WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
@Sean Pitman:

Evolution is a fact. It is not a theory. Evolution, like gravity, is a natural force that we can try to describe and test and form a theory about.

The “theory of evolution,” however, is a theory. The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe the origins of life (or at least the origins of life as we know it), using the natural process of evolution as sort of “framework” upon which we try to extrapolate a history we cannot directly observe.

I’m glad you understand that WASC’s requirements simply require the professors to “inform their students of the mainstream concensus (sic) on the theories of evolution.” This is my point exactly. It is not trying to “meddle” or require “independence” from the church. It is simply requiring that the fact of evolution (i.e., that evolution can and does occur) be taught as just that – fact. Any attempts to extrapolate the facts to derive a cosmology, however – be it the theory of evolution or the theory of creation – is not WASC’s concern. In fact, Professor Bradley was doing precisely this – teaching creation and evolution concurrently—and meeting the requirements for WASC certification. It is a shame that he has lost his job simply for doing it properly.

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
One more thing to point out – WASC neither requested nor implied that LSU must operate “independent” of the church. In fact, WASC is stating that the decisions to fire professors must be handled according to the institutional processes (i.e., by the board, which includes representatives of the church), as opposed to simply being dictated by the church alone. Graham has admitted that he violated this separation (likely in fear for his own job), and WASC is rightfully concerned.

WASC’s guidelines are very clear: you may teach whatever unscientific mumbo jumbo you want, as long as you ensure students understand that current scientific understanding supports evolution. You don’t have to tell the students that evolution is TRUE, but rather, that evolution is FACT – and in that subtle difference lies our ability, as a religious institution, to teach science while also teaching our own creation myth. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to teach our students that all science – evolution included – is subject to revision given evidence to the contrary – which is precisely what our professors were doing when someone threw a childish, selfish temper tantrum that may very well destroy the economic and spiritual lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of good, loyal SDAs.

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Let us pray, friends and fellow SDAs, that LSU can cure itself of this cancer it before it is too late – and that it can set an example for the rest of our denomination to follow.

The cancer I speak of, of course, is Sean Pitman, Shane Hilde, and all others who insist on using flawed scientific and theological reasoning to “support” one of our outdated beliefs, without concern for the cost to our church as a whole and those at LSU specifically.

This asinine crusade is poised to destroy a respectable institution. Since its inception, the Adventist church has considered education one of its fundamental missions. EducateTruth is, in short order, threatening to destroy entirely this aspect of EGW’s legacy, and dooming our church to irrelevance in the process. There are some who are short-sighted enough to welcome this change – many of them post to this board regularly – but for the rest of us who still consider things rationally before jerking our knee, we see this as an exceptionally ominous development.

If WASC fails to certify LSU, it will cease to exist. It will not turn into a bible college – it will instead disappear. There is insufficient volume to support a Bible college in Southern California, and the gutted hulk of LSU would be left to drift aimlessly until the board had to finally close the doors for good. Hundreds of faculty and staff—not to mention thousands of students—will be deprived of what has been an appropriately progressive SDA environment. Without an equivalent nearby SDA institution, most will be forced into schools that really ARE secular (or at least of a different denomination), where no hint of the “SDA message” will fall upon their ears. Is this the scenario those at ET desire?

Thanks to ET, LSU has a terrible decision to face: loose ~10% of their funding, break from the church and tighten their belts, likely resulting in ultimate failure due to insufficient funding and enrollment – or choose the path to certain destruction by forgoing WASC certification. Of course, the church at large has demonstrated that it is not concerned with the education of our youth, but rather with irrational adherence to outdated dogma – and the occasional vendetta by those with a personal axe to grind. If the church can continue to exert its undue influence on the board, this conclusion is forgone. If, however, the board can grow a backbone and throw off the oppression of those at the church bent of returning us to 1844, it might have a chance at rescuing the school from oblivion.

If the “church” is willing to destroy LSU (and the rest of my community) over this barely relevant bit of trivia, I cannot in good conscience encourage others to join it.

Without secular accreditation, our schools are useless. To ignore this point is to ignore the entire point of our church to begin with. We were not founded to be separate from the world, but rather to be a beacon within it – doing good in it, witnessing to it, and—yes—evolving with it. Should we withdraw from the elementary and secondary school realms as well? It will absolutely come to that. If we cannot teach proper science to our 11th graders, then we have no business teaching them at all – and we cannot expect the rest of the world to take us seriously if we do.

I cannot fathom that there are those who consider this an issue of religious discrimination. Nobody is telling us we can’t pay teachers to teach whatever we decide they want to teach (within legal limits, of course). WASC isn’t a government entity. WASC is simply charged with developing a standard (like the SAT) and then certifying who meets it and who doesn’t – and then others use that certification to judge whether the degrees the school issues are valuable or not. There is clearly no discrimination going on here – but, yes, all of our schools are at risk of loosing this essential certification (and rightfully so) if this internal witch hunt continues, and other schools are forced to reckon with our medival-minded church leadership.

Frankly, it frightens me that individuals here feel that they can speak to how our church should educate through our institutions, but they are so obviously, completely, violently ignorant. Evolution is not “junk science” – evolution is reproducible, testable, logically-consistent, scientifically-sound fact – in the same manner that the earth’s rotation around the sun is fact, or that gravity is fact. Ignoring it and calling it “junk science” doesn’t make it go away – it just makes you look, well, ignorant. Nobody is claiming that they fully understand evolution, of course – but considering that the Biblical account of creation (and the 6000-year-old earth) is so unfathomably illogical (and so easily disproven), we have to choose a different path to find our answers.

Opening your eyes and accepting evolution is not easy for an SDA – I know, I struggled with it myself. (I’m still not ready to let go of my belief that the Pope is the antichrist, though.) If it isn’t something you can accept, don’t teach science…but, likewise, don’t try to tell our SDA teachers how they should teach it, because you are not qualified to do so.

Consider for a moment how foolish we would look if we, as a church, required our teachers to teach that the sun revolved around the earth. Would we expect anybody to take us seriously? The evidence we have to support the heliocentric model of our galaxy (or, for that matter, that the galaxy even exists) is no more and no less viable than the evidence we have to support evolution – but since the Bible contradicts one scientifically-observable phenomenon, we have to disregard it, while at the same time we accept the other? The Complete Works of God include more than the Bible – and to ignore our admittely flawed, human interpretation of nature simply because it doesn’t jibe with our flawed, human understanding of the Bible or the prophecies of a normal, flawed human being – well, that’s just ridiculous.

If you want to TRULY do something valuable for our church – and for EGW’s legacy—get to work on the wording of Fundamental Belief #6 and bring our church into the 21st century. While you’re at it, fix #23 too, and remove that stupid “man and a woman” poppycock.