therapeutic experience of the "alternatives" as satanic ( ! ) (Watercures are an exception, dietetics of Bunge, Ragnar Berg, Bircher - Benner, Hay also.)

Colleges should have a compulsory class on epistemology at the beginning of the curriculum. Also for theologians.

Gerhard,

How we come to know...

Because our Creator-Redeemer wired us that way...not a tabula rasa.

Ever tried to load information onto an unformatted "floppy disc" even over a trillion years?

regards,
pat

Somebody want to nominate Jay Gallimore for GC president?

As a biology student at one of our SDA universities I am upset at the MCECs actions. By far the most valuable class I've taken thus far had been one on origins. Were there tough questions? Yes. Did the professor bias the coursework towards either an evolution model or a literal 6 day creation model? Not at all. Did students struggle with their beliefs? Yes. Was it an appropriate environment for this kind of discourse. Absolutely. Did the course change after the witch hunt? Yes. Are the students who took the class this year well prepared to confront ideologies and science that disagree with what they learned? Not so much.

What solution is the MCEC looking for? Do they realize what kind of precedent this may set? This sword cuts both ways.

WHY PAY FOR AN ADVENTIST EDUCATION AT ALL... ITS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS...
__________________________________________________
DAVE - "U.S. News" would not agree with you. They consistently list Adventist colleges and universities in their best colleges and universities edition.

Fidi Mwero, thank you for your words. I appreciate them very much.

Cheers for teams and this side or that side and rejoicing over "prayers paying off" is one of the most disconcerting, horrifying things I have ever witnessed. It brings to mind an image of a pit of burning souls with laughing, pointing people around the edges saying, "ha ha, we were right, you were wrong, don't you wish you had listened when you had a chance? muahahahaha!"

Gross.

Becci

Dear Jag,

You read some things into my post that I certainly did not say or intend. Of course, there are medical reasons for tonsilectomies, and of course, creationists have had them. My own teenage son, who wants to be a marine biologist, has had a tonsilectomy. But there was a time when tonsilectomies were regularly performed on kids, even when their tonsils were healthy, because it was believed that tonsils were useless, vestigial organs that could only become infected. This practice certainly led to disease. Also - branding non-coding genetic material as "junk" and as "a relic from an evolutionary past" may well have hindered the development of cures for genetic diseases, as more and more functions are being discovered for this material.

There are probably a few organs that are vestigial, but there are not many. Functions have been discovered for most of the organs that were once considered vestigial, and that includes the tonsils and the appendix. Those few organs that are vestigial have probably become so because of a decline in the human genome. For example, wisdom teeth are close to being vestigial today, but this was not the case when the human mouth was a bit larger. Neandertal people had plenty of room for 32 teeth in their mouths.

Creationists have certainly discovered cures for dieases. Lister, Pasteur, and Fleming were all creationists. Loma Linda is very well known for its work on infant heart transplants. In fact, it is considered to be at the top of this field. As far as Gardasil is concerned, it was developed by many researchers, most of whom have not publicly revealed their position on the origins debate. However, there are more creationists in the natural sciences than is generally realized, but most of them don't say much about their views because they fear reprisals. For example, I had an interesting discussion with a professional geologist at the Grand Canyon last September. He was willing to tell me that he was a creationist, but her preferred that his employer not know his views on that issue. So yes, I think it's quite probable that some creationist researchers had a hand in developing Gardasil. However, be that as it may, Neo-Darwinism is irrelevant to such research.

Jag, I issue a friendly challenge to you. Please explain how Neo-Darwinism has contributed in any way to the dicovery of cures for diseases. Note - I am not talking about research that relates to micro-evolution. So please don't bring up those old canards about genetic mutations in micro-organisms that evolutionists constantly mention. For the record, creationists accept the reality of mutations, natural selection, and speciation.

Jared reaches into his imagination and sees Gallimore holding the keys to the kingdom. Becci sees souls burning in hell with people looking on while laughing.

All this because a conference doesn't want to financially support a university that isn't upholding the Bible or church doctrine.

I didn't know such a decision had such salvational implications. And here I thought undermining the gospel would be salvational.

Shane,

Noticing the glee people take over being OH SO VERY RIGHT doesn't stem from this one incident. I am not so simple, nor so naive. This comes from watching from afar for over a year and a half. And the point Fidi Mwero is dead on.

Becci

Oops (sorry about the name thing above) That was my operator error. Apologies, Shane.

Shane, you're an English teacher, right? As such, I suspect you're able to recognize literary devices when you see them.

I certainly recognize plenty of hyperbole in the phrase "...a university that isn't upholding the Bible or church doctrine."
And I don't even teach English.

(I suppose one might call that sarcasm)

It is funny to see the Michigan Conference attacking their employees choice in Adventist education as anything other then that. It does nothing against LSU it hurts the employees. If their choices in Adventist education are being limited let us be honest and say that Michigan is cutting their employee benefits for as a way to make a statement.

Then we should deal with the kind of management that instead of putting out a statement attacks their employees benefits. Is that a good management style? Then we should ask who oversees Michigan conference and should they allow church workers to have their benefits cut.

Let us deal with the issues that are really going on here.

Adventist Media and Conversation Blog

Tom, I applaud Jay for standing up for our church's beliefs. At least he is not sitting on the sidelines complaining or doing nothing. It takes a mighty strong man to stand up against the vocal, liberal, and mean-spirited in our church. The lines have been drawn. The teams are forming. On one side are those who pledge to be faithful to our beliefs and want to be obedient to God and the Bible. On the other side is the group that wants to tear down our distinctive beliefs, allow every form of sin just because people claim they are a descriminated against minority, and who refuse to leave even though they will never be happy in the church. Sister White called it the shaking. It is also known as the separating of the sheep and the goats, dividing of the wheat and tares, etc. You pick the analogy. We are there. Which side are you gong to be on? For those of you who think that time is just going to keep going on as it always has, welcome to the end of time. It seems very clear to me that our Lord is coming very soon. Praise God, come quickly Lord Jesus!

For those who think in terms of either/or, philosophically examine your beliefs in other areas for examples of both/and. For instance, I haven't been able to reconcile my personal practice of pacifism with my belief that every country should have a standing army - however I do not "kill" myself or anyone else in trying to resolve this issue. In an imperfect environment we live with many tensions and paradoxes. We would all be more serene if we internalized Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer:

Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the difference.

Well, I guess if individual organizations can declare each other apostate, Southern should be declared legalistic by the testimony of the article written by the other Shane that was posted in Spectrum a few days ago and the executive committee of any number of conferences can declare that they will no longer support SAU and will therefore unilaterally make the decision to divert the funds of their members from supporting the subsidies of those attending. There's definitely no public evidence of them trying to rectify THAT! Let's all start making our own lists of who's "in" and "out"!

A small group of guys in a board room can't one day up & decide who's in the church vs whose out of the church (or more accurately--in MCEC's words: who "can be trusted"). If MCEC was in charge of that, only Southern and Montemorelos would be official church institutions (subsequently, Weimar and Hartland would probably qualify for subsidies though).

Pat Travis, GBC made their action based on the vote of the constituency. Unless there was some MI Conf constituency mtg that we're unaware of, the MCEC didn't act the way it should have. The opinions of the committee may be expressed, but once they start deciding what to do with OTHER PEOPLE'S nickels, they're out of line if they don't consider those people in its decision. From this correspondence, it appears that this wasn't even notification to the CONSTITUENCY--merely the employees! Furthermore, the vote was taken May 25th with action being taken June 1? So if a member in the pews doesn't like what MICHIGAN is doing, when do they get THEIR opportunity to learn about it in enough time to divert/withhold THEIR money?

I've said before, I don't advocate tithe-withholding as "protest", but if MI is gonna go down the road of diverting funds, at least 1) be above board with your membership & 2) do it for reasons that are accurate, because those whereas statements are bogus.

Let us be absolutely honest and clear, D. Fender:

vocal does not equal liberal
vocal does not equal mean-spirited
liberal does not equal mean-spirited

Neither those who are liberal nor those who are vocal have the monopoly on "mean-spirited."

Your list suggests they are all adjective modifying the same "other." And they do not just because you say so.

Lest we forget, mighty does not equal right or righteous, either.

-Becci

Then we should ask who oversees Michigan conference and should they allow church workers to have their benefits cut.

The Michigan Conference is NOT cutting anybody's benefits. You are confusing the deletion of a choice with the cutting of money. Will the Michigan Conference subsidize tuition at the University of Michigan? I doubt U of M is on the list of approved vendors for the employees young-un's education. Now LSU is not on the approved list of choices either. Based on hearsay, LSU does not teach Creation Biology. Neither does the U of M.

Personally, I'm all for somebody finally having the conviction to stand up to the apostasy in the Adventist biology departments. LSU walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has webbed feet like a duck yet is quacking away that its a dinosaur.

Not.

Like I have stated on other threads: I'm rooting for Ted's success at the GC.

Becci, you are right. There is no monopoly of mean spiritedness by the liberals of our church. The conservatives have their share too. It is just that this blog is dominated by disgruntled, unhappy, vocal, ex-Adventist or soon to be ex-Adventists. There will be many conservatives lost too because they did not submit their lives to the Lord. Fortunately, I do not have to be the judge. I trust God to do that. I do see what I see. The shaking is happening right before our eyes and the pace is picking up. No fence riding anymore. We have to pick. One side or the other. Obedience or rebellion, that's the choice. We cannot do a single thing to earn our salvation but trust in our Lord's sinnless life, death, and resurrection. But after we accept Jesus as our savior, He does expect us to bear good fruit. Rebellion will never be a part of Heaven or the new earth.

You are also right that numbers have rarely defined what is right or wrong. The Bible prophecies and stories usually indicate that the "right" ones were the minority.

The Bible is very clear when it says the earth was made in 6 literal days. If that is not so then all the Bible is a fable and Christianity is a false religion because the entire set of beliefs laid out in the Bible depend of a Biblical Creation. Christianity and evolution are diametrically opposed to each other, Christ Himself believed and taught Creationism.

Science says one thing, Christ said another. It is up to us to chose, but choose we must. To straddle the fence can no longer be an option. The Michigan Conference took a stand against the science of man. True Christians must also take that stand. We can't have it both ways, either we accept Christ and His view on this matter or we follow the teachings of man.

Some will call me judgmental or narrow minded for believing in the Biblical account of Creation. But if so, then so was Christ.

As a Michigander, I am saddened by the Conference Executive Committee's decision. It already has been demonstrated that the premises underlying the decision were faulty. Just sad.

Bevin, Jay Gallimore, while a "trustee" of Andrews University, does not really support that institution either. And I could not imagine he ever consulted with anyone at AU. I'm sure this wasn't designed to help AU, and I agree that it will have little practical effect (as I doubt many MI conference employees' children go to LSU). Gallimore loves the symbolic gestures.

Ron, although I agree that it is a sad day for Adventism, don't forget that the presidents of the other SDA higher ed institutions *did* release a statement supporting LSU. They have not remained silent.

We should not overlook Gallimore's open antagonism toward Adventist higher education in general. He oversees the hiring of pastors in the Michigan Conference from crash-course "evangelism" schools, sometimes bypassing even Andrews University graduates. This really says more about Gallimore's anti-educational biases than about La Sierra University.

I was brought up with a strong belief in evolution. I became a strong defender of evolution against stupid creationists.
Then God opened my eyes (read how here: http://malie-koreli.com/about.html).
I became a Seventh-day Adventist and went to Adventist College at age 29 to become a Pastor.
I dropped out after the first year because I was required to read 2000 pages on evolution for the 2nd year of theology.
_
Thank you Gallimore for standing up.

I have stated this many times in this debate.

In higher education theories of origins needs to be taught. The issue should not be that "evolution" as to origins is taught.

The issue in a SDA University "science classes" should be- How is it taught?
1) Is evolution as to origins taught as a certainty?
2) What is the attitude in which the subject matter is taught?
3) Is pressure in anyway brought to bear on the student to accept any theory as "final."

As I am not aware of the exact answers to these questions at any of our colleges, I must refrain from a final opinion.

My hopeful assumptions are that for the Conference to have made this move there has been proof of violation of at least 2 1/2 of the three above and not "just that it is taught" with an inadequate response from LSU.

My "free" Nickel,
pat

Jared, as I read the Bible, it was generally the simple, less educated people who were the most tuned to Jesus' truth. The ones that had the most issues with Jesus were the educated. Maybe you should be careful about pointing fingers at Jay for supposedly avoiding "higher education types." La Sierra has made their choice, and now their gong to suffer the consequences of that choice. Just wait until the Prop 8 issue comes back up and the world church will again see how off base La Sierra is. The overwhelming majority of the worldwide church is supportive of our beliefs and doctrines. La Sierra is out on a limb by themselves. I hope they reconsider their position, before they fall.

D. Fender
Please note that the blog was signed tom not Tom as in Tom Zwemer. I have no dog in this fight. Tom Z.

Tom Z, I realize you are always with a "Z" and post often. My phone automatically capitalizes the first letter. Thanks for the heads up.

Adventism, like Ikaros, has flown too close to the Enlightenment. The wax of Fundamentalism will invariably melt under the search light of science.

Adventist leaders made a fatal miscalculation when they turned their Bible colleges into accredited universities. Ever since SDA institutions of higher learning have been turning out the equivalent of Amish electricians and Mennonite dance instructors--people who straddle two incompatible worlds.

There is only one solution to this dilemma: give up the hubris of thinking that a literalistic, fundamentalist reading of the Bible can coexist with a commitment to scientific ideals without major theological adjustments. Or, at least stop offering majors in fields that were created by scientists and owned by scientists.

The SDA church should stop moaning about the fact that its young people succumb to learning when it was the church itself that insisted on sending them into the academic mine field.

D.Fender,

Only a very surface level reading of Scripture would suggest that those with advanced education were absent from the Jesus' movement. Consider how Luke, whom we know as a physician (while not on par with today's MD, he would have been educated), laboriously studied accounts of Jesus' life to produce his record for Theophilus. Consider how much of our theology comes from Paul, most likely the most learned writer in Scripture. Consider the gospels' attestation of the fact that numerous pharisees joined the Jesus movement. Careful scholarship and learning has and has always had a part in Christianity!

But you and those with you who downplay higher education also overlook an important fact--in Jesus' day, education was not available to any but those on the highest rungs of the societal ladder. The vast, vast majority of people were illiterate. To make that situation normative is silly when considering not only the availability of education, but also the ubiquity of educated people today. Education is the new norm.

On the other hand, I suppose it doesn't take a master's degree to make these observations...

Let me see if I get this straight.

1. A majority of division presidents in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists do not want women's ordination brought up at the 2010 Atlanta GC Session.

2. Even though the North American Division and the South Pacific Division and the Trans-European Division all desire women's ordination, "classics" in the other divisions maintain, "No, keep our church unified, even though the GC-sponsored study found no doctrinal reasons for prohibiting women's ordination. It's not about doctrine. It's really about church unity."

3. Some classics in the Michigan Conference decide to declare one prominent Adventist university "not Adventist," a declaration of in-your-face disunity. "Unity be damned," they say. "We must go with our conscience."

4. Now, what should the North American Division do? To stay consistent, will that call for "unity above all" continue to resonate through the classic halls of Adventist divisions even in this instance, reining in the disunifying conference? Or will the NAD do the ethically and biblically right thing on women's ordination on the basis of conscience, come what may? (Choose one.)

5. What's good for the goose is good for the Michigander.

Wouldn't it be great if a mature church - particularly the Seventh-day Adventist Church - and perhaps more specifically, Adventists in the North American Division were to rise above the "Culture Wars" mindset that seem so often to plague wider USA society. The conversation over the past 12 months echoes nothing more than the typical left/right entrenchment that permeates wider society. The conversation and behaviour, more often than not, is little more mature than the conversation that one would find on "Fox News". Surely we are better than that.

In other words, "if you fellows don't conform to how "we" think the church should be, then we are not playing with you. Has it really come to the point where our "grown up" church - (even our institutions) - in our grown up church starts taking sanctions against another? I would say to the Michigan Conference in the very clearest of terms, please, please show me where your Spirit of "Press Together" is. And I apologise if I've missed it, but miss it I have. I wouldn't particularly identify myself with the Adventist religious Right, but I am more than willing to work, listen, pray and support anyone who may have a worldview that does not mirror my own. Not to do so, would be the height of arrogance.

Am I teachable? I hope so. Am I willing to be inclusive? I hope so. Am I willing to stand up for Truth with a capital "T"? I hope so. Am I going to go on McCarthyism hunt of those who are not "doctrinally pure"? No, no, no. From where I sit on the very Western edge of Europe, this action of the Michigan Conference seems to me to be a very new and sad day for Adventism. How does this action contribute to the unity of the church? Perhaps we should have seen this coming. How is this action any way in the Spirit of Christ? I wonder if I should copy the action of the Michigan Conference and look around the Mission territory I serve and "seek out" the churches that are in apostasy!

From all the reports that have come out of LLU over the past year from whatever source, I’m still struggling to work out what the truth of the matter is. Whatever took place, whatever will take place, does not the Spirit of “Press Together” impress us all to hold up the board, staff and students combined, rather than the spirit of sanction that emanates from the shores of Lake Michigan.

David Neal.

I am of the view that whoever arranged for Lee Greer to be one of two leaders of La Sierra University course Biology 111A exercised poor judgment.

My quarrel is not with Professor Greer. He is one of only two truly brilliant SDAs I have met so far in my life, all the rest of us being more or less competent. In addition, he has always struck me as a young man of unquestionable Christian integrity.

But primarliy for his or her own sake, this kind of assignment should not be given to a junior member of the faculty unless the point of doing so is to treat him like David treated Bathsheba's husband. In addition, as I understand it, one of the purposes of the course was to make room for voices and viewpoints that otherwise seemed underrepresented. It is difficult for me to imagine him making that contribution. Still further, rightly or wrongly, he has been the focus of much critical attention. Rarely do administrators in any line of work try to achieve greater consensus by putting one or more of the protoganists in charge of the process of reconciliation. Usually, this role is assigned to someone who is percieved by all interested parties as not having already chosen sides.

Choosing Professor Greer as one of two people to lead the course could only be experienced by those who have expressed concerns about what is happening at LaSierra as having been slapped or spat on the face.

We are now beginning to experience the negative and overwhelming reaction of those who feelthat they have been ignored, insulted and betrayed. And my guess is that this is only the beginning.

Contrary to what I have recently read, a SDA university is not something completely or partly different from the church. It is the church at study and it serves the church best when it studies as well as it can. But it should do so with humilty and respect.

What we are facing would be easier to take if any of it were surprising. None of it is. It is very hard to win the support of people by treating them like dirt.

It is a well known fact that there is an Iodine deficiency in the Great Lakes Region. I don't know if it correlates with anything or not--certainly not the lack of backbone. Tom

The day before this action by Michigan, the Review had an interview with Elder Graham, president of the Pacific Union Conference and the LaSierra Board of Trustees, outlining the corrective actions that were being taken. So I'm wondering, did Gallimore write to him and ask how it was going? Gallimore didn't copy him or the LaSierra president on his memo. I happen to agree more with Gallimore than with some others on the issue of the teaching of creation/evolution, but his action has troubling ecclesiological implications. If individual conferences start branding other conferences or their institutions as "apostate," does that not equal schism? And shouldn't Michigan have followed the council of Matthew 18, which in this case would have meant dialogue with the university and the Pacific Union Conference, then elevating it to the North American Division and the General Conference before acting in a preemptive manner.

Jared, let's see, fishermen, beggars, prostitutes, common people were all on Jesus' side. I don't think those were degrees that were earned at the University of Jerusalem in that time. Theologians, church leaders, rich people were against him. As with everything, always and never are rarely right, so if you read me to believe that educated people cannot be true followers of God, we both know that is not true. It was those that were educated and thought they had it all figured out that opposed him most. Is that surface reading?

I've been around Adventist higher education since you were a little boy and possibly before you were born. I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of our higher education. I've seen the most dedicated Christian people in this system. They are a minority. I have seen people who call themselves "Adventist" but who are anything but Adventist. They do not attend church, do personal business on the Sabbath, eat anything that ever crawled or swam, are immoral, and cheat on exams, all the while calling themselves SDA.

Having a higher degree does not give anyone a monopoly on truth. Neither does a lack of formal education preclude someone from having great truth. It is a person who sees their need of a savior that is best suited to be a pastor. I am sure Jay Gallimore knows that and looks for the best people to be pastors in his conference, formally educated or not.

"Did the professor bias the coursework towards either an evolution model or a literal 6 day creation model? Not at all."

A large part of this debate is undergirded by differing philosophies of education. The above quote is an example of a philosophy of education which is not in harmony with the educational philosophy held by many in the church. Probably the majority of Adventists (I'm surmising) understand Adventist education to be that which tackles the issues honestly and openly while guiding the understanding of students in a direction which is in harmony with biblical teachings as understood by the Adventist church. Thus the end is as equally important as is the process. Growing in knowledge and understanding is not an end in themselves; these worthwhile pursuits have their highest value when they lead to a deeper undertnding of God and truth as revealed in His Word.

Many hold a view, however, which sees education as simply about the process, the journey. The outcome of that education with regards to the church, and whether or not it leads to deeper faith and trust in God and His Word, is outside the interest of the educational institution.

I recognize I'm oversimplifying. Yet I think a rational, intentional discussion regarding what Adventist education is would go far to clarifying the pressing issue.

At present, I need an educational experience which leads me to a more precise use of the onscreen keyboard on my iPad. Seems I can't even correctly spell my own name at present.

And shouldn't Michigan have followed the council of Matthew 18, which in this case would have meant dialogue with the university and the Pacific Union Conference, then elevating it to the North American Division and the General Conference before acting in a preemptive manner.

Posted by: Bill Cork | 27 May 2010 at 10:24

Matthew 18 envisions a scenario where a person has wronged you personally. Certainly LSU has not done this to the Michigan conference.

