La Sierra University Looking for New Biology Professor

Biology, Assistant – Associate Professor, Ph.D. (Tenure Track)

Brief Description

The Department of Biology at La Sierra University is recruiting for full-time, tenure track positions beginning September 2012.

Qualifications

A successful candidate must have a record of effective teaching and scholarship commensurate with academic experience, demonstrated ability to teach undergraduate science courses and labs, ability and willingness to provide effective advising to students in the degree program, and the ability and knowledge to conduct research.

Applicants should have a Ph.D. related to one or more of the following areas:  Developmental Biology, Environmental Studies, Genetics, Biostatistics, Molecular Genetics, Neurobiology, Animal Behavior or Invertebrate Zoology.

Position Available

September 2012

 

La Sierra University is a religiously-qualified Equal Opportunity Employer with the right to prefer Seventh-day Adventists in hiring. In the event that a qualified Seventh-day Adventist is not available to fill a position in the University, preference will be given to applicants of other faiths who have religious beliefs compatible with those of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and who support the published mission of the University (Read More…).
 
Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

30 thoughts on “La Sierra University Looking for New Biology Professor

  1. Some SDA colleges and Universities when advertising specify SDA and belief in short time Creation. Too bad La Sierra would even consider a person not an SDA. [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  2. Although we would expect this, to see it in writing (and in practice) is greatly encouraging!

    “La Sierra University is a religiously-qualified Equal Opportunity Employer with the right to prefer Seventh-day Adventists in hiring. In the event that a qualified Seventh-day Adventist is not available to fill a position in the University, preference will be given to applicants of other faiths who have religious beliefs compatible with those of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and who support the published mission of the University.”




    0
    View Comment
    • @Sybil:

      I am not opposed to this statement. I think it is reasonable for one of our universities to first seek out SDA professors to fill vacancies and then if none are available – find a non-SDA Christian who holds compatible beliefs with our own on the subject they will be teaching.

      For example – you can find non-SDA scientists today that are Christians, see the flaws and blunders in evolutionism, and hold both to I.D. and young life – and the trustworthy nature of the Genesis account.

      That is not an “SDA only” world view. Many of those people would be closer to the SDA POV than some of the outliers LSU prefers to draw from within the SDA camp.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  3. Well, they did not come right out and say that preference would be given to atheists/evolutionists, even though professors are increasingly coming from that camp.




    0
    View Comment
  4. Contrast this ad with the ones from SAU, who specifically state they want someone who upholds our SDA beliefs, including biblical creationism. What does La Sierra want? [edit] Our denomination either needs to gain some control over [edit] La Sierra or sell the institution to these people and let them go their worldly ways.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Sometimes we say there are non-Adventists who keep the Sabbath better than Adventists. Could the same idea be applied to teaching in this area being sought???




    0
    View Comment
  6. Bryant Worth:
    Sometimes we say there are non-Adventists who keep the Sabbath better than Adventists.Could the same idea be applied to teaching in this area being sought???

    Do you really think this is the reason La Sierra didn’t mention being an SDA or believing in SDA teachings?




    0
    View Comment
  7. Bryant Worth:
    Sometimes we say there are non-Adventists who keep the Sabbath better than Adventists.Could the same idea be applied to teaching in this area being sought???

    Are you saying you think La Sierra is trying to get a non-SDA because they will be better at keeping SDA beliefs? Is that some “spin” Wisbey and his cronies are putting on this ad?




    0
    View Comment
  8. I don’t for a minute think that LSU has returned to the fold of orthodoxy. That would only happen if there was a house cleaning there and new conservative leadership is brought in. With the current leadership, both in the university and in the department of biology, a lowly Assistant Professor is not going to come in and teach/publish YEC and earn tenure. Who do you think is on the promotion/rank/tenure committee that will promote an assistant professor? It would be those same Full Professors the have espoused the heresy that has been well documented here on Educate Truth for the last few years. In a publish or perish academic world, no smart person is going to go against the senior faculty in their University/Department. It is sad that those that are supposed to be the most open minded are often the most closed minded. Things there are quiet now, but I don’t believe thy have changed their beliefs. What LSU needs is a clean sweep.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Conservatives who want to be loyal to our time-tested beliefs need to realize that the progressives, those that would like to change the Seventh-day Adventist Church to give up its beliefs, are like bulldogs that get a grip and don’t let go. We are naive to think that they EVER give up. In those times of supposed quiet, they are working behind the scenes, slowly, perseveringly, tirelessly, making change, especially trying to steal away our youth. This is how we got to the place where we are today. Conservatives have been asleep on the wall of the city and let the enemy steal away significant institutions of our church.

    IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP PEOPLE! If ever there was a time to put away the things of this world, it is now. JESUS IS COMING SOON. Our church is in grave danger. Turn off the TV and video games. It’s time to get ready!




    0
    View Comment
  10. Paul predicted a “falling away” in the early church. We know how that played out in the establishment of the Papacy.

    I don’t think the early believers in Adventism envisioned a “falling away” in the church before the final end. But at this point, it seems more than obvious that such is the case.

    Time has a way of allowing the devil to infiltrate the church and work his will if and when the opportunity comes his way. Like the early church, lay member no doubt felt little responsibility for what the church leaders did and/or decided.

    Part of it is human nature, coupled with the on-going idea of “church infallibility” that assumes in the end, all will be well. And so our children and grandchildren are being deceived by a false education on various levels.

    As David Read said on another forum, SDA’s are not really good bible students and are force fed there spirituality by various false ideas. No one is really all that alarmed about anything in particular. Even when it is fairly common knowledge that evolution is being taught, few feel the need to demand accountability of anyone. Assuming someone else will do it, and all will eventually be OK.

    “Turn off the TV and video games. It’s time to get ready!” may well be true. But it is not likely that many will really take is seriously. “I’m OK, you’re OK” is far more appealing to the carnal mind and is an “easy sell” to the church by the church leaders.

    If “the church” really believed we were in a “falling away”, there might be some viable hope of a real revival. Few, if any believe it. And thus, continued apathy and apostacy is more likely to be the outcome.

    If we have a strong belief in the historic message, we will also need a strong faith to go with it. It is not likely to turn out the way we hope it will. None the less, we can still know “the truth” will triumph inspite of the church, and not necessarily because of it.

    God will teach us the hard lesson of patience by way of trial and disappointment. Don’t despair. We must necessarily be close to the end as the liberal and progressive movement continues to work to destroy bible Adventism.

    It may well be in the end, all we can keep is our name, Seventh-day Adventist, and everything else will go by the way. It is a major identity crisis, isn’t it?

    The shaking will reveal in the end who the real SDA’s are. Let’s hope it is you and me if we “Keep the faith.”

    Have a good week,

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen: Bill, you misquoted me. I said that Adventists, as a people, don’t seem to be any more committed to Scripture as the rule of faith and practice than anyone else is. When we do study the Bible, we are frequently excellent Bible students. Historically, though not recently, Adventists are the best Bible students that there have ever been.




      0
      View Comment
  11. Bill, there are two roads-one narrow with few travelers, and one wide with gridlock. We are coming down to the nitty gritty and having the name Seventh-day Adventist is not enough. It requires more than just a name. We have to do some really deep surrender, Bible study, soul searching and moral house cleaning to get on the narrow road. Most SDA’s are going to sadly surprised because they have refused to surrender and do the work that is necessary. Growing up in the system, going to the schools, putting on the facade, is not enough.




    0
    View Comment
  12. “Bill, there are two roads-one narrow with few travelers, and one wide with gridlock. We are coming down to the nitty gritty and having the name Seventh-day Adventist is not enough. It requires more than just a name. We have to do some really deep surrender, Bible study, soul searching and moral house cleaning to get on the narrow road. Most SDA’s are going to sadly surprised because they have refused to surrender and do the work that is necessary. Growing up in the system, going to the schools, putting on the facade, is not enough.”

    Well, we don’t know for sure. But it may be that the name itself will eventually be the final offense. God approved this name because in the end, it defines what we believe.

    Make no mistake. The “spirit” that controls many if not most SDA’s is an anti-Sabbath spirit. That should be obvious as we examine this evolution/creation discussion. Not to mention the eccumenical/celebration movement in Adventism as well as the women’s lib. and gay movement making considerable inroads into the church.

    I know that Spectrum does not represent the majority of SDA’s. But they do represent a sizable number who have considerable authority and influence in the SDA church. It seems clear that the majority of church leaders are liberal in their actions if not in their confession of doctrine.

    Meaning, you can confess anything you want. It is what you do that demonstrates what you believe. So a person could easily confess a conservative view, and be liberal in action by doing nothing.

    When it is finally clearly shown that bible Adventism is EGW Adventism, then no one can oppose and attack her view without admitting they are non-SDA. So far, many who oppose her still claim they are “loyal” to the church. This is in fact, impossible. And when this is clearly preceived, we will see the final split that is inevitable.

    Until then, we don’t want to be like Judas and try to “force God’s hand” to bring about the results we think is necessary for a revelation of the final outcome.

