Editor’s note: The author wishes to remain anonymous, because of the
political climate surrounding the issues being discussed.

Since the 1960’s LSU (formerly LLU-LS – La Sierra campus of LLU, until 1990) has gradually changed. The primary change began in the early 1970’s. A group of LLU-LS faculty initiated a branch church in downtown Riverside, called City Parish. It was probably a good idea, but in the operation of that church over several years a group of faculty with similar goals and beliefs coalesced around a vision for LLU-LS. Their vision was to move the campus away from being a sectarian university that teaches SDA beliefs, and (as was at times openly stated) to take LLU-LS out of the SDA educational system.

The primary persons involved in this faculty group were from various disciplines, including religion, biology, physics, modern languages, math, history, and education. There also were other sympathizers who were not an active part of the group. The “group” worked, over a number of years, to gain political strength with the other faculty. During those years the LLU central administration was based at Loma Linda, leaving the La Sierra Campus with weak leadership in some ways. The group capitalized on that situation and the resulting faculty distrust of administration, to gain political strength.

During that time some members of the “group” proposed and launched an honors program called the Interdisciplinary Program (generally referred to as InterDip). The teaching in that program followed the vision of the “group.” Ronald Numbers was at that time teaching a class on the history of medicine for the LLU Medical School, and also was one of the primary teachers in InterDip courses, along with a LLU-LS religion faculty member. Several LLU biology graduate students were teaching biology labs, and from conversations with InterDip students they learned that the two InterDip faculty had largely convinced these students that life was the result of evolution over millions of years, and not special creation. The biology graduate students requested the Dean of the College to have faculty in the biology graduate program at Loma Linda give a series of lectures in InterDip to counteract this influence. This was done. A few years later a new Dean closed down InterDip, because of the negative influence it was having.

In 1980 the Dean of the College of Arts and Science resigned, and a search committee was formed to choose a new Dean. Somehow the “group” managed to fill all but one position on that search committee. They launched an elaborate process designed to appear very democratic, while actually aiming from the start to install their candidate, who was at that time Dean of the Graduate School, as the new Arts and Sciences Dean. Their plan didn’t work, thanks to the decision of the LLU President. It did result in the choice of a person poorly prepared to be Dean, resulting in a few difficult years for all. That Dean finally resigned after serious decline of his health, the departure of his wife, and other problems.

The “group” had plans for changing some academic departments to better meet their vision, with the priority areas being religion and biology. The Dean of the School of Religion was Kenneth Vine. His views didn’t match the “group’s” agenda. For example he removed one religion faculty from teaching the course on Ellen White when he learned that this person presented a very negative view of White. Vine was near retirement age, and when he retired the “group” was delighted. The chair of the department of biology was far from retirement, so a different strategy was employed. The biologist in the “group” took on the task of diverting the biology department from its commitment to biblical creation, to a more evolution-focused philosophy. In order to do this he would have to become chair of that department. He made serious efforts to accomplish this goal over a period of 5 or 6 years, largely by political maneuvering. The biology faculty were not sympathetic with his vision for the department, and he failed to accomplish it.

When LLU and La Sierra ended their twin-campus collaboration in 1990 the “group” had more success in establishing their political leadership at La Sierra, now La Sierra University. They successfully selected the person of their choice as President of the new University, and in a few years replaced him with another of their favorites. After the biology graduate faculty left La Sierra in 1990 and became the Department of Natural Sciences at LLU, the new chair of the department of biology at LSU was successful, over the years, in guiding the department to follow the vision of the “group,” replacing any interest in a literal creation with teaching that urges the students to accept evolution over millions of years as the true story of origins. There is reason to think the faculty of religion have followed a similar path.

This history has brought LSU to its current position, with some leading faculty seeking to turn students away from the long-established beliefs of the SDA church, to a set of beliefs more in line with many mainline protestant denominations.

LSU provost, Steve Pawluk, sent out an email Sept. 2, 2010, to what appears to be every LSU student who has taken one or more biology courses at La Sierra University since 2006.

Good Morning!

Because you have taken one or more biology courses at La Sierra University, we want to know about your experience as a student at our university.

In light of concerns that have been publically expressed about the ways in which creation and evolution are being taught in La Sierra University’s biology classes, academic administration and the faculty of the Department of Biology want to determine, in an objective manner, what our students are being, or have been, taught on this subject. Therefore, you are being asked to respond to this brief survey.

Your responses will be kept completely confidential. Completion of the survey is expected to take about 10 minutes.

If you are able to participate, please follow this link to start the survey: [edit]

We appreciate, very much, your time and the important information that you will provide. Thank you.