Rather than having a delegation go to LSU where they and the sprectrumite reporters spin it as the heartless conservatives going to give the my way or the highway speech, I find it a rather elegant play.
Non confrontational, supporting the values their constituents, seeking to let their position be known without stirring up a big controversy.
They did as they had the right, and as some believe, the responsibility to do.
LSU has no right to cry foul. I'm guessing the loss of the tuition subsidy for Michigan conference workers kids is on a line item right next to golf course fees.
Worst case senario? They have to pay the same fees the rest of us would to send our kids there. OH HORROR OF HORRORS.

Appealing judgements up the ladder only works if there ARE judgements. LSU is doing as any corporate or academic institution would do. Lip service and platitudes. They haven't done anything really, so what is to appeal to the PUC let alone the division or the GC.
Sometimes a small thing done in a preemptive manner is a good wake up call. Sort of a little shot across the bow. It demonstrates the seriousness one party considers the issue and lets the other party diffuse or escalate the situation as they prefer.
I'll be taking bets on whether LSU diffuses or escalates. Any takers?
As davidrlarson suggests, I'm leaning towards escalation. They seem like the type who like to throw good money after bad.

Michael, LaSierra is not LLU.

D.Fender,

I'm certain that you have been around longer than I. That notwithstanding, your assessment of Jesus' followers seems somewhat ill informed.

Scripture is clear that the uneducated masses that you site as his ardent followers also turned on him when he refused to do more magic tricks for them, to put it crudely. They also formed a mob insisting that he receive a torturous Roman execution. I wouldn't call that being on Jesus' side, unless I have something different in mind than you do by the phrase.

Gallimore's disdain for higher education does him no favors when the rank and file have more learning than the "on fire for Jesus" ministers do. However, that conference may be, on the whole, less educated than I give them credit for, in which case a pastor's lack of education may be less obvious.

My point is this: In this day and age, a lack of education is not a virtue despite the persistence of that perception. Ellen White, who helped to found the Adventist educational system, urged that people be as educated as possible.

To those who insist that higher learning is not all that important, put your proposition to the test next time you have a serious illness or injury. Seek out a folk healer without medical training who is very passionate about natural healing.

D Fender, those who've interviewed w/Michigan, myself included, will tell you that the concerns of the ministerium are more akin to "control" rather than "faith". When the list of questions to interviewees has more to do w/whats on their dinner plate than what's in their hearts or heads, there's a problem!

This is embarrassing.

Bill,
I knew better. Thanks for correcting my autopilot abbreviations.

Richard,

You say that "Evolution undermines and invalidates every Christian belief, not just the beliefs of the SDA church". Does it? Are you familiar that there is Christianity outside Adventism, and that a vast majority of it has no problem with evolution? Yes, they may have had a problem with it originally, as it made people re-think many ideas. But Christianity that is afraid if being challenged and that avoids the truth by denying it betrays Jesus.

I can clearly see how you like to compare yourself to Christ. Yet you are really being judgmental and (most probably narrow-minded. Sorry, mate, try again. I will yet have to come across Jesus's autobiography. I will be surprised if I find out that he made creationism a fundamental faith principle. And the last time I read the gospels, John 13:34-35 did not say "A new command I give you: believe in a recent creation. As I have taught and believed, so you must believe in creationism. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you are young earth creationists." If this is what your Bible says, then I propose that it is a corrupt translation.

Bob,

My apologies if I assumed something you did not say - that was just the was I understood your post when I read it. True that tonsils used to be removed for trivial reasons (or none at all). Are you saying it was evolutionists' fault? Perhaps, but if it was, then you will also need to admit that times have changed, and tonsilectomies are no longer performed this way. And again you have evolutionists to thank for it, it did not happen because suddenly medicine embraced creationism. Accepting evolution does not (and should not) mean that you have to accept every claim every evolutionary biologist makes. Many of them are just working hypotheses, some of which will be proven and some disproven. No scientist is right just because they accept evolution!

Lister and Pasteur were born before "The Origin of Species" was published, Fleming not much later. I do not know what they believed exactly, but will be rather surprised if they were Young Earth/Young Life Creationists at all. It would be more helpful if you could provide a more contemporary examples. As for Gardasil, what matters is not personal convictions of this ir that person on the team, but the fact that it was developed within the framework of evolutionary biology. We would not have it if it wasn't for Darwin! Are you saying that Loma Linda is a pioneer in infant heart transplants, or that they just do well something that someone else developed?

It is interesting what you say of natural scientists. Science general loves rebels. Einstein put physics on its head. Darwin did the same to biology. There were others like them. Yes, there was opposition originally, but the evidence for what Einstein and Darwin said soon became so obvious it would be silly to oppose it. Therefore a scientist who is afraid to proclaim what they see as truth is not a real scientist, because science is about examining and revealing. Unless, of course, your geologist friend is just a creationist by faith only, with no scientific evidence to show for it.

I would be happy to take up your challenge, Bob, but unfortunately as soon as you stated it you began to restrict it! You would have to clearly define what you understand by neo-Darwinism and microevolution first before anyone can even consider answering your challenge. Otherwise I may write a PhD dissertation only to hear you exclaim "But this is microevolution! But that is not neo-Darwinism". I do not see any difference between micro- and macroevolution except time and scale. Give your microevolution more time and suddenly it becomes macroevolution... But if you are really interested in how important the evolutionary framework to medicine, there are many resources on the Internet. You can easily Google them up, or I can send you links. Besides... if you accept mutation, natural selection and speciation, then I guess really you are an evolutionist (except perhaps by name). You may not be a Darwinist/neo-Darwinist (and I never said I was either), but you are an evolutionist.

To those who insist that higher learning is not all that important, put your proposition to the test next time you have a serious illness or injury. Seek out a folk healer without medical training who is very passionate about natural healing.

Posted by: Jared Wright | 27 May 2010 at 11:52

Medical things are medically discerned. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. They dont come with degrees. I am sure you are familiar with those passages.
Those you suspect as not valuing education actually value it, just not in the way you do.
It would seem from your writing that like to use degrees to discount one person over anothers view.
Of course you would choose Luke as an example as if that was the correct and only measurement.
Perhaps you should consider Amos, Guidon and even EGW for example. It is the speciality of God to use whom he chooses to confound the ways of the wise.

1 Cor. 26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Jared gets to an uncomfortable, but essential point.

One that D. Fender helps in pointing out. When D. Fender argues for less education and many know of Michigan Conference's history of hiring poorly educated pastors, it is clear how the sides are shaping up.

It is not liberal vs. conservative.

It is not the holy vs. the apostates.

It is between those who have integrated the scientific facts of Origins into their Adventism vs. those who have not.

One side is not more dumb or less moral than the other.

Pardon the reductivism, but it appears to me that one side has integrated the overwhelming data of God's book of natural experience with God's book of human experience and the other side has not found a way that makes sense for them to do that yet.

D. Fender,

"Do you eat meat?" "Would you wear a wedding ring (although that's been settled by the Church and written in the manual for many years)?" A solicitaion of your thoughts on various sandwich condiments...

I am not exaggerating--these are actual inquiries made of ministerial candidates! Indeed those are *exceedingly* relevant to finding "the best people to be pastors in [MI] conference"!

The truth is, hiring someone whose only training is a 3 month course at a parachurch institution provides the conference with someone who's easier to control and whose salary is less taxing on the budget. They also are less threatening come election time.

People talk about "getting back to SDA basics", but in spite of the founders' emphases on the importance of Education, some conferences act as if it's a liability! Our mission is to every tribe, tongue, and people...not just the slack-jawed and naiive. But in order to present the Truth of the Gospel to someone who follows logic, we have to stop working under the assumption that all it takes is the presentation of colorful "beast" artwork to *dazzle* people into the baptismal pool!

The Lord asked us to "Come...reason" with Him. But somehow in pockets of the Adventist world there is this delusion that anti-intellectualism is a badge of sanctimoniousness! Who cares if you've taken time to "study to show yourself approved" or seriously delved into the Word to try to "rightly divide" it?! What we want to see is AFCOE on your "certificate"...oops, I mean "diploma"!

There is this false dichotomy of faith and thought. MY God is an Intelligent God. I believe in Creation...and because my Creator set the laws of physics in order, it should inspire me to be MORE interested in science and learning, not less... And WHATEVER the field of study, people should be encouraged to pursue it with excellence, not settle for intellectual and academic mediocrity.

Indeed, the MCEC is used to sending BOLD messages. This is one they've been sending for years: In spite of well qualified, scholarly minded, AND spiritual people (spiritual development and personal evangelism are also prerequisites for theological degrees in our schools--as is participation in public evangelism) MI would rather INTENTIONALLY pick the guy with no academic aspiration whatsoever...as long as he doesn't eat mustard...

It is interesting to note that in Galileo's day, the Bible was used to prove that the earth was the centre of the universe and Galileo was accused of heresy because he dared to say differently. I certainly don't know all the answers but I do know that there is a lot that we don't know.

Believe it or not I personally know Jay Gallimore and think he's an ok guy. I'd hate for anyone to misconstue what I've said to be an attack on his personal character. I simply could not disagree with him more in his administrative or theological stances.

Bravo for Elder Gallimore!

I am astounded at how many people consider this bold action mean spirited.

You do not embrace unity when it goes against truth.

I am pleased to see action taken.

This man is a true leader.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

*misconstrue

Thanks David for you voice of reason.

Praise God that He still has some men of good report, some who actually know their Bible and some good science to know that evolution is nothing but a religious/philosophical view that completely contradicts God's clear Word. Some of you who say that evolution is science and that is the only model that works, maybe you should look up the definition of science and see if it relates to evolution. It most certainly does not.

For those parents who are complaining because you want to send your kids to La Sierra, well, it's more than just wanting your kids to learn about evolution or simply going to a college. There is something much deeper here. The fact is why would you want to send your kids to a "Christian" school when that school has departed from the Word of God? Why not send them to a secular school then? When a school teaches lies and promotes it as truth, another force other than God is in play. If you send your kids to such schools, God shall hold you personally responsible for them if they're deceived and lost.

I am so disappointed in La Sierra University. They sure have departed from God's Word. Let's just pray for them.

Finally, based on the tone of the comments on here, let's pray for those who're leading out in many of our SDA churches. Please think carefully, because many of these folks who defend evolution are elders, deacons, and perhaps some even preach on Sabbaths. If you support MACRO evolution, you're departed from the faith AND science. The Bible says that in the last days, many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits. This is a part of that shaking that Sis. White spoke of.

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Not surprisingly, the rest of the world (99.5% of humanity) moves on, untouched by the petty flailing on Spectrum. It appears that no one outside the SDA community really cares what great debate is carried on here. Life is strange. Life is good. I am also aware that arguments based on the majority do not carry much weight. The majority can be as wrong as wrong can be. However the rest of the world is still doing things other than arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

Praise God for men like Elder Gallimore. Elder, I am praying for you that you'll continue being strong and holding up the Standard that is God's Word.

"Petty flailing"...hmmm...
And yet, Doug Beck, you CLEARLY care enough to post a comment...

"Michigan leadership: financially cutting their workers, to politically spite their face." Carpenter.

Utterly ridiculous. And Blake is at his best when knocking the church that pays his salary.

I fully support the action of the Michigan Conference and one would hope other Conferences would exhibit similar courage.

"It is interesting to note that in Galileo's day, the Bible was used to prove that the earth was the centre of the universe and Galileo was accused of heresy because he dared to say differently. I certainly don't know all the answers but I do know that there is a lot that we don't know."

For the life of me, I'd never understand how someone can use this argument as their excuse to sit on the fence regarding evolution. Since when did The Church to which you refer got anything right? You're forgetting that they pretty much got just about everything wrong regarding Scripture? Also, just where in the Bible does it uphold a geocentric or heliocentric model of the solar system? The Bible does not address some scientific truths, but it certainly does address the origin of planet Earth and it does indicate that creation week was literally seven days as we have it today. In addition, if you leave your bias toward evolution at the door, any science that is sensible and reasonable supports the Biblical model of creation.

Sorry, but your argument is like saying we should no longer invest money in anything just because of the recent economic collapse. There's nothing wrong with investing, but you need to be mindful of WHO is in charge of your money and in what you invest. Similarly, The Church that messed up regarding Galileo was not known for upholding nor promoting truth in the first place.

I hope this is not the first time you're hearing this.

Amen Michigan conference! I'm guessing David Asscherick's letter played a part in this decision.

Rick Ramdon: I would point out to you that the position of an earth-centered view presumably buttressed by scripture, that you impute to 'The Church' (i.e. Roman Catholicism), was not held exclusively by Catholics. Long before Galileo's time Martin Luther used the same basic argument. Protestants of the day were cut from similar world-view-cloth. So don't dismiss the argument because 'Babylon' held it and we know what those guys are like. Your tarring by association is pretty weak.

"Adventism is at war with itself. Christ said that any house divided against itself will fall. Who will come to our rescue to make sure we make it till the end of this new century still intact and not splintered into two or three different camps? God save the 7th-Day Adventist church from itself."

Looking at it from the wrong angle. Speaking of the antichrist power John says "they came out from us, but they were not of us." Yet Christendom was not at war with itself and was not truly divided, because even though claiming to be part of the group, the antichrist power was not actually part of the Christians.

In much the same way...we are seeing Adventism opposing those who are only claiming to also be Adventists when they truly are not.

If someone doesn't hold to the church's doctrines as officially defined in the 28 fundamental beliefs, they are not actually Adventists. They may live with among us, but they are not of us.

Thanks Jared and Alexander - these are salient points. I am truly concerned, if as D. Fender suggests, we should not advance higher education and thought - Eliminate all science courses and majors from our Adventist schools - no Biology, Chemistry or Physics. No Math or Engineering. And no health related degrees, because these all require science courses. This seems like a HUGE step backwards for our church - and if it continues it is likely that we will lose those most gifted to help us resolve some of the dilemmas associated with integrating science and faith. Do we really want to create a church ignorant of the natural world around us?? A chuch lacking educated thinkers? How relevant to the world will the remnant be then?

Irrespective of what a Church (or Michigan) wants to dictate regarding origins, science and the world around us will continue to progress and a clearer understanding of the process will unfold. None of us hold that the earth is the center of the universe, despite what the church did to Galileo. When I was in Adventist grade school we were told in class that dinosaurs were not real - that they were imaginary creatures crafted by evil evolutionists. We no longer seem to spout this Adventist truth. As we grow up and find out that our church has not been entirely honest with us, has not shared all the facts, we lose faith in the organized church. That is not the experience I want for my children.

I, for one, would like to give God the chance to reveal the creative process of nature through nature. As we learn more about the intricacies of nature - are we really afraid that these will disprove the Bible? I think not – they may disprove our current interpretation of the Bible, but that is part of our process – in fact, as Adventist, we have a heritage of going back to the scriptures to try and clarify our interpretation when it no longer seems on target. Maybe it is best for us to continue to study together rather than draw lines in the sand. As Graham Maxwell used to say in class – Let’s read on. And I would add - let’s do together - as a community, with La Sierra University and the Michigan conference both in the conversation.

kerbyco says, "...if it continues it is likely that we will lose those most gifted to help us resolve some of the dilemmas associated with integrating science and faith."

IF it continues? It is LIKELY? You're smokin' some interesting ganja, bro. When a 20-something is faced with a church which has among its biggest concerns which condiments are permitted on the superlinks, which includes dancing and wedding ring wearing among behaviors unfit for the righteous, she already has every reason to feel the alienation and isolation defining her demographic in Adventism.

Now add to that institutionalized misogyny, racially segregated conferences, and a culture of hatred for her gay friends and family members, and try to imagine her coming to terms with her faith community.

And after all of that, finally imagine that she is a scholar--a scientist, even!

In your imagination, what is she thinking to herself about her church? In your imagination, does she want to be an Adventist? Does she see Christ in her church? Does she see God's remnant?

Her church hates her. Her church simply does not want her there. And for a child of the church it's hard to come to terms with that.

Dear Jag,

Thanks for your apology, and it is gladly accepted. I also often misunderstand what people are saying.

I had a detailed respose typed out for you, but unfortunately, I just lost it somehow. I don't have time to write anymore now, but I will get back to you as soon as possible.

Rick,

Not sure what you mean when you say that the definition of science relates to evolution. Why should it? It doesn't relate to gravity, or any other specific phenomena either. It is a definition after all. At the same time, both gravity and evolution are within the realm of science.

The "God's Clear Word" you mention is probably the tiny piece of truth you hold and consider to be the whole and only truth. Sadly, it isn't. Many of us hold such tiny pieces, myself included. Blessed are the ones who do realise that all those pieces are not the same. Only put together could they show us a bigger picture, like pieces of a puzzle. Why refuse to add your piece? You are saying that another church got everything wrong when interpreting the Bible, yet you are missing that your own church is a mirror image. Please take out the log from your own eye - and I will let you remove a speck from mine. If the Bible is clear about a recent creation in 6 days, isn't it just as clear that the earth is flat and the Sun and Moon as well as all other stars and planets are there (attached to a solid, metal firmament) only to mark days and seasons for the Earth?

You also say that "any science that is sensible and reasonable supports the Biblical model of creation" (presumably biblical model of creation as understood and interpreted by YOU). Care to name a single example of such science?

Todd,

Does the SDA church disfellowship anyone for not holding to the 28? If not, and such pepople are not actually Adventists, are they kept inside only for the tithe? Sorry, but even the church reserves the right to change the 28, and you have absolutely no authority to decide who is an Adventist and who is not.

Kerbyco,

Well said... If you treat your Bible as a source of scientific knowledge, then it has been totally disproven ages ago. But if you take it as a source of spiritual value, then no science can ever disprove it - they deal with two different realms.

Jag,

It's not about my authority...it's about truth.

What makes the Adventist church different from the Baptist church or the Catholic church? Doctrines.

All claim to follow the same Christ and the same Bible, yet still there are many churches. It is the beliefs that separate church from church.

So, since the Adventist church is defined by its doctrines, anyone who does not believe them cannot truly be considered an Adventist.

I very much respect the people who left the Adventist church after Glacier View because they were honest with themselves and others. Those who believed Desmond Ford's theology but chose to remain and continue to call themselves Adventists are a different story.

The same with the SDARM...I respect that they do not hold their opposing doctrines while continuing to say they are Adventists. Instead, they are honest that they disagree with the Adventist church.

Likewise, people who do not believe the doctrines which are the foundation of the Adventist church and by which it is defined...well, they should have the integrity to stand up and say that they do not agree with the Adventist church.

Kerbyco,
You are right. We need to have LSU and the Michigan Conference in the same conversation. We also need the people on this thread who would exclude from the church those with whom they do not agree to stop and think about Jesus' comment that they will know us by our love.
That's our assignment from Christ--to love each other. Pushing and shoving each other out--be it conservatives or liberals--defeats us all.

Todd, Your Friend, Lynn Sherman, Rick Randon, D. Fender and other stalwarts:

Let's see, "my way or the highway" mentality expressed by the "I'm right and you're disfellowshiped" crowd would fit which group, the Pharisees or Jesus? Here is a hint: One of them challenged Mosaic teachings ("Moses said..., but I say unto you...") and the other therefore accuse Him of heresy and tried to rid the church of Him.

I don't care if you think you believe all 28 doctrinoids, if this is your attitude towards those who like Christ begin at Moses, but for the sake of Truth are willing to move beyond Moses, then you are a Pharisee Adventist.

Many of us are alive and growing Adventists, who are not willing to let our beloved church be taken over by an Adventist Taliban.

We love the Sabbath, worship the Creator, promote chastity, eat gluten, and pay an honest tithe. We became Adventists because we learned that Truth is progressive and moves, otherwise we would all still be Methodists, Orthodox, or Catholics. We are here because Adventism is a Movement, not a Stagnant.

There is no chance, no chance at all that we moving, alive, Truth seeking Adventists will allow fearful Michigan Administrators to stifle Truth, or limit the teaching of the scope and majesty of Creation to a little 6 day magic show, without an earnest confrontation.

I have 52 Sabbaths a year to expand my understanding with the evolving Truth of HOW God created heaven and earth. I'm willing to let you call yourself an Adventist of sorts even if you are slow to change and grow, but I'm not willing to call you a real Adventist if you adopt the spirit and attitude of the Pharisee Truth Retarders, and try to shut down and throw out honest Adventist Creationists who never have been able to find the words "literal days" in the truth filled introductions of Genesis 1 and 2.

Bonnie,
I very respectfully disagree with the meaning you are placing on Christ's command to love one another.

If you are correct and we should turn a blind eye toward those teaching error, should we not then all return to the Catholic church and simply "love one another?"

On the contrary, truth separates...and whether it separates the church from the world or separates the apostates from the church, it still separates.

The Bible does not contradict itself, so our job is to harmonize the command to love one another with the command to separate those who teach false doctrines (Romans 16:17-20) or who practice open sin(1 Cor 5:1-13).

And maybe we find that to accept and turn a blind eye to those teaching and practicing sin and error is in reality only helping to hasten their ultimate destruction, but that to discipline them is to place them in the best possible position for God to reach their hearts and turn them from their ways.

I found Jesus Christ at La Sierra University...the rest is history...Jesus Christ love is what moves me...I will be a minister if God continues to lead me in that path and if its not meant to happend I will continue to share the love of God

"We became Adventists because we learned that Truth is progressive and moves, otherwise we would all still be Methodists, Orthodox, or Catholics. We are here because Adventism is a Movement, not a Stagnant."

Jack,

Truth is not progressive and does not move. Truth is the same yesterday, today and forever. Truth has remained unchanged from before time began and will remain so forevermore.

What is progressive is how much truth is revealed to us as we choose to obey that which has already been revealed. It is we who move to come into harmony with the revealed truth.

And the truth which is revealed as we progress will never contradict the truth which came before it.

I have read the thread so far with interest... and with genuine concern for my church.

