In 2010 Sergio Silva published an interesting article in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society entitled, “Development of the Fundamental Beliefs Statement with Particular Reference to the Fundamental Belief #6: Creation.” In this article Silva explains the process of how the current wording of Fundamental Belief #6 of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, our statement of belief on creation, came to be.

In reviewing this topic also consider reading:

A New Statement of Fundamental Beliefs by Lawrence Geraty

Uncovering the Origins of the Statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs by Fritz Guy

Preserve the Landmarks, a summary, by EdTruth Staff

According to Silva, when the language for our fundamental beliefs was first being discussed in 1980, a committee (X–1535) was tasked with proposing the wording for FB#6.  Their original proposal read as follows:

That the book of Genesis contains the only inspired, reliable chronicle of the Creation of the world, and that God [the Father], with Christ and the Holy Spirit, is the Creator of all things.  In six literal days the Lord made heaven and the earth and all living things upon it with their supporting environment.  The Lord then established the seventh day as the Sabbath, a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.  Man was originally created in the image of God, but his fall into sin in response to Satan’s temptation in the Garden of Eden resulted in the progressive defacement of that image.  It also led to marring God’s handiwork in Creation and to the worldwide flood in the days of Noah.  Through Christ, God will eradicate sin and its results from the universe and at the close of human history restore the pristine perfection of His Creation in a new heavens and a new earth.

This recommended wording was received by the “committee of twelve” for final review. Dr. Lawrence Geraty was a member of this committee as was Dr. Fritz Guy who served as secretary. According to Guy, the language originally submitted to the committee was felt to be too specific and narrow.  So, as Guy remembers, Geraty produced the first draft of a completely new statement on Creation (Link) and, after editing by the committee and others, it read as follows:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity.  In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.  Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.  The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it.  When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.

According to Guy, this rewrite was felt to be necessary to be more inclusive – as he explains below:

The only ‘official position’ of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is stated in Fundamental Belief #6, where the language is deliberately Biblical, and broad enough to accommodate various views about Earth’s natural history.

In other words, as Silva explains, “This means that Fundamental Belief #6, as it reads today, can be used to support any approach to the biblical account of Creation, including progressive Creationism, theistic evolution, etc.”  This is important to note since both Drs. Guy and Geraty refer to themselves as “progressive” in regard to their Adventist faith.  In short,  Dr. Guy is an open and unabashed theistic evolutionist who believes that life has existed and evolved on this planet for hundreds of millions of years (see Understanding Genesis, p. 53). Consider, for example, comments he wrote in his 2009 article, Realities for Adventist Theology in the 21st Century:

At the present time there seems to be no good reason to doubt the gradual development and increasing complexity of life over an extended period of time. The fact that this recognition complicates our theology hardly justifies discounting the overwhelming empirical evidence… [We need to start] incorporating into Adventist thinking the idea of a gradually increasing complexity of living organisms over a long period of time as an alternative to the traditional paradigm of a six-day creation less than ten thousand years ago. We need to move beyond a jig-saw-puzzle model of theology, which involves the idea of an interlocking set of convictions such that significantly changing one part destroys the whole. If that were the case, the whole would be completely dependent on each of its parts; and the credibility of Adventism as a whole would be hostage to a short history of life on planet Earth. (pages 8 & 9)

Dr. Geraty, on the other hand, is a bit more guarded in his public statements on creation, but also seems to be quite supportive of theistic ideas or at least those who are trying to promote such ideas.  Consider, for example, Dr. Geraty’s praise for the conversion of former General Conference Vice President Richard Hammill to “progressive” Adventism after his rejection of the literal creation week (Link) (It is also interesting to note that Richard Hammill happened to be the chairman of the Editorial Committee responsible for framing the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs in 1980). Such comments are very hard to overlook despite the occasional lip service that Dr. Geraty occasionally pays to the “fundamentalist” Adventist position on a literal creation week (see Link).

In this regard Dr. Geraty’s comments published in Spectrum in 2010 are most telling:

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

Dr. Geraty has also personally challenged the world-wide nature of the Noachian Flood, arguing that the author(s) of Genesis are most likely talking about a local flood.  In the book, Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives Dr. Geraty wrote:

“Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author.  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.”

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the historical position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records.  In short, what Dr. Geraty does here is fling the door wide open for the mainstream interpretation of the fossil record as representing millions of years of life existing and evolving on this planet.  How he can then claim, before certain audiences, to be opposed to theistic evolutionism and actually supportive of literal six-day creationism is difficult to understand if not downright deceptive.  His mixed messages, depending upon his audience at the time, seem to me to be politically driven rather than a matter of true personal conviction (see the following Link for further discussion of Dr. Geraty’s views on creation).

