Accreditation offers no straw-man excuse enabling LSU to infect its curricula with “theistic evolution.” A church owned university requires accreditation both by its underwriting owner/parent and the secular agency exercising oversight jurisdiction.

Mission Accreditation: The West Point faculty is honor bound to teach and to defend the constitution of the United States. “Academic freedom” offers no refuge for deviation from principle. A core principle of LSU’s church parent is absolute commitment to the Genesis account of the miraculous, recent creation of life on earth. Mission accreditation mandates allegiance to that principle. The First Amendment to the U.S. constitution guarantees the church, and its educational subsidiaries, “free exercise” to advance its mission, unimpeded.

Overtly touting “theistic evolution” by teaching “Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence…It [evolution] is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory,” and by publicly harassing students in classrooms for challenging Darwinian junk “science” is subversive to both academic freedom and to church mission accreditation.

Curricula Accreditation: Historically, LSU has enjoyed secular accreditation by WASC without compromising the religious mission of its parent church. Graduates have pursued successful careers in science after being taught the truth about God and His creation miracle.

On June 29, WASC reported it will be returning to the campus in 2011 to review “teaching evolution in the science curricula.” Since God authored science, true religion and true science should be presented as positive components of LSU curricula. Secular accreditation has never been a straw-man justifying breach of faith by teaching “theistic evolution.” Academic freedom implies open investigation of evidence.

WASC inquiry can be appropriately addressed by implementing a curricula that includes at least three basic courses:

Intelligent Design: Biology history can summarize theories of origin, including Darwinian conjecture, with objective analysis of its shortfall; and
Genomic Science: Cutting edge molecular biology featuring the complexity of the cell, DNA, genetics, and Mendel’s law of heredity.
Theology of Origins: Dept. of Religion course built on the Genesis account of the beginning of life and its correlation with the Christian gospel.

One astute observer has noted: “No creation. No gospel, No future.” Church employees, like all other humans, ultimately are individually accountable to the Lord God Almighty, the Creator of all things.

Warren L. Johns, Esq. (ret.)
LSU Class of 1950; Board of Trustees, 1960’s; Alumnus of the Year, 1994

Warren L. Johns practiced law as a career in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia until partial retirement in the summer of 1992. Admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court in 1963, he has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His non-fiction Dateline Sunday, U.S.A., drew national attention as a legal history documenting blue law confrontation with the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment. His 1999 Ride to Glory targeted some of evolution’s more obvious shortfalls while the 2007 Beyond Forever documented and analyzed, from a lawyer’s perspective, what Darwin himself described as “holes” and “flaws” in his theory.

A 1958 graduate of the University of Southern California’s Law Center, and holder of La Sierra University’s 1994 “Alumnus of the Year” award, the author’s professional resume appears in Who’s Who in American Law; Who’s Who in America; and Who’s Who in the World.

A common claim is that no conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity. The conclusions of many of the most eminent biologists today and a major study of leading biologists were reviewed, finding that they strongly disagree with the non-conflict hypothesis.

[Clip]
Introduction

U.S. District Judge Jones ruled in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design court decision that no contradiction exists between modern Neo-Darwinism and theism. The judge ruled that:

Both Defendants [Dover Area School Board of Directors] and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator (Kitzmiller et al. 2005, p. 136).

Many, if not most, eminent biologists openly disagree with Judge Jones and have expressed this disagreement in the strongest terms possible. For example, University of Chicago biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote that science has in the past delivered several crippling blows to humanity’s theistic worldview, and the most severe blow was

in 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, demolishing, in 545 pages of closely reasoned prose, the comforting notion that we are unique among all species—the supreme object of God’s creation, and the only creature whose early travails could be cashed in for a comfortable afterlife . . . like all species, we are the result of a purely natural and material process (Coyne 2009, p. 34).

Coyne notes that the views of theologian John Haught, who testified in the Dover case, about the harmony of evolution and theism, have been soundly rejected by most scientists. Specifically Haught’s view was, although life may have evolved, the

process was really masterminded by God, whose ultimate goal was to evolve a species, our species, that is able to apprehend and therefore to admire its creator. This progressivist and purpose-driven view of evolution, rejected by most scientists, has been embraced by Haught and other theologians (Coyne 2009, p. 34).

[Clip]

The Most Significant Revolution in History

In the minds of many, if not most Darwinists, the Darwinian Revolution has resulted in explaining away the task that once required a creator and has replaced Him by blind, unintelligent and amoral natural laws. This is because

Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. (Ayala 2007, p. 8567).

Ayala concluded, noting that

Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process [of evolution] that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism . . . this was Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious (Ayala 2007, p. 8568).

The fact is, nowhere in Darwinism is there any mention or need for God, or even an Intelligent Creator, a fact which

raised an uncomfortable possibility: If God is not needed to explain the design in nature—which was generally considered the best evidence for a designer—maybe God does not exist at all (Stewart-Williams 2008, p. 19).