Steve Pawluk, Provost

[Questions from survey]

Our biology faculty members of La Sierra University want to teach complex issues effectively. In light of concerns recently raised about the ways in which creation and evolution are being taught in La Sierra University’s biology classes, academic administration and the faculty of the Department of Biology want to determine, in an objective manner, what our students are being taught on this subject. Therefore, because you have been a student in our biology program, you are being asked to respond to this brief survey.

We are interested in hearing what you, personally, experienced while studying biology at La Sierra University.

We appreciate your honest responses. Thank you for taking a few moments to respond to these 17 brief survey items. Your responses will be kept completely confidential.

[Students would answer on a scale of Strongly agree(5), Agree(4), Neutral(3), Disagree(2), Strongly disagree(1), No basis for response(0)]

1. It is appropriate to present evolutionary theories in biology classes at La Sierra University.

2. Evolution is presented as a scientific working theory in biology classes.

3. The differences between theories, facts, and beliefs were explained in my biology classes.

4. The changing and always tentative nature of even strongly- established theories was explained in my biology classes.

5. Data relevant to testing the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theories were discussed in my biology classes.

6. Evolutionary theories were taught as the factual explanation of the origin of life.

7. My professors presented helpful ways of relating science and religious faith.

8. The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was presented in biology classes.

9. The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was supported in biology classes.

10. Science is an effective, but tentative, way to understand and explain natural processes.

11. Science offers an effective way to prove beliefs about God and God’s creation.

12. Science and religion are valid but different ways of understanding the world.

13. Science is unable to definitively answer questions about the ultimate origins of human life.

14. Biology professors treated my questions and views on issues of origins, science, and religious faith with dignity and respect.

15. Biology professors encouraged my faith in a personal God.

16. Biology professors supported my faithfulness to my religious heritage.

17. I would encourage others to study biology at La Sierra University.

Please tell us a little about yourself so that we can classify your responses appropriately.

18 * I am responding as a:

Graduating biology major 2010
Graduating biology major 2009
Graduating biology major 2008
Graduating biology major 2007
Graduating biology major 2000
Student who took General Biology in 2009-2010
Student who took General Biology in 2008-2009
Student who took General Biology in 2007-2008
Student who took General Biology in 2006-2007

19 I am a:
Female Male

20 I belong to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.
Yes No

21 I:
Began as a freshman at La Sierra University
Am/was a transfer student to La Sierra University

What a stunning event this 59th General Conference Session turned out to be! As we approached this GC Session, many wrestled with God in prayer, and I believe the Lord heard and answered wonderfully. As most now know, Elder Ted N. C. Wilson, a vice-president of the General Conference, was elected as President of the General Conference. With outstanding support on the nominating committee he was destined to affect this Session dramatically, and possibly shape the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As we came to this session, the church was astir over the teaching of some forms of evolution in certain parts of higher education in North America. Important questions burned in our hearts. Why was fixing this issue such a problem? Even more seriously, how deeply had the authority of Scripture been eroded among us? Teaching evolution as fact in the Adventist church? How could Sabbath-keepers ever embrace something so hostile to the seventh-day Sabbath? And, what about our children? Would these schools, established through much sacrifice to pass on Adventist faith to our children, be sacrificed on the altars of academic pride? Would the Session deal with this issue in a strong way or would the politically articulate and strident voices of secularism and liberalism stifle the whole?

In a powerful presentation, at the “YES! Creation” seminar on Thursday, Dr. Ted Wilson noted that “we will stand firm on our foundations,” and that we will keep our eyes on the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. Quoting from Ellen White, he warned of these infidel geologists who teach evolu- tion, and thus seek to destroy the seventh-day Sabbath. Finally, he called on all Adventist teachers to believe, accept, and teach what we as a Church officially believe regarding creation.

But Elder Wilson’s holy boldness was not finished yet. Everyone waited with bated breath for his sermon on the final Sabbath of the GC Session. What a sermon it was! Again, I have never seen such courage, insight and clear articulation of the issues and dangers that surround us, expressed by a GC President.

First, let me share a bit of background. It is no secret that over the last thirty years, in certain areas of the western world, the Adventist Church has seen considerable drift from our beliefs and practices. Lately this drift has greatly accelerated. It began with attacks on the inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy. Then the higher critical scholars among us began to undermine the authority of Scripture until there were loud voices in many places expressing disbelief in nearly everything we hold true. The creation/evolution issue is a case in point.

In the name of “relevance,” some conferences opened the door to churches to experiment with just about everything pertaining to worship. Worship shifted from being God-centered to man-centered. Borrowing nearly everything from wild dance music to drama, the methods of secular Christianity were imported into our divine services. “We will worship God in any way we please” was the theme. Of course, this was all done with the excuse that the church had to be “relevant” to today’s young people. It didn’t work! After all of these years of experimentation the same voices are today lamenting the great loss of young people. Sometimes one wonders what lessons from the golden calf experiment modern Israel just doesn’t get?

