The LSU PR department is working overtime to produce an image of LSU as a Seventh-day Adventist institution that is in full support of the fundamental goals, ideals and Pillars of the SDA faith.  At the GC the LSU booth is staffed by those who are telling everyone that the current controversy surrounding LSU’s promotion of evolutionary theories as the true story of origins is completely overblown; not at all representative of what LSU stands for. They, along with LSU’s President, Randal Wisbey, are passing out handouts explaining that LSU fully supports the SDA position on origins and that their science professors only teach their students “about” the theory of evolution while still supporting the SDA position on origins. They explain that those who say otherwise are simply ill-informed and have a bias against any form of teaching regarding the theory of evolution, even if it be for information purposes only and not a promotion of evolutionary ideas.

One thing is quite clear, someone isn’t telling the truth.

This is an excerpt from a handout being passed out at the LSU booth at the GC Session:

“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.

Compare this statement with former president Lawrence Geraty (1993-2008):

I believe the tea party movement and radical right-wing politics is affecting our beloved church, not only in belief but in tactics that have no place among Christians. If you care about Truth, I suggest you dig a bit deeper than either Shane Hilde or the Michigan Conference have done.

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?

In the book, “Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives” Dr. Geraty writes:

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 doctrinal 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 and fossil record.

It is also rather difficult to ignore the impression that Dr. Geraty strongly favors the “progressive” movement within the Church.  When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise:

“I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer.  But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

(Read more)

Current LSU President Randal Wisbey

Randal Wisbey himself publicly questions the viability of the SDA perspective on origins without offering any apologetic arguments in support.  On November 21, 2008, Wisbey gave a speech for the Adventist Society of Religious Studies, titled “Nurturing the Adventist Mind.” In his speech, he explained how Adventists can integrate “Adventist thinking” with a “vast array of intellectual disciplines.”

One example of how the church needs this integration is in the vexing issue of the relation of Adventist thinking to the natural sciences as pertains to the history of life on planet Earth. On the one hand, for more than a hundred years Adventists have believed that “the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works” [White]. On the other hand, we recognize that “creationists do not have an adequate explanation” for “radiometric dates of many millions of years… The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers” [Gibson].

What Adventist colleges and universities can do is to provide a supportive environment and conceptual assistance not only to their students but also to the whole church in addressing this issue effectively by reexamining our understanding of both the “book of nature” and the “written word.” In the process, Adventist colleges and universities can be examples of thinking faithfully.

In support of allowing paid SDA representatives to teach fundamentally diverging opinions, Wisbey quotes J.N. Loughborough in his 1861 statement regarding the issue of Church order and government:

The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commit persecution against such.

Wisbey fails to reference Loughborough in his 1907 work, The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline. Although originally opposed to such constraints, it was John Loughborough, together with James White, who first started to realize the need for some sort of internal enforcement of Church order and discipline – i.e., a Church government.

“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.” (Loughborough, JN. Testimonies for the Church. No. 32, p. 30)

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the early SDA Church did not receive “cards of commendation”. And what was the attitude of such persons, according to Loughborough:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ “

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

Yet Wisbey thinks to quote Ellen White in support of “progressive” Adventism:

There is no excuse for anyone to take the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that our expositions of the Scripture are without error. (White, Ellen G. Counsels to Writers and Editors. p. 35, Dwyer, Bonnie. In the Eye of the Storm. 4, s.l. : Spectrum, 2009, Vol. 37.)

Wisbey fails to note that although Ellen White does indeed use the phrase “unity in diversity,” and stated that “Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto,” she also maintained that the landmarks and pillars of Adventist truth were to remain.  Concepts that impact the science of geology which she “was shown” to be  identified as permanent include the concept of six literal, empirical,  historical 24-hour days of creation, culminating with a literal 24-hour Sabbath day of rest, and that life on earth was non-existent before the literal creation week described in Genesis (Nichol, Francis D. SDA Bible Commentary, 7 vols. plus supplement. Washington, D.C. : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1970. p. 1083. Vol. 6; White, Ellen G. Silver Spring, MD : Ellen G. White Estate, 1888; Spiritual Gifts, 4 vols. Battle Creek, MI : Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1858, 1860, 1864. pp. 90-93. Vol. 3.)