For me, the issue at stake is not so much the views of the Michigan Conference Executive Committee, as it is the action they have taken to withhold subsidy benefits, thus refusing to recognize LSU as part of the sisterhood of Adventist colleges and universities.

A few respondents have correctly put their finger on the ecclesiological issue here. The seeds sown by this action, if watered and replicated over time, are dangerously divisive and threaten the organizational stability of the church.

This is not the first time our church has faced differences over a key issue, nor will it be the last. Is it really helpful to have one part of the church unilaterally refusing to recognize the denominational status of another part of the church with whom they disagree, without the careful deliberation of the church body as a whole? Are there not organizational process that should be respected and followed? And what clear evidence do we have that those have broken down in this case, so that others should feel the need to step in with their own forms of kangaroo justice?

I understand the frustration that can result when we feel our words are not being heard or are not having the desired effect, but should we really be injecting tithe dollars into the equation as a means of coercion? The salary benefit dollars that Michigan Conference has decided to withhold from LSU come from our tithe base. As a Michigan Conference member, if I have found the action of the Conference to be out of harmony with the church's teaching on unity, for instance, am I now justified in withholding or re-directing my tithe dollars in protest, as well?

I find the Michigan conference action to set a troubling precedent on numerous levels, and I sincerely hope that those in positions senior to Gallimore will urge him to seek alternate means of making his concerns known.

"And the truth which is revealed as we progress will never contradict the truth which came before it."

What was Oct 22, 1844 - was the second coming on this day truth? On Oct 21 it sure was - for millions and the blog would have been unforgiving for disbelievers (if they had had the wonders of the internet) - however on Oct 23, we revisited our sources and found our interpretation was in err - so although truth may be constant our understanding clearly is fallible. Clearly Christ did not come on Oct 22 in the manner expected, so the present truth did contradict what was perceive as truth a few days earlier. Our understanding of truth progressed.

Kerbyco,

"Our understanding of truth progressed."

And you've hit the nail on the head! :-) It is not truth that progresses, but our understanding of it. The truth on Oct. 21st was the same as the truth on Oct. 23rd.

In the years after God, through His prophet, revealed a crazy amount of truth to His remnant church. And so our understanding of truth progressed greatly.

Now we have a solid foundation of truth which has been revealed and confirmed by God through His prophet. These go wayyyy beyond the 28 fundamentals, but certainly include them.

So, to disbelieve the 28 fundamentals is to disbelieve what God revealed and confirmed through EGW. And, man, He revealed so much MORE to us than just what we decided to include in the 28 fundamentals.

Anyway...these things which He revealed and confirmed are never going to change...never going to progress or move. Through EGW we know they are the truth.

Thus the rise of the idea that EGW was not really inspired, has no doctrinal authority, or was not inerrant.

Again, to believe something like that is to place yourself firmly outside of Adventism. It was the same God that inspired Paul while writing half of the New Testament who also inspired EGW while writing her various manuscripts.

Todd, I agree. Our understanding of Truth progresses. At one time the earth appeared to us to be flat, and the sun to run around us, and it did us little harm to think that.

Later we understood that we were wrong, earth is much more complex and interesting than a flat brick. And earth turns on its axis as it moves about the sun. Even though the Bible says the sun "runs its course through the sky", we change our understanding of that statement from a statement of fact to true poetry, that it truly appears as if the sun runs a course through our sky, even though the Truth always has been that earth turns and rotates about a fixed sun.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not falsified by an expanded understanding of Creation Truth, they are poetified, they become a hymn to Creation. (In Deuteronomy 31:19 God calls at least part of the Pentatuch "a song" to be sung.) Genesis tell us the meaning of the great events commemerated by the creation of the week and its Sabbath.

We begin our understading of Creation Truth with Moses. But we are not therefore obliged to Stop our understanding of the Truth with Moses. Moses is our introduction to Creation, not the whole truth about the Details of Creation. Moses is an outline of the basic underlying facts: God did it, one stage after another, progressively till ready for the Creation of Mankind.

Yes, Genesis is true. No, it is not the whole Truth. It is an introduction to Truth.

I think that Jesus indicates it is foolish to End our understanding of Truth with what we read in the Bible. I think He showed us how we are to Begin with the Bible, and then move on towards the fuller Truth. "He said to them, How foolish you are and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!.....And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said...." (Lk 24:25-27).

I look for teachers at La Sierra and our other schools to teach my chidren to begin their understanding of Creation with Moses, but how foolish if they end their understanding of Creation with Moses without moving on to what Ellen White added to Moses, and then moving on to what Michael Behe, Palentology, and the Hubble telescope have added to our understanding of the Truth about Creation.

For some Adventists the song of Genesis 1 or 2 may be enough. For others it is only an introduction to a much larger, more real, more exciting world of Creation Truth.

Another reason why i am not nor ever will be Adventist or belong to any organized religion. Many others feel the same way, we are a generation raised by the church, but not part of. It is as if we were raised by the mother church, but never able to meet the Father. Maybe we should organize ;)

Further more, we are barely given room to breath and exercise our American right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We follow the law of man, yes. But who gave you the authority to enforce the authority of God?
Too many issue's are held from us, but why? what are you scared of? let us live and learn. "raise a child in the he/she should go" ok, your job is done, we are raised, we are adults. If there is a inquisitive nature in the student body to learn the "other" side of the debate, why deny them that learning experience? If your religion is as truthful and a light to the world as you believe it is, what have you to loose? If it is the truth then you should have no worries about turning students away from your religion. As most Christians say, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God. Then if that be the case why should the students have any reason to doubt?

I know the answer, and as do the administrators of SDA educational facilities within the States.
Your religion is that of a dying breed, slowly you are loosing the youth of the church. with every generation you are loosing more and more. A large number of people i have met in my life know this and have left the church themselves. Enough people to fill a large church ;)

Why am I in an Adventist institution? Because as the saying goes, "once your in, there is no way out". It is impossible to leave an SDA College/University without having to retake many credits/units. I will refrain from using exact names, but when acquaintance of mine decided to attend a local community college instead of the SDA university he was attending. they would not take the science credits from that SDA university. He was devastated of the hard work and effort he had put into his "better SDA education" was not taken seriously by a much "lower" community college.

"By their fruits you shall know them" another saying goes. Well, I have seen first hand what the fruits of SDA churches produce. It is vile. Students futures being destroyed because they were seen somewhere off campus having a drink or smoking a cigarette. This is no concern of yours, especially if they are of appropriate age.
The school administrations claim it is for our own benefit and salvation. So pray tell, when you suspend a prominent pre-med student with a bright future in front them because they enjoyed a drink off campus, you justify this as the Lords work? Why do these individuals worry about the thorn in my eye, when their is a plank in their own?

I want to leave you with this last thought.
Back when I was of High school age. I had a friend, like many of my friends at church at the time was viewed as an outcast and not a participant of the church. He was quiet at church and often would spend the entire sabbath school session outside with other individuals and myself. We were walking through the halls of church one sabbath when an older member stopped us and simply asked. "when you die, where do you think you'll end up?" My friend, being the sarcastic one he was said "in a grave. dead." the man continued persistently, saying along the lines. "no no, when you die, and are awakened? because God does like the youth when they disobey"
This man had a reputation of being the "pharisee" of the church. He had made remarks on my clothing choices, lacking a suit and a tie. But my friend did not know this.
my friend demeanor changed and with a look in his eyes i will never forget, looked at the man harshly. and said "I would rather burn in hell, then have to spend an eternity with any of you."

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Matthew 25:40

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"
Luke 6:37

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Mathew 7:2

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."
Romans 14:13

The Rise and Fall of the Adventist Church.

1. Where did progressive truth go?
2. This sounds like a recruiting tactic for Andrews University (jk)
3. How is it that we've managed to prioritize doctrine over shedding light on Christ's Character?
4. Watch out for the EAGLE! AAAAAAwwwwaaaahh!!

Todd - thanks for the response.

I agree with much of what you said, and I am proud to have Ellen White at the foundation of our church sharing insight into the truth about God as our prophet.

But Ellen White did not believe in 28 fundamental beliefs. In fact, she was against trying to codify our beliefs when Uriah Smith wanted to establish "fundamental beliefs". And what we claim as an immutable truth in one generation may grow another direction with more careful study and clearer understanding. James White and Uriah Smith had different opinions about the trinity (our second fundamental belief), yet did not try to toss each other out as disbelieving what God had revealed to the other. They continued to study and work together. I am still proud to include both in my Adventist heritage even if they didn’t believe all of our 28 fundamental beliefs.

The 28 fundamental beliefs were generated by us to describe our current understanding of truth - in the preface we hold out the option to modify these fundamental beliefs as we continue to study the scriptures and as progressive truth is revealed.

We should come together with open Bibles in search of truth - not my interpretation of truth or your interpretation of truth, but to try and understand God's word in light of the reality around us. When Oct 23, 1844 came, our founders gathered back together to search the scriptures in light of the data and reality of the present day - Christ had not come.

The 28 beliefs are not the final answer. They do not define a “good Adventist”. They are our best attempt to describe what the majority of believers interpret to be truth at this juncture. The 28 fundamental beliefs are not the Bible – the Bible is to be our only creed.

As science continues to progress and as evidence accumulates, we find it difficult to refute with credibility the age of the earth, the presence of dinosaurs, the shifting of the tectonic plates, and the amazing adaptability of the genome, we must open our Bibles and search God’s word in light of the reality around us just as our founders did. This is the work of a community committed to a faithful representation of God’s character and a community in search of the truth about God. For me, this is what it means to be an Adventist.

It is interesting to note, that while I was pastor of a "famous" church in New York City, I viewed first hand, the local board and a ministerial associate we had hired to become our so called "Outreach Coordinator."

That board was a microcosm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in fact all organized church groups, for now I work with many faith organizations and the hate and struggle for "authority" is the same no matter what the faith based group.

Hate always filled our board meetings. Pointed fingers from not only the known lunatics on
the board, but also incredible insulting statements from so called moderates and those who held positions at a famous NYC based University.

Then there was the Michigan trained, Andrews University Seminary "educated?" "Outreach Coordinator" who for the most part never left the building. His caution to me "you should only preach what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes in regard to Homosexuals or you will confuse people." This statement made to me after one of my sermons, was the last straw from this empty suit of a person.

I gave another sermon against Wall Street "Pigs" and was told by an elder (a young dude who thinks he is hip and cool) that I should not use that kind of language as we want those "pigs" to join our church. You see, many young people at that church work for pig organizations on Wall Street. One would not want to offend them. After all, they pay tithe.

I preach as I am moved by the Spirit of God not some bureaucratic sitting group of men who have lost total touch with reality and people who are hurting and need acceptance, compassion and love.

That pastor and many other "safe thinking politically correct board members" are a real washout and remain so. Now I understand why he is who he is. He was educated under the influence of those who teach at Andrews University and lack the skill set to question authority and think for themselves.

The follow like a "sheep" play it safe thinking is not only a church problem it is a world wide problem in governments around the globe.

This is the real issue at the Michigan Conference and their "document." It is not evolution or any other matter.

The Church as we know it in the form of an organized body is dead, simply understand that and come to grips with it. Now as it has been for centuries, our only hope as individuals is to keep focused on Jesus Christ, not a GC session or any other group of people.

Discussing for hours Women's Ordination, Evolution, etc. and then going back to our comfy hotel rooms is nice, cute and dignified. Then we all leave and go back to hating each other, pointing fingers and keeping to our same old theories.

Like Nicodemus individually we "must be born again." Great advice from Jesus to rethink our systems and to learn personally of Jesus Christ and His character.

We have made ourselves God's in keeping with the spirit of evil. We sit and pontificate and think we are speaking for a God we do not really even know, for God is compassionate and all loving. Teachers of "The Truth" oh really? - under the guise of sanctimonious and pious people.

We are all sinners. Including the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

I might add, so am I.

EGW says this about winning "non-believers" to the faith, “Christ’s method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, ‘Follow Me’” - Ministry of Healing, p. 143

Matthew 18 encourages us to make every effort at reconcilliation before severing ties. Removing an individual or institution from open fellowship is to be an absolute last resort to resolving conflict and that only following painstaking effort to preserve the community. Though merely stating the decision to withhold educational subsidy from this institution, far greater damage is done than a few thousand dollars could account for.

It seems that when some "defenders of the faith" go about their business of ensuring doctrinal purity, they contradict the stated preference of the one they proclaim to be
protecting. As such, they go about sorting wheat from tares. The Master says to let them grow together lest good wheat be destroyed along with the tares.

I completely understand the need for Adventist Institutions to execute and teach good hermenutics and to uphold Scripture as authoritative and infallible. Rather than being consistent with the methodology Jesus prescribed, this is more consistent with the behavior of his detractors.

The clash we have here is a clash of paradigms, and not some doctrinal statements. To quote Sallie McFague 'Scientists today are well aware that "facts" are theory-dependent, that there are no literal facts, that all exist within interpretive frameworks...'. Here we have a group of professors who were trying to change Adventist framework on one University, the very center around which all our doctrines revolve. They did all of that in order to reconcile (or not at all) Genesis narratives with "facts" while in the same time not beeing even aware of, let alone critical toward, their own paradigm. And it seems that they were quite successful. What MC did is standing up to the school of thought that is not just incompatible to the core of Adventist beliefs, but that goes directly against basic biblical presuppositions around which everything else written in the Scriptures revolves. Genesis 1-3 narratives are unique in the whole Scriptures for in them are layed out the basic presuppositions for the entire Bible. Remove that and there is no Judaism, no Christianity and no Adventism. Imagine monotheism without the Creation account, imagine cross without the Fall account and imagine Adventism without the primordial Sabbath, primordial diet or holistic anthropology from Genesis 1-2. Those are serious theological concepts which biologists probably do not even care about when they want to discuss a couple of details that the Scriptures are generally not very interested in.

I'm not being dogmatic here, just trying to analyze the background. Those who are trying to reconcile Genesis 1-3 with evolution theory generally avoid the problem of cross without the Fall. Read their 'arguments' and you'll see that they do not have any support from the text - they are always some explanations that are there to convince me to look at the topic from the different paradigm. Sorry, but that will not suffice. Was MC right in their decision? Absolutely! Was the execution the best possible? Far from it! It is clumsy, non-transparent and unprofessional. These guys should start learning how to do proper politics in order to lead this huge church and not merely in order to get re-elected.

As a biology undergraduate of another Adventist university, reading this article, and the following comments, was a difficult and shocking look at the attitudes of both conference leaders and many members of the church body.

As someone who will soon be a research biologist, I have struggled (and continue to struggle) to aline my belief in God and the Bible, with the more tangible evidence that science gives. For this reason, I am glad to attend an Adventist university with wonderful professors who are there to answer the questions I come up with. Yes, the facts about evolution are "taught" at the Adventist universities (ALL of them). It would be very, very foolish not to teach it. Whether we believe in the theory or not, it IS the most prominent and most researched idea in the scientific community. If Adventist universities wish to continue to claim to have excellent bachelor and graduate programs in any field of science, they must teach their students about evolution. Otherwise, they would send students like me into the workforce without vital information. How can I claim to be a scientist if I reject a theory without studying it and testing it? How can I explain my beliefs to my peers, and justify them to myself, if I completely disregard what many other scientists believe?

Over the past several years I have been at university, I have learned one very important thing about myself and most of my classmates. We don't want to be spoon fed information that has been approved by some sort of EGW watch group. Give us all the information, the parts you believe and the parts you don't, then tell us what of it you believe and why. Show us the evidence and let us decide for ourselves.

WAY TO GO JAY!!!!! We need watchmen on the walls of Zion!!!
I want my tithe dollars to be used for those who teach truth not error!!!

Darwin’s gods: the Christian God and “Nature.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines science as:

A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.

Evolution is not science. At most, it is an irrational, unconfirmed, unverified and never falsified explanation of the development of life on the Earth, with multiple, unproven claims. There is nothing factual about it. It is not based in a “connected body of demonstrated truths,” or on “observed facts systematically classified.” Its essential claim is that “amorphous, intelligent matter” can alter itself during an unlimited period of time into extremely complex, live, organisms.

I wonder how many are familiar with the elements of Darwin’s life, and know that he cannot be called a scientist in the standard definition of the term. His only degree, obtained from Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1831 was in theology. He never studied science in an academic setting, and was never trained as a scientist. This is why he could concoct the nonsense he published in his “On the Origin of Species.” Had he been trained as a scholar, he could have never produced and published such an utterly illogical, contradictory, and undocumented explanation of the development of life on Earth.

Darwin was a creationist when he wrote the “On the Origin of Species.” For him, life had been created by God. He repeats this belief again and again in the book:

“I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from someone primordial form into which LIFE WAS FIRST BREATHED [emphasis mine]” (Origin of Species, 380:3).

He never expressed the belief that life has originated from inorganic matter through self-creation. No doubt is expressed in “On the Origin of Species” concerning the notion that life on earth was the result of Divine Creation.

Darwin never used the word “evolution” in “On the Origin of Species.” His argument was not against Divine Creation, but against the notion that God had created each species in a separate act of creation. It seemed more acceptable (though not documentable) to him to believe that the species that populated the earth at his time were the result of “descent through modification” of some original species. He believed that given unlimited time species would produce varieties that would develop later into other species through the power of natural variation.

He believed that SHE, that is, “nature,” (He used this pronoun!), had the intelligent selective power to choose for plants and animals the most adequate and beneficial traits that would allow them to transmit to their descendents enhanced abilities to survive and even thrive. Such a description of nature makes “her - nature” into another god similar to the Christian God and with similar creative powers.

There is much more to mention about Darwin and his “On the Origin of Species,” especially Chapter VI, “Difficulties on Theory,” and Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” in which he mentions the problems which have not yet been solved in relation to his “descent with modification” explanation of the development of species. Since the first publication of the “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 and until now no empirical support has been provided for his “theory,” and no answers have been found for the very “descent with modification” theory problems that Darwin had mentioned in the book.

I recommend that all those who are so strongly supportive of the “descent with modification” or “evolution” theory take serious time and research the matter thoroughly before they make unsubstantiated, gratuitous defense statements concerning the “theory.”

Eduard

Eduard

You should argue your points with the professors at LSU. If you do speak to them you will probably want to add some evidence to support your irrational claims so they will at least wait more than 30 seconds before calling security to request the removal of a nutcase from their office.

does this article actually list the specific teachings and in what way does LSU 'support' evolution over creation?

Sasha,
Good luck with your work. Evolution is a fascinating study. You are quite correct to understand that it is complex, a challenge to integrate with traditional faith, and foundational to both biology and many other disciplines. I'm glad you have mentors to help you in your journey.

Ever since Glacier View there has been a global meltdown.

A few willful administrators left the mountain top as if they had slain Goliath.

Now it is every man's hand is against his brother. Inquiry is dead, Revelation is Halloween. Conversation is sass. Faith is presumption, Salvation is whistling in the dark. Lust is love. History is a joke. In the beginning there was the H.M.S. Beagle. Doubt is king. Stonehedge is the center of the Universe. It is the day of Noah. Tom

Why are we arguing about this? Why are there so many "Adventists" complaining about our leaders' decision? Personally, I would like to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt & say that I believe they have made this decision through prayerful consideration. Let us pray for our leaders in their great responsibility of guiding our church, instead of complaining & being defensive. We should be grateful that they have spotted this problem that can lead so many of the fold astray. I can understand us being upset if the decision was not in our best interest. Yet this was probably the best thing for us.

One comment I read said "there is a difference between teaching it (evolution) & believing it." That is exactly the problem here. If we let this creep in, other things will creep in. If you let one weed grow, before you know it, the garden is overtaken with weeds. When will we realize this? When will we stand up for the creation truth? When will we stand up for what is right?

Oh Lord, come soon!

Are people really being hired in Michigan with only a three month training course and calling themselves pastors? Maybe they are Bible workers being hired to help local pastors?

I find this move by the MCEC unfortunate. If it is the desire of the Michigan Conference to support quality education for its youth, this move is a backward step. Whether or not SDA beliefs disagree with theories of evolution is beside the point. Every SDA educational institution professes to teach the scientific method, which is based on principles of inquiry and debate. The SDA church has every right to disagree with scientific conclusions that contradict its teachings. However, this move by the MCEC works to stifle debate, leave its youth more ignorant to wider debate, and to encourage many to choose a secular educational system.

Speaking as both a product of the SDA K-12 system and a graduate of La Sierra University, LSU's system of education was refreshing and enlightening. It provided my first introduction to evolutionary theory; one that was eye-opening to what evolution really theorized and to the variety of evolutionary theories. MCEC's actions do not protect its youth against "apostasy" as they put it. Rather, these moves will result in graduates of SDA institutions who are less informed, thereby less able to intelligently participate in evolutionary debate.

Given the fragility of SDA educational system as a whole, the MCEC should not be applauded for inflaming these internecine arguments. Debate is healthy, but MCEC is not participating in a debate; it is closing its pocket book...as well as its eyes and ears.

Thirty years ago a young pastor who was defrocked during the Ford controversy said to me 'it isn't the Sanctuary doctrine that will split the church - it will be over the literal interpretation of Genesis'. Will his prophesy come true?? I fear that is what is happening and LSU is just the tip of the iceberg. Let us all pray for our beloved church that it will survive the Tsunami of fundamentalism.

When I took Scientific Inquiry I&II a few years ago at Andrews University, it was clear from all of the three science professors teaching there (one biologist, one chemist, one physicist) that none of them believed in the young earth creation model Michigander Adventists are advocating for. The ambivalence could be felt in the classroom for those able to read in between the lines. All of them made it clear that the alternative scientific models for explaining the age of the earth (and life on it) were the more appropriate ones because they actually adequately explain the scientific evidence. This also was clear for the professor who taught (still teaches?) geology at the science department at Andrews. The difference with La Sierra and Andrews, is that La Sierra's scientists have moved on, explicitly affirming what Andrews' scientists only implicitly teach out of fear for the with hunters roaming the Midwest.