It is also interesting to note, in this context, that both Drs. Guy and Geraty were presidents of La Sierra University and brought in science, and even religion, professors to teach there who also happen to reflect their own “progressive” views on Earth’s history.

In any case, when originally brought to a discussion on the floor of the General Conference Session of 1980, Ariel Roth expressed his concerns with the wording of FB#6 proposed by the “committee of twelve”, suggesting the need to include thoughts from the Spirit of Prophecy.  E. J. Humphrey, who inquired about the possibility of including the words “six literal days,” which would clearly distinguish Seventh-day Adventists from many other denominations.  In support of the latter, John V. Stevens stressed that one of the purposes for rewriting the fundamental beliefs and including a statement on Creation was to make what Seventh-day Adventists believe “more easily understood by those not of our faith”; thus, adding the words “six literal days” to that statement “would certainly let the world know what we believe.”

Despite these suggestions from the floor, the statement created by Dr. Geraty was voted upon and became the official statement of the SDA Church on creation.  And, this more open statement has born fruit, to include the current situation at La Sierra University where long ages for life existing and evolving on this planet are taught as the true story of origins to our own sons and daughters.  As David Asscherick originally observed in his now infamous letter to church leadership:

It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University. This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities.” He continued, “But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. (read more…)

The situation at LSU, and some of our other schools to a lesser degree, remains essentially unchanged since Asscherick’s letter was written (April, 2009).  Despite the heated nature of the controversy, most of the professors of science, and even of religion, at LSU continue to support and promote within their classrooms modern evolutionary theories of life existing and evolving on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over hundreds of millions of years.

However, some good has come from this discussion.  At the very least the membership of the church at large are more aware of what is taking place in our own schools and what is being taught as truth to our sons and daughters who are being sent, at great expense and sacrifice, to supposedly “SDA” schools that advertise true “Adventist” education.  Also, it was most encouraging to see Ted Wilson, our new General Conference President, propose an effort to reword FB#6.

Certainly unexpected by many was the motion brought to the floor by Dr. Ted N. C. Wilson, the newly elected president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. On the one hand, Wilson’s motion was in part a response to various requests to clarify the Fundamental Belief #6 as requested by some voices in the International Faith & Science Conferences (2004), the Faith and Science Council, the Michigan and Northern California Conferences. On the other hand, his motion reflected his comprehensive vision for the church’s mission and his life of service to the church.

Wilson’s motion included a request to approve the statement “A Reaffirmation of Creation,” which more clearly stated the Adventist understanding regarding origins, based on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11. In addition, his motion included a request that the General Conference Administration initiate the process of integration of Fundamental Belief #6 and the statement “A Reaffirmation of Creation.” The motion was enthusiastically carried and strongly supported.

In summary, it is not an overstatement to say that Wilson’s motion voted on the floor of the General Conference in Atlanta, GA on June 30, 2010 is a remarkable development to be remembered in Seventh-day Adventist history as part of the great leap forward, leading us to a new reformation.

Read More…

By Sean Pitman

Ervin Taylor

Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. He is also a long-time supporter, executive publisher, and contributor to the “progressive” journal Adventist Today and is a fair representative of the face of “progressive” Adventism in general. As an ardent progressive Adventist, he has been a fairly active antagonist against some of the historic pillars of Adventism to include the efforts of this website to support and promote the stated goals and ideals of the Adventist church as an organization within our own schools – especially regarding the church’s position on origins.

It has never been a secret that Dr. Taylor is adamantly opposed to the Church’s position on a literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago, promoting instead the mainstream evolutionary view of the origin of life over billions of years on this planet, or that he openly questions many of the other “fundamental” doctrinal positions of the Adventist Church.  At one of his lectures a few years back he was asked what he would tell his own granddaughter if she were to ask him for evidence of God’s existence, to which he replied, “I don’t know.”  Just yesterday he essentially repeated this very same agnostic perspective in one of his comments within this forum:

I have always been attracted to the position of Christian agnosticism. (Many, many years ago, at PUC I gave a talk with that title, as I recall, during a week of spiritual emphasis.) (Link)

What does it mean to be a “Christian agnostic”?  or an “Adventist in good and regular standing” when one believes in very few of the “fundamental” goals and ideals of the organized church?  And, perhaps more importantly, why would our own Adventists leadership invite a “Christian Agnostic” to come and regularly lecture our own young people, at schools like PUC and LSU, on the virtues of agnosticism?  to promote Christian ethics without promoting the promise and sold hope of Christ?  and the future reality of our world made new as it was originally intended to be (without the use of the evils of pain and death employed by natural selection or the ‘survival of the fittest’)?

