By Shane Hilde

Paul Giem concluded a series discussing what should be taught in our schools, regarding creation and evolution. There are some that remain unconvinced that LSU is promoting evolution despite the personal testimony of students, class lecture material, syllabi, and personal statements from the professors. Giem takes a look at what LSU has said and compares it with what it actually teaches. Before getting into the discussion of what LSU teaches, he begins his discussion by proposing a grading system by which to assess what is being taught. Three factors play into his grading system: Is there a class on origins, what does it contain, and what are the explicit/implicit attitude(s) of the teacher(s)?

His grading system asks three important questions: 1) Is there a God, 2) Is God’s activity detectable by science, and 3) how old is life on earth? His scoring rubric for each question looks like this:

Does the teacher/course teach
– There is a God – no discussion of opposing view B
– There is a God – discussion of opposing view A
– There may or may not be a God C
– There is no God – fair discussion of opposing view D
– There is not God – no discussion of opposing view F

Does the teacher/course teach that God’s activity can be detected by Science?
– Yes, no discussion of opponents’ views B
– Yes, fair discussion of opponents’ views A
– Not sure, but discussion C
– No, fair discussion of opponents’ views D
– No, no discussion of opponents’ views F

Has life been on earth for a short time?
– Yes, no discussion of opponents’ views B
– Yes, fair discussion of opponents’ views A
– Not sure, but discussion C
– No, fair discussion of opponents’ views D
– No, no discussion of opponents’ views F

In his final analysis he gives La Sierra University an F. Giem spends considerable time with three documents: Biology at La Sierra University, Creating Controversy, and the 2004 and 2009 syllabi for UNST/UHNR 404B. He focuses on these particular documents because all the others he’s been given by LSU or gleaned himself do not answer any of the three questions. Many of them spend time lauding the wonderful things LSU has done without really addressing the issues.

Biology at La Sierra University

He begins his discussion with a question, “Does La Sierra promote short-age creation, megaeveolution, or neither?” Ultimately, the document only answers the first question, “Is there a God?” It seems clear that LSU and its biology professors believe there is a God. So in the end it says a lot without saying much at all in regards to views it promotes.

This document is significant because it was LSU’s choice handout at the General Conference session in Atlanta, Georgia, this summer. The most noteable statement in this document says, “Our biology curriculum offers a selection of classes with both breadth and depth. It should be pointed out that the theory of evolution is discussed, but not promoted, at La Sierra University.” It will be seen that there is data from LSU that contradicts this statement.

Creating Controversy

Before jumping into the syllabi, Giem reminds us of who Gary Bradley (one of the professors of UNST/UHNR 404B) is from an interview with Inside Higher Ed.

First, he notes that Bradley showed no intention of changing course and that he had the support of the president of LSU, Randal Wisbey:

“Bradley, who is semi-retired after 38 years at La Sierra, has seen evolution debates erupt on campus before — and his traditional response is to ‘dive under the desk and wait for them to blow over.’ In this instance, Bradley says he has the backing of his president, who wrote a letter to faculty, staff and trustees affirming the university’s role in the ‘important conversation of science and faith.’”

Continuing:

“Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.”

“‘I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bull—-,’ he said.”

Giem points out that most of science is physics and chemistry and evolutionary theory has nothing to contribute to either of them, that he knows of. Also, he states, evolutionary theory has little to contribute to biology even if you believe its true. “You don’t have to know evolutionary biology to do well in medicine,” he says.

“‘It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,’ Bradley added. ‘That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.’”

Bradley won’t destroy your faith in the biblical creation, but he’ll certainly show you the evidence that’s against it, remarks Giem. This is the professor who is teaching the capstone class for biology. Giem then leads into a dispute between Bradley and Carlos Cerna over a paper Cerna had written for the class in the spring of 2009:

“Cerna butted heads with professors in a capstone biology course when he sought to insert his creationist beliefs into a paper about evolutionary theories, the e-mails indicate. One of two professors who taught the course had ‘reluctantly’ agreed to Cerna’s approach in principle, but found the final product ‘unacceptable.’”

“‘The paper you sent me is unacceptable in its present form,’ Gary Bradley, a professor of biology, wrote to Cerna May 12. ‘You said you would address the geological issues presented in class, demonstrating that you understand the data and the mainstream interpretations. Only then would you attach a paragraph taking issue with that interpretation.’” (Inside Higher Ed)

At this point Giem interjects, “Now that sounds perfectly fair.”

“‘You have not done this. You have demonstrated only superficial knowledge with what was presented in class and even that was done with clear apologetic skepticism.’”

“Excuse me? I thought skepticism was a good thing,” Giem says. Essentially Bradley is saying if you can label skepticism as apologetic it’s a bad thing. Giem then points back to the 2004 syllabus:

“We will include only data and evidence that appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. While there is a body of writing sometimes referred to as the ‘apologetic’ literature, we will not examine it because it lies outside the discipline of science; this is a science class, and Biology is a scientific discipline.”

Giem is quick to point out that the syllabus is suggesting that “Origins” lies outside the discipline of science. At this point he begins tackling the course syllabi from 2004 and 2009.

2004 and 2009 UNST/UHNR 404B

Giem says that while the course claims it is only interested in peer-reviewed literature, it is speckled with literature and film that are not peer-reviewed. The syllabus seems to insinuate that the science is already settled and there can be no more discussion. Not only is the science settled, but anything outside of the peer-reviewed literature really can’t be considered science.

One of the required readings for the course is Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God.” It is not an optional requirement and must be read in full by the end of the first section. According to Giem, this book is not peer-reviewed.

He then moves on to one of the required papers for the class:

“In the light of geochronology and modern biological techniques, present the

1. Evidence and interpretation of the natural history and evolution of life on Earth from paleontology,

2.Evidence and interpretation of the natural history and evolution of life on Earth from biology.”

In other words, students will have to deal with dating, but on the professors terms, which is only the peer-reviewed literature and anything written by creationists doesn’t count. Geim acknowledges that there are creationists who have written in the peer-reviewed literature, but in his opinion it doesn’t sound like the professors are interested in hearing what they have to say.

Giem points to some other non-peer-reviewed material in the course such as:

1. “What About God?” by NPR
2. A layman looks at ice the core story, how it relates to earth history and the flood–Guest lecturer by Robert Wonderly
3. “Inherit the Wind” — (A nice scholarly peer-reviewed, unbiased film, Giem quips.)

According to Giem, one of the students of the class said, “Can’t we have Sean Pitman do that?” Pitman is not a specialist in this field, but if you’re a layman who happens to agree with the professors you’re welcome. Giem says, “What is claimed is that this is only scientific, what is in practice is this is only people who agree with us.”

It appears evident that these professors are not interested in discussion from those with differing views and certainly not those who are aligned with the Bible and church position on origins.

Giem then compares the 2004 syllabus with the 2009 syllabus. The course is still taught by Bradley. The same Bradley who called those who think there is only one theological answer the lunatic fringe. “Finding Darwin’s God” is still a text. Major paper still has the same requirements, essentially eliminating literature from “Origins” or any other creationist literature. A new film is shown called “Judgment Day” which “blasts intelligent design.” Ice cores is presented by Lee Greer who is not an expert in the field; however he does have a Phd. “What About God?” is still shown in the class.

LSU claims that evolution is not promoted, but this class clearly promotes it and even excludes opposing views. Creationists aren’t even given a voice and every attempt to stifle creationist students from presenting opposing evidence is made. The course is clearly unbalanced and heavily biased toward evolution. The least LSU could do is be open to creationist scientists presenting opposing evidence in the classroom.