LSU Board committee reports on allegations

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

LSU Report Final

Source: La Sierra University

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 “LSU Board committee reports on allegations

  1. The following observation by the AAA [Adventist Accrediting Agency] is key to the much of the problem that exists at LSU regarding the Evolution/Creation controversy:

    A number of faculty in biology appear to make a sharp distinction between science and religion, with Creation not a matter of science but the domain of personal belief and course in the School of Religion. For them, integration of faith and learning within the science classroom and content area seems to be fundamentally incompatible, except for devotional reflections or prayer that might be offered.

    This idea that there somehow exists a sharp distinction between science and religion, that there really are two very different paths when it comes to finding the truth about God and his handiwork in nature, has caused a great deal of confusion. If God exists and God is in fact the author of nature, then the study of nature can in fact lead one to a better understanding of the author of nature – i.e., God.

    Yet, the LSU board actually references the book The Prism and the Rainbow by Joel W. Martin, Ph.D. where he says:

    1. Religion is not science and should never masquerade as such
    2. Science is restricted to observing and testing phenomena in the natural world around us and should never be used to argue for or against a particular faith or set of religious beliefs.

    By definition, then, these two areas of human endeavor, science and religion, address different issues, each using distinctive methods of inquiry, and there should be no ‘debate.’

    And yet there is debate precisely because people intuitively know that if religion has absolutely no basis in empirical reality then it isn’t really worth very much – not much more than believing in Santa Claus or fairytales in general. Again, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the works of nature do in fact say something about the author of nature. Therefore, the study of science is actually the study of the very Mind of God – as Sir Isaac Newton put it.

    How then can it be said that science “by definition” says nothing about religion or one’s view of God, his existence, and even his nature? The Bible itself declares that the study of nature reveals important religious truths regarding the existence and character of God.

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:20 NIV

    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. – Psalms 19:1 NIV

    Of relevance for SDAs in particular, Ellen White has also written:

    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’ (Education, p. 128).

    Who is to say then that by “observing and testing phenomena in the natural world around us” that one cannot use the evidences discovered to effectively “argue for or against a particular faith or set of religious beliefs”? – to include very strong arguments for the existence of a God or a God-like intelligence at play in our universe that cannot be distinguished by humans as having all the powers generally attributed to the God of the Bible? Are these not religious arguments? – based on science?

    If you think I’m the only one proposing that science has religious implications, you’re mistaken. Some of the most prominent scientists today are saying the same thing. For example, Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies makes the following argument along these lines:

    The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is “something behind it all” is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists…

    The force of gravity must be fine-tuned to allow the universe to expand at precisely the right rate. The fact that the force of gravity just happens to be the right number with stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology…

    The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe.

    * Davies, Paul C.W. [Physicist and Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide],”The Christian perspective of a scientist,” Review of “The way the world is,” by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1354, pp.638-639, 2 June 1983, p.638

    Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor noted:

    “This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all….
    Some scientists argue that, “Well, there’s an enormousnumber of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.
    Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate. It assumes that there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that our was planned, and that is why it has come out so specially.”

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

    This effort of LSU’s board and many others to draw a sharp distinction between science and religion therefore seems just a bit misguided, but does shed some light on why this issue has continued unchecked at LSU for so many years – decades in fact. They didn’t see a problem because they didn’t, and evidently still don’t, see any significant relationship between science and religion. Why then should they be concerned for anything that is said in the science classrooms that may or may not be supportive of the SDA position on origins? After all, the SDA position is just a “religious” position, not a “scientific” position – right? Why then should it matter if they don’t agree since since and religion don’t really overlap in any significant way?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  2. Dear Sean

    As always, thank you for your well thought out comments.