She also writes that no one is to go ahead or fall behind the current leading of God in the understanding of the Church as an organized body and expect to remain a recognized part of that body.

God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that.  Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust.  The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead… (Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.)

Lee Greer, LSU Biology Professor:

As a species humans have only been around about 200,000 years and have low within-species genetic variation. ..The genes encoding various globin proteins evolved from one common ancestral globin gene, which duplicated and diverged about 450-500 million years ago. (Greer, Lee. BIOL 111: Genomes and their Evolution. EducateTruth.com. [Online] December 11, 2009. [Cited: December 21, 2009.])

Greer also publicly supports the idea that the Genesis account is allegorical and internally inconsistent – a description of at least two conflicting accounts of creation, neither of which conforms to what is known about physical reality through scientific investigation.  He presents this view in his classes and when he leads out in chapel services at LSU and in other public forums.

Lee Grismer, LSU Biology Professor:

L. Lee Grismer is an expert on the vertebrate life of Baja California, which he argues in his papers has been affected by the “dynamic environmental history . . . over the last 4-5 million years” and that this history “has had a profound effect on the evolution, distribution, and genetic structuring of Baja California’s terrestrial vertebrates.” Check out his book “Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, Including Its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortés.”

Lee Greer and Lee Grismer put together a presentation to challenge my talk on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account the very next week after I was there (Sean Pitman – February 2009).

One student said he was the first to ask a question, ‘if scientists have been wrong so many times throughout the past, could it be possible that scientists are wrong about evolution?’ According to this student, “You could tell he [Grismer] was already upset with what I was saying. He said, ‘Ya, ya, that is true! We could be wrong, but we’re going off of what we know now. All the evidence is pointing to billions of years.’”

Grismer’s tone escalated into what two student witnesses described as yelling. According to one student, it was Louie Bishop who really got Grismer riled up. Bishop quoted Matthew 19:4 to Greer, asking how he reconciled what the Bible said about human origins with evolution. According to two of the students, Grismer said, “You’re stupid and ignorant. You don’t know enough to say anything. Your kind of thinking drives planes into buildings.”

One student witness concluded, “I should feel comfortable at an SDA school using Scripture to support science. But they were making it seem like we couldn’t use the Bible. I felt betrayed, because I couldn’t even ask a question without being called ignorant.”

Larry McCloskey, recently retired LSU Biology Professor:

Excerpt from McCloskey’s 2009 lecture, syllabus and notes:

It is vitally important for you to realize that this course—as a science course—is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs…

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence. New discoveries continue to fill the gaps identified by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. The evidence is in the form of direct, measurable, empirical observation. Is it informed to dismiss Darwin’s ideas as ‘just a theory’?… There is nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea.  It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.

The reason this unifying theory has become so widely accepted in the scientific world is that it has stood up to intense, thorough, continual observation and criticism. The way to become rich & famous in science would be to show a fundamental error in the theory. The built-in skepticism of science prevents these ideas from becoming dogma.” (Read more)

Gary Bradley, LSU Biology Professor since 1972:

From an article in Inside Higher Education:

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 bullshit,” 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.”

Besides LSU’s science professors, it is somewhat surprising to discover that many of LSU’s religion professors also publicly challenge the validity of the SDA position on a literal creation week.

A new freshman class was started in 2009 to address the issue of integrating “science” with “religion”.   It was touted as part of the solution to the controversy surrounding LSU regarding its undermining of SDA beliefs.  Yet, this class was organized and led by the very same professors above who are ardent evolutionists.  Almost all of the guest lecturers who were invited to help teach this class also supported some form of long-age evolutionary progression on this planet and insinuated doubts regarding the literal interpretation of the Genesis account on origins.

For further information please refer to the video clips of this class ( Link ) as well as to the response of President Ricardo Graham when presented with the additional problems this new class was causing for LSU – as reported by the Adventist Review ( Link ).

How are such faculty and administrators who think themselves so “progressive” in advance of the foundational pillars of the organized SDA Church on such basic fundamental issues going to be remotely capable of “bringing our young people home at the end of the day?”, as Elder Paulsen put it, if they don’t really believe in or see evidence for the home message to begin with?  Ultimately, is there to be no real accountability to the organized SDA Church for what is presented as “truth” from either pulpit or classroom? – by paid representatives supported by God’s own monies in the forms of tithes and offerings? (Paulsen, Jan. An Appeal. Adventist News Network. [Online] 2009. [Cited: December 21, 2009.])