Elder Wilson left no doubt about what “wall” this church must put its faith-ladder on. “Go forward,” he said, “in lifting up Christ and proclaiming God’s grace; Go forward in presenting the three angels’ messages; Go forward in pleading for revival and reformation; Go forward in following the Bible as it reads; Go forward in reading and adhering to the counsel of the Spirit of Prophecy; Go forward in proclaiming to the world the good news of salvation and the imminent second coming of Jesus Christ.”

Then, with caution against unscriptural methods, he mentioned some specifics: “We must be vigilant to test all things according to the supreme authority of God’s Word and the counsel with which we have been blessed in the writings of Ellen G. White. Don’t reach out to movements or mega church centers outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church which promise you spiritual success based on faulty theology. Stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering prayer, and the emerging church movement, in which such things are promoted.”

Then he addressed the matter of worship. “Use Christ-centered, Bible-based worship and music practices in church services; while we understand that worship services and cultures vary throughout the world, don’t go backwards into confusing pagan settings where music and worship become so focused on emotion and experience that you lose the central focus on the Word of God. All worship, how- ever simple or complex should do one thing and one thing only — lift up Christ and put down self.”

Next, putting his finger on the root of the drift, he said. “Let Scripture be its own interpreter. Our church has long held to the historical-biblical or historical-grammatical method of understanding Scripture, allowing the Bible to interpret itself — line upon line, precept upon precept. However, one of the most sinister attacks against the Bible is from those who believe in the historical-critical method of explaining the Bible. This unbiblical approach of ‘higher criticism’ is a deadly enemy of our theology and mission….” In addition, he expressed his great confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy with these words: “Accept the Spirit of Prophecy as one of the greatest gifts given to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, not just for the past but even more importantly for the future.” He continued: “While the Bible is paramount in our estimation as the ultimate authority and final arbiter of truth, the Spirit of Prophecy provides clear, inspired counsel to aid our application of Bible truth. It is a heaven-sent guide to in- struct the church in how to carry out its mission…. The Spirit of Prophecy is to be read, believed, applied and promoted.”

What a Sabbath! After hearing this powerful courageous sermon, I thought about the unseen forces present. If our eyes could have been opened, would we have seen Jesus Himself taking charge of His church in the battle against
Satan? By means of the Holy Spirit, I believe Jesus was using His servant and calling His church to Himself.

We are in a Great Controversy. It was no surprise that Pastor Wilson could hardly finish his sermon before being assailed online by those for whom compromise is no stranger. Of course, one sermon will not fix everything. There is more need than ever for a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We must “go forward” into Christ-likeness, not backward into secular worldliness.

This may have been the most important sermon to the Adventist church in modern times. Even though it may be mocked and abused by self-styled “progressive” elements in our Church, let us pray that we will have ears to hear. Elder Wilson will need our prayers. May the Lord protect him and his family, spiritually and physically, and use him along with the rest of us to display the splendor of His love, to a broken world. Let us “go forward” whatever the dangers, let’s go forward in Christ Jesus, the true Captain of our ship.

This article was published in the August edition of the Michigan Memo. Bold emphasis added.

Despite the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventists who agree with our position on origins, there is a vocal, yet influential, minority of members in our church who disagree with what they think we’re doing, and have drawn some of their own conclusions based on the gamut of comments that appear on Educate Truth. Some of our most vocal opponents have taken extreme comments from our website and portrayed them as representative of Educate Truth. So we want to make it clear where we stand in regard to the relevant issues in the LSU conflict.

Educate Truth’s purpose

Educate Truth was created for a number of reasons. We wanted to 1) keep the issue public so that it wouldn’t “blow over,” so 2) potential students and their parents could make informed decisions. We also wanted to 3) create awareness in our church in hopes our leadership would look into this problem and begin a process that would address the concerns of LSU students and church members.

A significant catalyst in my motivation for becoming involved in this issue was my own experience in the biology department during the ’04-’05 school year. My biology professor made it clear to our class that life on earth was millions of years old and had descended from a common ancestor. I can sympathize with the students at LSU who believe in the biblical creation who attend these biology courses. I was one of them. There were a few conversations about the teacher’s beliefs amongst the students, but I personally took no action at the time. I remember telling my dad on the phone my biology professor believed in the theory of evolution. “I can’t believe the school is letting him do that,” I told him.