Jag, you said it well when you said most of Christianity has no problem with evolution. Indeed even the pope stated that Christianity and evolution are compatible. If that is the road you want to take, following the majority, then by all means do so but please don't advocate teaching this to our young people.

I will say it again, evolution is not compatible with Christianity and it diametrically opposes it. Christ taught a literal creation week, to oppose a literal creation week is to oppose Christ. No matter how we twist and turn the debate we cannot get around some very basic truths that will not ever change. For one thing the 10 commandments are still valid are they not? A yes or no answer will suffice. The 10 c's very clearly state that God created the earth in 6 literal days. This is truth, irrevocable, unwavering truth.

"Creationism is not science. At most, it is an irrational, unconfirmed, unverified and never falsified explanation of the development of life on the Earth, with multiple, unproven claims. There is nothing factual about it. It is not based in a “connected body of demonstrated truths,” or on “observed facts systematically classified."

Only one word was changed: From evolution to Creationism--which is what some suggest should be the limits of science in SDA schools.

If and when Creationism can past the tests of verifiable, falsifiable explanations of life on the earth then it might stand a chance of being taught in all reputable universities. Until then, it is incorrectly called "science" as it passes none of the tests required to earn that name. It has no "connected body of demonstrated truths, nor any observable facts that can be systematically classified.

If this is possible, would someone demonstrate it?

It is interesting, we can even pick and choose which set of 10 commandments to use to validate our "irrevocable, unwavering truth." - If we choose Deut 5:12-15 there is no mention of the creation week as a reason to celebrate the Sabbath - it is because God asked them to and God is the one who brought them out of Egypt.

One person commented, "Personally, I would like to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt & say that I believe they have made this decision through prayerful consideration. Let us pray for our leaders in their great responsibility of guiding our church, instead of complaining & being defensive."

And what if the Michigan Conference had that attitude towards the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference?

I suggested above this incident is without historical precedent. I was incorrect. The historical precedent is 1888--and we should heed Ellen White's counsel that attitude and Christlikeness might be as important to consider as who is right and who is wrong.

Kerbyco, while it's true that Creation is not listed in that passage it's also true that the Sabbath and the concept of a week are rooted in Creation throughout the Bible.

Richard Sherwin writes

>>> I will say it again, evolution is not compatible with Christianity and it diametrically opposes it.

One of the biggest problems in this, and in other, discussions is people yelling contradictory assertions at each other. The only way out of this impasse that makes sense is to carefully lay out and explore the chains of reasoning that lead people to these assertions.

Unfortunately most of the 'literal 6 day creation' school are not aware of the evidence
(a) in favor of evolution
(b) against the '6 days of creation of life a few thousand years ago'
(c) against a literal reading of the OT

and they know they don't know

and they have no desire to dig into the issue deeper.

Because it is too threatening to them

Because they were bought up to believe that such research might cause them to loose eternal life.

What a sick God they worship - a God that would create a planet-sized lie and then kill people for studying it.

/Bevin

What would jesus do? Ask your self, Would Jesus teach a lie and support a lie?

With all that's going on in the world it appears that things are "winding down". We can expect SOMETHING to happen in Laodicea soon, as well. Something to get us out of our easy chairs. Perhaps this is the beginning of it all. It certainly is getting us to think a bit. Of course we all know our concepts on creation/evolution won't save us, but it certainly helps define what God/god we choose to serve. Prayerfully consider the observations and comments our brothers and sisters are posting!

I absolutely believe in the right to express discontent and displasure-but the way they went about it is wrong. It amazes me that some (not all) posters who define themselves as conservative are cheering on MI's actions to call an institution apostate and divert funds. Some of these same ppl get offended when something they consider "liberal" is even brought up for DISCUSSION! "Merely TALKING about it may bring church disunity!!"

Can we say inconsistent?

I don't describe myself as a part of either camp: I've said before & I continue to believe in Creation-but the actions taken by MI are only "stirring up the pot" not working towards resolution (which, ironically seemed to be progressing a few days before THIS incident!)

A few points:

1. Anonymous Michigander

"Jay Gallimore, while a "trustee" of Andrews University, does not really support that institution either."

When making such a strong statement, it may be good to clarify with evidence to avoid coming across as though you personally dislike Gallimore for no valid reason. Do you sit on the Board of Trustees at Andrews? Have you heard him say things on the public record of how he doesn't support Andrews? As one who has heard him speak many times, publicly and privately, I have heard him support Andrews and Adventist education in general and can testify against what you are saying about him. Your statement might carry more weight if you have evidence and support from those who work under him in the Michigan Conference education department.

Whether we agree or disagree with the MCEC action, we should try to be accurate and fair, even in our blasting of people.

2. Jared

"We should not overlook Gallimore's open antagonism toward Adventist higher education in general. He oversees the hiring of pastors in the Michigan Conference from crash-course "evangelism" schools, sometimes bypassing even Andrews University graduates. This really says more about Gallimore's anti-educational biases than about La Sierra University."

To say that Gallimore (or MCEC) does not support Adventist education in general is not an accurate statement. At the very best, some might get away by saying that Gallimore doesn't support ALL "Adventist" education. Saying that he "bypasses even Andrews" is also a hard claim to support. Do you sit in on the hiring meetings to say that in certain cases Gallimore has chosen one person over another simply because he favors "crash-course 'evangelism' schools" over Andrews? Gallimore hires from Andrews and he may also hire from other "crash-course schools" as well. One could just as easily say that he supports both Andrews and the "crash-course schools". Let's remember that Gallimore himself holds degrees from our Adventist schools -- something he would not do if he didn't value formal education.

Early Adventist Christian, J.N. Loughborough stated:

"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."

Vallen, great point, Jesus would not teach or support a lie. Christ taught Creationism, no one can deny that without denying Christ. This is not a issue like wedding bands, women ordination or any of the minor somewhat ambiguous issues that have concerned the church in the past. This is a black and white issue. Are we to believe in science developed by man or the Bible inspired by God? This does not take deep study, it's basic simple Christianity. There is nothing ambiguous about the issue if you believe the Bible was inspired by God.

A good move by Michigan. A shaking needs to occur at all our schools. We need to all be true to sound Biblical teaching in science and other classes. I studied about evolution and related matters at Loma Linda grad school, but none of the instructors, promoted the general theory of evolution as their belief in any way - much appreciated by all of us grad students at the time!

Israel,

I agree. Comments are often full of assertions with little suppport.

Richard Sherwin,

So we agree that God inspired the Word. And do we not also agree that God created the World? To paraphrase you:

"There is nothing ambiguous about the issue if you believe God made the World," clearly it took a long time to bring the world to its present condition. And clearly it has been here more than 6,000 years.

So the Bible is clear that God created it.

So the World is clear that it took a long time.

So how about letting Adventists try to bring these two things into harmony, instead of pretending that God was only involved in the Bible (clearly a human/divine mix) and acting like God had nothing to do with the physical world and its testimony to earth students?

Christ made no comments about the chronology of life on earth. Believing in Adam and Eve, and Noah is not an issue for long age or short age Creationists. Christ's acceptance of Bible history, is not the same as assuming that this means Christ would have accepted Ussher's chronology, that seems to be the issue for you.

Saying, "Christ believed in Creation, so that settles it," does not contribute to the question of when and how long Creation took, since Christ did not reveal in either Testament just when and how it happened. You may assume you know, but since God's World contradicts your assumptions, perhaps you can rethink your assumptions about God's Word?

Or perhaps you are not willing to do that?

"sound Biblical teaching in science."

FWIW: If the Bible is to be the textbook for science, we need no teachers qualified in those fields. Simply open the Bible and read: voila! the last word on science.

OTOH, if we want our students to qualify for grad school in any scientific field it will be woefully deficient. Claiming the Bible to be the only source for science and other fields is to prostitute the Bible to one's own intent and use. One can find "pornography," rape, violence, murder and a host of other despicable acts, some ordered by God. That is science?

The church looked to the Bible for its scientific understanding for 1400 years. It was only Galileo and Copernicus who showed that it could not be scientifically validated, and it only took the church 400 years to right that wrong. Will the SDA church take that long?

What happened to the Golden Rule that we were taught as kids?
"treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves".

Creation and evolution isn't an issue that I carry a particular burden about: God created it all, and I'm happy to let others work on the science of it.

An observation, however: whenever I encounter people who have such strong beliefs that they are willing to pronounce harsh judgments on others, who seem to care a great deal more about being right than being understanding and healing, I always wonder how their children feel about the church. More often than would occur by chance, I have found that the families of Adventists who are thus opinionated haven't found happiness in the church.

I don't know Elder Gallimore, or anything about his family. This is just a general observation, though one I've seen shown true often enough that this kind of attitude, when I see it, always raises that question for me.

Loren

Jack the Bible, which we both agree was inspired by God says that the earth was created in 6 days. Mark 10:6, Christ said that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. This precludes evolution. I will grant that there is some question as to how far back the Creation week occurred as there does appear to be gaps in the generations. I guess this could lead to a discussion of the inspiration of EGW who said it was 6000 years ago.

Elaine I've never met anyone who believes the Bible should be a science textbook. However I do not believe our schools should be teaching as fact man made science that opposes Scripture. If a person wishes to teach against God and the Bible then let them teach in a secular setting.

When I hear it said that Creationist are narrow minded what I'm really hearing is that the Bible is wrong and God's inspiration cannot be trusted, therefore neither can God.

One poster did say that Bible creation should be taught. Perhaps "science" is not the correct word, but if the Creation STORIES (pl.) are to be taught, they BOTH should be used to treat the Bible fairly. There are two distinct, separate accounts and they are not alike: one story has Adam created on the sixth day; in the other story, Adam is created before any plants or animals.

How should both stories be taught? The second story also has no mention of God's rest after work. Again, just as in the Ten Commandments, there are two accounts, and they are different in many respects. How many memorized the Ten Commandments from Deuteronomy? How many were taught the Creation story from the second chapter of Genesis?

When there is selective choice of Bible accounts, the choosing of one to the elimination of neglect of the other surely has been done for specific reasons, and cannot all be accidental.

That is why many of us choose to believe the second account of Creation (accepted by most scholars as the original and oldest account), and the second record of the Ten Commandments. We are fully "Creationists" but not by specific days; we believe in the Ten, but recognize that they were never given to anyone but the Israelites. Both of these positions are totally biblical, and should be acceptable by all as believing according to the Bible.

I am thankful for Gods non-random "mutations" and divine selection that brought everything perfect into this world, and I'm eagerly waiting for the day when He will redo the process and make an end to the the random mutations that i see the consequences of in my patients almost every day, and the misery connected to natural selection.

If God is perfect and God created us through evolution why does evolution give such lousy results that makes me work from morning til evening doing my best to fix on Gods creation? If sin brought in all this misery I could accept it, but a perfect God..? No thank you.

Wow, when I was at Avondale in Australia 1992, evolution was taught in a kind of "here's the classic evolution position" kinda thing. But there was no counter evidence for us a theol students to use when we got out into ministry. The buck stops with our universities as this is where we get the good stuff with one exception it now seems - LCU - well done MC, you are supported by me.

Lets clear this evolution rubbish up once and for all.

If one of the intents of the MI Conference was to bring this issue to the forefront within the SDA church they have succeeded in spades. 3 threads and hundreds of posts on this site alone, and you can bet it will be a topic of discussion in the hallways and potluck of church tomorrow.

Let's clear this evolution rubbish up once and for all?

Sure the godless, atheist, "it just happened by itself" part is rubbish. But if Intelligent Design over long periods of time were all rubbish, it would be easy to clear it up. Our problem is that the evidence that earth is old and creation has been in turmoil for a long time is real.
That is why no one can sweep it under the carpet of our wishes and preferences. The problem isn't liberal or conservative, the problem is the Facts.

I have my own wishes. I wish some of us weren't so afraid of the facts or feel our Bibles are so feeble that they will be destroyed by reality.

The Adventist teachers at La Sierra University seem to me to be becoming the heros of this story, and the rest of us seem to be the timid and fearful disbelievers.

28 yrs post SDA Seminary, I'm so amused at how glacial & unchanging this church is (& not that change for change's sake is an ideal either.) My father & mother--saints of a Michigan congregation for 50 yrs--head elder/head deaness types--were oft placated & targeted by 'Rev.' Gallimore. I gladly/ purposely avoided his 'evangelism over education' training style during my M. Div. trek, long before that 'cause I instinctively noticed the real resentment & bias of some who go the 'Wildwood & granola' route as a sign of true 'primitive' Adventism. (How 'impressive' that the good ol' Mich. Conference couldn't find another qualified leader in all of these yrs. Do any of you notice that the same folk circulate within the safe halls of our conferences/ GC year after year? ) Some of the same ol' in-the-same role or building folk sit in GC desks 25 yrs after I was their pastor in DC. HHHMMMMM! Time to get many of these colleagues into the real world for sure. It sure confirms why I left Mich. So sad to see.

All I know on this is that La Sierra Univeristy has in the past 5 yrs., NEVER once hindered, hurt, not helped, nor failed to honor my unpaid mission of The Unforgettables Foundation- a cause which has helped 3000 SoCal families to bury their children when they are poor-98% non-Adventists for those who divide the world that way. Larry, Randy, etc. have been model Christians in their treatment of me & so many other employee's. True religion is what? It's defined/ exampled in how you relate to the real world of people pain, not in hiding behind the party line & safe walls of the celestial cities of Sabbath-keepers in most churches. What a waste of time for the purifiers/purgers to attempt a cleanse when a world is crying out for that energy to be focused on those in pain in hands on/hands getting dirty ways. Christ set that example far more by his actions in Scripture than with any doctrinal dialogues. Time for the criticizers to get off their 'computers' & out into their communities!
LSU can teach NA Adventism a lot about integrating in the local world as salt not as pepper!

(And unlike Jay/ some of my other ordained 'colleagues' who don't contact/alert the targets of the 'assassination shot' of their opinions in advance, I'll alert him of my thoughts ASAP.)

This is the result on an insulated, isolated, insecure group within the SDA church who need a reason to feel like important persons promoting 'purification'. Try real service not sideline snipes! Many of these bloggin' big shots & guard the truth 'giants' don't know pure religion
& would never cut it in the real world of real people in real faith-confirming situations! Last I heard, Michigan is in much need of basic Christianity on it's very tough & troubled towns. TE

Facts? "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." God presents this not as a theory, nor as a poem or as a handed down tale. God said this is fact. Mans understanding vs Gods facts, this old bee keeper will take the later.

>>> But there was no counter evidence for us a theol students to use when we got out into ministry. The buck stops with our universities as this is where we get the good stuff with one exception it now seems - LCU - well done MC, you are supported by me.

>>> Posted by: danny bell

Danny, the reason you didn't get any counter evidence is simple. There isn't any. However that doesn't stop a great many websites and ministries inventing false anti-evolution arguments.

These arguments in turn cause most intelligent people to utterly discount the denominations that push them and often the entire Christian concept.

In short, creationism is one of the three fundamental reasons why most of my non-Christian workmates reject Christianity.

/Bevin

>>> God presents this not as a theory, nor as a poem or as a handed down tale. God said this is fact.

Here-in lies the first and most fundamental splitting point in understanding the Bible.

An unknown group of people at an unknown time start an oral history. After hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years it is captured by a bunch of unknown scribes in Babylon. It is then edited (we have variations), copied, read, repeated, thought about, talked about, and the events where the conversations were made are also talked about. These oral records of conversations are captured by unknown scribes, copied, edited (again we have the variations), translated, and interpreted thousands of years later by people from a different culture and time who don't understand any details of the process or the societal interactions I just outlined.

And one of these people writes here "God said this is fact."

This is his personal over-simplification of my over-simplification above of 4,000 years of creation and transmission of the Genesis story.

How does one hold a dialogue with someone who is so "certain" of his interpretation of the above events?0

/Bevin

Bevin I hold fast in my love of and faith in the accuracy of Gods inspired word. When Christ said man was created at the beginning I believe it.

Yes mans science can prove any number of things, including evolution. God gave us science and what it has done for us is unprecedented, but when science goes against God then I choose God.

This debate is not about evolution, it's about choosing who we are going to follow.

"When I took Scientific Inquiry I&II a few years ago at Andrews University, it was clear from all of the three science professors teaching there (one biologist, one chemist, one physicist) that none of them believed in the young earth creation model Michigander Adventists are advocating for."

Which, if true, merely proves that Cliff was right - Darwinian Adventists should find jobs in another venue and stop dishonestly taking our money. If they are reasonably bright it seems they wouldn't have trouble finding jobs elsewhere.
Maranatha!

Blake says: "Please, in humility, before you take out the hatchet, give La Sierra some space and time to work it out."

How long do they need? In the meantime how many souls are being taught lies? There has been sufficient time to weed out those who don't adhere to SDA doctrine.

The question I have is, how come a copy of this memo was not sent to Randal Whisbey, the President of La Sierra University? Seems like this would be a move toward following the directive that Jesus prescribed in Matthew 18. And what good is an NAD Education Department, or GC Education for that matter, if we are not going to give them room to work with the appropriate boards and committees to resolve the issue.

What's next, another conference deciding they won't allow their worker's educational subsidies to Andrews because they don't like a particular teacher or program that's being offered?

Where is the patience of the saints that is needed to work through this issue?

Bevin another thought, or two or three. Your short over simplification of how we came to have the Genesis account of Creation completely leaves God out of it. It's simply a tale handed down from generation to generation along the lines that my family hands down stories of my ancestors. I can no more believe in the accuracy of these stories than a person can believe in the accuracy of the Genesis account if you don't believe that the Bible is an account guided by the Creator Himself. Every bit of Christian theology is rooted in Creation. If the Biblical account of Creation is false then so is the Biblical account of the fall, the need for a Savior, Christ, and His death on the cross.

How pathetic some of the comments of those who believe in evolution and want it to be a church sponsored "doctrine".

Well, I hope Michigan Conference's action catches on. I would certainly reconsider returning tithes and offerings in any church in California...

There's just so much Adventists can do to be a relevant body of believers. Compromising on Creation is not one of them.

Rich this has been a long time coming. Elder Gallimore has had several (if memory serves me correct) published articles where he has addressed the problems with evolution in our schools. And my guess is that there was a lot of dialog between Mi. and LSU that we are not aware of. Many would call Jay (and the conference leadership) conservative, I think a more accurate description would be Bible believing.

How is Jay Gallimore's behavior fundamentally different from that of Pope Urban VIII? And how long will it take for an Adventist equivalent of Pope John Paul II to come along to clean up the mess?

I fear we have learned nothing from history. What a shame!

Richard,

You mention the word "believe" and "belief" which is so often forgotten in all the discussions of the Bible stories of Creation.

It can never be verified by facts; it will always and forever be a "belief." As such, why the desire for objective evidence on a creation story when there can be none? How would the origin of earth and humans be taught by the Bible's story? It would take less than a 45-min. class to read both stories. There is no subjective evidence to validate those stories.

Science depends on falsifiable data; the Bible stories of Creation can never be supported by facts. As long as it continues to be argued that it should be taught in science classes, it is comparable to teaching the alchemist's method of turning metal into gold: at one time a real "belief." Most students expect to study the latest findings in science, not ideas based on faith in an ancient book, no matter how sacred it is held by some--it will always and forever be believed by many, but no one has given information that can be objectively analyzed.

Elaine, religious belief cannot be backed up by scientific fact. Religious belief can only be backed up by faith, faith in God and His Word.

I would love to respond more but in the last 42 hours I've slept 4 restless hours. Thus the life of a bee keeper in the spring. Need to hit the sack.

Happy Sabbath ya'll.

How utterly embarrassing after nearly 50 years of church membership in the Michigan Conference, the founding conference in the SDA church, to see it led by such an utterly politically motivated president.

It seems by cursory reading in the union paper, the Lake Union Herald, over the years, the reports of workers assuming new positions suggests this president avoids hiring seminary trained ministers, preferring younglings and older men who lack standard credentials and therefore are utterly beholden to the president personally for the appointment. Or, perhaps they are the only ones who will accept a position to this conference.

So while I'm not surprised, I remain embarrassed.

That are good news!!!!

And this is why I went to a Christian University and not an Adventist one, specifically La Sierra. I came out of that University with appreciation for Christianity and a resolve that I belonged to the SDA church...

Forget evolution, good move to eliminate subsidy. Pastors are NOT at the bottom of the pay scale you know.
What does the child of a child of an industrial worker making minimum wage do to get Adventist education? Paying for children of church workers to attend school rather than the actual needy IS APOSTASY.

NW

I had the distinct privilege of sitting in a few classes at La Sierra University for one quarter as a Pre-Sem Major, (Financial Aid isn't what it used to be, or I would still be there)

One of the classes I attended was Sacred Texts OT, for three weeks my faith was shaken to its very core by my professor. But I chose to bite my tongue and see where he was going. The topic of a literal 6 day creation was addressed and discussed in detail and it was the professors conclusion that brought me peace of mind.

Genesis 1 describes Chaos, God Speaks and it happens, as the text progresses, more order is created, culminating in the peace of Sabbath Rest, whether Creation was a literal 6 day event, or 6000 year event does not change the fact that the culminating point of Genesis One is God bringing order out of chaos culminating in the peace and quiet of the Sabbath Rest, by simply ordering it to be so.

I am forced to ask some questions, "What does choosing to believe and go to "war" over a literal 6 day creation have to do with our Salvation?" Is this the foundation that our faith and salvation rests on? If so than I fear that we have missed the point. The NT does not make any reference that I can recall that Christ's ministry stated that "Unless you believe in a literal 6 day creation and Me, you can not be saved."

The most important question is whether or not airing this kind of debate is furthering the message of Christ's loving and longsuffering nature to others or will we have to answer for it when we stand before the throne of grace to give an accounting of ourselves and why we chose to argue and quibble over a point that is based on man's perception, belief, interpretation, or just plain old desire to have their Religion be the truest and most correct way to worship and honor God.

