La Sierra University Professors Promoting Evolutionism as the Only Empirically-rational Scientific
Conclusion on Origins


Dr. Sean Pitman

Click to go to our Home Page





Dr. Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D.

Loma Linda University School of Medicine, 1993 - 1997
Major, United States Army, active duty 1997 - 2001
Residency: Pathology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, 2001 - 2005
Fellowship: Hematology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 2005 - 2006



Re: La Sierra College --


Response to statements:

From Educate Truth website:

Back to Square One…

October 10, 2011 13 Comments

By Sean Pitman

The recently published Adventist Review article on the proposal of six LSU
science professors regarding the teaching of origins is very disturbing to me,
especially where the leaders of our church seem to happily accept the proposal
of the LSU professors to continue to do what they've been doing all along –
teaching mainstream evolutionism as the only valid "science" or
empirically-based position on origins while biblical creationism is defined for
their students as a "faith-only" position without any meaningful or rational
backing by science or empirical evidence of any kind.

The LSU science professors who signed the document, especially Professors
Grismer and Greer, are the very same ones who have been the most ardent in
promoting mainstream evolutionary theories as the true story of origins while
telling their students that the Biblical account is hopelessly out of touch with
reality – at least without the input of enormous amounts of incredibly blind
faith. Greer and Grismer, in particular, certainly don't believe in a literal
six day creation week during which all life was created on this planet just a
few thousand years ago nor do they believe in a worldwide Noachian-style Flood.

They've taught their students and have made many public statements that the only empirically-rational interpretation of the currently available evidence
overwhelmingly favors the mainstream evolutionary model of origins. They've
explained, over and over again, that the Biblical model simply isn't rationally
tenable from their own perspectives and that they personally do not and cannot
support such a model in their own classrooms. Clearly then, such professors
would be more than happy to sign a document that claims that the Biblical
perspective on origins has absolutely no meaningful support from science or
empirical evidence and is, rather, completely within the realm of
empirically-blind faith and historical Adventist tradition.

Why then are Elders Dan Jackson, Richardo Graham, and Larry Blackmer,
high-ranking leaders within our Seventh-day Adventist Church, so excited about
this proposal for LSU science professors to keep doing what they've always been doing? – promoting evolutionism as the only empirically-rational scientific
conclusion on origins while Biblical creationism is presented as being
completely out of touch with empirical reality? a faith-only relic of Adventism
and outdated Christianity in general? Do they not realize that faith is
meaningless without at least some support from empirical evidence? that even
scientific conclusions, theories, and notions of reality are based on leaps of
faith to one degree or another? that modern evolutionary `science' is no less
faith-based than is Biblical creationism? that the greater the available
evidence the greater the faith? Did the faith of Jesus' disciples increased or
decrease after empirical evidence was given to them of the Resurrection?

Therefore, for our church leaders to go along with the notion that the Biblical
account of origins has no basis in rational empirical evidence that goes beyond
empirically-blind faith is a huge step backward in the church's understanding of
faith and its relationship to evidence. Is this the message that we really want
to give to our young people? that there is no rational or otherwise substantive
empirically-based reason to believe the Genesis account of origins? that the
Genesis account of origins must be taken on blind faith alone in the face of
otherwise overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary? Or, is this more
about politics within the church than it is about upholding the supposedly
"fundamental" positions of the church as something incredibly valuable to
present to the world as a basis of a solid hope in the Gospel message?

Back to square one we go…

Sean Pitman