Of course, when presented with specific questions regarding his various beliefs that directly undermine the fundamental positions of the church, Dr. Taylor, and others like him, argue that they believe in the “family model” of Adventism whereby one need not believe in or support the doctrinal positions of the church in order to be considered a good member or even an official representative of the church.  Evidently, one does not even need to be all to sure as to the evidence supporting God’s very existence to be a good “Adventist”.

Yet, when pressed, Dr. Taylor says, perhaps for political reasons in certain settings, that he does actually believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, born into this world from a virgin woman and raised from the dead after three days to ascend to heaven to intercede for us with the Father.  It seems strange to me, therefore, that Dr. Taylor and those like him seem so eager to accept the fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible when it comes to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but reject much of the rest of what the Bible claims regarding historical realities which seem to disagree with their own understanding of mainstream science.  How is the Bible remotely credible on the one hand while being so far off base on the other?

Dr. Taylor suggests that those who actually believe all of what the Bible claims about historical realities are living in Alice’s Wonderland.

If a belief in the what the Bible says about about the origin of life on this planet is like living in Alice’s Wonderland, then so is a belief in the far more fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible regarding the origin of Jesus, born of God the Father to a virgin woman, raised from the dead after three days, and taken to Heaven to commence with the rest of the Plan of Salvation for those who claim to believe in such fairytale nonsense! – like Dr. Taylor!

Why do those like Dr. Taylor claim to live within one Wonderland, full of irrational baseless nonsense, but laugh at those who accept all of what the Wonderland Book has to say about the place?

I suggest that such individuals, as brilliant as they think they are, aren’t being consistent with themselves. They’re trying to fit within two “incommensurate worlds”. It simply doesn’t work… Mr. Hatter.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come… But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

2 Peter 3:3-6; Isaiah 5:21; Proverbs 26:5; 1 Cor. 1:18

By Sean Pitman

Transparency

Many, by now, have heard of the recent resignation of three faculty and one board trustee from La Sierra University (LSU) over the public release of a recording of a private conversation.  On April 20th, a board trustee, Lenny Darnell, turned on the record function of his cell phone in a private town hall-style meeting attended by more than 100 select LSU faculty and staff and two representatives from the General Conference, Elders Dan Jackson, President of the North American Division, and Larry Blackmer, Education Director of the North American Division.

The purpose of the town hall meeting, apparently, was to address the two year struggle over the evolution controversy that has been raging at LSU.  Reportedly, Darnell “wanted to be sure that he could recall all that transpired,” so he recorded the meeting.  The next day Darnell sent copies of his recording to several people including at least one LSU faculty member and Spectrum Magazine. What prompted Darnell to pass on the recording of a private meeting? Perhaps he thought there was something said at the meeting that would favor the efforts of some to turn LSU into a “progressive” Adventist institution rather than have it end up as some kind of “Bible college”?  However, no one, except Darnell, really knows. And Darnell isn’t talking.

Not surprisingly in this internet age, the recording ended up being posted online for a time before being suddenly pulled (It has since showed up on numerous “torrent” sites).  During this time the recording made its way to the office of the North American Division. A transcript was made of the recording and subsequently passed on to Ricardo Graham, LSU Board Chairman.

Unaccountably, Darnell failed to turn off the recording function on his phone at the end of the town hall meeting.  While his phone continued recording, Darnell drove to a friend’s house where he met up with Jeff Kaatz, LSU Vice President of Development, Jim Beach, LSU Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Gary Bradley, LSU biology professor.  While watching the Los Angeles Lakers play the Denver Nuggets in an NBA basketball playoff game, the four men discussed that day’s town hall meeting. While occasionally using some rather colorful language, they expressed less than flattering evaluations of church leaders (including Blackmer and Jackson), board members, and others.

According to a Spectrum article, “Ricardo Graham received the tape and the transcription from Blackmer on June 1. Graham contacted University President Randal Wisbey on Thursday, June 9, and requested meetings with the three employees of the University on Friday, June 10, in Wisbey’s office. In separate meetings with each of the individuals, transcripts of the tape were shared. They were then given the option of signing a letter of resignation or having the material shared with the entire Board of Trustees. All signed letters of resignation.”  However, only Dr. Bradley lost his teaching job and Mr. Darnell his position on the school board.  The two other men lost their administrative positions but retain their tenured jobs at LSU.