    With respect, I think your problem is a lot larger than LSU. I read the memorandum in its entirety. It is apparent that the leaders of the SDA church have been very active behind the scenes and appear to have sanctioned its conclusions. I did not see anywhere in the report where any faculty member of the biology department was going to be sanctioned for teaching evolution as the best scientific explanation for the origin of species. LSU, with the Church’s backing, appears to be making a distinction between science and faith and not allowing the tail of faith to wag the dog of science.

    That, in my mind is the proper exercise of academic freedom. Faith should not impinge upon the teaching of objective science, and science should not be used to discredit faith. In my mind I think LSU, with the Church’s apparent blessing, is taking the right steps to respect its stakeholders, yet maintain its academic freedom and credibility.

    That is why I would encourage you, in the name of academic freedom, to try to teach a course on intelligent design at LSU and other Adventist institutions. Why not make a direct appeal to the Church leaders and the GRI in this respect? Go head to head with the evolutionists and let the students decide which theory makes more sense.

    Students should not be told what to think and be exposed to competing theories. Nothing wrong with teaching FB#6 in religion class and evolution in biology class. Nothing wrong, in my mind, with continued efforts to give scientific merit to intelligent design, stripped from any particular religious faith. I support and advocate for your right to do so, even if I do not agree with your conclusions. Call on me for support in this regard any time.

    Respectfully,
    your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  3. Sean Pitman, inexplicably and unapologetically steeped in anti-SDA theology, continues with his glaring miscues:

    Who is to say then that by “observing and testing phenomena in the natural world around us” that one cannot use the evidences discovered to effectively “argue for or against a particular faith or set of religious beliefs”?

    One answer is appallingly obvious: Ellen G. White

    “The opinions of learned men, the DEDUCTIONS OF SCIENCE, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence FOR OR AGAINST any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” GC 595 (emphasis added).

    H-e-l-l-o!!! Sean, you are making Educate Truth an embarrassment of riches. You are clueless about the most fundamental of Adventist beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  4. After reading every word of the report, I have a few observations:

    1. I believe the readers of this website are much more interested in seeing progress on SDA beliefs supported in the classroom at LSU than reading Sean’s tireless crusade against blind faith. Can we please stay more focused on the subject?

    2. I commend the steps taken by LSU’s board to understand the scope of the problem and to rectify it. I think we need to be more patient with the process rather than demanding immediate action (e.g., firing professors and administrators), publicly condemning individual professors and administrators, etc., without a fair and balanced inquiry into the nature of the problem, which cannot be resolved overnight. I believe our church leaders deserve our support and respect. There is a proper procedure for personnel changes within the church; the last time I checked it did not include cyberbullying.

    3. I liked the survey, which served its purpose by identifying deficiencies in the teaching and support of SDA beliefs among biology faculty, so I am saddened that some have literally and disrespectfully dismissed as a “joke.” I see merit in repeating the survey in other SDA institutions to document the extent of the problem.

    4. I think it would be beneficial if ALL of our biology professors, not just a few here and there, could gather together to discuss how they address the issue of origins in the classroom.

    5. I’m wondering why this document was posted here. After all, it explicitly states “This memorandum is intended for internal campus distribution only.” Maybe I’m just old-fashioned when it comes to decorum in the new “information age,” but if a document is intended to be confidential, isn’t it unethical to publicly post it without the express written consent of its authors (committee members)?




    0
    View Comment
  5. Eddie wrote:

    I’m wondering why this document was posted here. After all, it explicitly states “This memorandum is intended for internal campus distribution only.”

    I had wondered the same. The document has been posted elsewhere (Spectrum Magazine, Adventist Today). Perhaps someone has insight on this?




    0
    View Comment
  6. I was not at all impressed by the report from LSU, apologies and all. The bottom line is, while it is good to expose our students to the erroneous teachings of evolution, we can not in any shape or form have professors who disparage and disagree with the SDA belief in origins or creation. It is as simple as that. These men may be good men in themselves, but they are not eligible to teach in our schools if they do not subscribe to creationism as Adventists profess. The Adventist view of science and religion is a harmonious one. With God being the Creator, science clearly shows his handiwork. The inexplicable can only be understood in light of divine revelation; anything short of this is betrayal of our philosophy. From my perspective, LSU should be shutdown or sold. It can operate as a public entity after it is sold. It is long overdue that we should no longer be funding it.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Re Ron Stone’s and Ron Henderson’s Comments

    “And I see no one willing to actually DO anything, including Wilson.”