When I read David Asscherick’s letter over a year ago, I was thrilled that finally someone had spoken up. It was around that time I discovered a website called LaSierraUniversity.net. The website ran along the same lines as Educate Truth, and I became an avid commenter. About a month after the website had been up, it was shut down by GoDaddy.com because the owner could not be contacted in regard to an article that had been republished without permission from Adventist Review. The webmaster contacted me and asked if I wanted to continue the website. At first I said no and deferred him to Sean Pitman. Sean and I were thinking we weren’t very web savvy, but in the end I decided I would continue the website but with a different name.

Many have made fun of the “Truth” in the website’s name, but I thought it was quite fitting. I picked the name because it represented what the website would be advocating–the truth, as believed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Educate Truth’s goal

So what’s the end game? What do we want to happen? Many assumptions have been made on behalf of the website, and few have taken the time to actually make any contact to understand more fully why the website exists. Charles Scriven contacted me in August 2009, wanting to know who I was and more about my beliefs in regard to the conflict. There are many things about Scriven’s theology that I disagree with, but I really did appreciate the effort he made. This is more then I can say for the other niche blogs that did not contact me, but had plenty to say about the intentions of the website. Here is what I believe myself and others who support our efforts would like to see happen:

1. Transparency. Currently there is an inconsistency between the biology department and the university administration in regard to how evolution is taught. The administration says evolution isn’t promoted, yet the evidence from the biology department strongly suggests otherwise. In other words, the professors have been open about what they believe and teach, but the administration denies what they’re doing.

2. Right now LSU is employing professors who are not representing the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in their classes. When applicable, we would like to see evidence for the biblical creation presented and promoted in the relevant science classes.

3. We would like to see a fair, supportive, and encouraging environment for students who believe in the church’s position on creation. It doesn’t appear there are many, if any, resources for these students, and for the moment they are resorting to outside speakers.

4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom. For me, this is the bottom line of the controversy. What is informing our science?

We often get accused or asked if we’re trying to get people fired. The answer is no. If the professors are unwilling to represent the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s beliefs without pushing their own contrary beliefs, then I don’t see any other alternative but to ask them to resign. It is not my responsibility how the problem is dealt with. I have no desire to lead a campaign to take away someone’s job. It may be the fruit of this controversy, but it is not our goal.

Creation vs. evolution controversy not primary

While the issues surrounding creation and evolution are very important, the primary purpose of Educate Truth is not to debate the evidence. We have repeated numerous times that our core contention with La Sierra University is a number of professors employed there currently do not represent the church’s beliefs in their classrooms.

The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy. Ellen White said, “The Bible is its own interpreter” (OHC 207). In Review & Herald, July 3, 1900, she said: “If men had closely, earnestly, continuously studied God’s word, making the Bible its own commentator, the key with which to unlock Scripture, they would have been as much astonished at the golden treasures revealed as was the man who found the treasure in the field.”

There has been a departure from this practice at LSU. It is my firm belief that some within the biology and religion department have reversed this and made human reasoning the primary interpreter of the Bible and scientific data.

Not a campaign against individuals

Ultimate responsibility lies with the administration that hired them in the first place. The administration that continues to employ and support those who teach contrary beliefs are treading on dangerous ground. As appalled as I am that some of these professors are teaching at an Adventist university, I’m more appalled that there has been, and continues to be, an administration that hires and supports professors whose beliefs undermine the Bible and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We have named names, but we do not have a personal vendetta against them. Who they are is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. They are nice men who are influencing students positively in many areas; however, their beliefs in regard to origins blatantly contradict their employer the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is these beliefs that have and will continue to destroy the faith of students in the veracity of the biblical creation, that God created the ‘heaven and earth’ in six days, and all the variation in life we see today resulted from those first creatures. Also, that God sent a flood that destroyed the entire earth, and all this happened roughly 6,000 years ago. The creation story is foundational to all truth as presented in the Bible. These men are free to believe and teach whatever they want, just not at our university with our money.

Excerpts from an interesting and relevant article published in the Adventist Review titled, “Pastors Who Don’t Believe”:

Wes, a Methodist [minister], lost his confidence in the Bible while attending a liberal Christian college and seminary. “I went to college thinking Adam and Eve were real people,” he explained. Now, he no longer believes that God exists. In his rendering, God is a word that “can be used very expressively in some of my more meditative modes” and “a kind of poetry that is written by human beings.”

His church members do not know that he is an atheist, but he explains that they are somewhat liberal themselves. His ministerial colleagues are even more liberal: “They’ve been de-mythologized, I’ll say that. They don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead literally. They don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin. They don’t believe all those things that would cause a big stir in their churches.”…

Darryl is a Presbyterian who sees himself as a “progressive-minded” pastor who wants to see his kind of non-doctrinal Christianity “given validity in some way.”… “I reject the virgin birth. I reject substitutionary atonement. I reject the divinity of Jesus. I reject heaven and hell in the traditional sense, and I am not alone.”