Some who have listened to the private conversation have wondered why all four men resigned from any position over what appears to many to be a relatively harmless private conversation?  Sure, there were some inappropriate comments and even a little alcohol consumption, but, really, what’s the big deal? right?  After all, the conversation was largely one expressing frustration over the evolution/creation controversy and what could be done to release LSU from the constraints of church oversight, especially the Adventist Accrediting Agency (AAA).  They argued against the required promotion of the faith positions of the church in science classes that, from their perspective, undermine the obvious discoveries of mainstream science and overwhelming empirical evidence on the topic of origins.

Frankly, I tend to sympathize with these men to a certain degree.  After all, neither LSU nor the church had asked them to substantively change what they were teaching since the controversy erupted. The problem is that the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council had asked all professors in Adventist schools to also present a rigorous defense of the Adventist perspective on origins in all classrooms:

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

It is this official guidance of the church, as an organization, that has not taken place at LSU for several decades now. For example, consider that Dr. Bradley, in an interview with the secular journal Inside Higher Education, made several very honest statements regarding his personal position on the topic of origins and how he intended to continue to teach his students:

“Bradley, who is semi-retired after 38 years at La Sierra, has seen evolution debates erupt on campus before — and his traditional response is to “dive under the desk and wait for them to blow over.” In this instance, Bradley says he has the backing of his president, who wrote a letter to faculty, staff and trustees affirming the university’s role in the “important conversation of science and faith.”

Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.

“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is [b_s_],” he said.

“It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,” Bradley added. “That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.” In the Capstone Biology class for 2009, Bradley gave a 69-slide presentation entitled, “Hominin Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.”

Clearly Dr. Bradley never intended to follow the educational guidelines of the church, past or present.  Beyond this, several other science and even religion professors at LSU have voiced support for Bradley’s position and intention. Somewhat surprisingly then (in light of past inaction) the AAA, in response to the current controversy, did not fully renew LSU’s accreditation, but granted a probationary period of one year for LSU to improve its promotion of the church’s position on origins in science classrooms.

What seems a bit strange to me, however, is that Bradley wasn’t asked to resign until he uttered, in a private conversation, a few negative comments about particular individuals in the church’s hierarchy.  It seems almost like the church leadership is more concerned over private comments against individuals than public comments and public actions that directly undermine the church’s “fundamental” positions and policies.

A few questions come to mind at this point: Why were church officials sent to apologize to LSU for the efforts of, for example, David Asscherick? Should not the situation that prompted Asscherick’s widely circulated letter have been addressed by LSU many years before? Why did Elder Jackson state, during the town hall meeting, that David Asscherick and the leadership of the Michigan Conference should be officially reprimanded by the church? – for trying to uphold the fundamental goals and ideals of the church within our own universities?  Has the Adventist world turned upside down?

If the church claims that certain doctrinal teachings are, in fact, “fundamental” to its basic goals and mission, why then does it align itself with those who are most emphatically opposed to those positions?  On the other hand, if the church is not really opposed to mainstream evolutionary theories on origins, or does not actually consider the issue of origins to be “fundamental,” why then doesn’t it make this new position clear to its worldwide constituents?

Do not the students and parents who are paying a great deal of money for a Seventh-day Adventist education deserve to know when a particular school is actively undermining one or more of the church’s doctrinal positions in its classrooms?  Calling the church’s position scientifically untenable? Believed only by the church’s “lunatic fringe”?  Don’t we all have a basic right to know what we are supporting with our tuition, tithes, and offerings?

In short then, my most basic wish for LSU and for the church at large is… Consistency and Transparency.

That’s it.

If the church, as an organization, really does believe in a literal six-day creation week as fundamental to the gospel message of hope, then the church, and all organizations owned and operated under the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” should be active in promoting this basic message.  However, if the church does not really stand for these doctrinal positions, or if the church really cannot ensure unity on these basic issues within the various organizations that carry the church’s own name, then the church should be active in informing its worldwide membership of these facts. Those who send their children, their most precious possessions on this Earth, to a school that bears the name “Seventh-day Adventist” should not be misinformed or, worse yet, deceived as to what to expect from “Adventist Education”.

It simply isn’t right for the church, or a church school like LSU, to advertise one thing in order to draw students (and donations) from Adventist families, but then deliver something “fundamentally different”.  In anyone’s book, that’s false advertising. More than this, it’s a form of both deception and theft.  It’s wrong, plain and simple.