    “From my perspective, LSU should be shutdown or sold.”

    Dear Ron and Ron

    Gentlemen, if the highest echelons of Church leadership are not following your suggestions, the question is as a matter of conscience what will you do?

    Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  8. Eddie, it is not that there should not be a procedure in dealing with the LSU issue. I agree that there must be procedure and protocol. However, you have forgotten that this defiance of Adventist beliefs did not happen today or yesterday; this is a drawn out incident that many were dragging their feet on. So now is the time for ‘action.’ And action does not mean blundering and cyberbullying. Action means deliberate steps taken by the organization to give LSU an ultimatum to have the issue dealt with within a specific time frame, involving dialogue with the church leaders. New contracts are to be drawn up requiring teachers to subscribe to our beliefs and to teach our beliefs or to leave. Or we must part with the institution, is the counsel given. We cannot afford to pussyfoot around the lives of our youths. We must set the example. I am not entering into judgment of any of these professors who find it hard to accept our belief in creation; they are free to think what they will, but they cannot eat their cake and have it. If they want to work for us, draw a salary from our funds, then they must abide by our beliefs. This is only fair and the Christian thing to do.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Ken, my friend, I would not speak too soon. There is a solution and we will soon see. Things may look somewhat murky now, but this is history all over. To every cloud there is a silver lining. In the meanwhile we are here to lend our voices as best as we could.




    0
    View Comment
  10. When an individual is publicly criticized on this forum, who rejoices more: God or Satan? “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15).

    I have always believed that it is a sin to publicly criticize anybody, even leaders (including politicians). I regret and repent each time I have succumbed to the temptation. As far as I’m concerned, it is breaking the spirit of the 6th commandment. Consequently I cringe every time I see the character of a brother or sister in Christ impugned on this forum, which happens much too frequently. Nobody other than the Holy Spirit will ever convince me that God approves of any of it. And if I am right, who will ultimately be held accountable for what is happening on this forum?

    Isn’t it enough to unambiguously state your position publicly on a subject without resorting to naming specific individuals and casting aspersions on their character? If it is necessary to mention a person’s name, isn’t it enough to simply say you respectfully disagree with the person’s view(s) without resorting to innuendo?

    I am strongly opposed to the teaching of abiogenesis and megaevolution as the truth in any SDA institution. I believe that some employees who have done so should never have been hired in the first place and should no longer be employed by the church, even though some of them are my friends. I have written letters expressing my views to various church leaders, but have never mentioned specific names or criticized the leaders for their failures. I believe I have done my duty. Why should I go beyond this and publicly incriminate individuals by name?




    0
    View Comment
  11. @Sean Pitman:

    This effort of LSU’s board and many others to draw a sharp distinction between science and religion therefore seems just a bit misguided, but does shed some light on why this issue has continued unchecked at LSU for so many years – decades in fact. They didn’t see a problem because they didn’t, and evidently still don’t, see any significant relationship between science and religion. Why then should they be concerned for anything that is said in the science classrooms that may or may not be supportive of the SDA position on origins? After all, the SDA position is just a “religious” position, not a “scientific” position – right? Why then should it matter if they don’t agree since since and religion don’t really overlap in any significant way?

    Amen!!!!