[Clip]

This View in Science is Widespread

Surveys of eminent evolutionists find that most agree with those scientists quoted above. For example, Greg Graffin completed a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Cornell University under Professor William Provine. His thesis was on the religious beliefs of leading evolutionary biologists. The sample he polled consisted of 271 scientists, and close to 56% completed the entire questionnaire (151 persons). Graffin found that as a result of accepting the Darwinian worldview almost 98.7% of his respondents rejected a traditional theistic worldview and, instead, became functional atheists. He defined theism as a belief in a personal creative God as taught by the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions. He added that a San Antonio, Texas, attorney wrote recently to him asking

Is there an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position? . . . Or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door?” The answer is, you indeed have to check your brains (Provine 1988, p. 10).

[Clip]

Evolution Anti-Science

The chasm between evolution and theism is not the only concern of theists. Some theists object to what has now become dogmatic evolutionism for other reasons. Noble laureate Robert Laughlin concluded that evolution is actually anti-science. He wrote “of” or “about” his concern that much “present-day biological knowledge is ideological” which, he notes, involves explanations that have

no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! . . . Biology has plenty of theories [to explain origins]. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public (Laughlin 2005, pp. 168–169).

In other words, Laughlin notes that evolutionism has become an explanation for events for which no explanation as of yet exists. This implies that a valid scientific explanation does exist, which may discourage scientific investigation to find the real explanation.

[Clip]

This View Existed from the Beginning of Darwinism

Nagel wrote that from the start of the Darwinian revolution

it has been commonplace to present the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection as an alternative to intentional design as an explanation of the functional organization of living organisms. . . . Its defining element is the claim that all this happened as the result of the appearance of random and purposeless mutations in the genetic material followed by natural selection due to the resulting heritable variations in reproductive fitness. It displaces design by proposing an alternative (Nagel 2008, p. 188).

As noted above, Darwin himself made it very clear that his theory displaced God and he felt that an indirect approach was a more effective route to atheism. Darwin had murdered God, at least in the minds of many scientists.

[Clip]

Conclusions

It is clear that the most eminent life scientists of our age agree, and have expressed themselves in the strongest terms on the matter, that a clear, unbridgeable contradiction exists between Darwinism and theism. As Nick Lane of University College, London, wrote

Evolution has no foresight, and does not plan for the future. There is no inventor, no intelligent design . . . Design is all around us, the product of blind but ingenious processes. Evolutionists often talk informally of inventions, and there is no better word to convey the astonishing creativity of nature (Lane 2009, p. 5).

Claims such as Judge Jones’s that no contradiction exists between theism and Darwinism are not only naïve, but as documented above, are grossly uninformed. The common claim that no conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity is contradicted by the conclusions of many of the most eminent biologists living today. Furthermore, a survey by Griffin of leading biologists found that they strongly disagree with the claim that evolutionism and Christian theism involving a personal God are compatible. Further, they can articulate valid reasons for their conclusion.

I read that the LSU Board set up a committee to “discipline,” or quite possibly kick out, three board members for sharing information with three church officials, at the division or general conference level. I have these observations to make regarding potential “discipline” of certain LSU board members:

A business owner has the authority to purchase, spend, hire, fire, set policies and take other actions necessary to run his or her company. However, large companies have more than one owner. Therefore, the business owners must share the power to make the decisions, depending on the percentage of the company that they own. The business owners of a large company are known as shareholders, as each owner owns a share of the corporation. A large corporation with many shareholders would have far too many bosses to effectively run the corporation, so they set up a board of directors to govern the company. This board has the right to hire and fire the president and CEO of the company, and other personnel, as well as set the policies by which the corporation is run:

A board of directors is the governing body (called the board) of an incorporated firm. Its members (directors) are elected normally by the subscribers (stockholders) of the firm (generally at an annual general meeting or AGM) to govern the firm and look after the subscribers’ interests. The board has the ultimate decision-making authority and, in general, is empowered to (1) set the company’s policy, objectives, and overall direction, (2) adopt bylaws, (3) name members of the advisory, executive, finance, and other committees, (4) hire, monitor, evaluate, and fire the managing director and senior executives, (5) determine and pay the dividend, and (6) issue additional shares. Though all its members might not be engaged in the company’s day-to-day operations, the entire board is held liable (under the doctrine of collective responsibility) for the consequences of the firm’s policies, actions, and failures to act. Members of the board usually include senior-most executives (called ‘inside directors’ or ‘executive directors’) as well as experts or respected persons chosen from the wider community (called ‘outside directors’ or ‘non-executive directors’).¹

Therefore, the board derives its legal authority from the stockholders (who are the share holders). The authority of the board comes from the owners of the company.

Imagine if you decided you wanted to be an independent board and run a college. Would you be able to just write your own charter and elect people? Could you then go down to the local college and tell them that you are their board? The college would correctly say that you could not tell them what to do and that you had no authority over them.