At the very least, let’s be consistent and transparent when it comes to what we stand for as a church organization and what anyone can expect from Seventh-day Adventist education…

Posted by Sean Pitman

On April 27, 2011 the Adventist News Network published an article detailing the thrilling exploits of Dr. Lee Grismer, an evolutionary biologist from La Sierra University, who has “discovered 80 new species of reptiles and amphibians during his 15-year career” at LSU.  The article goes on to twice describe Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist.”  (Read the Article)

Notice: This article has apparently been pulled from the ANN website as of the afternoon of May 5, 2011 and is no longer available.

While there is no doubt that Dr. Grismer’s work is very exciting and thrilling indeed, I personally feel it unwise for the ANN to promote Dr. Grismer as an “Adventist field biologist” when he is one of several LSU professors who are ardently undermining the Seventh-day Adventist position on origins – in no uncertain terms.  Dr. Grismer is in fact an ardent evolutionist who believes and teaches his students at LSU that life has existed and evolved on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over the course of hundreds of millions of years.  He teaches his students that the SDA position on origins, the literal six-day creation week in particular, is scientifically ludicrous and even morally dangerous…

In February of 2009, I gave an impromptu presentation at LSU on the topic of creation/evolution.  The very next week Drs. Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.  Dr. Grismer in particular derided students who questioned his evolutionary view on origins, suggesting that those who hold outdated literal creationist beliefs are the same ones who “fly airplanes into buildings”.

Such statements are nothing new for Dr. Grismer who, according to former LSU students, really enjoys “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.” ( Link )

This is right in line with the public comments of long-time LSU professor, Dr. Gary Bradley, who declared that the SDA view on a literal creation week is held by the ”lunatic fringe” and that he is not about to get up in front of his class and say that mainstream science is a bunch of “bs” – to quote Dr. Bradley in his interview in 2009 with Inside Higher Ed.

Such events and comments formed the basis for the rising concern over the promotion of mainstream evolutionary theories in our classrooms.  This concern has increased dramatically over the past two years that this issue has gained a degree of public attention within the SDA Church at large. And yet, the ANN sees fit to present such professors as models of Adventist education?  the very same professors who have long been deliberately undermining the most basic of SDA fundamental goals and ideals in their classrooms?

Is this not equivalent of the ANN shooting itself in the foot? – promoting LSU’s science department by highlighting the truly thrilling work of one of its evolutionary biologists while failing to explain that this very same man is also boldly attacking the Church’s position on origins as a paid representative of the Church?  Does it matter how good and exciting the work may be of any pastor or teacher if this individual is, at the same time, attacking the foundational pillars of the Church?   Does the good truly outweigh the negative influence of such individuals when it comes to the primary goals and ideals of the Church as an organization? – or does the good simply act as capsule that helps one swallow the poison a bit more easily?

La Sierra University released a memorandum on their website March 9, 2011 from The Creation-Evolution Study Group, an ad hoc committee of the La Sierra University Board of Trustees that was tasked to investigate the allegations against the LSU biology program. It was published along with An Open Letter Regarding the Teaching of Creation.

LSU Report Final

Source: La Sierra University

By Sean Pitman

On a rather notorious pro-evolution website, “Panda’s Thumb”, there is an interesting blog presented by mainstream professors who were asked to speak at both La Sierra University and Pacific Union College. Here is what they had to say about their experience at our universities:

“Seventh-Day Adventists Split Over Evolution?“

Regarding La Sierra University:

Last fall I gave several guest lectures on evolution, geology, and magnetic stratigraphy to the LSU campus, and found that the biology faculty were all legitimate biologists who practiced normal science and rejected all vestiges of YEC in their teaching and research. Several were quite successful in getting NSF grants for their research, and had a good track record in legitimate peer-reviewed publications on herpetology, molecular biology, etc.

Dr. Prothero

They would teach classes which were completely in line with conventional evolutionary biology, always forced to introduce their material with nods to Church teaching but demanding that their students understand legitimate evolutionary biology and be able to show their understanding on exams and papers, even if they didn’t agree with it.

It’s scary to see these legitimate scientists now threatened by the Neanderthals in the LSU board who want to drag it back into the Middle Ages–something that none of them thought would happen when I met with them last fall…

Donald Prothero | November 18, 2009 | 9:47 PM

Dr. Prothero is a Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at Caltech. He is the author, co-author, editor, or co-editor of 21 books and almost 200 scientific papers, including five leading geology textbooks and three trade books. He has served as an associate or technical editor for Geology, Paleobiology, and Journal of Paleontology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, and the Linnaean Society of London.