Amazingly, Darryl is candid about the fact that he remains in the ministry largely for financial reasons. It is how he provides for his family. If he openly espoused his beliefs, “I may be burning bridges in terms of my ability to earn a living this way.”…

Adam ministers in the Church of Christ, a conservative denomination… After reading a series of books, he became convinced that the atheists have better arguments than believers. He has moved fully into an atheist mode, yet he continues to lead his church in worship. How? “Here’s how I’m handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I see myself as taking on the role of a believer in a worship service, and performing.”

This “atheistic agnostic” stays in the ministry because he likes the people and, “I need the job still.” If he had an alternative source of income, he would take it. He feels hypocritical, but no longer believes that hypocrisy is wrong.… [emphasis added]

If they will not remove themselves from the ministry, they must be removed. If they lack the integrity to resign their pulpits, the churches must muster the integrity to eject them. If they will not “out” themselves, it is the duty of faithful Christians to “out” them…

Read More

If you think that the SDA Church is immune from this kind of unbelief and unethical activity from pastors and teachers who stand as paid representatives of our Church, to the point of suggesting that, “there’s nothing wrong with hypocrisy”, you are in for a very rude awakening.

Many of our own SDA pastors and teachers are in a very similar boat as those non-believing “pastors” described above. They stay for the money (what little it often is), or for other personal reasons; not because they believe in or are willing to promote the Church’s pillars of faith on the Church’s dime. They are willing to sell their moral character for a few dollars, a bowl of lentil soup really, rather than do the right thing and seek honest employment elsewhere…

Our SDA Church, in particular, should hold these men (and women) to a much higher standard. They simply should not be allowed to continue on in their employment while promoting ideas and concepts that fundamentally counter the pillars of the SDA faith.

And, if our pastors should be held to this standard (a standard of actually saying and doing what they are being paid to say and do), why shouldn’t our own teachers who teach in our own schools, like La Sierra University in particular, be held to such a basic self-evident standard of conduct as well?

Why do we, as a Church organization, continue to fund those teachers who are as blatantly and publicly opposed to fundamental elements of the faith, goals, and ideals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as are most of LSU’s science and even religion professors?

Are we not shooting ourselves in our collective foot, as an organization, by continuing to ignore this problem like it isn’t significant or like it will somehow go away all by itself? It won’t. Something must be done in a very direct manner to check this corrosive influence within our own Church organization or there will be very little left to salvage within a very short time…

An old La Sierra University student sponsored petition surfaced today that states the “C.O.R.E. Curriculum/University Studies program” at LSU is “unacceptable.” It goes on to list “[t]he total unwillingness of administration to evaluate the program or survey student opinion, and the suppression of dissenting views relating to C.O.R.E.” as one of its eight reasons why the program should be dismissed. There is no date on the original document, but we think it is from 1999. We’ve contacted a couple of the signees and will update you with more information as it comes in. It appears this isn’t the only time LSU has ignored and suppressed student concerns about curriculum.

You can read more about LSU’s attempt to suppress Louie Bishop last school year when he blew the whistle on their promotion of evolution as fact.

Dear Alumnus,

We the students of La Sierra University have reached a crisis that calls for the desperate attention of all concerned parties. Due to the complete lack of respect on the part of the administration to listen and acknowledge the students and our complaints on the CORE curriculum, we have collectively gathered together to ask for help. In the last two weeks over three hundred student signatures (approximately one third of the student body) have been gathered to voice our deep concern. It must be stated from the start that this letter is only being sent out because of a desperate situation.

The petition that students signed, addresses eight issues. Stated on the petition are the more prominent reason for the dismissal of CORE. Your immediate attention to this matter is vital to ensure changes necessary in bringing this institution back to the Biblical principles that Adventist education was founded on. We believe that Adventist education is precious and rare and this letter is written in the hope that you will help to keep this alive. You can let your influence be felt by letting those in decision making positions know how you feel. It must be restated that your help in this matter is absolutely crucial to bringing about the changes desperately needed.

May God Bless you in every way!

[signatures]

Monte Bridges (History/Political Science)
Shawn Paris (Religious Studies/Pre-Seminary)
Manasseh Nwaigwe (Health Science/Pre-Med)
(300+ Students)

P.S. We can be reached at: FrustratedLaSierraStudents@usa.net

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

We the undersigned students of La Sierra University find the C.O.R.E. Curriculum/University Studies program to be unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Its misrepresentation of the Christian God, and total lack of emphasis on Christ and the Bible.

