Search News


Browse Archives

News

Creating Controversy

September 1, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ever a thorny issue, the teaching of evolutionary biology at a small Christian university in California has sparked debate on the campus and within the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Now-public e-mails between a recent La Sierra University graduate and his biology professors provide a firsthand glimpse of a debate no doubt playing out at many colleges, where students of faith struggle to reconcile their beliefs with scientific theories on the origins of humanity. Unlike so many such academic discussions, however, the private interchange between Carlos Cerna and his professors has moved beyond the campus walls -- thanks to the Internet -- and generated a review within the church about the appropriateness of evolutionary studies for Seventh-day Adventists, a Christian denomination that embraces the six-day creation story outlined in the Book of Genesis.

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. 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.”

Cerna responded, saying he was “flabbergasted” by Bradley’s e-mail.

“I don’t see why I’m ‘getting the shaft’ for questioning these [scientific] methods, especially at an Adventist university,” he wrote.

The e-mails, as well as Cerna’s paper and other related documents, were leaked to a Web site called EducateTruth.com. Shane Hilde, a La Sierra alumnus critical of what he describes teaching “against the Bible” at the university, is the site’s creator. Hilde says Bradley and Lee Greer, who co-taught Cerna’s class, should both resign because their clear belief in evolution is contradictory to the teachings of the church that founded the university.

“For me it just comes down to employee misrepresenting an employer,” Hilde told Inside Higher Ed. “Someone employed for Pepsi is not going to retain their job promoting Coca-Cola. It’s pretty black and white.”

Hilde’s site, which he says attracts about 1,000 unique visitors each day, has spread the debate about La Sierra among Adventists. But it was an e-mail from David Asscherick, a popular evangelist, that appears to have pressured church leaders to weigh in on the issue. Asscherick, who appears regularly on a 24-hour radio and television station called Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN), wrote members of the church’s General Conference urging them to “do something.”

“It is a matter of incontestable fact that naturalistic evolution is being taught at La Sierra University,” Asscherick wrote in the e-mail dated April 30, “This is not in and of itself a bad thing. Evolution should be taught at our denominational universities. But it should be taught as a competing and inimical worldview to the biblical worldview. We need our young people to know what it is they are up against, yes, but when naturalistic evolution is taught as fact or as the preferred and normative worldview, then we can be sure that the enemy has breached our lines.”

By June 19, the president of the worldwide church had written a letter affirming the church’s belief in a “literal, recent, six-day creation” and that “the Flood was global in nature.” Jan Paulsen, the church's president, went on to say that church-sponsored colleges and universities should teach students about evolution, but mindfully steer them back toward the church’s contrary view.

“As part of that exercise [in teaching] you will also expose them to elements and concepts of evolution. That is understood,” he wrote. “As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey.”

Jay Gallimore, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Michigan Conference, also wrote about the debate on the conference's Web site.

"Adventist parents should be able to trust their colleges and universities to build the faith of their young people," he wrote. "They should not have the additional burden of trying on their own to figure out whether their youth are going to be taught evolution rather than creation."

Cerna, who graduated from La Sierra with a biology degree, said he was not opposed to evolution being taught, so long as it wasn't depicted as the lone viable explanation for the origin of of human beings.

"We should all be very aware of what the leading theory of the origin of life is," he said. "What I have strong feelings about is the way it's being taught. If you’re going to come out at an institution that is a Bible believing institution and say evolution is the only logical theory that makes any sense, then that’s what I have a problem with.”

Professor Not Changing Course

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.”

“We at La Sierra University are continuing to examine how we teach the science relevant to origins in supportive, Adventist, Christian environment,” wrote Randal Wisbey, the university’s president. “We continue to welcome input made in a spirit of constructive Christian fellowship and which is respectful of scientific integrity -- recognizing that while we may not fully agree on everything, our mutual concern is always for unity in love to our Lord and service to His children.”

Wisbey did not respond to interview requests Monday.

The university plans to add a seminar for biology students in which theologians and scientists will discuss the intersections of faith and science. The university has also updated its Web site, listing “important reasons to study biology” on the campus. Students can expect to “study with professors who all deeply believe in God as the Creator of everything,” the site notes. While biology students will be expected to learn theories of evolution, they also “will be introduced to Seventh-day Adventist understandings of Creation, centered in the Genesis account, which reveals the Creator as a personal and loving God,” according to the site.

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 bullshit,” he said.

Neither Bradley nor Greer have the protections of tenure. Bradley had tenure, but willingly gave it up in a deal to scale back his responsibilities in a phased retirement. Greer, who did not respond to an interview request Monday, is on the tenure track.

Faculty at La Sierra do not have to be members of the Seventh Day Adventist church -- unless they want tenure.

“I hope this will change,” Bradley said. “One cannot be tenure-track if they’re not a member. I’m embarrassed to say that, but it is true.”

Bradley joined the church as a boy, but when asked if he was a practicing Adventist, he said “On record, yes. You can read into that whatever you want.”

“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.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Creating Controversy

  • Here we go again
  • Posted by Steve Finner , Minister of Music at Uniersalist Church ofr St. Johnsbury VT on September 1, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • What sticks out in this otherwise yet again another story of dogmatic religion v. science is "Faculty at La Sierra do not have to be members of the Seventh Day Adventist church -- unless they want tenure." Ah yes, "The Tenure Conversion" coming soon to a theatre near you (sigh)!

  • Ah, Yes: Teaching Strategy
  • Posted by Diogenes on September 1, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Parents need to trust the fact that Fundie U will keep up the dogma that results in an abysmally ignorant graduate every time. That keeps the alumni dollars flowing in! Let's teach students science using real evidence...and then teach them to ignore all the evidence in favor of junk science and religious dogma. Please...can I register for this class? I can't wait! Teach the geological record and evolutionary biology and then scrap the truth in favor of Adam and Eve saddling up their dinosaurs and riding to work on Original Sin Road. Maybe evolution is too difficult a subject to start with. Maybe you should practice your methodology on less controversial things: like the Biblical flat earth, how to torture and extract confession from accused witches (maybe someone from Blackwater Security can work as an adjunct), explore how the liver is the real seat of emotions in Biblical Psychology, refute that nonsense about gravity (if you can't see it must not be there!), spontaneous generation, the humors, demonology and exorcisms, why there are only four elements, explain why the sun really moved backwards or stayed still a full day with no physical consequences in Biblical Physics, or the explore holy geocentric view of the universe.Can't wait for the scientific knowledge that will flow from this curriculum! And the US falls further and further behind the world in scientific aptitude while this nonsense get funded and approved. But at least you keep the medieval world alive with this kind of nonsense.

    Fundamentalism is such a waste. It takes as many resources to teach garbage as it does real science. Choose the latter. Keep your faith real. If real science taught in an honest manner threatens the core of your beliefs, your faith didn't have much to start with. All these elaborate scientific deceptions, all the special pleadings, all the junk science that generate millions of dollars for creationist hucksters, and all the homeschoolers living through 12 years of Mommy's Madras and continuing in ignorance in college shows the weakness of fundamentalism, not the strength of a real faith. It is faithlessness and fear in overdrive. There are millions of Christians that have embraced the fact of evolution for over a century. Deal with it. Even the original edition of The Fundamentals that founded this movement stated that evolution was compatible with the Christian faith. Should have listened....

  • The problem with creationism
  • Posted by Colin on September 1, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I have absolutely no problem with people believing as they will in matters of faith. If your religion makes you happy, more power to you. What bothers me is dressing your pastor in a white lab coat and trying to call him a scientist.

    By its very definition, faith entails belief without proof. Faith is the appropriate epistemological genre for knowledge that cannot be gained by the epistemology of empirical science, such as whether life has meaning, what that meaning is, what happens after we die, etc. However, when empirical evidence is available, to reject that evidence in favor of faith is not the appropriate response if you want to call yourself a scientist.