    My brother could not reconcile his belief in evolution and the blind faith it seemingly took to believe in the story of creation. He wanted to believe in the Christian faith but evolution destroyed that faith. As the Bible says,” can two walk together unless they be agreed”. Amos 3:3

    Pastor Ron Cook




    0
    View Comment
  12. Re Ron Stone’s and Ron Henderson’s Comments“And I see no one willing to actually DO anything, including Wilson.”“From my perspective, LSU should be shutdown or sold.”Dear Ron and RonGentlemen, if the highest echelons of Church leadership are not following your suggestions, the question is as a matter of conscience what will you do?RegardsKen

    I believe that the GC and Wilson will get involved eventually, but they are waiting as long as possible to see what LSU, the Pacific Union Conference, and the Board will or will not do. This seems practical, since if they “stepped in” too soon, too much backlash would occur from the administration at LSU and the Board.

    However, I do believe that the GC will eventually get more involved in the months, years, and eons to come. The important thing is that they seem to actually know what’s going on, so they will have no excuse as to why they did or did not do anything.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Re Ron’s Quote

    “However, I do believe that the GC will eventually get more involved in the months, years, and eons to come. The important thing is that they seem to actually know what’s going on, so they will have no excuse as to why they did or did not do anything.”

    And everyone of every stripe has Educate Truth to thank for that!

    Regards
    your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  14. Can anyone explain, in a logical way, why the Committee didn’t actually listen to and read the actual evidence from the Profs” lectures to determine what was truly said about evolution. (Some of which has been provided on this website) Certainly this would not be too difficult, although it would take some time and effort. [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  15. Why would it be necessary? I suspect some if not all committee members saw what was posted here. Even if they didn’t, they obviously found sufficient evidence that some professors endorsed theistic evolution in the classroom. Furthermore, a PowerPoint presentation of a lecture can be misleading. For example, if the theory of evolution is being presented in the classroom, a slide (e.g., of geological strata listing conventional time periods) may be taken out of context and miscontrued as an endorsement of evolution even though a professor verbally states in the classroom that he or she does not endorse the theory. An individual must both see and hear what is presented in the classroom to completely understand the context.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Eddie: Why would it be necessary?

    It is necessary because the belief that some “survey” of students to see what they “thought” they heard is an idiotic, moronic way to find the truth! Especially when the “truth” can be learned by going to the actual sources themselves.

    The statement, “…the best way to determine what is being taught is to examine what is being learned.” is also riduculous. Trying to shift the blame to the students is totally pathetic, especially for a so-called “Board” whose members one would think had some degree of knowledge of the issues we are discussing.

    Were the Profs actually interviewed to find “their side” of the story? Did the committee actually look at, read, hear, and investigate the actual evidence of what actually took place, not what someone “thought” they heard?

    If this is the way the LSU Board operates, it is no wonder why we have such problems at LSU!




    0
    View Comment
  17. Ron Stone M.D.: the belief that some “survey” of students to see what they “thought” they heard is an idiotic, moronic way to find the truth!

    I think you’re disrespecting the intelligence of both the commitee members and students.

    Ron Stone M.D.: Trying to shift the blame to the students is totally pathetic

    Nobody is shifting the blame to the students. Committee members knew all along that this controversy would never have blown up in the first place if there hadn’t been one or more professors who had promoted theistic evolution. Slander them if you wish, but I think they deserve your respect.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Ron Stone M.D.: The statement, “…the best way to determine what is being taught is to examine what is being learned.” is also riduculous.

    Ron, are you suggesting that the student testimonies posted here which claim they were taught theistic evolution are ridiculous? I can’t make much sense from your reasoning.




    0
    View Comment
  19. Professor Kent: Ron, are you suggesting that the student testimonies posted here which claim they were taught theistic evolution are ridiculous? I can’t make much sense from your reasoning.

    Maybe I can clue you in. I’m not suggesting any such thing.

    Taking student “surveys” on what they thought they were taught is “ridiculous” as the major means to find out “what” was actually taught, when the actual people involved are available to interview and speak with.

    Certainly, as a secondary method, students may be asked what they thought was taught, but using that a major criteria for “getting to the root of the probem” is [clearly mistaken].