2. Its underlying humanistic (versus Christian) values and foundation.

3. Its emphasis that “religions are different paths leading to the same truth.”

4. The general inconsistency, unfairness. and incompetence of team teaching.

5. The general inability of credits to transfer in and out of the program.

6. The superficial, and liberal political content of the classes.

7. Subtle subversive attacks on Christianity and Monotheism.

8. The total unwillingness of administration to evaluate the program or survey student opinion, and the suppression of dissenting views relating to C.O.R.E.

The original petition we have does not have all three hundred signatures. It’s more than likely we did not receive the whole document.

This press release from La Sierra University confirms earlier claims that WASC is taking note of the controversy over evolution and has concerns about “institutional autonomy, the appropriate role of the board and faculty, and academic freedom.” WASC will return in the spring of 2011 to review this situation, because it “sees the efforts of some outside the university as threatening to La Sierra’s institutional autonomy.”

August 20, 2010
Larry Becker
Director, University Relations

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) has reaffirmed the accreditation of La Sierra University for eight years. This important milestone is the outcome of a multi-year effort by the university, which included a series of proposals, reports, and self-studies, culminating in a March 2010 campus visit by a team of peer reviewers. WASC accreditation means that the university has been judged to be operating at a high level of quality consistent with its mission.

In a letter sent to La Sierra University President Randal Wisbey, the WASC team commended La Sierra for “its commitment to marketing, its continued progress on student support and retention, its hard work and progress on assessment, its work on faculty effectiveness, and the faculty’s engagement with active student learning.”

“Accreditation is one of the most important marks a university can earn. It is a measure of excellence in education,” said Wisbey. “Accreditation is earned following a rigorous assessment of the processes within La Sierra University, and the ways in which all members of the university family help fulfill the mission of Seventh-day Adventist higher education through their participation in the academic, financial, and planning aspects of the university on a daily basis.”

WASC evaluators determined that La Sierra is making sustainable and authentic progress on developing a comprehensive assessment system, including program review. During the new accreditation period, WASC will be looking for La Sierra to continue refining its assessments efforts, with particular emphasis on aligning them with the university mission statement, strategic plan, budget, and student learning outcomes.

“We are grateful for this strong affirmation from WASC,” said Provost Steve Pawluk. “There are, of course, some matters that will require our prompt and careful attention. Our university will focus attention on strategic planning, assessment efforts, enhancing student success, and instructional technology innovations. We will work diligently to enhance the university’s ability to serve our students and community in the best ways possible.”

While finding many positive attributes at La Sierra, the evaluation team also noted the 15-month controversy surrounding allegations of how biology department faculty members present the theory of evolution to students. The controversy touches on several basic principles that form the foundation of WASC standards, including institutional autonomy, the appropriate role of the board and faculty, and academic freedom. WASC clearly understands that this is a denominational issue, but it also sees the efforts of some outside the university as threatening to La Sierra’s institutional autonomy. WASC will continue to closely observe how the controversy is resolved, and plans to send a team back to campus in Spring 2011 to review the situation.

“We value WASC’s interest and peer support,” said Wisbey. “We appreciate the commission’s reaffirmation of our accreditation which allows us to fulfill our mission to seek truth, to know God, and to serve others.”

PR Contact: Larry Becker
Executive Director of University Relations
La Sierra University
Riverside, California
951.785.2460 (voice)

The following video clip is of the well-known Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, discussing the difference between being a Christian in a saving relationship with Jesus and what it takes to be a leader or paid representative within a particular church organization – or even a member of a particular Christian church organization. According to Ravi, there’s an important difference:

From a response to Pastor John Thomas Mclarty in an Atoday discussion blog by Cindy Tutsch entitled, “Who’s a Fundamentalist?”

Pastor Mclarty wrote:

Cindy, You begin by defining fundamentalism in the context of 20th century American Protestant history and prove that Adventists, even staunchly conservative Adventists, disagree with a crucial element of that definition. However, you weaken your point by acknowledging this is only one definition of fundamentalism. You cite Hood, Hill and Williams who write:

“What distinguishes fundamentalism from other religious profiles is its particular approach toward understanding religion, which elevates the role of the sacred text to a position of supreme authority and subordinates all other potential sources of knowledge and meaning.”

It all depends upon the reason why a particular text, or a particular person, or even a particular idea is elevated to a position of authority. It has to do with establishing credibility. To quote Mrs. White in this regard:

The infidel Voltaire once boastingly said: “I am weary of hearing people repeat that twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man may suffice to overthrow it.” Generations have passed since his death. Millions have joined in the war upon the Bible. But it is so far from being destroyed, that where there were a hundred in Voltaire’s time, there are now ten thousand, yes, a hundred thousand copies of the book of God. In the words of an early Reformer concerning the Christian church, “The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.” – Ellen White, GC p. 288

Or, consider the thoughts of popular Christian apologist Ravi Zaccharias as he addresses this question:

If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,” what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Qu’ran”? It is a solipsistic method of arguing.