    Science, by its definitive methodology, requires empirical evidence to support any theory. Scientific theory, therefore, might be defined as belief based on evidence, or the opposite of faith. The biggest problem with attempts to dress up faith in the clothes of science, is that by doing so the faith itself is undermined. Attempting to prove definitively the existence and nature of the divine is probably the most faithless act imaginable.

  • Not worth your time
  • Posted by Cranky Ol' Prof on September 1, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Another tempest in a teapot college. Those who disdain knowledge in favor of ancient dogma need not detain a publication dedicated to "Higher Ed." Those who want academic freedom should not expect it from institutions, religious or otherwise, that have long fought it. Let us move on.

  • Diogenes
  • Posted by Lucinda L. Harper on September 1, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Indeed, "Even the original edition of The Fundamentals that founded this movement stated that evolution was compatible with the Christian faith." I graduated from a Southern Baptist college in the early 70s. All my science professors (Christians all) taught us evolution and that there is no incompatibility between that and Christianity. We've evidently lurched into a new phase of global capitalism that produces such weird regressions.

  • To Each His/Her Own
  • Posted by William Sedlacek , Professor Emeritus of Education at University of Maryland on September 1, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Art, religion, science, and literature are distinct ways of seeking truth; each with its own assumptions and methods. Do not mistake one for the other. Let the biologists teach biology and the religionists teach religion. A well educated person should be exposed to all areas of knowledge and and make up his/her own mind about it all.

  • Here we go again
  • Posted by Sara on September 1, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • I student taught biology in public school in the bible belt. Dualistic as high school students can be, they couldn't see that it was ok to believe in God and study evolution. Why not? I remember seeing a quote once (Buddhist, I think), that as man climbs the scientific mountain of knowledge, he will meet the main of faith at the top. There are profound mysteries in science, life study and genetics in particular, that have yet to be solved. Why not let students be trained to do the research that can support or deny either side, or blend them in new theories that stop polarizing one side from the other?

    I wonder why a university so closed to critical thought would teach biology at all. They need to think about what types of students they are turning out. If they haven't learned to think critically, they are going to stagnate. Stagnation will result in the same level of fear in them that we see in the fundamentalists attacking this college, dualistic views of a world that isn't. Without biologists learning to think analytically, we would lack so many discoveries that have helped us as a planet. Is all of that fear worth crippling a potentially gifted student who has both a scientific and religious mind?

  • "Higher Education"???
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 1, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Is there any other industrialized country that leaves so much responsibility for "higher education" in the hands of dogmatic religious institutions? In Europe, even nominally Catholic schools seem to have no trouble in separating theology from the content and methods of other disciplines. But in the US, all kinds of educational cesspits run by sectarian yahoos get to call themselves colleges and universities. Perhaps publications like Inside Higher Ed and CHE should adopt a policy of ignoring these travesties of academic institutions, or, at any rate, refuse to dignify them by accepting their self-designations at face value.

  • government stamp of approval
  • Posted by ccm on September 1, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • LaSierra is accredited by the WASC. To the average layperson, that means that LaSierra has attained some minimum level of quality. To those of us in the know, of course, we know that accreditation says nothing about quality.

    The fact that a college or university can explicitly reject mainstream biology and continue to receive the federal government's stamp of approval and the monies that flow from that approval should be shocking. Alas, it's not.

  • Did any of you actually read the story?
  • Posted by Junius on September 1, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Those posting comments here have demonstrated only their eagerness to attack the strawman of fundamentalism. If you bothered to read the story, you might see that the theory is taught, that the professors have been backed by the president, and that the university seems perfectly sound in its academic approach. Your deep need to feel superior to religious people has once again disabled you from honest engagement with the conservative Christian "other."

  • Science vs. Religion?
  • Posted by Sean Pitman , M.D. at Private on September 1, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • La Sierra University is a private institution owned and opperated by the SDA Church. Right or wrong, an organization has a right to hire only those employees who accurately represent the fundamentals of that organization. If you don't like it, don't join or send your kids to LSU.

    Beyond this, any religion that is based upon faith alone is worthless - a form of blind faith. It is much like William Provine pointed out a while back - that Darwinism or methodological naturalism is equivalent to essential atheism because no Gods worht having can be known to exist beyond a personal blind desire for some sort of God to exist.

     

    • "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." - William Provine, Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in l ife 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address
    • "A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works through the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutoinary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism." - William Provine, Academe, January 1987, pp. 51-52.

    Provine is right you know. There really is no arguing against his logic as far as I can tell. So, is that the basis of faith that some of you wish to defend as remotely logical? - as a separate path toward "truth"? - Really? What kind of "truth" would that be? A truth equivalent to beleiving in Dawkins' "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? - or a child's "faith" in Santa Claus? Please... If you're going to believe in a God, at least think that you have some evidence to back up that belief besides a warm fuzzy feeling inside - right or wrong.

    Sean Pitman, M.D.

    www.DetectingDesign.com


  • This is not a small controversy--
  • Posted by Theistic Evolutionist on September 1, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • This controversy is very important, for two reasons.

    One: The Seventh-Day Adventists run a chain of hospitals nationwide. These hospitals are staffed with Adventist-trained doctors, nurses, technicians, and other medical personnel. These hospitals often provide the only medical care available in rural areas. Their doctors also practice in the surrounding community. If all these persons reject evolutionary biology, what effect might that have on the quality of their medical care? Is it possible to practice modern medicine while rejecting evolutionary biology? I really don't see how.

    Two: It is perfectly possible to be a Christian while accepting the theory of evolution as the best scientific account of the origin of life on earth and its subsequent development into complex life forms, including Homo sapiens sapiens. In fact, the majority of Christians worldwide see no incompatibiility between religion and science with respect to evolutionary biology. This is not a new thing. St. Augustine argued for a form of evolutionary theory more than 1500 years ago. So this is not a dispute between religion and secularism. It is a dispute between one form of Christianity -- a particular, modern form that is no more than 150 years old -- and everyone else, including almost all other Christians and almost all other non-Christian religious faiths.

  • Enough is enough
  • Posted by enough already on September 1, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • It's too bad that their mutual concern in the love of god is affecting the education of "His" children. Perfectly sound in their academic approach? Yeah, right, like there's no bias in that response.

  • Posted by Sara King on September 1, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Bravo for Bradley and for La Sierra University for standing firmly behind academic freedom. This story is about a plucky university that believes in giving its students a rigorous, modern education.

    If conservative Adventists (and there are many liberal Adventists) are so scandalized, they should rethink their views on education. Education is about questioning your beliefs. If your beliefs cannot withstand the questions, the fault does not lie with the questions.

  • Note to 7th day Adventists
  • Posted by Bob on September 1, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Memo to: Galileo
    Memo from: Pope Whomever

    It is perfectly fine to teach the the earth revolves around the sun, but at the end of the day can we safely guide our young novitiates back to the fact that the earth is the center of the universe.

    Now, I must get back to my navel gazing.

    We have been down this road before.

    Also, I am sure the "college" will be returning all of the federal and state tax dollers they receive so that they will not be conflict with their faith. Render unto Ceaser!

  • Posted by talleyrand on September 1, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • The bulk of these comments are unfair. The article is about how two professors and the president of this university are defending their teaching of evolution as the best account of human origins in the face of attacks from those who want them only to discredit it.

    All this animus might rightly be directed at the critics from the church, but apparently is instead being directed at the school, which seems to be on the same side as those here who are ridiculing it.

  • Education is about questioning your beliefs...
  • Posted by Sean Pitman , M.D. - Pathologist at Private group on September 1, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Sarah King,

    If "education is about questioning your beliefs", shouldn't that same questioning spirit apply to mainstream thinking on origins as well? What ever happened to questioning Darwinist doctrine in the classroom? - a mainstream doctrine that not even all well-educated scientists believe? - especially when it comes to the supposed magnificent creativity of the mindless Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. The creative force of this mechanism beyond extremely low levels of functional complexity isn't based on statistical analysis or predictive value when it comes to understanding the mechanism itself and how it supposedly does what Darwinists claim it did. Rather, it is based only on just-so stories about what might have happened in the past without any consideration of the odds that these fantastic stories are remotely likely to represent reality.