Personally, whether or not the world was created in 6 days or not makes no difference one way or another to me, and is a point that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE of us can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt one way or another. My salvation lies in striving to come closer to my God through a purposeful and focused desire to have a personal relationship with Him through Christ.

May God Grace and Peace be with you all, and I pray that you see that what is really occurring here is a gross and highly diversionary tactic by the enemy to remove our focus from Christ and set our sights on things that bear no relevance to the nature of Christ, a nature that we are called to emulate and follow.

A PLEA FOR A COMMUNITY OF VARIETY AND TOLERANCE, NOT MORE EXCLUSIVISM AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

I am probably the only poster here who has never been to La Sierra, either as a student, a visitor, or invited speaker. However, the debate within the SDA community about the viability of La Sierra as an Adventist institution seems to be completely wrong-headed. As a teacher for several years in a truly "liberal" institution, it seems to me laughable to think anyone would consider of La Sierra as anything but a moderate or even conservative evangelical institution. It seems some of the fundamentalists in the SDA church want to consider the church's teachings like a creed, something everyone should submit to, or leave.

Statements of belief are always launching pads, temporary consensii, hypotheses for further reflection, and an AVERAGE of the views of the membership, not exhaustive or critical explications of disputed theological issues. If I may continue the statistical analogy, we must always expect----and indeed hope for... at least one standard deviation on either side of the mean in personal views, if such Statements are to be truly reflective of our church family. We should fellowship and dialogue with everyone "under the bell curve," especially those whose ideas seem challenging to us. The kind of animosity displayed by those who oppose minority views seems unchristian and void of spirituality.

I know we live in an uncertain world, where change is upon us almost every day. I understand that many people need something they feel is unshakeable, unmovable, and incontestable. They look to their pastor, their church, their doctrines, and the Statement of Beliefs for an unchanging guide in a world of uncertainty. They are afraid to simply trust God. So they turn their beliefs into idols and their beliefs into creeds, giving them the absolute value due only to God.

If, after all this time and reflection on God's creativity and goodness, we cannot trust God and let everything else be imperfect, we haven't got very far. A new theology of a God who demands perfect and precise ideas has arisen and threatens to take away the freedom of the Gospel. Heaven help us!

Graeme

Having watched this conflict unfold over the past months, I am saddened by what I see as a distressing sign of fragmentation in our church. As an Adventist who was raised in the church, then left for 10 years, and chose to return this is an unfortunate confirmation of everything that made me leave in the first place.
How can we possibly survive this time as a church when we are consumed with such trivial matters? Each of us will have to stand before God and defend our beliefs. He is the only judge. I want to believe that the MI Conference considered this action prayerfully, but I confess that I find it difficult to believe that this is the direction that God wants His church to take. Where does this kind of action end? When the church is torn apart?
While I left the church for many years, I always appreciated the Christian education I received at a sister institution. In large part, that education is why I came back to the church. I hoped that the church would continue to nurture the spiritual growth of young people by providing them the foundation and tools to make their own decisions. If we do not teach our young people to think for themselves, how will they survive challenges to their faith later in life?
If we continue on this path, the Seventh Day Adventist church will be a church that dies because it can no longer accept a diversity of opinions and alienates an entire generation of young people. Given that so many young people leave the church anyway, can we really afford to adopt this kind of rhetoric?

Wise words, Graeme.

A voice of sanity in the midst of craziness.

Perhaps I could be part of a church that worships the God as you describe, and that promotes to the adventure of exploration of experiences and understandings

Be my pastor!

Thumbs, the plan of Salvation depends on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. Indeed without it Christianity cannot exist.

Concerned Adventist. Diversity is great, but not at the exclusion of truth. Women ordination and wedding bands are trivial. The basis for Christianity is not.

Graeme. It does not take a creed to be concerned about the path the church is taking in allowing apostasy. All it takes is a reading of His word. "For in six days...."

"But as I've written before, the rub in all this comes in the implementation of the "doctrinal purity clauses" we professors must sign, the truth squads that will be checking up on us, the mistrust and innuendos and dysfunctional fear-based climate that will inevitably result--that already has resulted. THIS CURE IS MORE TOXIC THAN THE SICKNESS." So writes Chris.

While he says he welcomes accountability this statement speaks volumes for itself. We profs know what we know, we know what should be taught, we know how to teach what we know and we don't want anyone checking up on us!!

If such statements are literally signed how many are really honoring the pledge? If a prof is teaching according to the tenets of the SDA church why should he believe he is threatened if someone happens to visit hi class? It seems that maybe Chris wants a freedom from accountability that most of us do not enjoy. Doesn't academia ascribe to itself virtues that don't really exist? Ascribe to itself freedom from correction that most of us do not enjoy?

"Statements of belief are always launching pads, temporary consensii, hypotheses for further reflection, and an AVERAGE of the views of the membership, not exhaustive or critical explications of disputed theological issues.." Graeme

Where do I find that in the teachings of Scripture, EGW or constitution of the SDA church? Thanks.

It seems witch hunts are the order of the day. First, La Sierra and its teaching of evolution as fact and the "kicking off campus" at SAU of Dr.Tim Jennings for teaching A different view of God's character and his wrath from the pastor.

Richard,

Creationism today is generally understood as Young Earth Creationism, and sometimes as Old Earth/Young Life Creationism. Both are bastard children of fundamentalist Christianity, which only came into existence around mid-19th century. To claim that Jesus taught or believed it is an anachronism, and it is not supported by the gospels - canonical or not.

"Your Friend" wants to know where to find the words of mine he/she quoted.

You won't find them in the places you mentioned because I am not a parrot or dictating machine.

You will find them in the same place I find yours....

Here is the URL: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/26/citing_apostasy_michigan_con...

Graeme

(My previous post and this one refer back to Richard Sherwin's comment)

One more thing - you can believe whatever you like, however reasonable or absurd, but you shouldn't impose your views and understanding on others. I promise to reciprocate.

I do not accept evolution because the majority do. In fact, I supported creationism in good faith for many years, but once I started studying the issue closely it turned out that all claims of "creation science" are based on lies. Like I said, believe what you will - just don't call it science or scientific...

The majority of Christians have come to accept evolution because that is what evidence points to. I do not intend to deny this, as I am not interested in Christianity that's obscurantist and avoids facing facts. I will gladly change my views if any evidence to the contrary arises.

"Your Friend"--

If the statement "speaks volumes by itself," then you needn't add a word. But thanks for bringing it up again, anyway.

I stand by my contention that the proposed "cure" is more toxic. Any community, any fellowship, any friendship (as you should know) stands or falls on its foundation of trust. If your spouse makes you sign a 28-point checklist and begins checking up on your every move and broadcasting it to the world, your marriage is in deep trouble.

As in all relationships, however, as I said earlier, there is also a level of healthy accountability. You asked how long to wait for La Sierra to make appropriate changes. Hey, the fertilizing parable says "a year." (Starting . . . now.)

As for my ducking accountability, I have generally twenty people writing down (I wish) my every word in class, and every person gets to "grade" me on their evaluations. My contract is renewable only on a yearly basis. Do you have any of that on your job? I've written hundreds of articles and some books and appeared in various media venues, including Adventists Affirm, Adventist Review, 3ABN, WGTS, and Hope TV. I'm not hiding at all.

Come to think of it, I even use my own name when I post here.

Jag, it matters not to me what the evidence shows or what the majority believes. The evidence as shown by man goes against the Word of God, the majority of Christians go against the Word of God. That does not make them right, nor does it mean the evidence is correct. From a scientific point of view there is no God, so it seems the honest thing to do is for those who have more faith in man than God is to drop the charade of having their cake and eating it too and just come out and say there is no God.

You say I should not impose my beliefs on you, and yet that is exactly what the evolutionist are doing to the church. Our church trusts the Bible as the unerring Word of God, and along come those evolutionist who, within the framework of employees of the church, impose their beliefs that the church is wrong to believe in the Biblical account of Creation. All members of the church, especially those who teach others, should support the church and believe in the Biblical account of Creation.

" All members of the church, especially those who teach others, should support the church and believe in the Biblical account of Creation."

When you are designated as pope, you will probably be allowed to do that.

Jag, just saw your earlier post where you said that Jesus did not believe in a young earth Creation. He clearly believed in Creation and that man was here since the beginning. He also clearly believed in scripture. There is no evidence in scripture for a long time frame for the earth. So based on that we can assume that Jesus not only believed in Creation, not evolution, but in a young earth. And since He was there at Creation He should know.

Elaine I'll be pope Richard I. So I'm assuming you believe it's fine that our teachers can teach whatever they want, even if it goes against the very foundations of the church that pays them to teach?

As an ex-Adventist, I am both saddened and exhilarated by this news.

I have long thought it inevitable that the very foundations of (at least the conservative half of) the SDA church would one day begin a long irreversible self-destruction. This is just the most recent signpost clearly illustrating this distruction.

A couple weeks back, my son graduated with an outstanding education in Engineering from the University of Colorado in Boulder. It cost us a fraction of what it would have had we sent him to my alma matter, Walla Walla College and the engineering education provided was vastly superior. SDA education cannot compete when it is so bedraggled by mindless theology.

I long ago gave up my SDA faith. It could not withstand the surge of rational, critical thinking that welled up in my life after leaving WWC. I would encourage anyone here having the least bit of discomfort with the SDA 'young earth' position to read this excellent post (from an equally excellent blog/podcast): "Logic and Creationism" http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1948

Ha. Well said, Professor Blake.

I believe that until the university decides to file a formal complaint against a teacher with accusation of "heresy" that the teacher will be fully qualified to teach the subjects for which he was hired. Until that time, critical voices have no standing in this discussion of "proper" education. Education is NOT indoctrination, in spite of what many would prefer.

Douglass our education would be cheaper too if we required the tax payer to pay for it like you son's public university. But then don't even get me going on Adventist education. I have lots of problems with our schools and health care system, having grown up in and around both.

BTW I applaud you for being honest enough to leave the church when you found you disagreed with it. That is the right and ethical thing to do. I may very well do the same someday.

I personally don't support the SDA position on Creation except when it agrees with the Biblical one.

So much of this back-and-forth bickering is absolutely ludicrous.
FACT: As the SDA Church knows, there is only ONE TRUTH- the Word of God.
FACT: Declaring anything that disagrees with the Word of God to be true, while claiming to be SDA, quite accurately fits the description of the word APOSTASY.

If LSU was in fact teaching EVOLUTION AS TRUTH, it was indubidably performing apostasy.

I don't understand why this argument has gone off on so many tangents. So many people are offended at the actions taken by the MI conference. The MI conference no longer wanted to financially support the teaching of falsity as truth. WHY ARE WE NOT ALL APPLAUDING THEM?!?!?!

And to those who claim to be Adventist Evolutionists... I'm left speechless. You might want to start over and read the very basics of the Bible again. You obviously missed something. Don't know how you missed it, seeing as how it's glaringly obvious. GOD THE ALMIGHTY CREATED THE WORLD AND ALL THAT IS IN IT IN SIX LITERAL DAYS.

If you don't believe that, then perhaps you should altogether reconsider your stance towards the Bible as the absolute truth.

Richard: Thank you for your kind words. Growing up as a 5th generation Adventist (descending from one of the original founders) and being the first--and for the last three decades, the only--in my extended family to openly reject the church was one of the most painful and difficult experiences of my life.

As an 'outsider' peering into this most amazing discussion, I must admit I feel a strange affinity to those arguing from the position I once held. I watch with fascination this strange and wonderful metamorphosis you are experiencing on the inside.

Curiously, I believe my three-decade-long adventure as the only non-SDA in a family of devout SDA's is about to end: my brother-in-law, recently exhiled to the high seas from his previous position as Rocky Mountain conference president, is ripe for exodus--though for radically different (so far) reasons.

This decade looks to be an exciting one for the SDA church!

Elisa said: "If you don't believe that, then perhaps you should altogether reconsider your stance towards the Bible as the absolute truth."

I don't. And I did.

I encourage you others of open mind to do the same. This country would be a much different place if more people would follow your sage advice, Elisa! :)

Discover the science-backed truth: TalkOrigins.org

Elisa, that was pretty harsh you know. lol

Douglas, I really do think you did the right thing. You looked at the church and realized it was not for you. My frustration is with those that are in the church who claim to be Christian while attacking the foundation of Christianity. If the Biblical account of creation is false then Christianity is a false religion because it's based on the Biblical Creation.

If the SDA church keeps supporting the evolution concept either overtly or covertly like it is doing now then I too will leave the church because I consider myself a Bible believing Christian. I too would find it very painful.

If I leave the church it would be for very different reasons than what you did, but at least you and I would be doing the ethical thing.

I would just interject this question that keeps slipping out of our grasp like a wet fish:

What is the foundation of Christianity?
The two creation narratives?
Christ?

I continue to be grateful to La Sierra University, its faculty, administrators and students (my peers) for providing me with such a faith-affirming learning environment.

When I graduate in a few weeks, I will be a proud alumnus of the university.

Jared, the foundation of Christianity is that we were created perfectly by God, we fell and Jesus death will restore us to a pre-fall condition. Without creation and the fall there is not the need for the Savior. And the Savior, Jesus, also supported Creation while on this earth.

"As for my ducking accountability, I have generally twenty people writing down (I wish) my every word in class, and every person gets to "grade" me on their evaluations. My contract is renewable only on a yearly basis. Do you have any of that on your job? I've written hundreds of articles and some books and appeared in various media venues, including Adventists Affirm, Adventist Review, 3ABN, WGTS, and Hope TV. I'm not hiding at all.

Come to think of it, I even use my own name when I post here."
Posted by: Chris Blake (not verified) | 29 May 2010 at 1:52

It says your name is not verified. Some reason it isn't verified? I can't imagine what you would be writing for Adventists Affirm unless it was on one of your "off" days. I'm not saying you didn't but wonder about it??

Exactly what does your writing allegedly so prolifically signify? Is not being fired from a liberal university or college a feather in one's cap?

Your friend Carpenter seemed bemused by your comments. Nicholas Miller remarked, in part, to Carpenter: "Alex, in your comments recently you are becoming something of a caricature of the post-modern liberal who must vent his spleen at any suggestion that any truth or standard might exist beyond the one "fundamental truth" that truth does not exist, or we cannot meaningfully know it. It is a dangerous and precarious spiritual position to be in, made even more concerning by the role you play as teacher and role model at a Christian college. I pray that you will reconsider your attitude in these matters. The seat of the scornful is not for those that lead and guide the youth."

Is one known by the friends he keeps?

"If your spouse makes you sign a 28-point checklist and begins checking up on your every move and broadcasting it to the world, your marriage is in deep trouble."
To analogize marriage and church employment is totally inappropriate. There is no analogy and you should know it.

OTOH if I sign a contract to deliver 10 wickets a day I am expected to do so. If you sign a contract to teach within the parameters of the SDA church you should be held accountable but you rankle apparently at any mechanism to do so. That sends the wrong signal, Chris.

Ah, just got back from leading out in the Sabbath School Yolanda and I started, as I do most Sabbaths, and attending church. Where were we? Oh, yes. My spiritual irresponsibility and character flaws.

Well, most people here seem to be in the same boat I'm in: I don't know how to get the "(not verified)" off my signature. Alex told me once but I wasn't a very good student. Sorry. Please advise me, "Friend." Thanks.

Which reminds me, if I am known by the friends I keep, and you claim (through your alias) to be my friend, what does that make me? I mean, besides confused.

A personal note: "Your Friend"--without identifying yourself, you contacted me years ago on my personal email to badger me about whether I am a "liberal" or "conservative" (I am neither and both, as the words have lost any inherent meaning). When I asked you, courteously and firmly, to identify yourself, you refused and kept on badgering me. Since then on this blog you have exhibited many passive-aggressive traits: avoiding, blaming, changing the subject, and obfuscating. For examples, start with this thread, where you claim "Blake is at his best when knocking the church that pays his salary." How you arrive at my "knocking the church" is a mystery. And now this most recent flailing.

Enough. It is possible you could be my friend in real life. That would be fine, and I would welcome the opportunity. However, in your present invisible guise and passive-aggressive approach you are no more than a virtual cipher. When you care to admit your name and be accountable, then we'll talk. Until then, have a good life.

As someone on another site (same topic) said:

"If you have trouble accepting the Biblical account of the creation story, wait till you get to the story of immaculate conception. Oh, my."

(The true definition of the "Immaculate Conception" is not Mary's virginal state, but her mother's when she was conceived, but I think the poster meant Mary.)

Neither can be substantiated by any objective evidence that anyone has ever been able to demonstrate. So look for the next topic of the "Educate Truth" folks. Creation is a non-starter in comparison.

Then there's the Trinity. Who cares to simplify and explain that one? Or raising Lazarus?

First I would like to state I do not live in Michigan or even the Lake Union Conference.

I find it interesting the amount of time that has been spent debating whether the Michigan Conference can legitimately withhold funding for their workers. This happens all the time. Unions (and Conferences) decline to subsidize classwork at schools other than those within their own conferences or unions unless there is no similar study available at those schools.

Every six months I was required to submit paperwork about where my children attended school, and personally was denied sponsorship while attending classwork at an Adventist University outside my Union even though "our" school did not have this coursework.

Second, to attack Jay Gallimore personally is somewhat like attacking a stick being held by a mugger. Although he is the one who wrote this, it was the consensus of the entire committee that voted this action.

I would also like to comment on the debate of Evolution vs. Creationism. Consider if the logic used would also work for other topics that we consider part of our religion, say Sunday vs. Sabbath. Will we hold to a Sabbath-keeping belief regardless of proportionally little concrete evidence that Sabbath is special Biblical as is being suggested for lack of proof of the validity of Creation? Will the sanctity of the Sabbath remain important if there is no one to whom we owe allegiance after Creation is thrown out? (Remember the seal in the 4th commandment)

I have come to believe there are two apposing religions here. Both have areas that must be believed by faith. Both can result in great sacrifices being made by those who believe in them. One is a belief structure that requires regular and significant changes to support. The other has had relatively little change over the historical past.

This debate is similar to the debate over climate change that is going on now. I would suggest that there is no disinterested party on either side; either evidence on one side is minimized or ignored, or the opposite is true. As humans we tend to be prejudicial whether we think we are or not. Our minds just filter things that way.

What we must keep in mind is that Christ died for the one who believes contrary to what we do in many areas. The parable of the wheat and tares points out we will never solve this debate this side of eternity, where I suggest we will discover we were both significantly wrong in concept and application.

"Remember the seal in the 4th commandment."

"Seal" is the word used for circumcision (Rom. 4:11); there are many seals mentioned in Revelation, usually bringing woes; but in all the other instances where it is used (John 6:27, Rom. 15:28, 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, and Eph. 4:30, none ever mentions Sabbath.

The verses in Ephesians "and you have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit," and it is repeated again that it is the Holy Spirit that seals us is in the second verse in that letter.

Many Adventists use that phrase that the "Sabbath is the seal" but unless you can identify the Bible text, it is simply not there.

I will just answer this attack against christian brothers and sisters with a quote,

The conduct of some professing Christians is so lacking in kindness and courtesy that their good is the evil spoken of. Their sincerity may not be doubted, their uprightness may not be questioned. But sincerity and uprightness will not atone for a lack of kindness and courtesy.
Selected Messages Book 3 238.5

This has only one directive and that is to divide the church. If there is a problem here that does not exist in other colleges, it would be your duty to bring it to thier attention, help them move tward solution, and to give them time to accompish it. We as SDA have been far to critical and far to quick to take distasteful actions. What has been said is true, Christians are canables.

I would like to see our all church schools teaching the evolution theory without prejudice, just as I would like to have them teach Creative design without prejudice and have the faith and confidence in God and in our children to make their own choices. My son went to church school all his life, and heard one slant, a very biased slant toward creationism. Then, he was introduced by a person of faith and a biologist to the theory of evolution. He felt lied to, because for the first time, evolution was presented without bias. So, if religious people could not be trusted to present both ideas without bias, how was he to trust the faith he had been raised in.
I don't blame LSU. I blame the academies that put blinders on our children... and when they're removed, God gets lost in the shuffle. I went to public schools, where religion was not taught, only evolution. Yet, I WENT to LSU in faith, and was strengthened in my time there. In the years since, I am amazed at how little children were introduced to, in science and literature. We don't do any favors by hiding kids from what's out there... or skewing what they see to what we perceive it to be.
I've been SDA since I was 17 and served 10 years as a missionary... hiding is not the answer.

The Michigan Conference is not the one dividing the church. Those that insist on teach a un-Biblical concepts are the ones dividing the church. What the Michigan Conference is saying is that they don't want to be responsible for the advance of this apostasy. This is not a new issue, it's been going on for years. The cancer should have been removed long before now. These actions by the Mi. Conf, will hopefully be a wake up call to the rest of the church of the anti-Christian views being taught as fact to our young men and women by the very teachers who should be upholding Gods word, not tearing it down. And if the actions of the Mi Conf end up dividing the church into two camps, one that follows Gods word and the other that follows mans understanding then so be it.

Chris Blake raises a straw man with his statements that the cure is worse then the sickness. And like a stray man, his statements cannot stand on thier own. I encourage and challenge faculty at LSU to for once to come clean, be intellectually honest and if they believe anything other then a literal 6-day creation epic as the Bible says- then quit and go somewhere else to teach. Quit accepting pay from the SDA church which comes from the tithe, and go teach thier own beliefs on someone else's dime. Quit the little mind games, the parsing of words and just quit if you disagree with the teachings and beliefs of the SDA church which are based on the Bible. What is so difficult to understand about this?? Take advantage of the "intellectual and academic freedom" you are so fond of talking about, exercise it with honesty for a change, and quit and go elsewhere!

Chris-
I suspect you are taking a big leap in attempting to link me to a person who allegedly badgered you. It is not my custom to use email to badger persons whatever their convictions.

If there were a situation where I have asked a person a question and he declines to respond it would be a waste of my time to continue in what you call badgering. I don't expect an apology but certainly one should be forthcoming.