The pastor is saying, “All is need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.” Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.

The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history – and in empirically verifiable means – the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain… as to a light shining in a dark place.” He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.

To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,” is what monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.

An interview with Ravi Zacharias by Richard L. Schoonover, associate editor of Enrichment Journal, 2009

The Christian Gospel with its message of hope is written to appeal to the intelligent, thoughtful, candid mind. It is not an appeal to blind faith, devoid of any empirical basis or evidence, at all. It is an appeal that itself invokes physical empirical evidences as the basis for its own authenticity and credibility.

For example, consider the story of Jesus healing the paralytic. In this story Jesus asks the question, “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” Matthew 9:5. Let me ask you, what would have happen to Jesus’ metaphysical claim to be able to forgive sins if the paralyzed man had not been healed when Jesus said, “Get up and walk”? Obviously, Jesus’ claim to be able to forgive sins would have taken a huge blow. His credibility would have been shot.

The same thing is true when it comes to a rational belief in the Christian Gospel – or even the Bible itself as anything more than a collection of moral fables. The credibility of such a belief is based, or at least can be based, on the established credibility of those biblical statements that are subject to empirical evaluational, testing, and at least the potential of falsification. And, as in the case of Jesus and the paralytic, if the falsifiable claims of the Bible are in fact falsified, the credibility of the Bible, with regard to those metaphysical claims that are not directly testable, declines as well…

For this reason, it is a mistake to argue that all those who believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, who take the intended literal meaning of the Genesis authors at face value, or who actually believe that the biblical stories of fantastic miracles really did happen as described, believe such things based on blind faith in the supreme authority of the Bible alone – without any outside empirical evidence or basis for a truly rational faith in such fantastic things.

While such may be called “fundamentalists” according to certain definitions of this term, these fundamentalists need not be any more irrational in their beliefs compared to high-level scientists who hold certain laws of nature to be fundamentally reliable, with great predictive value regarding the as yet unseen future, due to their extreme credibility in past experience under close empirical evaluation and testing.

On August 7th, 2010, in response to this line of reasoning dhok wrote:

Well, just how do we set up an experiment or research paradigm wherein we can at least potentially falsify the story of the resurrection of Jesus and his healing of the paralytic? And if we cannot set up such a test of their credibility, then how is it that those stories can be established as being just as deserving of our belief (from a scientific perspective) as the reliable laws of nature that high level scientists hold in such high esteem?

You miss the point. The point of the story of Jesus and the paralytic (and Ravi’s basic argument) is that, according to the biblical authors, Jesus Himself appealed to empirical evidence to support His metaphysical claims. In other words, the biblical authors had a sense of the need for an empirical basis to establish the credibility of metaphysical claims – which is a very interesting rational, even scientific, concept.

In this line there are many aspects of the Bible, as Ravi points out, that are open to testing and potential falsification – to include its historical statements and statements about natural phenomena and even the human condition. Many, especially among mainstream scientists, consider that many elements of the claims of the Bible have been clearly falsified. For example, the claims of the biblical authors regarding a recent literal creation week and a worldwide Noachian flood are considered, by the vast majority of mainstream scientists, to have been overwhelmingly falsified by the physical evidence.

What this means, of course, is that there are in fact key elements in the Bible that are indeed open to comparison with external physical reality, to testing in other words, and therefore to the potential for falsification – the basis of the science of establishing credibility in the reliability or authority of a witness. And, as these testable elements are in fact falsified to the satisfaction of one’s own mind, the credibility of those elements of the biblical claims that are not directly subject to testing or potential falsification decline to the same degree – as would have been the case in Jesus’ day if He had not been able to heal the paralytic. Logically, the credibility of His claim to be able to forgive sins would have taken a huge hit – by His own admission.

In short, the biblical authors do not argue for blind faith as the basis behind their own beliefs, but for a rational evidence-based faith that was built upon solid empirical evidence. They claim that they have not followed cunningly devised fables (2 Peter 1:16), but have believed what they personally saw, heard, and tested. Elsewhere the biblical authors quote God as asking us to “prove” or even “taste” and see if what He says is or is not true. (Malachi 3:10 and Psalms 34:8).