    The truth of the matter is that the Darwinian mechanism is extremely limited in creative potential and shows an exponential stalling out effect as one moves up the ladder of functional complexity. Statistically, this mechanism is simply untenable as a creative force beyond those systems of novel beneficial function that require more than a few hundred fairly specified amino acid building blocks at minimum. Novel beneficial biosystems that require more than 1000aa, at minimum, simply don't evolve and statistically are extremely unlikely to evolve this side of trillions of years of time.

    This lack of a viable mechanism is, in my mind, the primary problem with Darwinian thinking.

    Sean Pitman, M.D.
    www.DetectingDesign.com

  • Evolution should not be taught as fact
  • Posted by Bob Pickle on September 1, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • From a Seventh-day Adventist perspective, Bradley's use of an expletive is a big turn off.

    That aside, Bradley should include in his teaching of biology the enormous amount of hard, solid scientific data that indicates that the earth was created recently, and that indicates that no viable method for evolutionary change on the scale called for by evolutionists has yet been discovered. To present only the so-called evidence of evolutionists to the exclusion of the evidence to the contrary is inappropriate in a Seventh-day Adventist school.

    Regarding the theological implications of presenting only one set of scientific data, Theistic Evolutionist's comments above are incorrect. Biblical Christianity teaches that the world was created perfect and that death entered the world through man's sin, while evolutionism teaches that the world stated out in a primitive state, and that death was in the world long before man came along. Biblical Christianity teaches that we need a Savior to lift us up from the pit of degradation we have fallen into, while evolutionism teaches that we are gradually improving on our own, without having to accept a Savior into our lives.

    While one can discuss the matter from a theological perspective, it might be helpful to leave theology aside and discuss the matter solely from a scientific standpoint, an objective one, if that's possible. Such would include identifying each and every presupposition underlying the opposing theories, and then testing those presuppositions to see if they are true.

    But I've found that many evolutionists are unwilling to do so, which suggests that evolution has a non-scientific component. To the extent that such a non-scientific component exists, it either has no place in a science classroom, or it should not be the only theory taught.

  • Student Paper Plagarized
  • Posted by John on September 1, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • The educate truth website has the student paper available on it. A simple google search using some sections from the paper matches with articles non-academic websites with arguments against radiocarbon dating. A C for a plagarized paper is pretty lucky.

  • Pitman: More ID Nonsense
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 1, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Pitman--not a mathematician or complexity theorist--offers the standard Dembskiite ID line, which amounts to flat assertion without either theoretical or empirical evidence to back it up. The basic fallacy of his argument, such as it is, is that complexity must appear all at once rather than as a result of an incremental trial-and-error (mostly error) process. Evolution is a hill-climbing process that sorts out the few directions that improve reproductive fitness from the millions of variations that are neutral or detrimental. Genetics has demonstrated that what seem to be minor variations in gene structure can produce enormous somatic effects, and it has been computed that the "background rate" of evolutionary change far exceeds what is necessary to account for currently observed biological complexity and diversity. (The disparity shows that evoloution is a back-and-forth process with many dead ends and where improved fitness often entails loss, rather than gain, in complexity.)

    BTW, unlike Dembski, I'm a real mathematician with the research to prove it, not a tinkerer whose work dissolves into pseudo-mathematics and mere bluster when it is scrutinized by someone who knows what he's talking about. (See, for instance, Shallit (a complexity theorist) or Petrakh (a statistical physicist) on Dembski.)

    Now, what device does Pitman propose for "detecting design" and wherein lies his expertise in evaluating it? Does he propose to rely on Dembski's pseudo-results?

  • Quality of Creationist Physician Care
  • Posted by Todd Guthrie, MD on September 1, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Who would you rather have participating in your health care:

    An atheistic pragmatist who believes in survival of the fittest or a believer in a compassionate Creator who holds to a moral framework of selflessness?

    80% of my patients appreciate prayer as part of their treatment. And all, including the athiests, get evidence-based quality care from someone who believes they are of value.

     

  • Pickle Is in One
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 1, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • OK, don't teach evolution as "fact". But in that case, don't teach heliocentric astronomy, the periodic table of the elements, relativity, or the structure of DNA as fact. They are merely hypotheses supported by an overwhelming mass of empirical evidence (as oppoed to "Young Earth Creationism", sheer crap that would disgrace the most "primitive" culture, and supportd only by the childish hopes and even more childish terrors of the religiously-brainwashed.

    Pickle prefers to champion the confused legends of a 3000-year-old pastoral culture and the fanatic daydreams of the zealots who managed eventually to destroy classical learning and science. What the Bible "teaches" is less relevant than what Sponge Bob teaches.

  • LOL. Right. Hard Liquor Maybe but not "Hard Information."
  • Posted by Diogenes on September 1, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • There is no "hard information" that indicates that the Earth was created recently. That's junk science at its worse.

    Dinosaur rides at my house tonight!

  • The Folly of Evolutionists
  • Posted by Jonathan Smith , Lecturer at University of the West Indies on September 1, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I have followed the discussion today and am amazed at the evolutionists, especially the theistic ones. First, theistic evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible and those who subscribe to it cannot be true Christians even if they believe so.

    The reason is that the Bible says without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and it also says God cannot lie. Thus if you are a Christian or Bible believer, you simply have to accept the word of God. There is no other way. Given the fact that just about every portion of the Bible supports the Genesis account which cannot be explained by thousands or millions of years but days only, then if one rejects the Genesis account of life then one rejects God's word; calls Him a liar; rejects the resurrection; rejects eternal life and rejects being in heaven.

    The evolutionists who do not believe the Bible and think that evolutionary theory is a science have greatly fooled themselves. This is so because science must be open to all enquiries that seek to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Evolutionary theorists only select the reports that support it for publication and ignore the reports that destroy its legs.

    I have read reports from scientists who were evolutionist and have become creationists. I have read reports from scientists who have trained at secular schools and using the same scientific process have rejected evolution. Evolution cannot produce life, it has been proved that spontaneous combustion cannot produce life. The concept of irreducible complexity shows that evolution cannot produce many things like the eye and the bombardier beetle. There are many more facts that evolutionis choose to ignore and lie about and then attempt to pour scorn on those who believe otherwise.

    I did not attend any school that promotes religion and I did my graduate degrees at a major public university in the USA and have seen nothing to command a worshipful attitude to evolutionary science. But as in the days of Noah there were two groups and so will it be in the end.

  • That's just not the case
  • Posted by Greg Timmins on September 1, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I take exception to Bradley's claim that it is just a "lunatic Fringe" in the church that believe in a six day literal creation. That is just not true. As one who has grown up in the Adventist church in New Zealand and who has served the Adventist church in the United States and South East Asia it has been my observation that the overwhelming majority of Seventh-day Adventists believe in the biblical account as recorded in Genesis (i.e. six literal day creation.)

  • Honest answers wanted...
  • Posted by Warren Downs on September 1, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • I see a lot of scoffing but I would like some reflective, serious answers to the challenges to evolution presented on this page (many others could be cited):

    http://www.amazingfacts.org/Publications/InsideReport/tabid/123/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/432/The-Bible-and-Evolution.aspx

    For those too lazy or biased to read the article, here are a few of the issues (read the article to get the details):

    • Flawed assumptions of carbon dating (the subject of the controversial paper, which admittedly was poorly written). We have evidence that the rate of C14 increase in the atmosphere is much greater now than in the past. We weren't there to see what other changes may have taken place. This is just one of the problems with Carbon Dating.
    • (This article doesn't mention, but K/Ar dating has similar problems).
    • World population growth taken backwards only could have gone on for about 4000 years (since the flood). There are not enough human remains to account for 10000 years, let alone millions.
    • "Missing-link" frauds and similarity to modern animal or human skeletons (rather than an intermediate form as claimed).
    • The presence of hemoglobin in dinosaur bones (indicating they are much more recent than previously thought).

    Now, without all the flame-throwing, can anybody shed some light (not heat) on the questions raised?