    So it may well be that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” will eventually define the true and loyal believers as all others won’t want to identify with you and me if we are loyal to our message.

    I think there are more than a few who don’t want to identify with us now. And that number will increase more and more in the near future. We want our name back. Regardless of the outcome.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  13. Kenneth Christman, M.D.:
    Well, they did not come right out and say that preference would be given to atheists/evolutionists, even though professors are increasingly coming from that camp.

    You’re quite right, Dr. Christman. But what they DON’T say is actually more important than what they do say. Other SDA colleges want bible-believing Christians. La Sierra wants a “PhD.” Any PhD? It seem so!




    0
    View Comment
  14. Liberals and Progressives always opt for “PLuralism”. This opens the door for them to present any idea and philosophy as a viable option to explain truth.

    Pluralism means there are no objective givens to explain truth. We need not agree on anything. The only singular thing we agree on, is that everyone believes as they please and teach accordingly, with no accountability to the corporate body.

    And of course, no one can “judge” anybody else for what they believe or what they teach.

    All this came with the Dr. Ford apostacy and his false gospel that was and is still embraced by more than a few in responsible and influencial positions in the church.

    And what’s even more un-settling, is most lay people have no idea or real concern or feel any accountability to deal with this “whole church issue”.

    Luther rightly discerned that “the task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole church community.” This is not the norm in modern Adventism, nor in the Christian world in general.

    We have an obvious “identity crisis” that few even recognize or consider relevant. What we don’t deal with today, will be infinitely more difficult to deal with in the future. Until it becomes impossible.

    Are we there yet?

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  15. Kenneth Christman, M.D.: Well, they did not come right out and say that preference would be given to atheists/evolutionists, even though professors are increasingly coming from that camp.

    I find it revealing that LSU has gone from explicitly soliciting an SDA who will support church beliefs, to “preferring an atheist/evolutionist” in the space of three comments.

    I also, find it sad that our conservative brother still rejects the 1844 message of Righteousness by Faith, which Dr. Ford taught so clearly and powerfully.

    Such cynicism is so sad. I can hardly bear it. It must make Jesus weep.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Can someone please explain to me why an Adventist scientist or academic would chose to throw away their career, life, Church standing etc etc in advocating evolution, when it would be so much easier just to shut up and tow the official party line? Surely, there would be much pressure to just keep quiet? Whether one agrees with their stance or not, surely it must take a lot of courage and conviction to talk about evolution within official Adventism?




    0
    View Comment
    • It does take a lot of courage. The data for evolution is truly overwhelming and I think the teachers should be commended for trying to deal with it rather than being castigated.

      This is a sad day for the SDA church. We used to be about following truth no matter were it comes from or were it leads. I guess now we are only about defending dogma. As an Adventist who can trace their roots back to a relative who observed the Dark Day, defending dogma, just isn’t big enough.

      My question is what now? I don’t feel like I can honestly support an organization which oppresses honest discussion with my tithe, but what do I do with it?

      Since the church takes the stance that their teachers are really ministers teaching church doctrine instead of science, I am paying my kids tuition with the tithe money, but after she graduates, what then?




      0
      View Comment
      • @Ron:

        “We used to be about following truth no matter w[h]ere it comes from or w[h]ere it leads.”

        Well said if ill used.

        The key word is “truth.” Some Adventists are still following truth no matter where it comes from, even Genesis 1 and EGW, bacterial flagella and upturned geostrata, and no matter how much postAdventist angst, heart-felt or tongue-in-cheek, it engenders. And where that had to lead to was this site.

        “Now we are only about defending dogma.” Tsk-tsk! But which dogma is LSU defending?




        0
        View Comment
        • @Wesley Kime:
          Truth may still be truth, but it becomes dogma the instant you try to enforce it with sanctions, because when you do that, you loose the ability to prove that the truth is in fact true, because there is no longer any one to take the other side of the argument and really explore the issue. There may be other more legitimate explanations that are even better, but you will never discover them because no one can open the discussion.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Ron: Again the famous Ron’s Rule, herewith edited to the core and compassionately, sorrowfully, hermeneutically extrapolated: Truth becomes dogma the instant enforced, because, by enforcement, truth becomes unprovable, because there is no one taking the other side to disprove it or even open the discussion, and thus truth is already disproved, which is a tautology because it’s an ineluctable given that there is no such thing as truth anyway, so who needs discussion to disprove anything, and anyway if disproven is no longer dogma but back to being truth, which is impossible and thus already enforced, so why all this discussion on this patently already opened thread, which discussion cannot be happening if no one is taking the other side, and if so how come so many Rons taking the other side (or angle or tangent), and if no discussion, it’s all a dogpile of dharma after all.