In light of all of this, consider also the censorship of LSU against Louie Bishop, a LSU student subjected to academic censorship and probation for standing up for SDA fundamental beliefs in class and for trying to inform others of the attacks against the Pillars of the SDA faith within the science classrooms at LSU.  For further information, read Louie Bishop’s own very enlightening testimony regarding what he experienced and is still experiencing at LSU (Read more).

At the very least we, as constituents of the SDA Church and parents of children in our SDA schools deserve to know the truth as to what we are supporting with our time and money and to what we are entrusting the minds of our own children.  LSU has not been honest and straightforward regarding this issue.  Subtleties of language and careful turns of phrases have been used to misdirect people, in a deceptive and knowingly dishonest manner, from the truth.  We deserve better than this.  At the very least we deserve transparency from our Church and Church institutions.

We encouraged our son to go to a “Christian” college, as the other members of our family did. He had been offered a full scholarship at a public university, and though we are not wealthy, we do believe in Christian education and so supported AJ’s decision to enroll at La Sierra. That was a couple of years ago.

He enrolled. He began attending classes. I drove from Arkansas to Southern California to visit him, and as we were walking, he told me some of the things his biology class professor had said in a recent class session. He said the teacher had referred to a “time when the earth’s oxygen was less than it is now….” He also made other references that made it sound like he believed in theistic evolution.

I found it hard to believe, so, wanting to be sure AJ hadn’t misunderstood something, I decided to try to contact his teacher to get the scoop. When I tried to reach him, he was “out”. So I asked to speak with the department chairman who was also “out”. I left messages and waited to hear back from someone. AJ’s teacher called me within a short period of time and I asked him whether or not AJ had misunderstood him. He evaded my question. I finally point blank asked him if he believed in theistic evolution. He replied that “was one possible explanation” on a broad continuum. I asked again, “Yes, I understand it is ONE possible explanation, but what do you believe?” He said what he believed was not the issue. I said I disagreed, that what the teacher believes usually comes through to the students in small comments, body language, and unintentional ways, and that we sent our son to a college where we thought the teachers believed in a literal 6 day creation week, as described in Scripture. He asked me which account of creation in scripture I believed in–the first one or the second one. I said I didn’t find the accounts in Scripture to be at odds with each other. He said I wasn’t doing my son a favor by shielding him from the truth. I replied that if that was the “truth” that was being taught at La Sierra, we would not be sending AJ back the next semester. We didn’t. He is now nearing graduation from the University of Central Arkansas where, at least he was expecting to meet up with evolutionary theory. And surprisingly, the professors he has had here address the issues more straightforwardly than the teacher at La Sierra did. At least you KNOW where they stand right up front.

After talking with AJ’s teacher at La Sierra, the Department Chairman also called me back. I explained my concerns and went into detail about the conversation I had had with AJ’s teacher in that department. I was surprised to hear the Department chairman support the same position as did the teacher I spoke with. Although he assured me that he and the others in the biology department believed in a Creator God, and that there are many things that just cannot be biblically explained, he clearly came down on the side of a long period of earth’s history–i.e. theistic evolution, rather than a literal “creation week”.

I have a Master of Science degree. My husband has two masters’ degrees and a doctoral degree. We are not sheltered. We do not expect that everything will fit neatly into nice little boxes when we study the issues of creation/origin of man. What we did expect and did not get, was teachings that present evidence supporting intelligent design as the position we, as SDA’s espouse. I have studied many of these on my own and I know there is information supporting both sides. But the students know which side their professors lean toward, and it is very confusing for them to think they’re in a class taught by a teacher who believes the biblical account, only to discover the teacher is teaching the same kind of things being taught by secular professors.

I did contact the President’s office at La Sierra and told the nice lady I spoke with what my concerns were, and that our son would not be attending there any more. I was very sad–not just for my son, but for the other kids who were probably more than confused by what they had been taught in the past, and what they were now hearing from their teachers.