Where does the board of a nonprofit organization (such as a college) get its legal authority? All nonprofit organizations get the authority for their board from their membership. (The Seventh-day Adventist church is a nonprofit organization.) A few weeks ago the Seventh-day Adventist church released an official press release from the 59th General Conference Session in Atlanta, GA, which said:

Ted N. C. Wilson, a general vice president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the son of a former church president, was elected June 25 to serve as president of the 16.3-million member global Protestant denomination. Wilson, 60, was appointed by the church’s 246-member Nominating Committee and confirmed by the General Conference Session delegation, which is an international body of 2,410 appointed members and the highest governing body in the church. He succeeds Jan Paulsen, who had served as president since 1999.²

The legal authority of the Seventh-day Adventist church goes from the membership to the General Conference Session delegation (the highest governing body in the church), to the General Conference. The line of authority then goes down to the Division, then to the Unions, and then to the Conferences. In the case of our Seventh-day Adventist colleges, the line of authority still comes from the General Conference but goes from the Unions directly to the Colleges.

Authority and accountability always go together, but there is a big distinction in the direction as these always flow in the opposite direction. Authority always come from a higher source and is delegated down, whereas accountability goes up to the higher source from which the authority originates. Ultimately the authority of all nonprofit organizations and their boards comes from its membership, and the institutions and boards are ultimately accountable to the membership. However, as far as day-to-day operations are concerned the line of authority goes from the highest elected leaders of the membership down to the lowest level of board and institution.

The authority of a board of trustees is derived from the institution’s charter. The charter lays out the initial structure and composition of the board. For some public and religiously affiliated institutions, there may be another board (i.e., a consolidated board) or parent organization (i.e., the church denomination) to which the institutional board is beholden. This will impact, and potentially limit, the board’s range of autonomy and authority.³

In the case of the LSU Board, the parent organization (i.e., the church denomination) is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To be more specific the overarching parent organization that gives the legal authority to the LSU board is the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Note: The Seventh-day Adventist church is headquartered in the United States of America, and thus is subject to the laws of the United States with regard to nonprofit organizations. The word “legal” means in compliance with the federal, state, and local laws in the United States. The legal authority for the charter comes from the membership through the parent organization.

I surmise that the LSU board is considering retaliation against members of the board who allegedly reported deficiencies in the board’s internal controls with regard to the teaching of subject material that is in opposition to the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. What did the board members report to the General Conference? Was it only the evidence of evolution being taught at LSU, or was it that LSU was teaching other doctrines that are in opposition to the Seventh-day Adventist church? Regardless of what specifics were reported, the reporting of such action to the parent organization from which the board derives its authority is a protected activity. The “three members” who reported this to the General Conference are protected under whistleblower protection. If the LSU board is now trying to mischaracterize this reporting to the parent organization as some sort of leaking of confidential information to outside sources, I maintain that this could not hold up in a court of law. Case law shows that whistleblower protection exists even if an organization fails to have a whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy. In fact an organization without a written whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy is at higher risk than an organization with a whistleblower policy or an anti-retaliation policy.

The National Council of Nonprofits states: “Plus, federal and state laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who file complaints. Claims for retaliation are one of the most prevalent causes of actions against employers (including nonprofits) today.”⁴

The Nonprofit Risk Management Center states, “Guideline #7 – Implement an ‘open door’ policy or other procedures for reporting hazards or risky activities as well as a “whistleblower protection policy.” Communicate the procedures to everyone: paid and volunteer staff, including the board.”5 Notice the last sentence in this quote from the Nonprofit Risk Management Center. This means that the LSU board members do have whistleblower protection as they are included in “paid and volunteer staff, including the board.”

The Nonprofit Risk Management Center also states, “It is the responsibility of all directors, officers and employees to comply with the Code and to report violations or suspected violations in accordance with the Whistleblower Policy.”6 The Public Council Law Center, Whistleblower Policy, California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation (Made possible through the support of the Annenberg Foundation) provided a sample whistleblower policy for nonprofit organizations which includes the following:

The purpose of this policy is to encourage and enable employees and volunteers of the Corporation to report any action or suspected action taken within the Corporation that is illegal, fraudulent or in violation of any adopted policy of the Corporation, to a source within the Corporation before turning to outside parties for resolution,” and “No employee or volunteer who in good faith reports a Violation or cooperates in the investigation of a Violation shall suffer harassment, retaliation or adverse employment or volunteer consequences. Any individual within the Corporation who retaliates against another individual who in good faith has reported a Violation or has cooperated in the investigation of a Violation is subject to discipline, including termination of employment or volunteer status.

If there is an apparent violation of church fundamental beliefs (and an apparent violation of even LSU’s own stated policies) and several board members choose to report such suspected violation(s) to the higher authority of the General Conference, there are no grounds to accuse such members of violating any rules of confidentiality. In fact, such board members would be reporting “within the Corporation.” If retaliation measures are instituted against such board members then those who are involved in the retaliation are the ones who are subject to termination of employment or volunteer status.

My concern is that if the LSU board retaliates against their board members then they may push these members too hard. These board members might seek legal counsel purely for protection. If outside attorneys become involved I suspect that this may escalate.

Even if the LSU board could somehow manage to win in court, LSU would find that once the court system is involved they will end up with a lot of their documents becoming accessible to the public. These kinds of public records could easily be obtained by the media. I understand LSU’s concern of not wanting private board information to be seen by outside sources, but if these matters ended up in courts of law, this same information would be viewed on a much larger scale and by real outside sources.