It is irresponsible to make accusations sans proof.

Chris Blake:

I just want to say that I have been so blessed by your books and articles and your comments!

After reading through the Spectrum remarks these last few days I am greatly encouraged--I see we are experiencing the second coming of the Pharisees and if that is any indication that things will happen in order as they did the first time around--Jesus must not be far off! God bless!

Simple solution ...

The Pacific Union trumps Jay Gallimore by supporting children of all Michigan Conference employees willing to attend LSU, by paying the now missing Michigan Conference subsidy, and then doubling it.

Inexpensive, even.

"We don't do any favors by hiding kids from what's out there... or skewing what they see to what we perceive it to be." Posted by Karen Rudd

Hi Karen, I really appreciate your post. I agree that it would be better for our kids to be exposed to the evidence in our own schools because SDAs are transparent and honest, and have nothing to hide, and God wants us to serve Him with our minds. I can appreciate how your son must have felt that he was "lied to." Usually in cases like this the youth leave the church. That is so true what you say that "if religious people could not be trusted to present both ideas without bias, how was he to trust the faith he had been raised in."

So really LSU can hold it's head high and not be ashamed of teaching both sides in it's biology courses. It could even serve as a model for the rest of the Colleges around the world to follow.

Karen Rudd - Following your logic, we should let our kids experience smoking pot, drinking a glass of wine, and have premarital sex. All of those things are stuff they are likely to run into when they get out into the world. We don't want them to thinks that we've been hiding information from them. As the world tells us, marijuana is medicinal, red wine is good for our hearts, and we should all try out sex with our potential mate to see if we're compatible. Balderdash! God's truth is what it is, truth. Why is the simplicity of Bible truth so baffling to so many?

Richard,

I think you are in danger. The danger is that you take the tiny piece of truth you hold as the whole truth. I do not mean to offend, but your explanation is the same that religious fasnatics provide. Suicide bombers also claim to know the will of God and to know the words of God. The reality is much simpler - what you are following is not the word of God, it is your particular interpretation of the Bible. One of many, and not even the most convincing interpretation.

God is beyond the scope of science. To say that there is no God for science is a fallacy - like to say that to medicine there is no syntax, or that to linguistics there is no hydrogen. That is simply not what they deal with.

I am not aware of a single evolutionary Christian who would like to make a belief in evolution dogma. All we are asking is that evolution is not written off withoug checking evidence first, and that it is accepted as a valid perspective. Certainly not as the only one. Has anyone proposed that creationists be disfellowshipped? Or that they leave the church? This kind of hate-mongering is what only fundamentalists do.

Inerrancy of the Bible is not a belief that the SDA church subscribes to. It is permitted, but it is not even in the 28!

It is not only Jesus who believed that humankind has been on our planet "since the beginning". I do too. Since the beginning of humankind, of course. When reading the gospel account, Jesus is speaking as a Jew to Jews. This is a spiritual discourse, not a scientific discussion. Plus, the gospels do not portray Jesus as an omniscient being. What makes you think that he knew everything? According to the gospel, he certainly had no idea what time of year olives ripened...

And I believe in Scripture too, much the same like you. Difference is that I take it far too seriously to take it literally. A metaphorical reading reveals depths that literalists can never imagine.

There are absolutely no grounds in the Bible to calculate the age of the earth. Thank you for finally admitting that you only assume what Jesus believed in! You are entitled to believe in your assumptions, but it is not quite enough to expect that everyone else should accept them too.

After reading the multitude of comments, of which many repeat themselves, "where is the meat". Prattle all you want about the truth of the "Darwinian theory" of evolution, the lies you were told in academy about creation, the holes in "Intelligent Design", and how absurd, in the face of "science", one can believe the first six chapters of Genesis are literal days. The Seventh-day Adventist church settled the issue six years ago. Look it up for yourselves.

As a result of the two international conferences and the seven division conferences, the International Faith & Science Conferences of 2002-2004 of the Organizing Committee to the General Conference Executive Committee made the following affirmations to the office of the General Conference President, September 10, 2004

We affirm the primacy of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of origins.
We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.
We affirm the biblical account of the Fall resulting in death and evil.
We affirm the biblical account of a catastrophic Flood, an act of God's judgment that affected the whole planet, as an important key to understanding earth history.
We affirm that our limited understanding of origins calls for humility and that further exploration into these questions brings us closer to deep and wonderful mysteries.
We affirm the interlocking nature of the doctrine of creation with other Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.
We affirm that in spite of its fallenness nature is a witness to the Creator.
We affirm Seventh-day Adventist scientists in their endeavors to understand the Creator's handiwork through the methodologies of their disciplines.
We affirm Seventh-day Adventist theologians in their efforts to explore and articulate the content of revelation.
We affirm Seventh-day Adventist educators in their pivotal ministry to the children and youth of the church.
We affirm that the mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church identified in Revelation 14:6, 7 includes a call to worship God as Creator of all.

Case closed. Talk all you want about "academic freedom", until the church chooses to change this affirmation (that hasn't happened that I know of) no teacher, kindergarten thru graduate school, has the right to teach other than what the church has affirmed. Believe what they want, but don't teach opposite to what the church body has affirmed. I the teacher can not go against his conscience, let him depart in peace.

Thank you, Cherilyn.

Bill Garber, you got a laugh out of me with that one!

Thank you Todd for your comments on 28 May at 6:33

Jag, it's not my interpretation of the Bible I bring here. It's God interpretation of the Bible. Show me anywhere in the Bible where there can be any room for anything other than a literal creation week. Jesus, the Creator Himself affirmed that from the beginning man was as he is now. Not a blob of slime coming out of a body of water. You don't offend me, you sadden me.

A line in the sand is being drawn. On one side there are those who believe in God, on the other side there are those who believe in man's science. I choose God, not from a scientific point of view, but from a faith point of view. There is no doubt that science can poke hole in the Creation story, in fact there is no science that proves God either. By scientific methods there is not God. Why not admit it Jag, there is no God according to science. You place your faith in science, fine, but take it to the logical conclusion, there is no God. The entire Bible is a fairy tale, Jesus was just a deceived guy, and Christianity is a false religion.

While SDA's are wasting their life trying to reconcile scientific facts with the speculations of goat herders found in Genesis the progressives (Catholics, Anglicans, etc) are trying to hold the intellectual fort against the recent findings that have led some prominent scientists to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a conscious choice or free will. With new technologies such as the fMRI scientists have discovered that they can know which choice a subject will make up to TEN seconds BEFORE the subject's themselves "know" what their choice is.

Try to coherently reconcile THAT science with what is currently taught as Truth from the pulpit. Do I hear "Predestination Theory" in your future?

Additionally, there seems to be a renewed push by some scientists to call BS on christianity's claim that there is any such thing as a "soul". I recently read statements from the Vatican which seemed to draw a line in the sand with 1. The existence of a "soul", and 2. their continued claim that even though evolution is now a proven fact that SOMEWHERE along the line the christian deities put this seemingly nonexistent "soul" into humans.

Humans do not have some magic extra body part that other Great Apes do not have. An early experiment to prove the existence of a "soul" involved weighing a person just before death then quickly weighing the dead body as soon as possible after the "soul" had left. Unfortunately there was no difference in the weights. Also, unfortunately, no "science" since has been able to discover this soul. It seems to be transcendent, outside reality, or, IOW, it looks exactly like you would expect it to appear IF IT DID NOT EXIST.

There is no soul (if anybody has any evidence that there is any such thing as a "soul" please present it). With the recent scientific findings it appears likely that there is also no free will.

Those of you in SDA academia that think you are way ahead of the curve by accepting the fact that the Origin Story found in the Bible is just exactly like EVERY other one of the hundreds of origin stories (you accept that every single OTHER origin story is a laughable ignorant myth yet somehow think you were born, or converted, into the lucky group of superstitious humans that have the only correct ancient origin story) might want to get to work on the real threats to your beliefs by reconciling the science that there is no soul, and there is likely no free will either. Those looming truths seem much more difficult to rationalize away than simply removing the creation story from the "Literal Record of our Literal God's Actions" and filing it away under the new heading of "Metaphorical Record of our maybe-Literal God's Actions".

@Elaine: I think the correct word is "sign". See Exodus 31:13, Ezekial 20:12 and Ezekial 20:20.

Keafan, good post. I think you have hit the nail on the head if I'm hearing you correctly. If we are going to place our faith in science then there are so many more things than Creation that are going to cause people to stumble. Science cannot prove the soul exists, the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven, even the existence of God. Science tells us that all religion is just superstitious fairy tales made up by some star gazing cave dwelling neanderthal just starting to grasp language. The attack on Creation is just the tip of the ice burg.

I am a 23 year old from Croatia, although I live in London, England. I have been following this situation with interest having studied at an Adventist college in the USA.

In life success comes with discipline. This Michigan Conference should be applauded in my view. They have showed the guts to stand up for what they believe in. The whole evolution debate here is not important, but the principles of Adventist leadership.

Adventism might be thriving in places such as Africa, Asia and South America but in the USA and Western world it's becoming a mess, and as someone above wrote the Adventist church is at war with itself.

I personally think the General Conference leaders are horrible and hope there is much changes in the near future. In these times, we need leaders with a unifying vision. Religions, Christianity requires a lot of discipline. Every religion has it's own beliefs and rules which are followed.

In Europe we are told time after time at present how in the USA, Adventism doesn't have discipline. Leaders make decisions based on what makes them happy. In this situation when this first came to attention at La Sierra, all that was needed was a simple statement saying, we apologise, will make corrections that go in line with Adventist beliefs. However the response was stubborn.

Let me give you a similar situation on a smaller scale . . . the bible clearly teaches us, that on the 7th day we must rest, and to get to the point, eating in restaurants is against the rules! However I would say the majority, pastors included in California, find nothing wrong with eating out. It's much more convenient. I don't think Jay Gallimore eats out on the Sabbath and I know Dwight Nelson doesn't either. In Europe it's pretty much unheard of to eat out, and if someone was to do it, they would have it in for themselves. There are same examples with music, what people wear, and just like this evolution thing, it's not a big thing in itself, but small things can make a big difference.

What Adventist needs right now sadly is a communistic sort of leader who will be appointed the head of the Adventist church and say "look these are the beliefs and rules of the Adventist church, they need to be followed" if someone is not happy, they can go form their own hybird adventist organization which allows for rules and beliefs to be twisted suiting themselves.

Quoted from former Satanist: (Notice Item #3 below)

In the 1700's, Satan called a great world council for all his angels and demons to lay out a master plan for the conversion of the world to his side. The purpose was to ready his forces just before the last great controversy between himself and Christ. He told them that his special target was to be America (the only nation that professes to trust in God).

This council was to prepare and train his angels and demons on how they were to work and how to prepare the world's people for the great industrial age and a greater age to follow of great scientific discoveries that would change the w ay everybody would live, which would usher in the last final great controversy between good and evil.

Satan said he would devise ways whereby people will disqualify themselves from being members of Christ's kingdom. This was to be accomplished by:

a) Bringing about a great industrial age,
b) Introduce Christian idolatry, and
c) Deceive people into believing about a coming Glorious New Age.

The plan would involve the following:

1. To deceive people about the existence of Satan and his angels, so they would not believe that they exist.
2. To have total control over the minds of people through hypnotism.
3. To destroy the Bible without burning it through the theory of evolution.
4. Christian idolatry

To read the rest, go to:
http://www.shasta.com/tempest/seventhunders/nogod/nogod1.htm
or read Roger Morneau's book "Trip to the Supernatural"

"Chris Blake raises a straw man with his statements that the cure is worse then the sickness. And like a stray man, his statements cannot stand on their own."

D.Burt -- I'm encouraged to see that someone has the courage and insight to pierce thru the fog of academia and tell it like it is.

And I'm not the least interested whether D. Burt is your real name or an assumed name. Blake's focus on ID is obviously a diversionary tactic and not worthy of consideration since, I suspect, many on this forum operate under an assumed name. To add to that his false claim of being badgered by the undersigned and it becomes very evident why profs in SDA colleges and universities need to be very carefully vetted and accountable for what they teach.

May your tribe increase!

Kathy H.:

Since the original poster said the sabbath was a "seal" I only considered that word.

The "sign" of which you speak was given only to the Israelites, just as circumcision and many other that they were given to be signs between them and God.

There was no sign or seal given to Christians other than the Holy Spirit. Sabbath was never given to Christians for any reason, period.

Someone said up above: "What Adventist needs right now sadly is a communistic sort of leader who will be appointed the head of the Adventist church."

Scary thought! Fortunately, we had someone named Ellen White who 110 years ago warned against "kingly power" on the part of any administrator.

We have ways in our church for dealing with issues such as this. The Pacific Union Conference at the LaSierra Board of Trustees have outlined the plan they intend to pursue. They did this just a couple of days before Michigan took its action (without regard to that statement).

The only authoritative statements in our denomination are those passed by the General Conference in session. The only statement on creation that has been passed by that body is the statement in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. If the church is to get more specific, it must revise that statement. If the church as a whole feels that statement is fine, then we're going to have to live with some ambiguity. There is no room in our polity for any administrator to create additional binding statements, let alone enforce them. There is no room in our polity for individual conferences to create tests for other conferences or their schools that are not imposed by the General Conference.

Elaine so you don't think the Sabbath is for Christians.....So are you actually a SDA? Or just an Adventist?

Richard,

I'm a former SDA of about 65 years. Only by long study did I realize that Adventism claims to be Christian, yet its unique doctrines that differ from all other Christians are derived solely from the Hebrew Bible and none are in the NT, which, IMO, should be the starting place fo all Christians.

1. Sabbath
2. 1844 Investigative Judgment
3. Tithing
4. SOP: extra-biblical authority

None can be supported from the NT.

Paul very carefully and systematically explained the differences; differences that are ignored by Adventist's doctrines. Adventisism is a quasi-Jewish-Christian and neither fish nor fowl, a hybrid that cannot reproduce itself forever.

OK Elaine, I'm proud of you, you had a problem with the church and left it. (Some would call you one of the shaken) You did the honest and ethical thing, unlike the dishonest who are undermining it by teaching non SDA doctrine from within. I wish they would join you. When you realized you were no longer a SDA because you didn't believe in the teachings of the church you left it. I have high respect for what you did. Peace.

Richard, I followed my heart. Being a hypocrite was never my goal; far more important was my integrity, for without that I am worthless.

Richard,

Can you tell us how you recommend for science subjects to be taught in SDA schools? Or do you consider them so much in opposition to the Bible that they shouldn't be taught? It is easy for people who have not studied sciences to trash them entirely (like your comments seem to) if some conclusions from the scientific community don't match with what they believe the Bible says.

In this topic I have not read any of the defenders of the Michigan conference action give a reasonable way of how subjects like origins and geology should BE TAUGHT in science classes in SDA schools. All that I am hearing is demands for how these subjects should NOT BE TAUGHT. At this point I am left to conclude that they have limited scientific knowledge and would just as soon not have these subjects discussed from a scientific perspective. Please confirm this or tell how these subject areas should BE TAUGHT in a way that can be practically implemented.

And there is the rub Elaine. We have these teachers teaching anti-SDA doctrines at a church school getting paid by the church while all the while claiming to be SDA. If they were as honest and upright as you we could be fighting over things like the wedding bands and weather or not women should be wearing pants to church, you know, the important stuff. lol

The fireball from hell lobbed by the President and Executive Committee of the Michigan Conference across the country at the campus of LSU is a disgrace.
How dare they sit in judgment and use the loaded word "apostasy" so glibly?
According to the Master's own instructions in Matthew 18,NO ONE is to speak negatively of another person unless they first speak to them face to face and present their greivance in person. What do the Michigan judgemtalists not understand
about this simple, ethical procedure?
They could have addressed the issues much more relevantly and helpfully if they would have sent a delegation to frist go and speak with the biology teachers in question and with the administration of LSU and then made their decision.

This conference president is the George Bush of Adventism. He took it upon himself to act unilaterally instead of discussing such an important decision with his consituents,
his Union Conference President and the General Conference President. He needs to apologize at once to the teachers, the administration and the students of LSU. He also should seriously consider a career in real estate.

Hopefully we will see some real leadership on this controversy from Don Schnieder and President Paulsen. They need to quickly and clearly rebuke the outrageious inappropriate and unethical behavior of the Michigan presdent and his committee.
A far more serious problem must not be lost sight of in this controversy.
The real issue at stake in this controversy is NOT evolution.
The real issue at stake in Doug Batchelor's recent tirade against the ordination of women pastors was not ordaining women pastors.
The real issue, the real elephant in the church that no body wants to talk about and nobody wants to admit is there is the issue of INSPIRATION of scripture. All this fussing about various issues, policies and doctrines is only a symptom of our not facing squarely and honestly and open-mindly what inspiration is and how it works.
If we do not take on this task, we can expect our church to be
weakened and perhaps even split apart.

Only a few have had the courage to gingerly approach this loaded topic. (Alden Thompson and Chuch Scriven to name two
brave souls) They have spoken their truth on this vital subject. Let's hope that along with Alexander Carpenter and Chris Blake, they have not painted targets on their backs for the brethern in Michigan to direct their ecclesiatical fire at and find an excuse to declare Walla Walla College or Pacific Union College or Union College or Kettering Hospital
as institutions embedded with apostasy also, and not worthy
of denominational support. Once this can of worms, this ecclesiastical McCarthyism begins it is hard to say where it will stop.

Here are a few of my feeble reflections on inspiration to help get the ball rolling on what really needs to be discussed.

Fundamentalists, literalists, fail to understand that the Bible is the love letter, not the marriage. It is the map, not the journey. In his book The Blue Parakeet, Scott McKnight speaks of the importance of regarding the Bible relationally and not authoritivly. “The relational approach distinguishes God from the Bible. God existed before the Bible existed; God exists independently of the Bible now. God is a person; the Bible is paper. God gave us the papered Bible to lead us to love his person.” 5. Ibid. p.87. McKnight suggests that instead of viewing the Bible as an inerrant and authoritative we should see it as a profound guide to personal relationship with God. He says that the psalmist did not say to God, “ ‘your words are authoritative, and I am called to submit to them.’ But rather, “your words are delightful, and I love to do what you ask” The difference between these two approaches is enormous. One of them is a relationship to the Bible; the other is a relationship to God.” 6. Loc cit p.85
The Bible is not a book of science. We abuse if we try to make it so. It was Galileo’s colleague, Cardinal Baronio who attempting to support Galileo during his time of persecution by the church said, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” The Bible is not even primarily a book of history. It is to be read for one main purpose; to enhance one’s relationship with God. It was given to bring us to God consciousness and to love and to salvation.
Fundamentalists forget that all of the Bible’s writers were imperfect human beings. They forget that these men (and yes, all of them were male) wrote primarily for their own people in their own time and in their own language for their own culture. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” wrote the Psalmist. Note however, that the scriptures while helpful are not the path. There is only one Path, the one who said He was “the Way”.(Ps 119:105 KJV) (from the manuscript "The Wind")

Douglas Cooper

Micheal I don't know of anyone who is against the teaching of evolution. In fact I think it should be taught in depth. My son is premed at Andrews and he has been taught it. I have no problem with that. What we Creation defenders have a problem with is when it's taught as truth over the Biblical account as it has been at LSU. Rejection of the Bible ultimately can only lead non belief in God.

Science is a wonderful gift from God. I'm so thankful for all that science has done for us. I'm only against science when it takes the place of God.

Doug Cooper unless you work closely with the executive committee of the Mi Conference you have no idea weather or not they did all those things you say they should have.

And your love letter idea carries no weight. God would not write us a love letter full of lies and deception. If the Bible is false and it's Gods love letter then God is the great deceiver.

Your Friend,

I see that you didn't have much to say to me beyond quoting Nick. (Do you have a source for that?)

Like many people who engage contemporary philosophy and cultural discourse through apologetic lenses, folks like him alternate between caricature and passive aggressively veiled threats about other's responsibilities. All too often, like many here who have failed to actually marshal logic and hard science in their defense of their view of origins, they turn to personal attacks.

What is particularly funny in Nick's quote is that in my graduate work I have presented work on the intersection of faith and American pragmatism. What he writes in that quote shows how little he understands what "postmodern" means beyond some sort of SCARY adjective which when linked with LIBERAL dooms Adventism's children or something. It's hardly the sort of dispassionate grasp that one hopes for in academic dialogue.

But at least he engages on an issue with his name attached. My Little Friend, once again, I notice that you don't even have the confidence of your convictions to put your name where your mouth is.

Richard, I agree that teaching evolution "as truth over the biblical account" should not be done in SDA college classes. This is still a statement of how origins should NOT BE TAUGHT. If you are happy with how it is taught at Andrews, how is it presented there in relation to the creation account in the Bible? Are the strengths and weaknesses presented objectively from a scientific viewpoint for both approaches?

Bill Cork points out:

The only authoritative statements in our denomination are those passed by the General Conference in session. The only statement on creation that has been passed by that body is the statement in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. If the church is to get more specific, it must revise that statement. If the church as a whole feels that statement is fine, then we're going to have to live with some ambiguity. There is no room in our polity for any administrator to create additional binding statements, let alone enforce them. There is no room in our polity for individual conferences to create tests for other conferences or their schools that are not imposed by the General Conference.

Well said. I guess that I am a conservative. : )

As I do join with statements like this one by Pastor Cork in calling for us to conserve our polity and our doctrines as they are currently written.

This just goes to show how far afield the Educate Truth crowd and Michigan conference have gone.

They are the extremists here.

Increasing numbers of very traditionalist and conservative church leaders and laity are not joining their wild calls for divisions in the church and rewriting of church beliefs.

To tell the truth Michael I don't think you can use modern science to explain supernatural events in the Bible. Science cannot explain creation, the flood, the virgin birth, speed of thought travel or the existence of God. I think those that teach in our schools need to always emphasize that while these are the facts as man sees them, they are not facts as the Bible presents them and that the Bible does not teach error.