Regarding Pacific Union College:

Nick Matzke

In 2006, Wes Elsberry and I were invited to come to PUC and debate evolution for part of a student-organized speaker series. We were initially hesitant, since we are generally skeptical of debating creationists. However, after some discussion with the organizers, we grudgingly signed up, since it seemed like there was some chance for a reasonable discussion rather than just a Gish-gallop debate. Wes and I drove up to PUC – but, aware of the YECiness of Adventists, we went in as armed to the teeth as academics can be, with huge powerpoint files solely devoted to putting evidence for the age of the earth and common ancestry as bluntly and non-deniably as possible. When I spoke, I popped the slides up one-by-one and used the basic refrain, “Here are the hard facts. If this evidence has been hidden from you before now by your teachers and professors, you should ask yourself why.” It was pretty much a go-in-with-blazing-guns strategy.

Dr. Elsberry

However, as the discussion ensued, the students, and some of the professors, had some news for me. “You’ve got us all wrong,” they said. “We’re not all old-fashioned young-earth creationists and anti-evolutionists here, that’s an old stereotype about Adventists.” (Note: this is not a direct quote, rather it is just the gist of what I remember hearing.) Subsequent discussion indicated that many of the students & profs were reasonably well-informed about evolution and not really skeptical of it. After some interesting chats, Wes and I drove home, shaking our heads and commenting that if Seventh Day Adventists were becoming OK with evolution, we should keep our eyes open for flying pigs and freezing hells.

So, anyway, the point is: watch out Hilde & McPherson! It looks like Pacific Union College isn’t safe, either! Light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks!

Nick Matzke | November 18, 2009 | 2:09 AM

Nickolas Matzke is currently a doctoral student in evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley.  He  is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE’s preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

Dr. Wesley Royce Elsberry is a marine biologist with an interdisciplinary background in zoology, computer science, and wildlife and fisheries sciences. He has also become publicly involved in the creation-evolution controversy.

Note: For those who might be interested, I’ve personally debated Nick Matzke regarding his theories on bacterial flagellar evolution (see review).

By Educate Truth Staff

Below is the letter former LSU students Janelle and Jason wrote to the GC and Pacific Union in 2004. It was passed on to the GC Secretariat Matthew Bediako and Pacific Union President Tom Mostert, both of whom are currently retired. The letter reveals the one sided presentation of evolution and the obvious agenda of some of the biology professors to instill what they consider to be the truth regarding origins and the historicity of the Bible.

Lee Grismer is described as enjoying “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

The biology capstone class, team taught at that time by Gary Bradley and Larry McCloskey, spent the first seven weeks of the course indoctrinating evolution as the best explanation*, according to Janelle. She said the other side of the argument “received no attention,” and that the “biology classes at La Sierra University teach evolution to the EXCLUSION of the Adventist (biblical) view of creation.”

When Janelle voiced her concern over the one sided presentation of origins McCloskey said there would not be any mention of creation science in the capstone class because in his opinion it was not real science. Later in a meeting with McCloskey, Janelle said he told her that he felt God had placed him at La Sierra University to enlighten the students to his beliefs.

The religion department wasn’t much help either in the capstone class in bolstering students’ faith in the biblical creation. The general message was that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally.

This letter underscores the blatant undermining of the Bible and Seventh-day Adventist beliefs occurring at LSU.

Janelle Letter

*7/21/11 Originally worded “evolution as fact.” According to one of the LSU biology professors, no one in the department teaches evolution as fact.

The following statements are from the WASC evaluation of La Sierra University ending in March of 2010 – specifically dealing with the evolution/creation issue at LSU. Also included is an excerpt from the Commission Action Letter, addressed to Pres. Randal Wisbey, and dated June 29, 2010:

An excerpt from the Attached Commission Action Letter, addressed to President Randal Wisbey (dated June 29, 2010), p. 3-4

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom. As highlighted in the team report, “[o]ver the last fifteen months, the issue of creationism vs. evolution has been the subject of considerable attention at La Sierra University.” The Seventh Day Adventist Church has a historic and current belief in the six-day creation of the world and La Sierra University places high value on critical evaluation and science education. There has been considerable tension between these two principles, and since the spring of 2009, the University and several of its biology faculty members have been the focal point of a major church-related controversy. A critical website gathered more than 5,000 signatures of concern and opposition to teaching evolution as fact, independent of whether that was actually being done at La Sierra University. Articles have been published making these issues a matter of national attention, coupled with concerted efforts to interfere with the University’s ability to establish its own curriculum. This situation involves several basic principles in the WASC Standards: academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the role of the governing board. Realizing that this is a challenging denominational matter, the Commission is deeply concerned with this external threat to La Sierra’s institutional autonomy and to academic freedom. In your communications with the Commission, both in writing prior to meeting and at the Commission meeting, you expressed the commitment of the board and the president to resist efforts that would compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The Commission’s action, described below, is intended to assure that La Sierra University withstands this threat and continues to meet WASC Standards. (CFRs 1.4, 1.6, 2.2a, 3.8)

