La Sierra Board Moves to Resolve Evolution Issue

[CGMedley]

Here's the latest on the evolution controversy at La Sierra University.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3371

Our readers chime in on the evolution issue.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=3304

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Graham noted that LSU president Randal Wisbey affirmed the school’s desire to remain a part of the Adventist movement.

Who owns the school? Apparently it isn't owned by the conference, union or division if they can decide to be part or not part of the Adventist movement.

[olger]

"I read with interest and sadness the account of the apparent treatment of a student on the campus of La Sierra University who sought to have the Church’s position on origins be represented in science classes. Louis Bishop is a student whose career I have followed for several years.

When he attended University of California, Davis, as a member of the university’s golf team, he was being coached by my brother-in-law. My brother-in-law, not an Adventist, was deeply impressed by the faith and commitment of this young student who was not only an exceptional golfer, but was a solid witness for his Adventist beliefs in this secular setting. He stood unashamed for his faith, refusing to participate in contests occurring on Sabbath, even though it might cause his own success to be sacrificed. He was also the top golfer on the team.

When he chose to come to LSU to complete premedical courses prior to applying to medical school, he encountered challenges to his faith that he never encountered at the secular campus. Louis is the farthest thing from a troublemaker one could imagine, yet he has been branded as such and threatened with censure at LSU for challenging the evolutionary teachings of his instructors at LSU. What a travesty. Thank you for your factual coverage of this unfortunate incident."

Art Chadwick

[SivartM]

Louis is the farthest thing from a troublemaker one could imagine, yet he has been branded as such and threatened with censure at LSU for challenging the evolutionary teachings of his instructors at LSU. What a travesty.

If he was disrupting class, then that would be bad.

I still don't know what anyone means by La Sierra "teaching evolution". I've never seen anyone expound on this; they're just acting as if evolution is insane and dangerous. I wonder if the people who are up in arms about this even know what evolution is. It's an important concept and not contradictory to the teaching of creation. Is La Sierra teaching creation also?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: olger

Louis is the farthest thing from a troublemaker one could imagine, yet he has been branded as such and threatened with censure at LSU for challenging the evolutionary teachings of his instructors at LSU. What a travesty.

If he was disrupting class, then that would be bad.

I still don't know what anyone means by La Sierra "teaching evolution". I've never seen anyone expound on this; they're just acting as if evolution is insane and dangerous. I wonder if the people who are up in arms about this even know what evolution is. It's an important concept and not contradictory to the teaching of creation. Is La Sierra teaching creation also?

Good Point SivartM. I've not seen anything that demonstrated that La Sierra is promoting anything contrary to our 28 Fundamentals. Perhaps I haven't seen it or missed it somehow. Can anyone show me?

And regarding this Louie Bishop guy. There are appropriate ways to make your concerns known. But disruptive protests are not the way. Others have the right to get an education without disruption.

[karl]

Louie Bishop was disciplined in the spring of ‘09 and temporarily held out of school in the fall of ‘09. He was disciplined for complaining about the biology faculty’s Darwinism, and the fact that they denigrate traditional Adventist teachings.

All of the biology instructors at LaSierra – all of them – are Darwinists and teach Darwinism as truth, in derogation of Adventist origins belief. LaSierra's response to criticisms leveled at the biology department's emphasis on evolution was to create a special freshman seminar class (the now infamous biology 111A) that was supposed to help integrate science and Adventism.

The seminar class was hosted by Lee Greer, one of the Darwinist biology professors, and simply became an additional venue, an additional opportunity, to inculcate Darwinism and denigrate Adventism. John Webster delivered a lecture in which he strongly implied that in the conflict between Darwinism and Adventism, Adventism has lost and is going to have to change its origins doctrine. He was immediately followed by Warren Johns, who lectured on a theory that the creation story of Genesis 1 does not describe the creation of the world, but rather the dedication of the temple/cosmos, and is to be understood figuratively, not literally. (See this page: http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/presentations/biology-seminar-111a-class-videos/.)

But, again, the seminar class was not the original problem, and was not the reason Louie Bishop was twiced disciplined, although he did complain about the seminar class once it became apparent what it really was. The underlying problem is the fact that Darwinism is promoted in ALL the biology classes at LaSierra.

So, where we had one problem, now we have two problems 1) Darwinist professors teaching Darwinism as truth in the pre-existing classes, and 2) a seminar class that tells the freshman that they need to try to understand Genesis in a new way, a way different from how Adventists have always understood it. Ricardo Graham has promised to review and make some “adjustments” to the seminar class (problem two). But the seminar could be completely eliminated, and it would not solve the underlying problem (problem one). It would only solve the problem created by LaSierra’s response to negative publicity.

[olger]

La Sierra allows promotion of homosexuality but not creation:

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-ev...cond+AR+article

Can't wait to see Travis' liberal spin on this one.

[olger]

I reckon yer right about that...

[BobRyan]

I notice that in the "closed meeting" reported by AR - they spent "90 minutes airing the debate" - but did not actually geet around to "So that means we will no longer be promoting Evolution as the right answer for the doctrine on origins in either our religion or biology classes".

How "instructive".

As for "who owns" LSU - it is the Pacific Union.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

I'm not at all surprised by the article in the LSU student paper, the Criterion. In fact, I expect we will see more of such material in unofficial SDA publications over the next few years. I've noticed these kinds of things being written for the last few years in the Spectrum. The tale-tell sign is that some of SDA's thought-leaders, such as Fritz Guy, favors people openly practicing homosexuality being accepted into church membership. It's only a half step from there to accepting them also into the mininstry. In fact, if Fritz Guy favors accepting them as members in good standing, he would have to say that they should be eligible to be made not only pastors but conference presidents. Why not?