References:

1. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/board-of-directors.html
2. http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3501
3. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1793/Board-Trustees-College-University.html
4. http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/node/5669
5. http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/tools/hallmarks/hallmark5.shtml
6. http://bestpractices.cof.org/files/5E%20-%20Sample%20Whistleblower%20Policy%20-%20NCNA.doc

Daniel K. Berry is a physician, retired United States Air Force Colonel, and has been a member (and Chairman) of two nonprofit boards for over 15 years (10 of these years on a college board).

The anti-ID Arguments of Elliot Sober

Elliot Sober is a well-known philosopher of science. In the above-listed essay he presents his arguments against the notions of Creationists and Intelligent Design theorists. He extensively discusses the famous watchmaker argument of William Paley and what he considers to be the logical flaws in the general application of this argument.

After reading through Sober’s paper, it seems to me like his arguments contain a few flaws.

[Note: My original errors in defining the inverse gambler's fallacy, as well as Hacking's true argument, as graciously explained by "Brad", has been corrected as of 7/20/10.]

For example, Sober presents the “inverse gambler’s fallacy” noting that it would be a logical error to assume that just because a pair of dice landed on double sixes the first few times that they were observed to be rolled does not mean that the dice had been rolled many times in the past or that the next roll is more likely than 1/36 to be something other than a double six.

This maturity of chance fallacy is used by Sober to argue against the concept of intelligence being required to explain a given phenomenon. Sober references Hacking’s 1987 gambler’s fallacy argument against the assumption of design behind the fined tuned features of our universe needed to support complex life (the “anthropic principle”). Hacking argues that the fine tuning of the universe necessary to support life does not necessitate a Fine Tuner since our universe could simply be one all possible universes that coexist in some non-temporal sense.

It seems to me that this is only a variation on the multiverse idea where our universe is just one of a great many randomly generated universes. Therefore, given the existence of all possible universes it is not surprising that at least one would support complex life.

In this line of reasoning, it is interesting to note that Hacking’s assertion that those who appeal to the Wheeler multiverse model commit the “Gambler’s Fallacy” has been challenged in literature. See the following comments by P. J. McGrath:

Hacking has misrepresented the sort of reasoning employed by those who appeal to the Wheeler model to explain the delicately balanced nature of the universe we inhabit…

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2255171

Of course, whatever way one looks at it, we would not be here if our universe could not support complex life. It is like a gambler who knows ahead of time that he will not be allowed to see the rolls of the dice until a particular type of roll is realized. Given this information, it would be far more logical and predictable for the gambler to assume prior rolls before a very specific outcome among many many other options would be realized. In other words, the hypothesis with the greatest predictive value is that a an unimaginably huge number of rolls of the dice occurred prior to the current “correct” roll of the fine tuned universe in which we live – far beyond the number of tornadoes it would take to turn a junk yard into a Boeing 747.

Essentially, what this multiverse notion does is remove the basis of science itself. After all, given the “proper” universe any “unlikely” outcome can be explained by pure chance. There would be no scientifically determinable cause and effect, induction or deduction, or predictive value for any hypothesis since all could be explained by the multiverse theory – a theory that is itself not currently testable in a falsifiable manner and is therefore not scientific. In fact, it is anti-science.

This addresses yet another flaw in Sober’s paper. Sober accuses IDists of appealing to the concept of “modus tollens“, or the absolute perfection of the ID hypothesis. He uses the illustration of a million monkey’s randomly typing on typewriters producing all of the works of Shakespeare. He argues that while such a scenario is extremely unlikely, that it isn’t statistically impossible. There is still a finite probability of success.

While this is true, science doesn’t go with what is merely possible, but what is probable given the available evidence at hand. This is the reason why nobody reading a Shakespearean sonnet would think that it was the product of any kind of mindless random production. The same would be true if you were to walk out of your house and see that the pansies in your front yard had spelled out the phrase, “Good Morning. We hope you have a great day!”

Given such a situation you would never think that such a situation occurred by any non-deliberate mindless process of nature. You would automatically assume deliberate design. Why? Do you know?

Sober argues that if a known designer is not readily available to explain a given phenomenon, that the likelihood that a designer was responsible is just as remotely unlikely as is the notion that a mindless process was responsible for such an unlikely event. Therefore, there is essentially no rational basis to assume intelligent design. However, by the same argument, there would be no rational basis to assume non-intelligent design either.

The detail that Sober seems to selectively overlook is that if certain features fall within the known creative potential of known intelligent agents (i.e., humans) while being well outside of the realm of all known non-deliberate forces of nature, the most rational conclusion is that of ID.

Essentially, Sober yet again does away with all bases for hypothesizing ID behind anything for which an intelligent agent is not directly known. This essentially includes all of modern science that deals with ID – to include anthropology, forensic science, and especially SETI. Yet, amazingly, he goes on to use this very same argument in support of the ID detecting abilities of the same.

In the end, it seems like Sober is more concerned about the specific identity of the designer not being “God” rather being concerned about the idea that the scientific inference of a need for some kind of intelligent designer to explain certain kinds of phenomena is in fact overwhelmingly reasonable – scientifically.