The same thing is, or at least can, in theory at least, be true today. One’s “faith” can be the same as one’s “science” – and visa versa. In fact, there is always a component of faith even in science. Science is all about taking leaps of faith across gaps in knowledge that are not and cannot be known with absolute perfection. Science is about dealing with limited information as best as one can. If the information were not limited, science would no longer be needed. It is only when information is limited, and one must take a leap of faith of at least some distance, that science becomes useful in helping one to take the best or most useful leap of faith possible…

www.DetectingDesign.com

In response to interesting comments by Professor Kent (who was responding to a post by Dr. Paul Giem):

@Professor Kent:

Paul, as you well recognize, one cannot reasonably prove this possibility of life evolving millions of years ago, not today, not tomorrow, never. More importantly, even if you could prove it, God STILL could have wiped the slate clean 6000 years [ago] and created all major life forms in 6 days. The one possibility cannot rule out the other; how can you not see this? …

So the conclusion to all of this appears to be that, for SDAs, science and evidence trump faith. I completely disagree, but so be it. ( Link )

Professor Kent is not alone in his argument that “faith trumps science and all other forms of evidence.” For example, he is backed up by “Ron” who wrote:

It is possible that God created a young earth to look old, much older than 6000 years. It is also entirely possible that the creation and flood were miraculous and that we cannot use human observation to answer these questions at all and we must simply believe. ( Link )

Ever hear of “Last Thursdayism“? You’re making this very same argument here. God could have created everything 5 minutes ago, to include your memories and mine. No one can prove otherwise.

Such arguments are pointless because of the very fact that they are not, even in principle, testable or potentially falsifiable. This is the reason why, if your faith position isn’t backed up by testable potentially falsifiable evidence, it would be very hard to judge the superiority of your beliefs in God, based on faith alone, from someone else’s belief or faith in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

On a more practical level, it would be very hard to judge the superiority of the Seventh-day Adventist view of reality vs. that of the Latter-day Saints or Catholics or Buddhists or Agnostics or even Atheists. Upon what basis, besides wishful thinking, does one have to decide which belief system is more likely to be in line with reality? Why, for example, do you consider your admitted belief in a literal 6-day creation week to be superior to the beliefs of those who think that life was formed and evolved on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years? Would it not be helpful to have at least some sort of empirical argument if you wish to appeal to another mind beyond your own? – a mind that is actually interested in an argument that appeals to something more solid than your deep feelings on the question?

Rational arguments as to the nature of the reality, a reality that we all assume really does exist outside of our minds, must be based on empirical evidence that is open to testing and potential falsification from at least the individual perspective. In other words, rational beliefs regarding the nature of reality are in line with the weight of currently available externally-derived evidence and the best predictive value that it supports at the present time from a particular limited perspective.

This is why scientific hypothesis are compared to alternate hypotheses that are also testable and, at least in principle, falsifiable with the weight of evidence. If the weight of apparent empirical evidence from a given perspective does in fact work against the idea that everything was created 5 minutes ago, the hypothesis that everything was in fact created 5 minutes ago is essentially falsified as best as anything can be falsified from a limited perspective.

The same thing is true about the Genesis statement. The only difference being that instead of 5 minutes ago the author(s) of Genesis claim that all life on this planet was created in just six literal days within recent history.

So, either you admit that your argument makes you unable to reasonable suggest that you have been alive longer than 5 minutes, or you agree that the Genesis account is, in principle, falsifiable. You really cannot reasonably have it both ways. The fact that what appears to be true may not actually be true does not negate the obvious appearance of reality from a particular perspective. That’s all that science is – an interpretation of the appearance of reality at the present time. This interpretation may or may not be true in reality, but it is the best we have at the present time when it comes to being able to more successfully live within and predict the behavior of the reality in which we find ourselves.

The SDA Church understands this. It is because of this argument, this need for faith to be supported by empirical evidence that is appealing to the intelligent candid mind, that the SDA Church original set up and continues to sponsor the Geoscience Research Institute or GRI. If one does not honestly recognize the evidence as being in favor of the SDA position, that person should not be working for an institution whose whole goal is to obtain and promote empirical evidence that actually supports the SDA faith perspective. If faith alone were enough, why would the SDA Church be interested in geoscience at all? Blind faith just isn’t enough, evidently, from the SDA perspective. That’s why the Church sponsors an organization like the GRI…

If one’s “evidence” is not testable or falsifiable that means that it is impossible for one to be wrong, even in theory, regardless of any additional evidence that might be presented. Again, given this form of non-falsifiable “evidence” it would be impossible to distinguish between the existence of God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If a child appealed to this sort of non-testable non-falsifiable evidence to support his/her belief in Santa Claus there would be no way that this child could ever realize that Santa Claus really doesn’t exist. It is only because the child’s evidence is potentially falsifiable given additional evidence that he/she ever comes to realize the truth about Santa Claus…

In the same way, if your evidence for the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible is not testable or potentially falsifiable, what good is it as a basis for a rational intelligent faith? – or anything else for that matter?

www.DetectingDesign.com