  • Passion.
  • Posted by Jose , Psychotherapist. on September 1, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Well. It amaze me the passion with the evolutionist talk about their religion (You need FAITH to believe in evolution!,) attacking the messenger, diverting from the real issues as usual, and pretending their opinions need to be count as "facts" or "science." The frauds, manipulation of data, voluntary ignorance of scientific data that contradict and hurt the hipotesis of his evolutionary religion are legendary. Please evolutionist: explain to me what came first, the egg or the chicken? The seed or the Tree? (no, and I'm not kidding with this question.) When you find A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER, let me know. Thank You.

  • Tell it to the Pope!
  • Posted by Theism and Evolution (again) on September 1, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Oh dear, oh dear. According to Mr. Pickle, and the university lecturer who wrote: "First, theistic evolution is completely incompatible with the Bible and those who subscribe to it cannot be true Christians even if they believe so," the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy, and the millions of their co-religionists worldwide who accept evolution as compatible with Christian faith are not "true" or "Biblical Christians."

    They ought, rather, to explain why their preferred Biblical literalism, taking the Bible to be a list of facts about the earth, which is a method that does not date back before the mid-nineteenth century, should be preferred to the Biblical scholarship and interpretation of the Christian churches of the nineteen previous centuries. Why are all those Christians wrong, and you the only ones who are right?

  • RE:
  • Posted by Michael on September 1, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Theistic Evolutionist above asked, "The Seventh-Day Adventists run a chain of hospitals nationwide. These hospitals are staffed with Adventist-trained doctors, nurses, technicians, and other medical personnel. These hospitals often provide the only medical care available in rural areas. Their doctors also practice in the surrounding community. If all these persons reject evolutionary biology, what effect might that have on the quality of their medical care? Is it possible to practice modern medicine while rejecting evolutionary biology? I really don't see how."

    Actually, this is an interesting question, and the irony of it is that it proves the opposite point. The SDA universities and colleges have been teaching a literal 6-day creation since the beginning. It is only recently that a couple have been to cast doubt on this doctrinal view through various departments. However, the high quality of care given at SDA hospitals, including in areas that interact with evolutionary thought (infectious diseases, etc.), is world class. If anything, this shows just how irrelevant Darwinism is to the practice of science, even in areas that are related to genetics.

    For the uninformed, the Adventist view on evolution is not that evolution does not occur, but that it occurs on the microevolutionary level. Anything that can be observed is classed as microevolution. All experimental science that can now be done with living organisms would fall within the microevolutionary model.

    What Adventists have traditionally always rejected, along with all conservative-theology Christians, is the macroevolutionary view, that all living things share a common ancestor, and that life evolved over many millions of years. There is little if any practical significance to the acceptance or rejection of this view in any area of practical science, whether medicine or otherwise. It is mainly to interest to people who specialize in old-earth sciences, and even then the arguments are academic.

  • Wow!
  • Posted by Brian , Instructor at Loma Linda University on September 1, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • I can't believe that a faculty member at a Seventh-day Adventist university is able to be publicly quoted using an expletive and remain employed!

  • a thrid choice?
  • Posted by andie , moral atheist on September 1, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • "Posted by Todd Guthrie, MD on September 1, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
    Who would you rather have participating in your health care:

    An atheistic pragmatist who believes in survival of the fittest or a believer in a compassionate Creator who holds to a moral framework of selflessness?"

    Really? Those are your only options?
    How about a compassionate atheist who holds to a moral framework of selflessness? Christians aren't the only people with morals and compassion.

  • Re. "Pickle is in One" by Fossil
  • Posted by N. Watts , Dr at Trinity International University on September 1, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Unfortunately, the childish, emotive over-reaction seen in Pickle"s blast against anyone who takes any notice of ideas opposed to a purely naturalistic theory of evolution, only displays the ignorance and 'straw man" tactics used by many supporters of the religion of atheism who with religious bigotry and zeal worthy of the Inquisition pillory all opponents of their views. And this from someone calling himslef a Professor of Mathmatics! Incredible.

  • Reply to Fossil & Theism Evolution Again
  • Posted by Bob Pickle on September 1, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • Nice to see you here, Greg Timmins.

    It would appear that the reply of Fossil has demonstrated my point, that many evolutionists have extreme difficulty objectively discussing scientific data and would prefer to hurl insults and mere assertions, an approach many consider quite unscientific.

    First, since Theism and Evolution (again) has replied using a theological argument, I'll briefly address that. My understanding is that there is not a single Hebrew scholar in any world-class university who does not believe the author of Genesis intended us to take his account as referring to 6 actual days. Thus, the question is whether he Bible should be believed, or not believed on that point.

    From a Protestant standpoint, the Bible is supposed to be the final authority. Thus, the consistent Protestant would have to believe that the 6 days were actual days, especially since God audibly incorporated that specific point into the 10 Commandments in Ex. 20, an event about 2 million people witnessed and heard.

    From the standpoint of the Vatican, looking at history down through time, it would seem that any position that would undermine confidence in Scripture as being the final authority would be strategic. However, there are Roman Catholics today, including scientists from what I understand, who believe that evolution is not a viable option.

    Back to Fossil. Fossil, are you familiar with Po-218 radiohalos? Po-218 has a half-life of 3 minutes. Po-218 halos have been identified in Precambrian granites. If those granites took millions of years to cool, the Po-218 would have been long gone and no halos would have formed. Those granites had to crystallize instantly in order for the halos to exist.

    It has been suggested that radio isotopes migrated through the Precambrian fluorite and mica to the halo centers, slowly over time. But Po-218's precursor is inert Rn-222, so there is no mechanism to concentrate Rn-222 in the halo centers.

    Rn-222 rings show up in U-238 halos in fluorite but aren't visible in the Po-218 halos in the same, showing that there was no Rn-222 in those halo centers.

    As the isotopes diffused toward the halo centers, if that happened, some atoms would decay before they reached the halo centers, leaving behind fossil alpha-recoil tracks. But there are no more such fossil tracks near the halo centers than elsewhere in the crystals.

    Someone out there has proposed that the Po precipitated out of solution as the granite was recrystallizing at lower temperatures from hydrothermal fluids. But that would require rapid crystal growth, or else the halo would be lighter on the newer side of the crystal. This is because while the crystal is growing, some of the Po would still be decaying. No such lopsided, lighter on one side, halos have been reported. But rapid crystal growth would mean that granite should be able to be synthesized in the laboratory, yet all such granite synthesis experiments have failed.

    Any naturalistic explanation for Po-218 halos must account for the lack of fossil alpha-recoil tracks.

    You can find evolutionists out there who believe that an answer to this dilemma will be found one day, despite the decades that have already passed without finding such an answer. That is a demonstration of faith.

  • Evolution in SDA Institutions
  • Posted by Ron Henderson , Pastor at Alberta Conference on September 1, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Once again, I would like to make it abundantly clear that any individual who teaches evolution as fact in any SDA college or university must be removed. This is not that we disapprove of informing students about evolution and its entricacies; no. This can and should be done; I have done this with my students. But when the teacher does not believe in fiat creation, that is, biblical creation as literally expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis, but believes in Darwinism, then that teacher is in the wrong institution. The leaders must have the strength of resolution to ask that teacher to leave; if they fail to do so then they in turn must consider leaving! Adventists are creationists. We know clearly our origins. We believe in a revealed God, the Fall, sin, redemption and restoration; evolution, if believed, makes mockery of these concepts.

  • Posted by Shayne at Andrews on September 1, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Without Adam and Eve there is no sin, without sin there is no Cross, without a Cross there is no Christianity.

  • Polonium haloes, eggs, mathematics
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 2, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

    http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html

    Chicken and eggs: Eggs, obviously (allowing for the gradualism of he process even under the most saltationist models of speciation). Theparent organism produces a mutant gamete, so the new variation doesn't appear until the next generation.