If these professors really believe in a Creator, they need to present that evidence so that it comes through loud and clear. If they don’t believe in a Creator God, and the biblical account of creation, then let them present their rationale to the SDA adult community! What I object to, is our church taking one position, and the professors at La Sierra telling our kids that our church members are basically “sheltered” or “unsophisticated” or downright ignorant of the “facts”. Let’s get the “church” and our biology professors on the same page. We don’t need one undermining the other. If our church’s scientific community doesn’t find evidence supporting the biblical account…then let’s hear their evidence! Maybe our beliefs need an overhaul–maybe we’ll all become theistic evolutionists! But let’s not confuse our kids by teaching them contradictory information.

Thanks,

Teresa Regester, RN, MS
AU & LLU alumnus

June 1, 2009

Dr. Wisbey,

I’m sorry that our discussion was cut short. I will appreciate a few more minutes of your time for a couple of more things I need to say.

My first point I already briefly mentioned in our conversation, but I did not emphasize the point as I should have. Dr. Wisbey, I was born in the Seventh-day Adventist church and in the home of a pastor. Therefore, I was reared by my parents with a strong faith and belief in our Creator.

When I came to La Sierra University and began studying evolution, my thinking was, “yeah right, this ridiculous theory that I’ve heard about all my life, that we all come from monkeys, junk that is plain ridiculous.”

Well, Dr. Wisbey, it’s hard for me to admit it, and I don’t even like talking about it, but when I studied the theory as it was presented in class plus the studying of the books for the class, I actually started questioning Creation myself. I’ll never forget it. I would say to myself, “now Carlos, you know that this is all junk,” but at the same time Dr. Wisbey, I was reading the data from the Biology book, and getting indoctrinated by the faculty so much that I genuinely and sincerely had started to question Creation.

I also remember asking myself that if Creation was in the Bible and it didn’t actually take place the way it’s written, then what else could there be in the Bible that is also false. To put it bluntly, I questioned the Bible, religion and the existence of God.

It was only until I went to other sources outside of the teachings that I received here at our beloved La Sierra University, that I was able to realize the fact that science does point to a Designer, and I am thankful for that.

Dr. Wisbey, I know that I expressed to you that I, as well as others (including other pastor’s kids) that I personally know, have had this same confusion at our Adventist institution. Like I mentioned in our conversation, I don’t think it is coincidence that you, being an ordained minister, are in the position that you are at La Sierra University at this point in time. You and I know that if a student comes into our school as a believer and leaves as a nonbeliever, it would be totally unacceptable for it would be a result that is contrary to the purpose of our school.

Dr. Wisbey, the heart of my letter is this: I realize that you are aware that I personally, as well as others have been extremely affected by this problem here at La Sierra University pertaining to this issue. I know that you told me that you have also spoken with many students that have said that everything is ok in that class and that they don’t feel as if anything is being pushed on them. Good for them! but these are not the people I am concerned about. The fact that some students may leave that class and say they didn’t have a problem with it is not what I’m focusing on. What I believe should concern us is the one student that abandons his Christian faith because of the teachings that he received here in our school.

Like I mentioned, I personally could have been one more lost soul for leaving as an atheist after the teachings I received. I am deeply concerned, Elder Wisbey, I have friends who HAVE abandoned their faith because of the teachings they received here at La Sierra University.

As I said to you, perhaps it should be considered taking the teaching of the theory of evolution out of the science classroom, and put it in the Senior Capstone class, along with the theory of Intelligent Design. This way we have two philosophical ideas in a philosophy class, and then in our actual science classes, such as General Biology and others, we can teach actual science which is testable, observable, and repeatable.

Dr. Wisbey, I firmly believe that as an Adventist institution, we should make debunking this theory of evolution a challenge for our young scientists. We as Christians should seek to find the truth that science holds which points nowhere else but to our Creator. Just like Adventists are blessed with the task of spreading the three angels message, I believe this too can be a pleasant task for our young scientists to look for the signs in nature and molecular biology that point towards our Creator.

In closing, I would just like to leave you with a Bible passage that I found in 1 Timothy 6:20,21. I have written the text and have also included Ellen White’s Bible commentary pertaining to this text:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called; Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21

God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science; but the book of nature and the written Word do not disagree; each sheds light on the other. Rightly understood, they make us acquainted with God and His character by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which He works (ST March 20, 1884). {7BC 916.7}

Sophistry of False Science.–We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief. The Lord has given all the brilliancy of intellect that man possesses, and it should be devoted to His service (RH March 1, 1898).