Ultimately, it seems to me like Sober’s arguments are really directed against the detection of God, not intelligent design…

In this line Sober writes:

The upshot of this point for Paley’s design argument is this: Design arguments for the existence of human (and human-like) watchmakers are often unproblematic; it is design arguments for the existence of God that leave us at sea.

- Elliot Sober

Of course, my ID-only hypothesis does not try to demonstrate the need for God. Rather it suggests that at least human-level intelligence had to have been involved to explain certain features of the universe and of life on this planet. It doesn’t attempt to argue that a God or God-like intelligence had to have been involved. If fact, it is impossible for the finite to prove the need for the infinite. However, one may argue that from a given finite perspective a particular phenomenon would require the input of a creative intelligence that would be indistinguishable from a God or God-like creative power.

At this point, a belief that such a God-like creator is in fact omnipotent is not unreasonable, but must be based, not on demonstration, but on trust in the testimony of this Creative Power. If a God-like creative power personally claims to be “The” God of all, Omnipotent in every way, it would be very hard for someone from my perspective to reasonably argue otherwise…

Anyway, your thoughts regarding what seems so convincing to you about Sober’s “arguments” would be most interesting – especially as they apply to granite NHPs or other such “artifacts”…

To Seek:

La Sierra University is a Seventh-day Adventist university. This means that we take seriously our Biblical worldview and our faith, as well as our academic discipline. Because we believe that “all truth is God’s truth,” we seek honestly and openly to examine and interpret data from God’s book of nature. We recognize that our students represent a variety of beliefs and faith journeys, and we seek to teach and learn together in a context of humility and respect.

Our classrooms are not the only locations in which students find knowledge. Our professors offer an array of working laboratories for hands-on experience and learning. Dr. Eugene Joseph encourages his students to think outside the box when designing research projects to prevent or mitigate bone loss due to prolonged bed rest, space flight, osteoporosis, and other disorders of the bone. Dr. Natasha Dean supervises students as they aid in her research on microbes and how they interact with their environment. They are looking at ways to better control the growth of bacteria. Dr. Shereen Sabet takes her students into the field (pictured above, center) collecting samples of “salt loving” viruses. She is intrigued by a class of microorganisms known as extremophiles which survive in very extreme, harsh environmental conditions.

Summer research trips to Southeast Asia are supervised by Dr. Lee Grismer. “It is great to be in an untouched part of the world, being able to see God’s original design without the edits of civilization and being able to discover new species previously unknown to science,” says Dr. Grismer (see photo on back for an example of a newly discovered species). Students are able to continue their research on campus either in Dr. Grismer’s lab or with Dr. Lee Greer as they examine DNA samples from the specimens collected. Undergraduate students coauthor papers with their professors and are published in peer-reviewed journals. They engage in serious science, searching for cures and increasing knowledge. These are just a few of the projects in which our students participate, and share with the world the wonders of God’s creation.

Our biology curriculum offers a selection of classes with both breadth and depth. It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution is discussed, but not promoted, at La Sierra University. We believe that God the Creator is the source of all life. Students examine our denomination’s voted fundamental belief regarding creation and understand the data used to support our faith in creation. We believe that by providing a complete curriculum grounded in biological principles, paralleled and supported by a strong general education curriculum, students will be able to graduate with an integrated knowledge of their discipline as well as a stronger faith and understanding of God as their Creator and Saviour. The scientific data are presented just as they are at most other Seventh-day Adventist institutions, often with the same textbook. We believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that students receive a complete and comprehensive education as warranted by their given program of study.

Our biology faculty have heard, and taken seriously, the questions and concerns expressed by some in our church. We continue to take steps to ensure that our students understand the Adventist Church’s voted position on creation and to help them understand the arguments that are used to support the statement of fundamental belief in creation.

To Know:

As Christian educators, we are committed to serving God by being mentors for each student who walks through our doors. We value the opportunity to pray with our students in and out of class, to sit next to them in University Worship on Thursday mornings at the church, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with them about life. We may not hear about every student whose life was touched, but when we do, it is an affirmation that we are where God wants us to be. Students testify of our care:

“I found La Sierra, and all the professors there, whether in science or religion, to be committed to a lived faith. At La Sierra I understood the broader meaning of being an SDA Christian: of discipleship, of service, and of participating actively in reflecting the Kingdom of God. I am very grateful for what La Sierra gave me.”

Kristel Tonstad ’04

“I love La Sierra and La Sierra loved me! I’m extremely blessed (in all ways) to attend LSU and be a science major. I think that God Himself led me here and there is no place that would have strengthened my faith as much as LSU did.”

Ivan Rybkin ’10 (pictured below center)

“I graduated with a biology degree from La Sierra in 2007, and my experience with the biology teachers was enriching, both academically and spiritually. I always felt that each and every one of them cared deeply about my education in biology as well as my spiritual growth. They make it clear that they believe in a creator God and that this belief is not challenged by any biological theory they accept.”