My son is a man of few words. All he tells me is that while they study evolution in depth it is not presented as fact. Well he does say more than that but I'm not sure how to put that into words.

According to the Master's own instructions in Matthew 18,NO ONE is to speak negatively of another person unless they first speak to them face to face and present their greivance in person. What do the Michigan judgemtalists not understand
about this simple, ethical procedure?

D Cooper

What you seem to not understand is the simple fact that La Sierra is not a person that you can stroll over and talk to face to face. The passage you appeal to for authority in Matthew 18 is completely irrelevant in the situation under discussion.

D Burt apparently doesn't know what a straw man is, Timmy is unaware of the definition of communism, Your Friend thinks the SDA church has a constitution, and Elisa doesn't know what apostasy means...No wonder we've got so many wing nut ideas when people have a difficult time with everyday definitions.

Chris's argument isn't a straw man--it actually is the one that's on track: this article is about MI's response to the LSU situation. And while many of the comments have revolved around if LSU is right or wrong, that's NOT what this post pertains to. One can very well disagree with what LSU is teaching, absolutely agree that academic revision is needed, AND STILL recognize that this action by MI is more divisive than constructive.

One can be against fur and still recognize that people who throw paint on others' coats are wrong.

Timmy, I believe you meant "dictator"--not communist. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are very different terms. All I can say is Praise the Good Lord you're not in church leadership! Here in America, we call what you describe a "cult".

Your Friend, I don't see how personal attacks on Chris help bolster your argument. You claim to be on the side of Christ while exemplifying a tremendously un-Christlike spirit. Sort of like being a member of PETA, supporting their stance on vegetarianism, but you're publicly kicking kittens.

As far as the statement of fundamental beliefs--which is what I think your "constitution" reference was alluding to--quite explicitly states Graeme's assertion that they are "launching pads, temporary consensii, hypotheses for further reflection" in the list's preface:

"Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session [temporary consensii] when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth [for further reflection] or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."

And Elisa (and Richard for that matter) reading the 6th belief on the list shows that there is room for varying interpretation. You have chosen one persepective of interpretation while some other people have chosen another. Though they are different, they both can fall under the umbrella of belief #6. If you feel that belief #6 should be re-written in a way that narrows the definition to only allow your perspective, you have a right to feel that way. But be honest and join the MCEC when they say that they are asking for the wording to be CHANGED. However, you (and MCEC) cannot claim that LSU is "apostate" because, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, belief #6 does indeed provide room for interpretations other than the one you are so passionate about.

"La Sierra is not a person that you can stroll over and talk to face to face."

The president of the conference can talk to the president of the university or the president of the board of trustees. He should have.

D. Fender, I think it's interesting that you use the words "let" and "kids". As I listen to these conversations, it's almost as if I'm at one of my school board meetings for the Academy my church sponsors.

As has been noted before:"Yes, students are "someone's" children, but they are ADULTS."

At some point you DO "let" them choose whether or not they will drink, smoke, or have premarital sex because they have free will. A concept that even God thought so highly of that it was allowed in Eden--although the possible ramifications were quite fully known.

However, a key difference between your examples and the situation at hand is that everything you mentioned was a behavior. Yes, institutions and individuals can regulate what behaviors are allowed in their jurisdictions (on their campus, in your home, at your jobsite, etc). But you can't regulate what people BELIEVE about those behaviors (e.g.: one might not drink on campus, yet still believe the heart benefits of wine outweigh the bad effects). People SHOULD be given (age-appropriate) information about all these things, and be given the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about what they believe and how they'll behave.

The role of education (at least not at the college level) is not to tell you WHAT to think.

In primary school, you learn the "right" answers. By middle school, you should be learning how to think creatively. By high school, you should have skills that allow you to think critically and draw your own conclusions when presented with varying ideas. By college, you really ought to be able to handle the presentation (we're not even talking endorsement) of other worldviews without it totally shattering your world!

I think too many people believe the role of Adventist education is indoctrination...and it's not. Hiding the existence of other thoughts won't do anyone any favors. When insulated people finally do come in contact with different understandings, they haven't built up the skills to understand how to discern and conclude for themselves. They should be exposed to varying ideas (at LEAST the ones that are MAJOR PLAYERS in their area of study) so they are able to ask their questions and wrestle with the answers in an environment that can help them navigate those conclusions.

That's what college is for.

Clearly some people fear that. Why? Which of these do you think is too weak to handle such responsibility: students' faith or their intelligence?

If my memory is correct, in 2003 Goldstein issued the first declaration that individuals who did not agree 100% with his described view of creation should leave the church. This was published in the Adventist Review. Now, we have traveled to the point that individual conferences can pronounce far away institutions as "apostate".

I was sad when I read Goldstein's article in 2003. I am more sad now. Rhetoric and words have more implications that we realize.

I think it's almost ironic that the MCEC claims the reason that "the Michigan Conference Executive Committee has voted the following actions" is because "[the LSU] board of trustees and constituency have collectively been unwilling to rectify this vital spiritual issue" and they cite their source as the April 15 article of the Review. Yet the MOST RECENT issue of the Review boasts the headline and accompanying article: "Board Moving to Resolve La Sierra Evolution Issue".

Maybe the MCEC only reads archived issues...

Richard, I wouldn't expect modern science to explain supernatural events in the Bible but we should be able to say what scientific evidence there is for the flood or for 7 literal creation days ~6000 years ago. Our science students need to have this objectively explained to them to have credibility. And I don't think that those who have doubts about the traditional SDA view should be told to embrace it or be intellectually honest and leave the SDA church.

I think anyone who has been taught the traditional SDA view who delves into this issue scientifically and honestly will see the difficulty of explaining many things this way. Taking an attitude of "showing the door" to those who have doubts on this issue will only drive more people out of the SDA church who otherwise are supportive of the SDA church and its mission. I personally know several SDA college classmates who are no longer in the church because of this issue. They wanted to believe as they had been taught and struggled sincerely before they left. I consider it un-Christian to be unwilling to talk to without judging those who have doubts on this issue. We should be looking at this issue as an opportunity to minister in a loving manner to them. If you ask me if I believe the traditional SDA view I would say that I would like to but am not sure. Fortunately my livelihood and salvation does not require taking a hard stand on this issue. If my membership in the SDA church does require taking a hard stand then I find that sad.

"I see that you didn't have much to say to me beyond quoting Nick. (Do you have a source for that?)"

Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/28nl3vx

Very insightful observation by Nick. And, Carpenter, as you talk about extremists I believe there are thinking persons on this blog would label some of your ideas as extremism. And some would likely label some observations by Chuck Scriven, Cris Blake and Alden Thompson as extreme.

Placing a focus on ID, i.e. stressing ID rather than the message is a weak attempt at discrediting comments. To be a bit transparent, Carpenter, are you willing to tell us how many operate on this blog under an assumed name?

Gallimore and his staff are valiantly attempting to support church doctrine now, *not* a year from now.

I am very proud of the Michigan Conference, and I pray that other conferences will have the courage to follow in their footsteps. SDA's who believe the Spirit of Prophecy need to let LSU know that it's not just a game. It is life and death for students who may be lead astray by the false theories of Evolution. Some may never be able to recover what they have learned at LSU.

This is a good thing. It is way past time that the Adventist church demonstrates spine and a willingness to rebuke Scriptural departure(s).

For instance: If a Roman catholic priest became convinced of the sabbath - and the state of the dead - and that the RCC represents the little horn of Daniel, he has a moral obligation to leave the RCC. That is reasonable.

In the same manner, those who believe that evolution is a viable explanation of origins ought to have the integrity to leave us silly folks (who are naive enough to believe that God actually means what He says) - alone. It is time for them to Marvin K. Mooney. No hard feelings.

There are plenty of liberal churches out there that they could join up with.

Doug Cooper.

Friend, the 18th chapter of Matthew applies to private interpersonal issues. Public doctrinal & teaching issues are not addressed in the Lord’s counsel in Matthew 18. This is also the opinion of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

You will find public errors addressed in 1 Corinthians 5, and Galatians 2, to cite two references.

regards

Richard,

You do not have to look far too see that the creation week story cannot be taken literally - compare the 2 incompatible creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. They come from different authors/traditions. If you take one literally you can't take the other the same way. You can take both metaphorically though.

I am saddened that you draw a line and see everything in black and white, when the reality takes the shape of thousands of shades of grey. It has been mentioned here already, but let me repeat it: the book of nature presents a story that couldn't be further from a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. By denying the story in the book of nature you make God, its author, a liar. Why would God creat a planet-sized lie? Would God expect us to condemn reason and common sense, and take literally a poetic story instead?

There are people who do believe in God and are scientists. And - sadly for you - a vast majority of them are not creationists. Metaphors have a timeless, universal appeal. If there was a God who wanted to reveal the creation story to ancient nomads 3,000 years ago, would that God tell them of common descent, genetics, transitional forms and vestigial organs? Those people could not imagine epochs longer than hundreds - perhaps thousands - of years. How could they be told that our planed had existed for billions of years? Ancient Hebrew did not even have a word for "billion"! But use a few metaphorical stories, and everyone should be happy, except for the literalists - sadly, they can't tell metaphor from reality.

Strange thing is that some people insist on recent creationism and yet at the same time do not accept that the literal reading of the Bible reveals that the Earth is flat, and the whole universe is just designed to merely revolve around it to mark days and seasons.

And remember, scientific methods do not apply to God, therefore no scientist can prove or disprove God. This is the domain of philosophers and theologians. You cannot make me admit something there is no evidence for.

The entire Bible is not a fairy tale. It is a powerful metaphor and a chronicle of our ancestors in faith. Jesus was not a deceived guy. He just wasn't a Christian, and is misunderstood by most Christians, including Adventists, who instead of a religion of Jesus choose a religion ABOUT Jesus. Is Christianity a false religion? I am inclined to honestly admit that a large part of it is.

Timmy,

What you are proposing - an authoritarian Adventist leader would in fact complete the transition of Adventism. It started off as a de-centralised, spiritual movement. Over time it became a mirror image of Roman Catholicism (in the pre-Vatican II guise). Appointing such an Adventis pope would mean that both churches can finally start talks about full ecclesiastical unity! ;-) Needless to say, I would not be interested in such a church that does not support and cherish individual spiritual growth of members of its community.

Dear Jag,

I promised to get back to you after a few days, so here is a friendly response to your post. Do I consider evolutionists to blame for trivial tonsilectomies in the past? Indirectly, yes! I say this because evolutionists developed a lengthy catalog of supposed vestigial organs that were regarded as functionless throwbacks to an evolutionary past. This led to sloppy, lazy science, because it was far easier to brand an organ as vestigial than to undertake the often difficult research to determine that organ's funtion. Yes, the funtion of the tonsils was finally determined, but I fail to see why evolutionists are to thank for this development, as their wrong-headed theory of vestigial organs retarded this discovery by many years. For that matter, creationists should not be thanked for it either. This discovery was made because of the advance of medical science, but it would have been made sooner if the tonsils had not been regarded as vestigial. And sadly, this whole process is repeating itself with non-coding genetic material. For about 30 years, evolutionists have regarded this material as "junk DNA" - a throwback to an evolutionary past. But in recent years, more and more functions are being found for this material. Once again, by branding non-coding DNA as "junk" and as an "evolutionary throwback," evolutionists have discouraged careful research to determine whether it has a function. This has delayed an understanding of the human genome and probably also hindered the discovery of cures for genetic diseases. Tragically, the ideas of evolutionists have encouraged a lack of careful research in these field.

I fail to see how Darwin has any bearing on the development of Gardasil. Please explain. And yes, Dr. Leonard Bailey of Loma Linda Medical Center is regarded as a true pioneer in the treatment of hypoplastic left heart syndrome in infants.
Perhaps you don't remember Baby Fae, but his work with this infant was regarded as pioneer research. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Fae. And Dr. Bailey is a creationist. So is Dr. Ben Carson, the famous surgeon from Johns Hopkins. Lastly, my own father is an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati and a creationist.

Dear Jag,

Here is my further response.

Before you assert that science loves rebels, you ought to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn has demonstrated that science does not love rebels when they challenge an over-arching scientific paradigm. Far from loving such rebels, Kuhn shows that science ignores them, or even tries to silence them by force if they become too vocal. This can produce fear if it leads to a loss of one's livelihood. And comparing Einstein and Darwin is like comparing apples and oranges. Einstein's concepts can be verified beyond the shadow of a doubt because they are based on mathematics. But this is not the case with Darwin's theory. Darwin did verify speciation, natural selection, and micro-evolution in "The Origin of Species." The "Origin" is a scientific classic that contains meticulous research confirming these concepts. Even today, it is worth a read. But Darwin provides vitually no data in the "Origin" to confirm his great extrapolation - macroevolution. That extrapolation was and still is largely based on guesswork. So instead of putting Darwin in the same category as Einstein, I would put him alongside his fellow 19th century comrades: Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. All three of these men - Darwin, Freud, and Marx, made significant discoveries in biology, psychology, and economics, respectively. But all three of them also made huge extrapolations that greatly exceeded the evidence they derived from their data bases.

I accept the usual definition of neo-Darwinism - the attempted synthesis of Darwin's views with genetic concepts discovered by the creatioinist, Gregor Mendel. Specifically, neo-Darwinists regard the interaction of mutations and natural selection as the engine that drives biological evolution. Contrary to what some assert, the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are valid scientific terms. A number of science writers have used them, including Stephen J. Gould. "Micro-evolution" refers to small-scale changes. Creationists assert that micro-evolution occurs within a "baramin" - a created kind (roughly equivalent to a taxonomic "family") (I say "roughly" because taxonomy is not an exact science.) "Macro-evolution" refers to unlimited evolution - i.e., bacteria to Homo sapiens evolution. When mutations occur in micro-organisms, enabling them to infect humans or to resist anti-biotics, this is a clear example of micro-evolution, which is affirmed by all thinking creationists. Given enough time, does Micro-evolution become macro-evolution? This is where creationists/ID theorists differ with Darwinists. There are enormous gaps in the fossil record which challenge the idea of macro-evolution. Darwin recognized this in the 19th century, and it still remains true today, even though a few so-called missing links (actually mosaics) have been discovered. There is also the serious problem of the "Cambrian Explosion" - all modern phyla appear in the Cambrian rock system without any evidence of ancestors in the late Pre-Cambrian. On the genetic level, mutations can lead to the loss of genetic information. They can also scramble it or duplicate it, but it is questionable whether they produce truly new genetic information. However, unless it can be demonstrated that mutations produce huge amounts of new genetic information, evolution must be limited to the micro level.

Perhaps there are those who might find:

"The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll, (W.W. Norton, New York, NY 2006)

to be of more than just a passing interest.

But then, there will be those that it will just infuriate.

Kenneth James

I think that the professors at La Sierra are truly creating needless controversy by insisting on teaching the subject matter in such a way as to cause the controversy to begin with, though I have no problem with teaching it as well just as long as they do not persecute YEC's and make them feel underminded. At the same time, the Michigan Conference's actions are truly deplorable as it does not lead to Church unity at all.

I believe that higher education can do nothing but good if used correctly. To believe that things such as accreditation have damaged Adventist education is a narrow-minded view. Without accreditation, our colleges would be nearly pointless since our degrees would hold much less "thunder" in the real world. Ellen White was a strong believer in higher education as well and certainly would have supported accreditation in my opinion:

"What is the aim and purpose of your life? Are you ambitious for education that you may have a name and a position in the world? Have you thoughts that you dare not express that you may one day stand upon the summit of intellectual greatness; that you may sit in deliberative and legislative councils, and help to enact laws for the nation?

There is nothing wrong in these aspirations. You may every one of you make the mark. You should be content with no average attainments. Aim high, and spare no pains to reach the standard." (E. G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 29.)

-------

As a current YEC who has been a conservative, a liberal, both, and neither (I agree with Professor Blake that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have lost meaning), I believe that discussion should be ENCOURAGED regarding the issue of the legitimacy of creationism and evolutionism. The message the MCSDA sent LSU was that thinking outside of the fundamental beliefs will have no place in Adventism. I get the impression that they would say that we should either follow the fundamental beliefs or shut up and be declared apostate. I disagree with this conduct.

The actions of the MCSDA have undermined efforts for church unity. I don't understand why they took such rash movements. I was following this story as well all these past few months. Maybe I missed something, but didn't LSU resolve to emphasize and affirm creationism? Nonetheless, discussion should be encouraged. To not discuss it or teach it would be to purposefully limit our membership from an area of education that has become so fundamental to the scientific world that a lack of understanding concerning evolution would render our SDA scientists useless and unhireable. I think commonsense should tell us alone that it is painfully obvious that both theories should be taught without an agenda to defame or glorify either view, but rather to present both views as objectively and fairly as possible.

In addition, I would like to question whether Ellen White's statements on the earth's age were truly based on a vision that she had or more so on widely held opinion at her time? I am a firm believer in Ellen White's legitimate prophetic ministry but I also acknowledge that she did not write ONLY about her visions.

-------

To Douglas Gennetten,

I sure do home that our beloved former RMCSDA president makes the choice that Christ would have him make.

------

To the person who inquired about LSU's unique degrees: I do know that LSU offers a philosophy program that can be designed by the student to fit his or her academic needs.

-------

I am a student of AU but am strongly interested in LSU's philosophy program. I feel like in order to be a balanced SDA, that I should experience LSU so I can understand our Church and its thinking in a deep way. I consider LSU indispensable to Adventist higher eduction. We need freedom of thought and LSU has exercised that to an agitatin level for our Church leadership, but I think they did not necessarily cross the line.

While he might be totally off with his suggestion of a communistic leadership approach, Timmy has a point. On a mission trip in South America, I remember attending church there one Sabbath and all the locals were smartly dressed in shirts, dresses etc . . . pretty much all of us wore some crazy coloured shorts and t-shirts. At the time I didn't think much of it but I think it's related to the point Timmy was trying to explain above. If the Bible does in fact make rules and guidelines, and Timmy is right, cooked food should be prepared before sunset friday, and it's also not acceptable to pay someone to work for you and cook Saturday lunch time. That's a Worldly Adventist view. So let's say a certain pastor is a fan of eating out in restaurants, and tells his members it's okay. At what point do we need someone higher up the ranks to come out and say . . . hey, what you are doing is wrong here, you are straying from . . . the whole La Sierra thing, it can't be defended, it's fine to teach evolution as a man made view, HOWEVER La Sierra were teaching it as fact.

Dear Bob,

Thank you for taking time to put your thoughts in writing again!

OK, if you put it this way, then you can say that "evolutionists" are indirectly responsible for unnecessary tonsil removals - although "scientists" would be a more appropriate term.

However, by the same token, I can blame creationists for deaths in the early days of surgery. After all the idea of evolution did not yet then arise, and (possibly based on their literal interpretation of the Bible) they had no idea that there was such thing as microorganisms - some of them nasty.

It is in the nature of science to be self-correcting. Yes, science was partly wrong about some vestigial organs. But wait, was it creationists who corrected the error? Not at all... Unfortunately science is about trial and error. It is imperfect, but it it the best we have. It is a trade-off - it would have been better in some respects if we had not assumed too much about vestigial organs, but if we had discounted evolution altogether we would not have made many other wonderful discoveries.

All I propose is a non-dogmatic approach. Let creationist biologists and doctors work alongside their evolutionist colleagues. Let both grow together until the time is ripe, and then we will see - sooner or later - who was right. Who knows, we may find out that both evolutionists and creationists missed something and that there is a third way!

It's the same in the church. I do not propose we disfellowship based on the crestion/evolution position. There should be a place for everyone.

Are you saying that Darwin or Einstein did not "challenge an over-arching scientific paradigm"? You just need courage and patience. If you are right, the good thing in science is that you can show it experimentally, or else your hypothesis will be falsified. Otherwise - if you can't prove it by experiment - it is not science, it is belief/religion.

I cannot argue with you over macroevolution, because I do not see how you understand such an artificial concept. But since you do not negate speciation (="creation" of new species), then should this not be the same as macroevolution?

There was never "bacteria to Homo Sapiens" evolution. Bacteria still do exist - alongside Homo Sapiens. No sane biologist would make such a claim.

And as for the "Cambrian Explosion", unfortunately it is not a valid argument. It is still liked by some creationists, but not as much as it used to, since it is too easy to demolish. Enough to look it up in Wikipedia. Pre-Cambrian life was soft bodied, therefore it is natural to have far less fossils. Although even then we do have some - and not a single case of a pre-Cambrian Homo Sapiens or even amphibian there! Wonder why?

A though on 'Consistently used pseudonyms are acceptable, but "anonymous" is not.'

I recognize how impossible it is for the moderators to actually know whether a name is a pseudonym or not.

Having said that, this site could do us all a favor by redesigning itself to put the comment ID on the first line, rather after a screen full of comment, so we can all more conveniently exercise our prejudices.

Indeed, it would be even more helpful to have a 'hide' option to let us enhance our reading experience by automatically having the display hide comments by those registered users we individually prefer to read only on purpose, by 'unhiding' them if we see a comment citing them that suggests for the moment we may want to have a look.

Imposing the anonymity of 'Your friend' on this site is for some of us more annoying than Bill Sorensen ever was ... and the solution I've proposed would let us all self moderate more fully in line with our personal prejudices.

There was never "bacteria to Homo Sapiens" evolution. Bacteria still do exist - alongside Homo Sapiens. No sane biologist would make such a claim.
__________________________________________________________
Dear Jag,

This statement puzzles me greatly because all evolutionists assume that bacteria or something similar (prokayotes) were the first life on earth. And it is assumed that over several billion years, all other life forms, including humans, evolved from them. Furthermore, in Darwinian theory, there is no reason why ancestors cannot survive alongside their descendants, provided they have adapted to their own ecological niches. Simply put, if you deny "bacteria to Homo sapiens " evolution, you are not a Darwinist. Please consider the following quote:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator[this reference later regretted by Darwin as he became agnostic] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species," (last paragraph)

I cannot argue with you over macroevolution, because I do not see how you understand such an artificial concept. But since you do not negate speciation (="creation" of new species), then should this not be the same as macroevolution?
___________________________________________________________
Dear Jag,

I don't think you are well acquainted with modern creationism. No knowledgable creationist today believes in the fixity of species, despite the fact that dogmatic Darwinists often represent this as a creationist position. Never assume that you have rightly understood a position by reading what its opposition says. You've got to read the best representatives on both sides of an argument before you make an informed decision about it.