    Mathman: There's a bit of gender confusion here: Mathematics is usually characterized as the Queen of Sciences. Thanks for the lecture on elementary Aristotelian logic; it would have been helpful reduced to first-order predicate calculus, which provided perhaps a week's worth of work in my high school. Needless to say, I don't expect any account of formal systems theory nor of its connection with computability. But some reference to C.L. Dodgson's "Symbolic Logic" and "The Game of Logic" might have provided more amusing examples. (By the way (idle boast),I learned my serious mathematical logic from W.V.O. Quine; what about you?)

    Nonetheless, none of this has much to do with verification and justification of empirical theories, such as evolution, as it is universally understood. One piece of evidence is of little weight, unless it contradicts the posited theory. Verification comes from a large number of confirming instances, i.e., instances where falsification is a possibility that has gone unrealized; this of course does not carry the logical weight of pure deduction and is challenged (but hardly delegitimized) by Hume's observations on the problem of induction. Nonetheless, all science reposes on this standard of verification, and, by this standard, evolution passes brilliantly.

    Please don't try to impress us with strained mathematical metaphors; at least, give us Cauchy's definition of limit first! I would simply remind you that faith is what induces supposed adults to believe that Lot's Wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt and that the sun was made to stand still so that a minor Semetic warlord could complete his slaughter of a competing tribe. Anyone who affects to believe this is hors d'combat when it comes to any serious discussion of scientific methodology.

    My apologies to any bystander who thinks I'm being too impolite in these postings. But I am truly sick to death of a pack of credulous damfools screwing up my country. With a**holes like this dictating science education, we don't stand a chance in hell against the Chinese!

  • Quality of Adventist care questioned
  • Posted by D Randolph Brehms , Local Pastor at Seventh-day Adventist Church on September 2, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • It boggles my mind that someone would be so prejudice and uninformed that they would liable what is admittedly an excellent hospital operating system "Adventist Health System" as being unable to practice modern medicine without adhering to evolutionary thought, such an allegation is preposterous. What arrogance! Even Stephen Hawking suggests metaphorically that the complexity, and diversity found on this planet suggests intelligent design which sends many naturalistic evolutionists into neurological arrest. Isn't time we understood that there is some of Darwinian evolution that is nothing more than a atheistic myth on origins.

  • Welcome to the Party Friends
  • Posted by LSU Student , Student on September 2, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • Congratulations. The angry mob is now moving temporarily to this site, continuing a rant that has been going on for months now against La Sierra. When I see a student paper, which is plagarized in several parts even blatantly from Wikipedia, and then see comments about teaching "facts," it just shows me how important the scientific method and peer review are and how lucky I am to have had the educational experience that I've had.

    Over and over again on multiple sites I see posts of "Well its ok to teach students evolutionary theory but it shouldn't be taught as fact." And buried deep between angry tirades about firing professors you find a comment here and there from someone trying to point out that at La Sierra, professors do not teach the "facts" of science. They connect students to theories, research, methods, and tools. Science is not about facts, and it is not about beliefs either.

    I have seen it happen many times where a student who was not exposed to evolutionary theory before college cannot handle the new information, often leading to poor performance and then an attempt at justifying the poor performance as a resistance to false information. The student in this case was very lucky to get a C on a paper with whole parts plagarized in what is supposed to be the senior capstone class for Biology majors.

    After months under attack, the Biology Professors at LSU have demonstrated remarkable calm under pressure, but no one can hold up forever. Each day I am amazed to see how many members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church will choose a side on this issue without even knowing that the attacks are truly baseless. But then again, that is what happens when you only use the Bible and your gut to determine truth. Sometimes we need to find other, valid and reliable methods by which to test evidence. If only there were some way to learn about that...

  • A Compassionate Atheist???
  • Posted by Jonathan Smith , Lecturer at University of the West Indies on September 2, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • Posted by Andie

    Really? Those are your only options?
    How about a compassionate atheist who holds to a moral framework of selflessness? Christians aren't the only people with morals and compassion.

    Andie, evolution cannot produce morals and compassion. There is nothing physical there. By acknowledging morals and compassion you are accepting something implanted by a non-evolutionary process. Evolution demands the survival of the fittest - the destruction of the weak.

  • Get a Grip
  • Posted by Nomo Stew on September 2, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • All this prof did was ask the student to demonstrate understanding of the course material. He did not insist on the student belieiving it. A lit prof would not expect students to believe that, say, Scrooge really saw ghosts. But they darned well expect students to know that Dickens wrote that. By the article's description, this student seems to have pulled a scandalous trick, apparently covering for lack of industry by going after his professor's livelihood, after all the years of that prof's good service. We really need to understand the dangers - and the outright inhumanity - of giving that sort of student behavior any support. It's hardly surprising that this student is also a plagiarist.

  • Posted by Brunie on September 2, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • It seems that it takes as much faith to believe in evolution as in creation.
    As such the Bible as the Word of God teaches creationism, this should be
    our belief, because it is the biblical truth as presented to the christian. To
    believe otherwise is putting self and arrogance ahead of truth.
    Those that defend evolution have left the biblical truth behind to go after the follies
    of the worldly teachings and self service...

    Choose this day whom will you serve...

  • God is ashamed of the vast majority of creationists
  • Posted by Eugene Shubert , math at UCSD on September 2, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The problem with creationists is that they don't understand the word science.

    Shubee
    http://www.everythingimportant.org/devolution

  • Fossil: Pick a point regarding Po halos
  • Posted by Bob Pickle on September 2, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Fossil,

    Given the importance of the topic, I am surprised that you would merely post links without comment. But then again, other evolutionists have done the same sort of thing rather than personally evaluate the material presented at such links. But I don't think it wise to let others do our thinking for us on this one.

    Thus, I would find it helpful if you would cite a few specific points from those links that you feel are pretty sound.

    http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html proposes a radon migration hypothesis, but totally ignores the problem of the missing fossil alpha-recoil tracks.

    It is also peculiar that the author would discuss alternative branches in the U-238 decay chain. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain Rn-218 comprises .1% of .02% of the decay of Rn-222, so that explains why Gentry's papers passed peer review even when he didn't mention Rn-218. The alternative branches aren't significant.

    The author spends time discussing why a Rn-222 ring isn't seen. Yet Rn-222 rings are seen in U-238 halos in fluorite. His suggestion of ambient helium hindering the formation of a Rn-222 ring would have to apply to the other rings as well, wouldn't they? Thus, if the other rings formed fine, the Rn-222 ring should too.

    And talking about bubbles of Rn seems an inappropriate explanation for Po halos in defect-free areas of crystals, where there is no excess fossil alpha-recoil tracks.

    Pick what you want out of either link, or any other, and then let's discuss it.

  • Evolution vs Creationism
  • Posted by Glen on September 2, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • 1. Survival of the fittest is not a moral code, it is a description of natural phenomena. It is quite possible to have a humanistic moral code. Or a moral code that puts the Earth, or some favored species, first.
    2. The Bible is easily demonstrated not to be entirely literally true. Two easy examples are the conflicting creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and the conflicting genealogies of Joseph.
    3. Evolution is a scientific theory with a lot of supporting evidence and testable hypotheses. Creationism is religious dogma with neither. As seen above, the best that creationists can do is to point out a few real or imagined weaknesses in evolution, rather than evidence of creation.
    4. To the poster who asked "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?": If you had a clue about evolution, you would know that eggs evolved long, long, before birds. Fish, amphibians, and reptiles all (well most, but not all) lay eggs.
    5. It does not take as much faith to believe in theories well-supported by evidence, as it does to believe in religious dogma, based on some group's interpretation of an ancient contradictory collection of writings.

  • There's the rub
  • Posted by Dan at UC Davis on September 2, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • '"What I have strong feelings about is the way it's being taught. If you’re going to come out at an institution that is a Bible believing institution and say evolution is the only logical theory that makes any sense, then that’s what I have a problem with.”'