          0
          View Comment
        • Wesley, Please forgive me if I don’t follow what seems to me to be very tortured logic.

          Truth is truth regardless of whether you believe it or not. In fact I once heard someone define reality as that which remains after you no longer believe in it.

          I think you go astray in your logic when you assert that coercing belief in truth makes it no longer true. Coercion does not alter what is true, it just makes it impossible to independently verify truth. That in turn leaves us very vulnerable to the risk of deception.

          For me, I would much rather take the risk of questioning and doubting truth, than the risk of believing in presumably true dogma because I believe truth will stand the test, whereas if I fail to question the truth because it has become dogma, I run the risk of unwittingly believing in the error of a well meaning clergy with no mechanism to identify the error. It is the intellectual equivalent of committing the unpardonable sin because there is no remedy.

          Questioning truth has a remedy. Believing in a false dogma doesn’t. Turning truth into a true dogma doesn’t accomplish anything other than to increase the risk.

          To quote Christ, “You study the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life”. It is possible that the Bible isn’t saying exactly what you think it is. The only way to know the truth of it is through questioning. Coercion prevents the questioning.




          0
          View Comment
      • @Ron: See for me that is the critical point. I am not a scientist (nor are the 99.9% of other Adventists, including SDA leaders), so we have to rely on what scientists say. If even Adventist scientists are now saying there is something in evolution, despite the huge pressures they would no doubt receive to just stay quiet, then there must be strong evidence in support it.

        I personally wish it wasn’t true, but one cannot live their life ignoring the truth. This especially if one belongs to a denomination known for the world’s largest protestant education and health systems, progressive revelation, present truth and anti-creedism.




        0
        View Comment
  17. The official SDA church’s obviously. No one can dare raise any questions or have any reasonable disscussion about the issues now without fear of loosing their job. I know that some people here think that is a good thing, but to me, that undermines the whole credibility of the church. If we can’t have an open discussion without fear of reprisal, then all integrity in the search for truth is lost.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ron: What happened to the spirit of the early Adventist pioneers, who were all about progressive revelation and present truth, theological diversity and anti-creedism? Who today can really claim the mantle of ‘historic’ Adventism?




      0
      View Comment
      • @Stephen Ferguson:
        Steve, I don’t know. I have been advocating for it, but there seems to be little support for it in today’s SDA church. I love my church, but I can no longer keep silent and it is getting to the point that I don’t think I can legitimately support such a repressive organization with my Tithe.

        Since the church claims that our teachers are really “ministers” responsible for teaching church doctrine in the place of science, then I guess I will use my Tithe to pay my daughter’s tuition at Andrews, but she graduates this year, and after that, I don’t know what to do. Maybe I will try to find some other charity.

        I think Mrs. White gave us an example and set a precedent when she gave her Tithe to the widow of one of our early ministers when she disagreed with church policy.

        Since all the committees of the church are controlled by the clergy, that seems to be the only avenue of protest available to the average layman.




        0
        View Comment
  18. Stephen Ferguson: @Ron: See for me that is the critical point. I am not a scientist (nor are the 99.9% of other Adventists, including SDA leaders), so we have to rely on what scientists say.”

    Really? Considering these scientists have sold out to a man-made theory that excludes God, how do you figure that it is safe to trust them?

    Have you ever watched the DVD entitled “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”? Here we find that worldly scientists are starting to question Darwin’s theory and actually point out how it can be disproven according to Darwin’s own conditional statement. Talk about blind faith!

    I can’t believe that anyone with the Scriptural knowledge that SDAs have been blessed with could possibly transfer their faith in God’s Word to man’s word. It boggles my mind.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Faith: Faith, questioning something is not blind faith. I think that is actually how faith ceases to be blind. I would assert that those who are open to both, exploring the possibility of, and at the same time doubting evolution are on more solid ground than those who blindly accept either creation or evolution. At least when they finally come to a conclusion they will know why they believe what they believe.




      0
      View Comment
  19. Stephen:
    Can someone please explain to me why an Adventist scientist or academic would chose to throw away their career, life, Church standing etc etc in advocating evolution, when it would be so much easier just to shut up and tow the official party line?Surely, there would be much pressure to just keep quiet?Whether one agrees with their stance or not, surely it must take a lot of courage and conviction to talk about evolution within official Adventism?

    Who has thrown away their careers at La Sierra? Up until now, the evolutionists seem to be “in charge.” And probably still are. It would take MUCH MORE conviction to stand against what is going on at La Sierra.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.