Given the above, the Commission acted to:

1. Receive the Educational Effectiveness Review report and reaffirm the accreditation of La Sierra University.
2. Schedule the Capacity and Preparatory Review for spring 2018 and the Educational Effectiveness Review for fall 2019. The Institutional Proposal for this comprehensive review will be due in spring 2016.
3. Schedule a Special Visit in spring 2011, focused on the issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum, including institutional autonomy, the appropriate role of the board and faculty, and academic freedom. The institution’s spring 2011 Special Visit report will be due eight weeks prior to this visit.
4. Schedule an Interim Report due Nov. 1, 2014, focused on the issues set forth in this letter, including strategic planning, assessment, student success, information technology and institutional research, and any unresolved matters related to the controversy about the teaching of science.

.

In taking this action to reaffirm accreditation, the Commission confirms that La Sierra University has satisfactorily addressed the Core Commitments to Institutional Capacity and Educational Effectiveness, and has successfully completed the multistage review conducted under the Standards of Accreditation. Between this action and the time of the next review, the institution is expected to continue its progress and be prepared to respond as expectations of the institutional performance, especially with respect to Educational Effectiveness and student learning, further develop under the application of the 2008 Standards of Accreditation. The commission reserves the right to issue a sanction if the findings of the 2011 Special Visit team confirm that LSU fails to meet Commission Standards.

Excerpt from the WASC Report:

Integrity (CFRs 1.4-1.9) p. 17-20

The Team paid special attention to CFRs 1.4 and 1.6 in light of a particular series of events on the campus since the Capacity and Preparatory Review. Over the past fifteen months, the issue of creationism vs. evolution has been the subject of considerable attention at La Sierra University. The Seventh-day Adventist Church — the sponsoring organization for La Sierra University — has a historic and current belief in the six-day creation of the world. At the same time, the University places high value on critical evaluation and science education.

As evidence on evolution has accumulated, there has been periodic conflict between those who support the scientific position and those who support the basic Adventist belief that the earth was created in six days. Several times in the past, Adventist scientists and theologians have been brought together to develop a consensus on creation and evolution, with the most recent effort being in 2003. No consensus has been reached and there has been ongoing tension between those who support a strictly creationist view and those for whom evolution provides the most likely explanations for the functioning of the natural world.

Since spring 2009, La Sierra University, and several biology faculty specifically, have been the focal point of that tension. While exposing students to creationist views, faculty members also incorporate evolutionary theory into the curriculum. Although only a handful of students felt that La Sierra presented evolution as fact rather than theory, the issue took on an off-campus life of its own. A website posted class syllabi, PowerPoint presentations, emails between students and professors regarding grades on papers, and letters and articles by church members and church leaders. The website directed a constant stream of criticism toward the faculty, instruction in biology, the University, the President, and the Board of Trustees. The situation became more intense as the website gathered more than 5,000 signatures of concern and opposition to teaching evolution as fact—-independent of whether that was actually being done at La Sierra University or not.

The University responded to the criticism in various ways. The Faculty Senate, after reviewing what was happening in class, passed a resolution affirming support for their biology colleagues:

• Whereas, the Department of Biology
  has trained at the undergraduate level in biological sciences thousands of students who have become successful professional physicians, dentists, and pharmacists, as well as academic scientists;
  has excelled in the scholarly publication of scientific research;
  is recognized for its outstanding teaching, enhancing the excellence that has long characterized La Sierra;
  has been active in service to the community and to the church; and
• Whereas certain off-campus persons
  have publicly attacked and circulated a petition against the (biology) faculty for including in their classes the evolutionary aspects of the modern biosciences;
  have attempted to dictate to the University, including its administration, trustees, and faculty, the content of aspects of the bioscience curriculum;
  have not followed the protocol established by Jesus and outlined in Matthew 18: 15-17;
  have thus made the work and lives of these dedicated Adventist professors more stressful and difficult;

.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of La Sierra University, representing the combined faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business, the School of Education, and the School of Religion, affirm our strong support for our colleagues in the Department and affirm our commitment to the preservation of academic freedom with intellectual and moral integrity in the context of our heritage and service as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian university.

The University President issued a statement rejecting the charge that atheistic evolution was being taught and supported the open exchange of ideas “in a supportive Adventist environment.” The President wrote both a public letter and personal letters to church leaders, made public relations statements stressing the strengths of the Biology program, communicated with other Adventists schools in the state, and made presentations to alumni.