    And that's the problem - it is the only logical theory that fits within the framework necessary for the process of science and they just can't stomach that fact. Creationist ideas may be true or not (I suspect not), but they are most emphatically not, and never will be, scientific ideas. The creationists have been trying for 150 years to come up with a formulation of their ideas that turns them into an actual, viable scientific hypothesis and they have failed utterly. Any attempt to place creationism and the idea of evolution by natural selection on an equal footing in a science classroom is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

  • Posted by Ryan Hablitzel , Student at Andrews University on September 2, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • God reveals truth in His creation.  There is truth in Science.  Unfortunately resistance from each side claims absolute authority.  Wouldn't it be nice if theologians and scientists could have a humble dialogue to find points of agreement and disagreement?  Scientists who claim that their practice is the only source of truth show their ignorance of theology and visa-versa.  There are clear answers to be had in the creation evolution debate.  Unfortunately the average american has been taught that science is the only rule of truth and are blinded to the faults in secular science.

    I do not respect scientists who disregard theology.  I have taken the time to study science in depth, but most scientists are ignorant of true Biblical matters.  

    This teacher needs to be fired and sent to the public college to teach evolution.  

  • Dishonesty
  • Posted by Ed Goodman , Science Teacher at Pine Tree Academy on September 2, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • It seems professor Bradley is dishonest by stating he is an SDA in name only. His name is on the books so that he can insidiously brainwash young Christian students in the religion of evolutionism. He should be honest and move on to where his views will be well accepted and stop taking money from the ignorant SDA church people that support LaSierra.

    Ed

  • No Answer or acknowledgement?
  • Posted by Olga Sanchez , Alumna, LLU-La Sierra Campus on September 2, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • It is rather interesting that twice (last night and this morning), a direct invitation for scientific dialog has been presented by Bob Pickle to Fossil (evolutionist), and this invitation stands apparently disregarded as of right now.

    Evidence (facts) will point to the truth and will not sustain the unsustainable. Facts about observable life will either confirm or deny a Creator.

    When I studied Anatomy and Physiology at La Sierra, I (as well as all the students that took that class) was blessed to have a teacher who, though young, was committed to presenting the facts. She presented a devotional thought before every single class, and we had prayer. The "universe" within our body is simply awe inspiring. The amount of information was overwhelming at times; but one thing is for sure -- there was absolutely no question as to the incredibly formidable and amazing piece of art the human body is, a masterpiece through and through. And there was (and is) no question as to how very valuable I am.

    God is everything He has revealed that He is. Some believe, and some do not. For those who choose not to believe: Please give an observable example of a masterpiece that just happened without and artist conceptualizing it first, in fact, a masterpiece that "evolved" out of "nothing" and without an artist at all.

  • Posted by glen on September 2, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Olga Sanchez said: Please give an observable example of a masterpiece that just happened without and artist conceptualizing it first, in fact, a masterpiece that "evolved" out of "nothing" and without an artist at all.

    Well, in your world view, the answer would be: God.

    In my world view, the answer is: everything. Except that it didn't come from "nothing", except maybe for the Big Bang, which I don't claim to understand well enough.
    Everything we see came from earlier forms, including life itself. It evolved over BILLIONS OF YEARS. It was not just randomness; random parts, such as mutation, provided options that were favored or disfavored by natural selection. Most mutations were disfavored, and it took BILLIONS OF YEARS for enough useful mutations to happen to get where we are today.

    Your world view takes enormous faith. How could God come from nothing? How could God violate all the laws of physics?
    My world view is what fits best with what we can see every day, and what the fossil record shows.

    My world view will adjust as more information becomes available: the Earth is round, it rotates, it revolves around the Sun, genes are in DNA, etc.
    Your world view must resist new knowledge that threatens your faith.

  • Posted by Boaz , Health Educator on September 2, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • It seems interesting that people that have all the facts on their side get mad when others want to share another view. If the facts are true then an opposing argument should not hurt anything. If you are right why get upset?

  • Church and Science
  • Posted by Who shall remain anonymous on September 2, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • I love the Seventh-day Adventist church and I love science. So far I never came across anything that shook my faith but then again I am a scientist and believe what I see and I do not hide facts. I'm comfortable with the truth presented by data. However way you look at it is your problem really.

    But here's what I think you should all know. Science is science and Religion is religion. Don't try to mix the two. Don't think you are smart enough to interpret the Bible...God did not give you the secrets to creation...He only said He did it by saying it...if He used a natural process...we do not know from Genesis 1 and 2. If He means 6 days was literally 6 days...again we do not know that from there...6 days could be millions of years or a wrinkle in time (read Stephen Hawking) we really don't know! So don't assume anything...you do not have that luxury from the Bible...EVEN GOD WOULD NOT TOLERATE THAT KIND OF A BEHAVIOUR. If you believe in a 6 day creation that is good for you...but if another Seventh-day Adventist thinks it could be non-literal then don't say he should leave the church. It's really not up to you to decide who goes to heaven and who does not...it's also not up to you to say who stays in church and who does not.

    Science should be taught as science...present your facts...don't give your opinion in your class when you're teaching anything on life origins. If something as small and insignificant as 'days of creation' affects your faith...you need some serious faith building to do my friend. If your faith is strong...no knowledge of science and evolution can move you. Read science the way it is and question all the theories there like an intellectual...do not bring religion in it, no matter if the school is church owned or not. If you are threatened by church views on origins or if you are threatened by science then you ought to ask yourself...Are you really sure of anything you believe in? So in my conclusion I would like to say please leave church out of science and science out of church. Thank you very much I have work to do now.

  • Who is angry?
  • Posted by Glen on September 2, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Boaz,
    I can't tell who you think is angry. Seems to me that people on both sides are presenting their understanding of reality fairly reasonably.

  • ANSWER TO GLEN
  • Posted by Olga Sanchez , Alumna, LLU La Sierra Campus on September 2, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • Thanks for seeking to address my request. Please note, however, the specifics of that request. The context of my request is that I had just mentioned the wonder of the human body as a true masterpiece. Let me state my request here again: “Please give an observable example of a masterpiece that just happened without an artist conceptualizing it first, in fact, a masterpiece that “evolved” out of “nothing” and without an artist at all.”

    1. When saying that in my “world view the answer would be God,” you are absolutely wrong. God is eternal. He has always been, and He is the Creator of everything there is, even science, true, genuine science. Information that is becoming available now has been in the Bible for centuries. True knowledge and true science is not incompatible with a knowledge of God.
    2. You state that in your "world view, the answer is: everything." Since everything to you is an observable example of a “masterpiece” that simply happened without an artist or designer, please explain how this can be observable, and give specific examples.

    Thank you.

  • The odds of the Darwinian mechanism working?
  • Posted by Sean Pitman , MD at Private pathology group on September 2, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • In an above listed post, the mathematician "Fossil" argues that:

    • "Evolution is a hill-climbing process that sorts out the few directions that improve reproductive fitness from the millions of variations that are neutral or detrimental. Genetics has demonstrated that what seem to be minor variations in gene structure can produce enormous somatic effects, and it has been computed that the "background rate" of evolutionary change far exceeds what is necessary to account for currently observed biological complexity and diversity. (The disparity shows that evoloution is a back-and-forth process with many dead ends and where improved fitness often entails loss, rather than gain, in complexity.)"

    I fail to see in this comment any mathematical calculations or even estimates of the odds of any random mutation in a given genome of options finding any novel beneficial functional system in the vastness of sequence/structure space at various levels of functional complexity. This point of mine is simply not addressed - as usual.

    The statistical problem, which Fossil evidently fails to recognize, and which is somewhat different from the points that Dembski usually harps on, is that the odds of success are not the same at various levels of functional complexity. Not all systems of function are created equal. It is like the difference between a random search in sequence space coming up with a viable 3-letter word vs. a meaningfully beneficial 10-letter sequence vs. a 100-character sequence ... etc.

    Systems that have greater and greater minimum structural threshold requirements occupy exponentially larger and larger sequence spaces. The problem with this is that the number of potentially beneficial sequences within these larger and larger sequence spaces drops, exponentially, relative to the increase in the number of neutral or non-beneficial sequences. Therefore, the odds that a random walk or random step of any kind into seqeunce will just happen to come across a beneficial island within the vastness of sequence space also drop, exponentially, with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

    This exponential decline in evolutionary potential is clearly demonstrated by real-time observed examples of evolution in action. None of them, regardless of the genome chosen, ever produce any novel system of function that has a minimum structural requirement of more than a few hundred fairly specified amino acid residues. There isn't a single example of this in all of literature.