Respectfully,

Carlos Cerna

I came to La Sierra University knowing the popular scientific views regarding life on earth. I previously attended a secular university, where evolution was taught. That is one reason I chose La Sierra University to begin pre-medicine classes. The first day of General Biology 2 I sat down only to see Charles Darwin’s face on the first slide. In my opinion, there would be no problem with that, except for the fact that we were taught only evolutionary principles of life for the next several weeks, and were told they were the truth. In fact, we were told Evolution “is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.”

After a few class lectures, I sat down to talk with Biology department head Dr. Wilson. Though it has now been almost five months since that meeting, I distinctly remember him saying “I was afraid this was going to happen.” In other words, he was not looking forward to the day when someone would take a stand and speak up concerning the teachings of the Biology department. Not to go unsaid, I have had many good conversations with members of the Biology department, including Dr. Lee Greer. He has taken the time to talk with me for over an hour on a number of occasions, providing me with reasons for his views of life on earth. I respect him for the fact that he has studied both the Bible and science to a great extent, and is convicted concerning what he believes. Yet what he and many others teaching Biology at La Sierra believe and teach involves many assumptions, and most importantly, is contradictory to the clear messages of the Bible. This fact was made clear to me when I attended one of Dr. Greer’s worship “breakouts.” He talked about the Biblical Creation accounts in detail, and concluded that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are contradictory accounts. The message I received was a message of doubt toward the Bible, which is no doubt what many other students were led to feel. I can now believe this is happening on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes!

It is a fact that Evolution is being taught and promoted by professors of Biology on the La Sierra University campus. They are obviously welcome to hold such views, yet I believe they have come to the wrong place to promote those beliefs. I know that La Sierra was founded for the purpose of raising up young people to share God’s message of mercy and truth with the world – young people who, out of their own free will choose to say “What does the Bible say?” Yet many young people on the La Sierra University campus are being led to doubt their beliefs. I asked my lab TA during Winter Quarter what her views were concerning Evolution vs. a literal Creation week. She ended up giving me her testimony at La Sierra. She told me that she was the daughter of a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor, and that she came to La Sierra to study Biology. After going through General Biology and being presented with the theory of evolution, she wrestled with her faith in God and seemed to find some middle ground. She then took a Senior Capstone course entitled “Religious, Social, and Moral Aspects of Biology.” She was presented with all the “evidence” that seems to support Evolution, and now considers herself to be an agnostic.

I won’t go without referring to the blessings of my experience at La Sierra. This Spring Quarter, Professor Perumal has taught Biology with contagious excitement. His teaching has given me and others good reason to study hard. Professor Perumal tells me that he is a creationist, and we also have enjoyed some good discussions. Yet I see where this could make any student very confused. Last quarter we were told that Evolution is the truth. This quarter we have still studied Evolution via secular class materials, but at a lesser intensity. My point is that only Evolution is presented and studied at an objective level. My teacher this quarter has spoken openly of the glory of God in nature, and for that I am thankful! But evidence for a young-age earth, in support of the Biblical account, is not presented for study. The objective support of the Bible is not touched on. So in the mind of many students, you have objective “Science” seeming to overshadow the Biblical account, leaving them trying to balance contradictory teachings. In my mind this has a tendency to lift up the teachings of man, and belittle the authoritative utterances of the word of God. This either leads to doubt toward the Bible, or leads to extreme Biblical reinterpretations which pick and choose what fits. The Bible is made subject to man’s teachings. If I was an eighteen year old freshman, I honestly can tell you, I don’t know what I would be putting my faith in right now.

I have shared this testimony to show the reality of what is taking place on a Seventh-Day Adventist campus. I know that there are many parents who are sending their sons and daughters to our schools trusting that they will be grounded in their faith, and that they will be taught that the Bible is the authority in all matters of faith and duty. I believe they should receive a return on their generous investment in a Seventh-Day Adventist education. How about you? Please share these realities with your friends and family, that we as a church body can make our voices heard.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female?’” Matthew 19:4.