The Board of Trustees has also acted by pronouncing that “both academic responsibility and commitment to Adventist beliefs are important parts of a vibrant university.” The issue appeared on four Board agendas, as the University controversy gained national attention via a number of publications.

Before the visit, the Team reviewed a variety of the websites and articles which referred to this conflict. During the visit, the team met one-on-one with four Biology Department faculty members who were mentioned on the website, the Chair of the Biology Department, biology students, the Faculty Senate, the President of the University and five members of the Board of Trustees including the Board Chair in order to learn more about this issue.

The Team focused its evaluation of these events in terms of WASC Standard 1. Of primary concern was La Sierra University’s performance in relationship to CFR 1.4: “The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and in their writing.” The Team also reflected on the significance of this issue in the context of CFR 2.2 which requires that “Baccalaureate programs ..ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies .. [and] breadth for all students in the areas of …scientific and technical knowledge expected of educated persons in this society.” The evolution-creation question also triggers the issue of university autonomy and the expectations of CFR 1.6—Does the University operate with appropriate autonomy from the Church?

The Team undertook a thorough review of documents and had multiple and direct discussions with a variety of University constituents. As a result of examining the University’s treatment of the issue from the students’ perspective (of interest to the Team was the fact that not one student mentioned this issue when asked on several occasions for “issues of concern”); interviewing faculty and reviewing the faculty’s responses (including the Faculty Senate Resolution); raising the issue with the President (discussing his handling of the situation); and meeting with representatives of the Board ( and reviewing Board minutes and public statements), the Visiting Team believes that La Sierra University is operating in alignment with Standard 1, CFRs 1.4 and 1.6 and Standard 2, CFR 2.2.

Additionally, the Team found evidence of La Sierra University’s commitment to CFRs 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. The University has consistently positioned issues of diversity as a core component of the institution’s educational mission. La Sierra University has been recognized by U.S. News and World Report as having one of the most diverse student populations among comprehensive universities in the western United States. The University communicates its commitment through its public “Statement of Shared Values: Diversity,” which provides for “equal opportunity for all individuals” and defines diversity as encompassing “age, color, ethnicity, gender, national origin, a disability or handicap, race, religion, socioeconomic background, or unique individual style” (CFR 1.5.)

The practices of “integrity, compassion and mutual respect” which underpin the University’s mission also characterize the efforts of all the units on campus: academic, support and cocurricular. Academic policies, programs and services are evaluated and revised on a systematic basis and the student, faculty, and staff handbooks provide evidence of established practices and procedures to ensure an environment of open communication and ethical practices (CFRs 1.7-1.9.)

By Educate Truth Staff

The current conflict at LSU regarding evolution being promoted hasn’t been the only time the university has butted heads with concerned students. Seventy-eight La Sierra University students expressed interest in having more events that showed evidence affirming the biblical creation by signing a petition May 27, 2004. The petition reads:

Please sign your name if you are interested in having more events at La Sierra University that actually show that science does not invalidate the Biblical account of Creation. I am a senior bio major, and believe me you will not hear this message anywhere in the entire bio curriculum! After paying $60,000 for our ‘SDA’ education we deserve to hear this evidence.”

The student-led petition was signed by LSU students at a packed Cossentine Hall following a lecture by Sean Pitman titled “Creation or Evolution: What Does the Science tell Us?” The petition is covered in Bible verses, “amens,” and various remarks such as:

“Bring it sister! Stop the confusion!”

“Is this an SDA university or are we now in the U.C. system?!”

“Preach the Truth!”

One student suggested that the same was happening in the religion department at LSU, “Do this for the religion dept. too!” At the bottom of the petition a student wrote, “I’m not paying $20K/year for public school education.”

The president of LSU at that time Larry Geraty was in attendance along with some LSU faculty. A question and answer session, lasting over an hour, followed Pitman’s lecture. According to Pitman, Geraty was one of the first to make a comment, “We’re all creationists here, and we all teach about creation.”

This statement contrasts significantly with the LSU student petition. At one point, during the question and answer period, students reacted in loud clapping, cheers, and amens when Pitman said, “If you’re working for Nike, and you’re promoting Reebok, why should Nike pay your salary?”

According to General Conference Representative from Loma Linda University Don Roth, two LSU students Janelle Moorhead and Jason Shives approached him regarding the petition. He told them he would pass the petition on to GC Secretariat Matthew Bediako and Pacific Union President Tom Mostert, both of whom are currently retired. Roth said he didn’t hear anything more from the GC or Pacific Union concerning the issue.

LSU Petition 2004 1

LSU Petition 2004 2