    And no, contrary to Fossil's suggestion, I'm not asking for an example of evolution of a complex system happening "all at once" or "from scratch". I'm asking for an example of the evolution of a relatively low level of functional complexity (~1000aa minimum threshold requirement) from anything else that already exists in any gene pool of options. The point here is that higher level systems that do indeed exist preformed within all living systems do not evolve into new higher level systems with qualitatively unique functions. While it is true that changes in the quantitative level of functionality is often realized via RM/NS, qualitatively unique systems are not evolved beyond very low levels of functional complexity - never. Why not? What are the odds?

    Some real numbers and odds analysis this time - please . . .

    My own odds analysis for this problem can be found at:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation

    Sean Pitman, M.D.

    www.DetectingDesign.com

  • Doesn't even deserve a "C"
  • Posted by J on September 2, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • Ok, leaving aside the debate between science and faith, take a look at this paper. As a TA in a writing intensive course at a "large mid-western university" I wouldn't have graced this with more than a D. A lack of citations, regurgitation instead of synthesis, lack of a coherent thesis and numerous other issues run throughout the paper. Add to that the potential plagiarism noted by others here and the fact that this is written by a future graduate student in molecular biology enrolled in a capstone course... well... an "F" is likely due.

    Also, the vindictive, possibly elitist, part of me hopes that any school he applies to for future studies locates this paper, as well as the ensuing argument, and does the right thing. If only for the sake of readers of molecular biology journals...

  • Probabilities
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 3, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
  • Pitman's remarks are rife with misconceptions, both mathematical and biological. To use his metaphor, evolution doesn't blindly search for a given hundred-letter word; it takes a 99-letter word, subjects it to random variation, and comes up with a more "fit" 100 letter word. Sometimes it does this by creating a 102 letter word and then discarding the redundancy. Pitman just can't seem to discard the idea that a genome is created "all at once" from a numerically large number of combinations; it isn't. The search-space of an actual evolutionary process is rather small--additional (redundant) elements in a homeobox (a chain of genes that controlsthe timing of gene-expression in the embryo), say, followed by a favorable mutation (after an untold number of unfavorable or neutral ones) in one such element with profound morphogenetic consequences. This is seen experimentally, of course. I should also mention that many theorists believe that lineages of species (as opposed to individual species) that now exist have "evolved" to "experiment" with mutation (via, say, imperfect replication); the costs to the overwhelming majority of individuals involved will be great, but the benefits to the lineage, in terms of producing successful scion species, are obvious.

    In short, pounding the table about the vast number of possible amino-acid sequences is a red herring. Nobody ever suggested that the evolutionary process simply dipped into this sample-space blindly. The probability of event A, given B, is entirely different from the probability of A, given nothing at all. If I try to draw thirteen spades from a well-mixed deck by blind choice, I'm never going to succeed (for all practical purposes), no matter how many attempts I make. But, if I draw a hand, retain all the spades (N say) (that's selection), and then draw 13-N cards from a reshuffled deck of 52-N, and continue to repeat the process, I'll have a hand of thirten spades in pretty short order.

    It's all a matter of relentless selection,which can be meaningfully modeled by computer programs that produce complex, functional systems (sometimes novel and surprising to the programmers, and sometimes even "irreducibly complex"!) from extremely primitive initial states by random variation and selection. So your statement about the near-impossibility of evolving complexity is simply wrong.

    You can't bind the blind creativity of nature by the chains of your dogma.

  • The Land of The Free
  • Posted by Glenn , Assistant Professor/Chemistry at Oakwood University on September 3, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
  • Dear Friends,

    I am a professor at the SDA University and I find that the article presented above is particularly interesting. I have found (as a young professor) that most of the learning I do, extends from ideas that students produce from the material I present in my classes. For this reason I never allow dogma to dictate how students respond to my assignments. Unfortunately, many people especially scientists view their discipline as completely objective when in fact it is not. When a child is pronounced as male or female at birth it does not give rise to debate among hospital personnel because males and females have distinctive genitalia. That is a scientific and a religious fact. The mere reason that the discussion of the topic of evolution/creation generally engages debate is a sure indication that there is some subjectivity involved (or otherwise insanity). A measure of one's belief is imparted in both concepts. So how could such topics be graded as completely objective? Rather than delineating examples in the past where science has been completely WRONG, I will divert your attention to a scientist that was an atheist and one of the leading evolutionists in the world. He has read the same peer-reviewed articles that all evolutionists read, he has taught evolution and creation at public institutions and is probably more qualified than most of the Biology professors at any of our institutions (from a secular standpoint of course). The first link below is the story of how he moved from being an evolutionist and atheist to a creationist and Christian. The others address the issue of the flood and concepts in evolution (I listed the first 6 or 7, follow the other numbers on you tube). The last one teaches about incredible creatures that defy evolution.

    I was not going to comment but I found it ironic that in a discussion like this, Dr. Walter Veith's work has not been mentioned.

    (From an Evolutionist to a creationist) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeuFwlovie4

    (Flood part I) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNvSHI5djr4

    (Flood part II) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e60RTvjnAIQ&feature=related

    (Flood part III) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2tvsN_8p-o&feature=related

    (Flood part IV) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9qco1XGFzs&feature=related

    (Flood part V) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3qWrWGjMLo&feature=related

    (Flood VI) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X_YCCADBEA&feature=related

    (Flood VII) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT1t2_4m08s&feature=related

    (Incredible creatures that defy evolution I) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-549609468847151230&ei=QkifSoqKAaWaqALzsdGIDA&q=creatures+that+defy+evolution&hl=en&emb=1&client=safari#

    Jesus never enforced His ideology on anyone so how did it become a prerogative of Science or Christianity?

    (Incredible creatures that defy evolution II) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-742626074003388368&ei=QkifSoqKAaWaqALzsdGIDA&q=creatures+that+defy+evolution&hl=en&emb=1&client=safari#

  • TO Boaz
  • Posted by cts on September 3, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I think the 'anger' you preceive is a mixture of frustration and worry. The frustration follows from conversations of the sort represented here, that seem to simply repeat claims of faith thrown up against the entire enterprise of the sciences. The worry flows from the concern, expressed by several posters, that our nation is in trouble - in trouble to the extent that young people are being educated so as to refute the findings of the sciences even while pursuing studies in science or science-based fields.

  • Rack 'em!
  • Posted by Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino , The Enforcer at Vatican circa 16th century on September 3, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Any university professor teaching heretical theories such as the earth not being flat, the center of the universe or having been created in more than 6 days, must be disciplined appropriately and put to death if they refuse to recant. That’s what we did with Galileo and it worked out well for us. Church officials are the ones who should be creating the materials to be studied in biology classes. We know more than the scientists about truth.

  • ignorance
  • Posted by Artemusg on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I wonder if it is proper for La Sierra faculty to teach that 2+2 equals 4, or that gravity exists, or that one can drown in water, or that the earth and other planets revolve around our sun, or that other planets exist in the universe?

    As if I needed it, this article provides still more confirmation of the correctness of my decision, one made years ago, to leave the Christian faith in which I was raised. It appears to have been taken over by fools and self-righteous know-nothings.

  • Probabilities: a more comfortable subject
  • Posted by Bob Pickle on September 3, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Fossil,

    I see that you would rather discuss the probabilities of genetic changes than Po-218 halos. That is fine. You write above:

    "The search-space of an actual evolutionary process is rather small--additional (redundant) elements in a homeobox (a chain of genes that controlsthe timing of gene-expression in the embryo), say, followed by a favorable mutation (after an untold number of unfavorable or neutral ones) in one such element with profound morphogenetic consequences. This is seen experimentally, of course."

    It appears that you have made a very specific claim, that it has been seen experimentally that a favorable mutation following an untold number of unfavorable or neutral ones has resulted in profound morphogenetic consequences.