    0
    View Comment
  20. Eddie: I think you’re disrespecting the intelligence of both the commitee members and students.Nobody is shifting the blame to the students. Committee members knew all along that this controversy would never have blown up in the first place if there hadn’t been one or more professors who had promoted theistic evolution. Slander them if you wish, but I think they deserve your respect.

    No slander in my post. Their actions speak for themselves.

    If you think that taking a “survey” of what someone “thought” they heard is the best way to investigate this matter, then you would obviously be a good candidate for the Board or for their committee.

    I will begin to “respect” the Board when and if it starts to deserve respect in this matter!




    0
    View Comment
  21. One of the classic ways of using ineptness, as we see in the Board, is demonstrated by the LSU administration,in the article in the April Recorder (p.37) Randall Wisbey states, “some of our students have felt that their belief in creation has not always been respected.”

    Notice how Wisbey continues the emphasis(initiated by the Board) on how the STUDENTS perception is the focus, instead of the actual issue which we have been discussing here. How they have “felt” and “their belief” is somehow the major issue to be addressed, instead of what the PROFS have been teaching in the classrooms.

    He states that “this is not acceptable” But what is “not acceptable” is not the TEACHING of “evolution as fact” (since this is not addressed) but the students’ perception of what has been taught.

    How Wisbey is going to change these perceptions is not stated either.

    Dan Jackson (Pres. NAD) doesn’t give us much hope either. (same article) He states, “I want to commend the board for their work in preparing this statement. He has nothing to say about what they have actually “done” since the Board has done virtually nothing of any substance.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Ron Stone M.D.: Taking student “surveys” on what they thought they were taught is “ridiculous” as the major means to find out “what” was actually taught, when the actual people involved are available to interview and speak with.

    If so, why should a jury ever listen to the testimonies of witnesses to a crime when they could simply ask the alleged perpetrator?

    And how certain are you that the committee didn’t interview the professors? Perhaps the committee members attempted to interview the biology professors but they were unwilling to cooperate or to be candid about they taught. I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened, which is why I’m not going to pass judgement on them.

    I’m puzzled by why you are so upset at the survey when in fact it demonstrated exactly what Educate Truth had been alleging all along: that some biology professors were promoting theistic evolution in the classroom. The purpose of the committee was to investigate three specific allegations, all of which were confirmed to be true.

    As far as I can tell the committee was not asked to identify and fire any professors who were found guilty of the allegations, or to close the university, which I suspect are the only solutions that will ever satisfy you that they are doing their job.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Eddie: If so, why should a jury ever listen to the testimonies of witnesses to a crime when they could simply ask the alleged perpetrator?

    You’re doing a great job trying to smokescreen what I’ve said, but it won’t work, Eddie.

    Witnesses and “grilling” the perp may be PART of an investigation, but won’t be nearly as good as actually seeing, hearing, and witnessing the alleged “misconduct” or crime committed.

    So, the Board has used “secondary” sources, which are merely perceptions or “feelings” about what was said, instead of actually getting to the heart or root of the problem.

    Where is the evidence that they actually went to the primary sources, as I’ve mentioned before? Anyone have any information on this important matter?

    I’m also not “upset” at the survey [edit]. It is a source of one type of “secondary” evidence, but still doesn’t address what was actually said, written, and endorsed. We now know how “some” students “interpreted” the information, but this still doesn’t tell us what was actually stated.

    Why won’t the Board use its power, as stated in the LSU bylaws? My guess is they’re afraid of what they may find!




    0
    View Comment
  24. Ron Stone M.D.: It is a source of one type of “secondary” evidence, but still doesn’t address what was actually said, written, and endorsed.

    Okay…so how do YOU propose they learn what was actually said, written, and endorsed? What source(s) do you have in mind?




    0
    View Comment
  25. Well, Prof, perhaps the Board and its committee could use its power of overseer to actually get any records of what was allegedly taught, either printed, recorded, or whatever. Then, the information should be studied to see whether the alleged “infractions” actually occurred, instead of wondering whether someone thought they might have heard of seen something wrong.