Below is an argument that I first read as a member of the gay church in San Diego, known then as the Metropolitan Community Church. I never thought at the time it would be accepted by Seventh-day Adventists, but over the last 35 years, I've seen it creeping into the SDA church until now, I'm convinced it will one day be the accepted view held by many SDAs, if it isn't already.

This change begins by downplaying the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality; then the suggestion that it may not be a sin; and finally, it results in the belief that the Bible doesn't even address the issue of modern homosexuality, and that therefore it isn't a sin at all. Once that point is reached, God is blessing homosexual relationships. If so, why not bestiality? After all, the prohibitions against both things are found together in Lev. 18: 22, 23.

Quote:

Contrast this with a recent article (Winter quarter 2010) published in the Criterion called “Homosexuality and the misinterpretation of the biblical text” by Ricky Kim. According to the La Sierra University website, Kim is a sophomore majoring in religious studies and pre-dentistry. On the title page there is a quote from Peter Gomes:

No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals … The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it…

[Kingroyal]

Karl,

Thanks for a clear synopsis of the issues. It is sad to see liberalism make such inroads against a clear Biblical truth. Apparently, teachers and leaders are no different today than were the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day!

We need more young people like Louie Bishop to hold to principled truth! My prayers go out to such individuals who will not accept and adopt current politically correct dogma as newly illuminated truth even when their professors and church leaders try to influence them to abandon Bible truths.

What would Jesus do? I think He would do the same today as He did when on earth 2000 years ago... hold fast to the truth of Scriptures! Yes, He would reject the false teachings of Darwinism and evolution! He would upset the intellectuals with their pseudo-scientific theories just as He did 2000 years ago!

Self-worship (intellectual elitism) is still idol worship. This is what got Lucifer in trouble when he began to imagine himself as one equal to God. We need to call sin by its right name!

David

[olger]

I'm not at all surprised by the article in the LSU student paper, the Criterion. In fact, I expect we will see more of such material in unofficial SDA publications over the next few years. I've noticed these kinds of things being written for the last few years in the Spectrum. The tale-tell sign is that some of SDA's thought-leaders, such as Fritz Guy, favors people openly practicing homosexuality being accepted into church membership. It's only a half step from there to accepting them also into the mininstry. In fact, if Fritz Guy favors accepting them as members in good standing, he would have to say that they should be eligible to be made not only pastors but conference presidents. Why not?

Below is an argument that I first read as a member of the gay church in San Diego, known then as the Metropolitan Community Church. I never thought at the time it would be accepted by Seventh-day Adventists, but over the last 35 years, I've seen it creeping into the SDA church until now, I'm convinced it will one day be the accepted view held by many SDAs, if it isn't already.

This change begins by downplaying the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality; then the suggestion that it may not be a sin; and finally, it results in the belief that the Bible doesn't even address the issue of modern homosexuality, and that therefore it isn't a sin at all. Once that point is reached, God is blessing homosexual relationships. If so, why not bestiality? After all, the prohibitions against both things are found together in Lev. 18: 22, 23.

Quote:

Contrast this with a recent article (Winter quarter 2010) published in the Criterion called “Homosexuality and the misinterpretation of the biblical text” by Ricky Kim. According to the La Sierra University website, Kim is a sophomore majoring in religious studies and pre-dentistry. On the title page there is a quote from Peter Gomes:

No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals … The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it…

Thanks John for those details.

[olger]

Karl,

Thanks for a clear synopsis of the issues. It is sad to see liberalism make such inroads against a clear Biblical truth. Apparently, teachers and leaders are no different today than were the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day!

We need more young people like Louie Bishop to hold to principled truth! My prayers go out to such individuals who will not accept and adopt current politically correct dogma as newly illuminated truth even when their professors and church leaders try to influence them to abandon Bible truths.

What would Jesus do? I think He would do the same today as He did when on earth 2000 years ago... hold fast to the truth of Scriptures! Yes, He would reject the false teachings of Darwinism and evolution! He would upset the intellectuals with their pseudo-scientific theories just as He did 2000 years ago!

Self-worship (intellectual elitism) is still idol worship. This is what got Lucifer in trouble when he began to imagine himself as one equal to God. We need to call sin by its right name!

David

After reading your post, all I can say is........ Amen

Gerald

[pindoc]

La Sierra allows promotion of homosexuality but not creation:

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-ev...cond+AR+article

Can't wait to see Travis' liberal spin on this one.

I vote for publishing both articles. And I'm NOT a liberal. And publishing a position paper is NOT promoting anything.

I've heard about Darwinian twist at LSU for years. It's easy to read that their own students believe the school's teaching contradicts the Biblical account of creation. The school refusing to publish an article disagreeing with the institution's usual version is extra proof that they can't handle the truth, um, the threat to their position.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: olger

La Sierra allows promotion of homosexuality but not creation:

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-ev...cond+AR+article

Can't wait to see Travis' liberal spin on this one.

I vote for publishing both articles. And I'm NOT a liberal. And publishing a position paper is NOT promoting anything.

I've heard about Darwinian twist at LSU for years. It's easy to read that their own students believe the school's teaching contradicts the Biblical account of creation. The school refusing to publish an article disagreeing with the institution's usual version is extra proof that they can't handle the truth, um, the threat to their position.

Excellent post pindoc. And being for or against Creation, Evolution, Abortion, etc. has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative that's for sure. As a matter of fact I know more conservatives that believe in evolution that creation.

pk