Casey Capolupo ’07

To Serve:

“Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). To prepare our students for life requires more than reading a textbook or learning from a lab experiment. We help them use the talents that God has given them to share Him with others.

This year we watched our classroom studies on environmental conservation come to life as Dr. John Perumal took more than 150 students to participate in the Aliso Beach cleanup on April 23. Spring break was filled with service opportunities as our students worked with Dr. Lee Greer and Project Pueblo, assisting the Navajo Nation in researching uranium contamination that has polluted their water, homes, and air for decades. They also laid foundations for the future installation of solar panels.

The Pre-Med students and sponsor Dr. Eugene Joseph regularly do mission service in Guatemala where they interact with local orphanages and help with clinics during winter break. The passion to serve others, following the example of Jesus, is seen in our students and faculty.

We are dedicated to helping our students seek scientific truth, know the Lord as their personal Savior and Creator, and serve Him throughout their lives.

Ted Wilson

Wilson’s presentation was one of several of the series held during the 10-day international event and sponsored by the Geoscience Research Institute.

Although Wilson’s new responsibilities as world church president will prevent him from continuing in many of his previous roles, he shared his intent to remain chair of the Geoscience Research Institute board, a position he’s held since 1999.

“I am so proud of our Geoscience Research Institute and Faith and Science Council,” Wilson said at the beginning of his presentation. “These organizations, along with the Biblical Research Institute, form the core defense for God’s great Word—the Word of God.”

“What an incredible Creator; what an incredible God,” Wilson noted, after reading Revelation 4:1-11. “Praise God for the intellectuals who presented their faith during the ‘Yes, Creation!’ [lecture] series right here at General Conference session. You learn many wonderful things, including the strong evidence for God as the Creator.

“Unfortunately, there are those who dismiss Genesis 1–11 as allegorical, [as] nice stories but only symbolic,” he added. “I want to tell you . . . that God created this world in six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin.” (Read more)

Fundamental Belief #6 Versus Scripture

The Seventh-day Adventist church needs to change one of its fundamental belief statements. To keep this brief, we will not analyze every part of the statement. First, listen to a portion of the belief statement as it presently stands.

In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth,” and all living things upon the earth, and rested the seventh day of that first week (Church Manual, 2005 ed., p. 10).

Place this side-by-side with the pertinent part of Exodus 20:11:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day (KJV).

Did you notice the difference? The belief statement says that God is the Creator, that He made heaven and earth in six literal days, but limits that which He made in the six days to all living things. See the difference?

Scripture affirms that the earth and all that is in it—all living matter and all non-living matter—was created in six days. The fundamental belief statement can be read as affirming only that living matter was created during the six day span of creation. As is stands, the statement leaves room for persons, under cover of the fundamental beliefs, to believe that the non-living matter may have existed hanging dead in space—before the first day—for 4.6 billion years.

If the Bible did not affirm in the Ten Commandment law that the earth “and all that in it is” was made in six literal days, this would not be an issue. But God saw where this would go. He knew that these questions would arise, a rival paradigm would become ascendant, evolution would challenge creation, and science so-called would conflict with revelation. So, He revealed to Moses what He wished him to write, and Moses, in his own words but words nonetheless divinely guarded, wrote into Scripture a six day creation that included all the initial material of earth.

I have to believe that God knew what He was doing.

How Fundamental Belief #6 Gives Cover

Today, there are some in the church who disagree with this bold, and yes, fundamental proposition. They want to be recognized as Seventh-day Adventists, but cannot with clear conscience say that they believe that the substance of the earth is only in the range of 6,000 years old.

They plead that they cannot affirm such a belief and remain intellectually honest. And so, the present belief statement provides cover, for it fails to affirm unequivocally that the creation week includes the creation of inorganic matter. The creation of the “heaven and earth,” is immediately qualified in the same sentence by the statement that “all living things” were then made.

Forceful Reasoning Destroyed

Why does this matter?

As others have already noted, the reason we are to observe God’s holy day, His Sabbath, on the seventh day appears beautiful and forceful when we understand the days of creation to be literal. But when the assumption is introduced that the events of the first week—any of those events—required very long periods of time to be accomplished, periods of time very much longer than seven literal days, the Ten Commandments are attacked.

Why? Because the Creator is represented as commanding people to observe a definite week of literal days in commemoration of long, indefinite periods of time. God has made this matter plain in His Word. But belief in an extended creation of the earth taking very long periods of time—with significant creative activity previous to day one—undermines God’s moral law which states otherwise. It is unfaithfulness. It is remarkably insidious.

When we begin to doubt the reliability and the accuracy of the biblical record of history, we begin to doubt the reliability of any other thing that we may read in the Old or New Testament. The next step is to doubt even the existence of God.

If I cannot believe Genesis one or Genesis two, then on what basis can I believe Genesis three? The Fall of the human race, the need of a Savior, is there revealed. If the history of creation as given in Scripture is unreliable, then why would I think that the history of the Fall of our race there given is any more reliable? Not just the Sabbath, but the basis of Christianity stands or falls with our belief about the reliability of the great acts of God recorded and preserved in Genesis.