    As part of their duties the Board, according to LSU bylaws, is the “final authority” in matters related to the LSU.

    As such, it can “order and control all affairs and business” of LSU.

    “…evaluate the effectiveness of policies and personnel…”

    “…make changes in harmony with the goals, philosophy, and objectives of the university…”

    I ask the Board to simply perform its given duties, instead of avoiding the real issue and smokescreening matters with a ” vague statement and a survey.!




    0
    View Comment
  26. Ron Stone M.D.: Well, Prof, perhaps the Board and its committee could use its power of overseer to actually get any records of what was allegedly taught, either printed, recorded, or whatever.

    Having taught in tertiary education for more than 30 years, I can tell you that well under 1% of my lectures were ever recorded, and this usually by a student who wanted to use it as a learning tool. Frankly, brother Ron, it would be nigh impossible for myself, much less a university board, to get a trancript or recording of any one lecture of thousands that I’ve given over the years.

    I don’t think you have a realistic grasp on how to bring something from years past in the classroom beyond the realm of allegation to hard fact.

    Perhaps you’ve gotten your point across by now. Any board member who failed to anticipate infidel lectures in advance, and failed to send a spy to those courses in advance so that an actual record can be obtained for evidentiary purposes, deserves to be named and flogged publicly for “smokescreening” to the point of resignation. Perhaps you’ll convince others of your point of view.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Professor Kent: Having taught in tertiary education for more than 30 years, I can tell you that well under 1% of my lectures were ever recorded, and this usually by a student who wanted to use it as a learning tool. Frankly, brother Ron, it would be nigh impossible for myself, much less a university board, to get a trancript or recording of any one lecture of thousands that I’ve given over the years.I don’t think you have a realistic grasp on how to bring something from years past in the classroom beyond the realm of allegation to hard fact.Perhaps you’ve gotten your point across by now. Any board member who failed to anticipate infidel lectures in advance, and failed to send a spy to those courses in advance so that an actual record can be obtained for evidentiary purposes, deserves to be named and flogged publicly for “smokescreening” to the point of resignation. Perhaps you’ll convince others of your point of view.

    Perhaps your lectures weren’t worth keeping on hand for posterity. However, we have seen that ample direct evidence exists for the alleged infractions mentioned here.

    Regarding “others” of my point of view–there are many. But not too many, as I see it, on the Board.

    My point is that the Board has not done its “due diligence” in this matter. The idea that “Perception is the ultimate reality” must be the mantra of the Board, as they have chases perceptions and beliefs instead of facts!

    The controlling majority are either afraid to “step up to the plate” when they are needed or simply don’t want to “go to bat” at all, at any time for any reason.

    Regarding “resignation”–for those Board members who have been a part of this debacle and want to resign, that is fine with me. Certainly there must be at least a couple of dozen bible-believing SDA’s willing to to the assigned work given to the Board, and who will refuse to put their “heads in the sand” regarding important matters such as we see at LSU?




    0
    View Comment
  28. Dr. Stone: “My point is that the Board has not done its “due diligence” in this matter. The idea that “Perception is the ultimate reality” must be the mantra of the Board, as they have chases perceptions and beliefs instead of facts!”

    You’re so right! I believe this was more of an exercise to try to defend LSU rather than find the truth; spin-doctoring at its best. Why don’t they just be honest, admit they were in error, and change? That would be what I would expect from a Christian university. These people seem bent on doing whatever they want at all costs–and covering it up to avoid discipline is their answer to the whole problem.

    Come on…this university was established to teach truth–not error! It belongs to God–not Satan. Let’s see them come clean and get on with the reformation–including making a clean sweep of all evolution-believing professors, administrators, and/or board members and/or anyone in any authority at all. That would put a stop to all this for once and for all.

    That’s all anyone wants.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.