First of All - congrats to the Michigan Conference for being the first conference willing to take a stand that "includes some action" when it comes to the problem of junk-science doctrines on origins being taught in one of our Universities as "the right answer for the doctrine on origins".

Secondly - congrats to the posters here who are arguing in favor of the "birds come from reptiles" mythology - so that none need be confused as to what we are talking about.

Thirdly - thanks to organizations like AToday for publishing the 1994 and 2005 surveys of SDA collegiate science teachers that indicate just how widespread and serious the problem of "belief" in evolutionism is in our universities. This comes as a big surprise to most of the Adventist constituency. The problem is far more widespread than the Kellogg "living temple" issue ever dreamed of being.

Fourth - thanks to those who suggest creative ways to bend the Bible so as to make room for evolutionism - for being willing to put your ideas out in the open so that no one need be confused about the goals and objectives of what Goldstein calls "seventh-day darwinians".

Fifth - thanks to the White Estate for allowing documents like 3SG91 to be available to the public online - where we find that theistic evolution is "the worst form of infidelity".

An of course - thanks to God for Ex 20:8-11 for summarizing the literal 7 day creation week - into legal code -- not merely "poetry".

in Christ,

Bob

Are you saying that Darwin or Einstein did not "challenge an over-arching scientific paradigm"? You just need courage and patience. If you are right, the good thing in science is that you can show it experimentally, or else your hypothesis will be falsified. Otherwise - if you can't prove it by experiment - it is not science, it is belief/religion
__________________________________________________________
Dear Jag,

I suggest you get the classic work by Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" from the library and read it. Science should follow the scientific method, but it doesn't always. Scientists work within a basic world-view that is often assumed without question to be reality. Kuhn points out that new scientific paradigms are accepted, but this often occurs when the opposition dies off and younger people come on the scene who accept the new paradigm. Sometimes it even takes centuries for a new paradigm to be accepted.

Yes, Einstein and Darwin challenged reigning scientific paradigms. Einstein challenged the ideas of one universal reference frame and of a static universe. Darwin challenged the idea of fixity of species. And they won - because the earlier ideas were incorrect. However, in biology, the opposite extreme - macro-evolution - does not have much data to support it either. Could it be that the truth is in the muddled middle?

All I propose is a non-dogmatic approach. Let creationist biologists and doctors work alongside their evolutionist colleagues. Let both grow together until the time is ripe, and then we will see - sooner or later - who was right. Who knows, we may find out that both evolutionists and creationists missed something and that there is a third way!

It's the same in the church. I do not propose we disfellowship based on the crestion/evolution position. There should be a place for everyone.
____________________________________________________________
Dear Jag,

To a large extent, I am in favor of your proposals. I am certainly not in favor of disfellowshiping church members because they believe in evolution - as long as this is a private opinion that they are not forcing on others. And yes, a person can be an evolutionist and a true Christian, although I believe this involves a perceived contradiction in logic that many people cannot accept. So let's let creationists and evolutionists work side by side in research and education, and may the best view win!

However, it does not make sense to have Seventh-day Adventist schools unless they are teaching Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. If the SDA belief in literal creation is mistaken, there needs to be an official doctrinal change. But for a school to represent itself as loyal to the denomination while secretly teaching a concept that is blatantly opposed to the denominational position is underhanded. Even if the denominational view is completely mistaken, this is wrong. Consider the case of Dr. Ervin Taylor. He is a member of the SDA Church and also a theistic evolutionist, but he does not to try to teach his views on an Adventist campus, so he is employed elsewhere. Yes, Dr. Taylor would like to see Adventist views on evolution change, but he has enough class to be up front about this. And although I disagree with his views, I admire him as a person because he is acting in a forthright way.

It's great to see there are some who read this blog who are willing to give Jay Gallimore and his committee the credit they deserve for taking a principled stand on doctrine which is Biblically based.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude what direction Carpenter, Scriven, Blake, et al. would like the church to take. It appears to me their objective is to make over the SDA church in their own image of liberalism. Unfortunately,IMO, they are teaching in SDA institutions. Locally they may influence churches to veer to the left but in the overall scheme of things they have already lost.

Note Robert H. Pierson's last address to the church: "Already, brethren and sisters, there are subtle forces that are beginning to stir. Regrettably there are those in the church who belittle the inspiration of the total Bible, who scorn the first 11 chapters of Genesis, who question the Spirit of Prophecy’s short chronology of the age of the earth, and who subtly and not so subtly attack the Spirit of Prophecy." This is 1978. For the entire address see:
http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pier-final.php

Take courage, true believers, while souls may be lost because of the predominate direction of the Spectrum blog, there are those who will find courage and and will be strengthened as they see predictions fulfilled before their very eyes.
Maranatha

I’ve tried to stay out of these discussions, and I’ll not get directly into this one either; but just one observation about the original post and resulting comments:

Some seem to acknowledge that, as of now, we see through a glass darkly; while others seem so certain about the will and mind of God Himself, and would take the prerogative of separating the goats and sheep themselves.

Jag, sorry I'm so slow in responding, spending the night moving honeybees (wonders of evolution you know lol) leaves little time for getting on the internet, besides the caffeine in my system would have had my thoughts even more convoluted than is normal.

You say that the two accounts of Creation is an indicator that they are metaphorical. So then what about all the other accounts of Creation in the Bible, both OT and NT, where Creation is referred to as being literal? And even Christ referred to it in a literal way when He said man was created male and female. This flies in the face of a slowly involving creature that came up out of the sea.

And as far as the two accounts of Creation. I have read some plausible ways of reconciling them. In any case there is not enough of a problem between the two as to throw them both out with the bath water and say neither one can be valid, especially when you take the rest of the Bible as a whole where a literal Creation is affirmed.

Ultimately it takes a lot of faith to believe in the Bible as a whole, virtually nothing in it can be proved by science. It is not just a love letter from God, it's also a factual account of the world. A love letter would not be full of lies and deception.

To those critics of the actions of the Michigan Conference leadership. I live in Michigan and I too many times have disagreements with them and their actions. But one thing I have found in my dealings with them is that they do not do things in a knee jerk manner like many are suggesting on here. You say they should have done thus and such before taking such a drastic measure. How do any of you know they did not? Unless you had the conference office and phone lines bugged you would have no idea what went into the decision making process than led to this. For all we know they spend countless hours talking to the GC and LSU leadership about this. And if I had to make a guess they did. You may disagree with the actions but that does not mean it was not well thought out and that every effort was made to rectify the situation in other ways.

Jag -

"However, by the same token, I can blame creationists for deaths in the early days of surgery. After all the idea of evolution did not yet then arise, and (possibly based on their literal interpretation of the Bible) they had no idea that there was such thing as microorganisms - some of them nasty."
======================================

If this is your nice way of telling us that you have no clue that Luis Pasteur was not onlyl a scientist but also was informed enough to be an opponent of evolution, or that the major branches of science are all founded by Creationists ... and so in short - you don't really know what you are talking about... then "noted". ;)

Say on...

in Christ,

Bob

Why can't Young Life creationists and Theistic evolutionists work side by side on one campus? Same with those who espouse the historical-grammatical method alongside practitioners of HC or the literary-historical approach (what Dr Webster of LSU labels as the figurative-realistic perspective)?

Joselito, they can work side by side, on a secular campus. But our campuses should reflect the teachings of the Bible and the church who is paying the teachers.

"And it indeed belongs to a narrow mind to have kept oneself within one Porch or Academy. Nor can anyone have selected rightly his own doctrine from all, unless he has first made himself familiar with all." - On the Dignity of Man

One must have all knowledge before passing judgment on contrary belief. La Sierra is teaching the alternate theories, not as truth, but as different knowledge from Creationism. Michigan's hypocrisy entails passing judgment without learning the truth about La Sierra. Let us be generous with our words and actions and maintain dignity in our treatment of others.

Pico, how do you know that the Michigan Conference does not know the truth?

Why do some of you continue to prattle about creation vs evolution or the heinous affront the Michigan Conference Executive Committee (MCEC) executive committee has done to the church and particularly to La Sierra University. It seems like some of you just want to get your name in print. The issue was settled in 2004. Read it for your self. It is on the official Seventh- day Adventist web site. Goggle "An Affirmation of Creation". It is all there in BLACK & WHITE! As a result of the two international conferences and the seven division conferences, the Organizing Committee stipulated their affirmations. The MCEC might some day include Walla Walla University also. Two of the engineer teachers don't accept the "Affirmation". How do I know, the student paper, "The Collegian", the student campus paper published it.

Now for those of you who would argue this was not a decision made at the world General Conference meeting, why was it not challenged or changed at the GC meetings in 2005? And since when did the denomination have to wait five years to make a decision on matters between the five years of the world GC. After, all nine divisions were represented at the two international conferences? Ever hear of the GC spring and fall conference composed of leaders from all divisions? These conference are like the administrative committees of corporations who are empowered by their boards to make decisions between board meetings.

Come on you guys who want to push evolution on the church, read the official affirmation and sit down. MCEC had a right to do what they did. Lets hope more conference will do the same until LSU cleans up its act. I have a LLU class mate in charge of a LLU department who wrote a book full of evolution. The Universtiy told he was not to teach his ideas to the students. OK for LLU, it ought to be the same for LSU.

So many still confuse "truth", "beliefs" (fundamental or not) and doctrine with creedal statements... and the traditional Adventist position regarding their use as tests of fellowship/employment, etc.

I was born into, was taught, and hope to instill in my children (and, if they should choose to attend an Adventist college or University, I hope will be educated with) a grace-filled, inclusive, generous, progressive truth -- which will, after all is said and done, hopefully lead to Him who is the (only) Truth.

Mr. Sherwin,
The La Sierra response offering the members of the MCEC a chance to visit and obtain first hand experience implies that these administrators have not personally visited the campus, thereby implying that the decision has been made based upon second-hand (or more distant) information. I recognize the danger of my assumptions and hope that the implications I have read herein are not falsely based.

Posted by: BobRyan

>>> the major branches of science are all founded by Creationists

True enough, I suppose. The major branches of science were all founded by pagans who believed in a wide range of weird creation myths.

/Bevin

Pico I'm not sure it matters if or if not the executive committee actually went out to LSU. There is enough evidence to come to the conclusion they did without a visit. And this is something that has been a concern within the Mi. Conference for some time. I have no doubt they based their decision on solid investigating and facts. LSU has never even denied, that I know of, that they teach evolution as factual. I don't think there are many, if any, on these board who deny that LSU is doing this. The argument is that what they are doing is fine and that the Bible is in error, and Christ is in error. (In so many words).

Why can't Young Life creationists and Theistic evolutionists work side by side on one campus? Same with those who espouse the historical-grammatical method alongside practitioners of HC or the literary-historical approach (what Dr Webster of LSU labels as the figurative-realistic perspective)?
_____________________________________________________________
Dear Joselito,

Peace and harmony always sound attractive at first, but at what cost? Should "Adventist Education" just be an empty label that is devoid of meaning, or should it really stand for something? If we take the position that "anything goes" in an Adventist University, then why not attend a public university instead? It sure is a lot cheaper!

Perhaps the situation would not be quite so bad if it were widely known that certain Adventist schools are promoting theistic evolution, because that way, parents and students could make enlightened decisions. However, the perception among prospective students, their parents, and the general public is that Adventist higher education is staunchly creationist. And with good reason, because the SDA Church continues to affirm the creationist position. But when certain Adventist educators teach something very different, the perception is that Adventist speak with a forked tongue, and integrity is compromised.

Bob Helm writes

>>> However, the perception among prospective students, their parents, and the general public is that Adventist higher education is staunchly creationist.

It is?

What survey of the perceptions of these groups can you cite to back this claim?

/Bevin

Bevin when you go to a store and buy a box of Little Debbies it's a given that the perception will be that what is inside the box is in fact a Little Debbies. When we buy our children an Adventist education there is the given perception that what is inside the walls of the school is in fact an Adventist education.

To Larry Hawkins--"An Affirmation of Creation" did not settle anything. It is not a statement adopted by the General Conference in session. It is merely a "report" of the Organizing Committee of The International Faith & Science Conferences 2002-2004 to the General Conference Executive Committee. Don't make of it any more than it purports to be.

The more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to suspect that the action of the Michigan Conference was a political move intended to raise the temperature of the discussion in the hopes that the subject might be brought to the floor of the Atlanta session, with the hope that something like the "Affirmation of Creation" might be voted on by the delegates--or that the recommendations of that document might be acted on at last, including the one that reads: "In order to address what some interpret as a lack of clarity in Fundamental Belief #6 the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Genesis narrative be affirmed more explicitly." Personally, I'd like to see that happen. But the conversation needs to proceed in charity and with openness and transparency.

Dear Bevin,

I was unaware that a survey was needed to support my assertion. From their inception, Adventists have believed that God called their movement into existence at the very time Darwinism was rising to combat that rise and to call people back to the worship of the Creator. As a matter of fact, the end of the first angel's message (Rev 14:7 NIV) alludes to the 4th commandment in its call to the world's people to worship the Creator: "Worship Him Who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

At Andrews University, Genesis 1:1 is engraved in the cement in front of the science complex, and the biology hall is named Price Hall - after the well-known creationist crusader of the early 20th century - George McCready Price. That fact alone speaks volumns.

The real tough questions those supporting the teaching of evolution will not answer. Is the Bible being deceptive when it states the earth was made in 6 literal days? Jesus was a Creationist, was He lying? Are the teachings of man more to be believed than the teachings of God as outlined in the Bible? Do our teachers have the right to undermine the teachings of the Bible and the church that employs them? These are some of the simple questions I'd like to see answered by those at LSU who support the teaching of evolution as fact.

Richard,

When I buy my children an Adventist science education, I hope it is not a pseudo-science as determined by a board (local, conference or worldwide) of theologians (seminary-trained, 3-month course or anything in between : )

Galileo can testify to the painful consequences of such a combination.

" (Rev 14:7 NIV) alludes to the 4th commandment in its call to the world's people to worship the Creator: "Worship Him Who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

Isn't it strange that before Adventists read that verse with their particular perspectives that no one had ever thought that it was referring to sabbath?

It is a call to worship the Creator and nothing more. How does the 4th commandment appear? It is not just an allusion, but a delusion and an illusion.

So Neville you are fine with your Children being taught that Jesus was wrong when He supported Creationism?

Richard,

Do you believe that students of the sciences should be graduated from our universities having had no experience with the theories of evolution? Do you believe that education (in any topic) should be withheld because it disagrees with a religious credo? Do you believe that there should be no mention of abortion because our faith does not agree with the action? Should our higher education institutions not be concerned with preparing students for interaction in the world? I am trying to gauge what your opinion is on competitive standards in education?

Richard,

I do not think anyone is teaching that Jesus was wrong. There is a broad continuum of thoughts on evolution and creation with respect to science and theology. I'd prefer, actually insist, my children be exposed to the best and latest thoughts on these subjects, and all other courses of study.

I believe the Adventist/Christian tent can be larger, not smaller. I believe (a huge assumption, since I do not have exclusive, inside information) Jesus would agree.

Isn't it strange that before Adventists read that verse with their particular perspectives that no one had ever thought that it was referring to sabbath?
__________________________________________________________
Elaine - I'm not sure what all the commentators say, but the wording is taken from the fouth commandment. "For in six days, the LORD made the heaven, the earth, the sea . . ." (Ex 20:11)
"Worship Him Who made the heaven, the earth, the sea ..." (Rev 14:7)

Is it referring outright to the Sabbath? No, but the wording constitutes an allusion to the Sabbath commandment. There's no getting around that.

However, while this is interesting, it was not the main point of my post.

I'd prefer, actually insist, my children be exposed to the best and latest thoughts on these subjects, and all other courses of study.
___________________________________________________________
Exposure is one thing, but dogmatic teaching is another. Adventist higher education has traditionally presented the pros and cons of both creationism and Darwinism to students. This seems like a broader approach than merely instilling dogmatic Darwinism into the minds of students.

In spite of all the heat generated, I am not convinced that anyone has been "instilling dogmatic Darwinism".

Bob,

Also, I'm not exactly clear on the definition of "dogmatic Darwinism". Is that like the Physics department teaching "dogmatic Einsteinism" (relativity), and the Business School teaching "dogmatic capitalism"--concepts that may have various theological implications?

Pico as I've stated on here before I think evolution should be studied in depth. Science is a wonderful gift from God. (My son is a premed student who I hope goes to LLU) No subject should be taboo in any of our schools. I think our students should be taught about abortion, different religions, different life styles etc. BUT our students should never be taught that the Bible is wrong.

Neville, Jesus supported Creationism. (Mark 10:6-8) When a teacher says that Creationism is not the correct origin of man he is really saying that God and Jesus are wrong. Of course they will beat around the bush and not say it quite like that, they will sugar coat their words or try to say there is theistic evolution but the end results are the same as coming right out and saying God is wrong, man is right.

I too want my child exposed to the newest and best that science has to offer.

The SDA tent should be huge, but no larger than the Biblical truths the church is based on.

Dear Neville,

Actually, when I spoke of "dogmatic Darwinism," I was borrowing a term that is used by the Discovery Institute. When Darwinism is taught as the only option for understanding origins, that constitutes dogmatism, because there are other possible options.

I would hope that capitalism would not be taught dogmatically either, as there are a number of options for constructing economies. Personally, I believe that compassionate capitalism is the best economic system, but it is far from perfect, and other economic systems need to be considered.

Relativity is another matter entirely, as it is based on mathematics. There is a clear difference between hard sciences and soft ones (again, Im borrowing terminology - this time from physicists). Math is either right or wrong. It does not involve guess work.

Richard,

I'm glad we agree the SDA tent should be huge. Now, if you'd just agree with me who should be in and who should be out, and who the sheep and the goats are, there'd be perfect harmony in paradise : )

Reminds me of my pastor's "theory of the cascading remnant": both of us sit down to decide who is in and who is out, and in the process we decide: "It's just me and you---and I'm not so sure about you.!"

Bob,

My point exactly: Who is going to send "spies" to video tape the Physics, Mathematics and Business classes, collect syllabi and lecture notes to police for SDA orthodoxy? What if the Minnesota or Iowa conference had an objection to any of the above? Who determines which classes and professors meet the "SDA standard"?

Quoted from a previous article found at : http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/07/adventist_theological_so...

"Michael Campbell presented a "Historical Overview of Adventist Views on Creation Science (1844-1948)." This paper reviewed the writings of early Adventist leaders; leaders, who mostly expounded a literal 7 day creation story of the "entire" universe 6000 years ago. However, it was interesting to later learn a seven day literal creation of the "entire" universe and planet earth, 6000 years ago, is not generally taught at Andrews University Theological Seminary or believed by many ATS members or supported by several of Ellen White statements.

Creation day one in Genesis 1:1-5 does not give the age of the universe or planet earth. There could be a considerable "time gap” between the creation of the universe and planet earth – which was an empty desolate wasteland (tohu and bohu) - on the first day of creation and the six following creation days needed to create an appropriate ecosystem for plant life, human life and the Sabbath, believed by literal Genesis creationists, to occur thousands of years ago in six literal days.

It would go a long way if the Adventist global church conceded this time gap. Such a concession would also parallel Edwin Hubble's “red shift” discovery and now the Hubble Space telescope observations that the universe is expanding and galaxies and pre-biotic earth are more than 6,000 years old and probably millions if not billions of years old."

What say you about this? How about the Andrews remark?

>>> When we buy our children an Adventist education there is the given perception that what is inside the walls of the school is in fact an Adventist education.

>>> From their inception, Adventists have believed that God called their movement into existence at the very time Darwinism was rising to combat that rise and to call people back to the worship of the Creator.

>>> BUT our students should never be taught that the Bible is wrong.

Here-in lies the difficult that Richard Sherwin, Bob Helm, Sean Pitman, etc. all can't get over. They think that their literal interpretation is THE ONLY VALID interpretation and the rest "aren't Adventist".

Their literal interpretation approach has not been the only valid SDA approach since at least 1975 when I joined the SDA church.

>>> When we buy our children an Adventist education there is the given perception that what is inside the walls of the school is in fact an Adventist education.

and indeed it IS an Adventist education, correctly exposing the students to the wide range of ideas held by SDA members.

>>> From their inception, Adventists have believed that God called their movement into existence at the very time Darwinism was rising to combat that rise and to call people back to the worship of the Creator.

While there are a smattering of such ideas in the early literature, the TRUTH is that the creation evolution debate was not a significant one until the continental drift theory really began to gain momentum in the 1960's, and it wasn't until the 1980's that the lies of the creation science movement had become truly and blatantly exposed by the rapidly rising tide of evidence for evolution.

In the 1980's and 1990's, nobody cared about evolution in the SDA church - the ignorant members believed in a 6000 year old, Genesis Flood geology, earth. The scientifically literate was sure this was wrong. And they worshiped together in peace because neither side seriously pushed their views in the pulpit or in the publications.

It was not until early 2000-2001 that Clifford Goldstein's anti-evolutionist witch hunt began in the Sabbath School lessons and the Adventist Review. At that time, well over 50% of all NAD SDA teachers thought that evolution provided a much more plausible explanation of the history of life on Earth.

>>> BUT our students should never be taught that the Bible is wrong.

and they are not being taught that today either. They are being taught that simplistic literal interpretations have serious problems and that there are other valid approaches to understanding the material.

/Bevin

SDA tent is huge one? Isn't there a statement about "narrow is the way?" No huge tent there.