Only Part of the Commandment

Since the beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, others have opposed us specifically because of our stand on the fourth commandment. They have often been willing to affirm nine of the Ten Commandments, but, when it comes to the fourth they take what God has very specifically said and reduce it to an affirmation of only part of the commandment.

They insist that the meaning is that the Christian should observe one day out of seven as a rest day. Others, seeing the clear connection of all Ten Commandments as a unit, in an attempt to maintain logical consistency, have rejected the Commandments in toto.

But now in the Church there are those among us who engage in exactly the same thing; they reject a portion of the fourth commandment, and affirm only part of it. As in the fundamental belief statement, they affirm the creation of “the heaven and the earth,” but they deny the creation of the earth’s non-living matter in six literal days. Their position is very similar in its essence of denial to the position held by Christians who reject the Sabbath.

Countdown to Explosion

Brothers and sisters, this is a ticking bomb in our midst, a weapon of mass spiritual destruction, which has been allowed to fester and tick and tick and tick. Some in responsible positions have not been faithful in dealing with this matter. And now it threatens to explode at last, perhaps even at this General Conference Session. Warnings and cries for help in the church have for years gone unheeded. Now the crisis is come.

Let me open your eyeballs a bit. Recent history has seen academics in the church, persons specifically called to positions to defend the church’s stand on creation, and who regularly affirmed with urgency their personal belief in a “six day literal creation.” But carefully listening to their presentations demonstrates that they actually believe that only the earth’s living matter was made in six literal days, and that, in fact, they believe that the earth pre-existed the “first day of creation” by perhaps several billion years.

What I am talking about is a failure of integrity, a deception, a playing-with-words, or, as inspiration puts such matters, a lie. People can be fooled, but God cannot. He warns that “all liars” will have their part in the destruction that comes at the end of the world (Revelation 21:8). He is serious about integrity.

If you want to know what someone in the church believes about the six day literal creation of the heavens and the earth, ask them point-blank: Do you believe that any material from which the earth was made pre-existed the first 24 hour day? This is not about credentials, position, or any other supposed competency; it is about belief—or not—in what the Bible says. The fundamental belief statement voted years ago encouraged certain ones, and remain and promote their views in our classrooms, and is a direct root behind the rise of evolutionary belief in certain segments of today’s church. Poor wording adopted 30 years ago is a source of present degeneration.

And All That Is In It

Our statement on creation must be changed to affirm the creation of the earth and all that is in it, in six literal days. Not only “all living things on the earth,” but all that is in the earth.

Someone will say, “if we push this issue, we will lose our thought leaders. We will lose our church in California.” We have already lost some of our thought leaders. We have already lost some in California. The worldwide witness of the church is being compromised because we persist in the fantasy that such differences can be accommodated under one big umbrella. But creation and evolution cannot co-exist in the Seventh-day Adventist Church; they are mutually exclusive. We cannot have it both ways.

An Empty Objection

Some will object that this leaves unresolved the question of how much of the heavens was created during creation week. And yet, neither is this question addressed in our present statement. The Bible is painfully clear, however, concerning how much of the planet was created during the six day creation week: the earth and all that is in it. It is not vagueness in the Bible that bothers certain ones nearly as much as God-given specificity!

A Call to Action

It is time for action. It is time to change the way our fundamental belief is stated to more accurately reflect biblical language and teaching on the question of creation. Jesus will be with us if we do what is right, and will see us through any turmoil that may ensue.

The source of this division is not the larger body of Seventh-day Adventists; but it was contributed to by the adoption in 1980 of a biblically-compromised wording on this point of belief. This opened a space of legitimacy for the misguided teaching of a very old earth which has been going on in our colleges and universities for decades. In our very own schools, our own children have had their faith undermined while we sat stupidly, trustingly, and watched it happen.

No more.

Turn the corner, O Church, in Atlanta.

Larry Kirkpatrick has served in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church since 1994. He is a pastor of the American West, having led churches in Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. His writings include the books Real Grace for Real People, and Cleanse and Close. Larry and wife Pamela presently serve in the Upper Columbia Conference, ministering to the Bonners Ferry and Clark Fork churches in the incomparable beauty of Northern Idaho.

Is it possible to be honestly wrong, to be ever so sincere and yet be completely off base?  Is it therefore fair or even accurate to refer to such a person as a liar? I think not.

Regarding the issue of promotion of evolutionary theories at LSU and the opposition to the SDA notion of a literal creation week by several of LSU’s science and even religion professors, I am personally convinced that these professors sincerely and honestly believe what they are teaching regarding the “truth” of the modern mainstream evolutionary story of origins and their skepticism regarding the SDA concept of a truly literal creation week.  Therefore, they are not “liars.”  I believe that they are in error in what they believe to be true, but they are not deliberately teaching error or “lying”.

However, the professors are knowingly undermining the SDA church for whom they work while on the dime of the church. Even though this isn’t lying, per say, it is, in my book, a clear moral wrong. It is a form of stealing.

The LSU administrators and PR staff, on the other hand, are not in the same boat as the LSU professors. They are in a worse position compared to the LSU professors. They know what is really being promoted as the truth at LSU. They know that their science professors believe in and actively promote long-age evolutionary ideas while discounting the SDA position on a literal creation week. Yet, these administrators and representatives of LSU are going around telling everyone that this is not the case, that everyone at LSU is in full support of the SDA church and all of the church’s fundamental doctrines. This, as they full well know, is a bold faced lie. There simply is no other word to describe what they are doing. They are deliberately lying to us, the parents and guardians of the children of the church.

Why are the LSU representatives deliberately lying to us? Do we not have the right to know the truth as to what is really being taught to our young people? Why all this deception? Why not at least be open and honest with people about what you really stand for and about what each one of their professors really believes and promotes?

I just don’t get it. I don’t understand all this deliberate deception and I don’t understand why some people are getting angry with those who are striving to produce real openness, honesty, and transparency on this issue.

Southeastern California Conference delegate, Donna Richards, is interviewed by pastor of LSU Church, Chris Oberg.

In May 2009, a letter written to Jan Paulsen, Don Scheider, and Ricardo Graham by Pr. David Asscherick expressed concern regarding “the teaching of evolution at La Sierra University.” The letter went on to say “[i]t is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University.” Asscherick said he had “seen the class materials with my own eyes” and personally visited with many students attending La Sierra University in 2003 who were concerned about what was being taught in the science classes.

Asscherick’s letter, while intended to be a private communication to church leaders, was leaked through email where it became viral. The cat was out of the bag, and president Randal Wisbey published a public response on LSU’s website. Wisbey said, “‘Naturalistic evolution’ is a phrase that either in code or direct definition implies a perspective of ‘atheistic evolution.’ We reject this implied atheistic charge. Every one of our science faculty share the goal of students experiencing a vibrant Adventist Christian faith while pursuing their education in the sciences.”

There are two things to note about Wisbey’s response: 1) he did not deny that the theory of evolution was being taught as fact, and 2) he diverts attention away from Asscherick’s original charge by rephrasing it. Asscherick never charged LSU with atheism.

So what has happened since then? Has Wisbey ever denied the charges laid out by Asscherick and others? Has the biology department produced any statement or evidence to negate the charges? Exactly how has the LSU Board of Trustees, president Randal Wisbey, or the biology professors responded to the specific criticism of how the theory of evolution is taught at LSU?

It wasn’t till September that we heard from one of the biology professors in an interview with Inside Higher Ed. In the interview he admitted that he did believe in the biblical creation. 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. That’s where my skepticism lies.” He also seemed to imply that he was not a practicing Seventh-day Adventist either. When asked if he was, he said, “On record, yes. You can read into that whatever you want.” Bradley is semi-retired and not tenured. These statements coupled with the course material from his classes only confirm the original charges.

Nov. 6, 2009, LSU Faculty Senate voted a resolution affirming their support of the biology department. The document did not deny the charges against the biology department. It accused “persons” of attempting to “dictate to the University–including its administrations, trustees, and faculty–the content of aspects of the bioscience curriculum.” This document did not become public though till Feb. 2010.

A week later, the LSU Board of Trustees released two resolutions. The first resolution affirmed the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s belief in the biblical creation. It said, “The Board of Trustees is fully mindful of La Sierra University’s responsibilities and commitments as a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education. This includes whole-hearted support for the doctrines and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as defined by the 28 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs, specifically fundamental belief #6.”

The Board also acknowledged the “the concern that Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and teachings have not been given appropriate priority in biology curriculum and instruction.” They assured the church the Board was committed “to assuring that the teaching of the theory of evolution takes place within the context of the Adventist belief regarding creation.” The Board of Trustees also did not deny the original charges against LSU.

In April 2010, LSU responded to an article from Adventist Review that covered the LSU conflict. This response did not deny the original charges against LSU. In May LSU reported on its constituency meeting. At the end of May Wisbey responded to the Michigan Conference action. Neither of these responses denied the original charges against LSU.

It wasn’t till during the GC Session in Atlanta, GA, that LSU, at their booth, handed out a statement regarding their biology department. It said, “It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution is discussed, but not promoted, at La Sierra University.” A review of the course material from some of the biology classes presents no evidence that evidence for a recent biblical creation is promoted at all. In fact, if anything, it is relegated to a status far below the theory of evolution. This has been evidenced by at least two professors, Lee Greer and Bradley, in their comments made in publications and to students at LSU in class or at campus worships. When the theory of evolution is the only world view being presented as the most unifying theory of all life, then it is being promoted. LSU administration, so far, has refused to acknowledge there is a problem in how the theory of evolution is being taught, yet they are quite willing to lie about it.

In conclusion, Wisbey has never denied the original charges made by Asscherick and Educate Truth. The biology department has never produced any statement or evidence to negate the charges. The only statement we received from the biology department was from the chair, James Wilson, “The La Sierra biology faculty have faith that God is their Creator and Sustainer.” Not one professor from the biology department has expressed belief in the church’s position on creation as expressed in Affirmation of Creation and fundamental belief #6. There is a good reason for this–many of them believe and promote the theory of evolution over the biblical creation. Here is something you can take to the bank: La Sierra University promotes the theory of evolution as fact.