    I would be most interested in reading the report of such experiments. I was under the impression that no such experiments had ever been done.

    A problem I see is that often claims are made that this worked this way and that worked that way, when it is speculative at best, and there is no experimental evidence in support of it. I think it is important for the common person to recognize when that occurs.

    Much better would it be for evolutionists to clearly identify the aspects of their theory that are a matter of faith, rather than pretending that there are not such aspects.

  • Reply to Olga
  • Posted by Glen on September 3, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Olga,
    You are asking to see something that has not been seen directly, only because it is the result of millions or billions of years of slow changes. The way that such an event can be "seen" is through the fossil record, etc. If you look at the fossil record, you can see the evolution of species. If you refuse or deny that, you can continue to believe something different.

    Creationists used to claim that there could never be a new species, or a change to an existing species. They backtracked when some such examples were observed. Now they just require that a bigger example be observed. Basically the requirement has become, "Demonstrate an event similar to something that took a hundred million years."

  • Through what lens do you view the evidence?
  • Posted by kep on September 3, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • What you see when you look at the physical evidence depends completely on the lens you choose to look at the evidence through...

    Evolution lens: approximately one mile of fossil-filled sedimentary layers over the earth was formed from millions of years of various shallow inland seas coming and going over time. The fossil layers created during the ingress and egress of these waterways evidence an evolutionary change from simple organisms to more advanced ones.

    Creation lens : A global flood covered the earth producing a nearly a mile of sediment across the earth and rapidly buried all existing life, burying the slowest and simplest life forms first, the ones that could flee to higher ground last. The last to die were not buried in sediment and fossilized, but floated in the waters and decayed.

    Each scenario describes an earth that was at one time or another covered in water to form sedimentary layers and produce fossils. Flooding, rapid burial, and fossilization can still be observed and replicated today. However, slowly laid down sediments in shallow inland seas or lakes over time do not produce the thick sedimentary layers filled with fossils on the earth today.

  • American Scientific Affiliation as a resource
  • Posted by Charles Austerberry , Department of Biology at Creighton University on September 3, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • I am a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), an organization of Christians from various denominations who are also professional scientists. The ASA web site (http://www.asa3.org) has resources that might be helpful. For example, among members of the ASA there's a wide spectrum of views on intelligent design theory. I appreciate the opportunity provided by the ASA to see different perspectives on science and Christian faith presented without distracting "spin" or emotional "culture war" attacks. Controversy over the teaching of evolution at Christian colleges is a familiar issue to members of the ASA.

  • Reply to kep
  • Posted by Glen on September 3, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Kep: That's pretty wild.

    Why did only the last to die float and decay?
    Why were the animals most able to flee not concentrated around the mountains that they fled to?
    Why do the layers correspond to different time periods, instead of animals of differing mobilities? Why do the plants from a time period consistently appear with animals of that period?
    Why don't sloths appear below the dinosaurs?
    Why do fish and other aquatic animals appear in the layers according to their time?

  • RE: ASA
  • Posted by Caleb Torres , Free in Christ at Law Firm on September 3, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
  • To Charles Austerberry, thank you for the reference. It should prove helpful. But most of all I think many will appreciate the healthy distraction from what you referred to as "culture wars." It is so distasteful to come upon mature folk advocating the evolutionary scenario who quickly take to name-calling and demonizing persons and ideas outside of what they themselves subscribe to. I appreciate Sean Pittman's comments and can understand the concepts, but feel those responding to him from the opposite side of the isle quickly move up the jargon ladder.

  • Scientific Process Not Theological One
  • Posted by Don on September 12, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The student in this story objects to the professor asking him to demonstrate knowledge and to argue effectively. This is the issue, not whether the professor believes in evolution.

    The student seems unable to think scientifically and blames the professor.

  • Posted by Guillermo Luna , Stop on September 24, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • This here is non-sense! Some please hand those two a tissue for there issues. Because we go to school to learn; learn of people’s theories, imagination and thoughts. If someone has fear of losing their religion, from hear new knowledge. Then they are simply not ready for college, nor ready to face the life in which they live in. We all need to understand this world doesn’t fall as planned to everyone, it’s not a utopia. There will always be different believes, values, and emotions in this world. I strongly believe LSU is not young, but mature. To hear of what life has for us!

    Because of that’s the case, let’s not have pharmacy because it the study of DRUGS!

  • Truth
  • Posted by Richard Myers on December 30, 2009 at 2:45pm EST
  • It is interesting reading the strong sentiments involved in this subject. It is also interesting to note that there are so many false assumptions being put forth such as this: "faith entails belief without proof." Faith involves believing in something you cannot see, but it is not blind. Christian faith is not blind but rests upon absolute proof that most reject. The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that all are without excuse. To listen to "experts" talk about things they know nothing of that happened millions of years ago would be laughable, except that in so doing they reveal their ignorance of the God who they do not know. They are without excuse because they have been given great evidence in the perfection of the things God has made. As DNA is better understood, some preach this is a revelation of evolution. No, this is a revelation of God. The perfection that is seen is not accidental. Like the tiny seed that produces a giant Redwood, or the fact that the stars do not collide, it is evidence of the unseen Hand that not only designed life, but guides it day by day. Evil is allowed to continue, but only so far. Soon it will end.

  • Clear thinking youth
  • Posted by Ann A. Gimbel , Retired RN,BSc,MPH on January 30, 2010 at 7:45am EST
  • Dear Educate Truth,

    I've been reminded this evening as I've read the comments/arguments for and against academic freedom, that wisdom is not necessarily the perogative of a person with a PhD. My hat is off to the student/s who have privately gone to speak with their professors and took a stand to disagree with their positions. In so doing they have shown they revere God's Word and It's teachings above their professor's instruction. At least one student went even further to register his query with the head of the department querying why a professor would be allowed to teach theistic evolution as truth.

    I am proud of the young person/s who took the time to register his/her disappointment with the professor in question and later made his complaint known to the head of the division. Amazingly, wisdom and strength of purpose were shown by a youth, who came in his humility to respectfully disagree with what suprisingly appears to be a settled policy of the teaching of evolution as fact at La Sierra University. I am heartened by the youth but disheartened by the depth of support given the professor by the University in question. The student was apprently ridiculed for his stand. He has my admiration.

    We were disbelieving again when we read in a creation journal that the Seventh-day Adventist Church no longer believed in a six day creation. Apparently, while lay members and leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church slept the "sophisticated" theory of evolution became a settled fact. Strangely there has been no outcry from our church leaders or from our local pulpits.

    I add my statement,for the record: that allowing unchallenged evolutionary curriculum and/or encouraging discussions that uphold evolution as truth; or permitting professors to make statements of disbelief of the Word of God are at cross purposes with the reason for Adventist Christian education. The professor/s in question should be advised of their early retirement.

    Our family has experienced the heartbreak of having several beloved graduates from Adventist Universities question and eventually deny their faith in the Word as a result of so called academic freedom. At first we were too confused and dismayed and too respectful to complain. When one college president openly championed the priority of academic freedom (over protecting the beliefs of the Word of God) and boldly asserted his disbelief in the Bible's account of creation we understood how the enemy had stolen a march on us. He used non-Adventist institutions of higher learning to mold our would-be Adventist university professors to weaken the schoolastic "safety nets" of the Adventist church.

    I dare to speak out candidly now to give perspective to readers that might eventually rise up to protect others from such heartbreaks.

    Sincerely,
    A grieving parent

  • medicine doesn't need evolution
  • Posted by Wally on January 30, 2010 at 5:45pm EST
  • This is in response to whoever posted the following comment: "Is it possible to practice modern medicine while rejecting evolutionary biology? I really don't see how." Whoever posted that is confusing operational science with the science origins. Practical science (e.g., putting a man on the moon, transplanting organs, inventing the light bulb or the internet) has nothing to do with evolution. One could transplant a heart and do brain surgery without ever having heard of evolution. The laws of math and physics which allowed us to reach the moon, would have put us on the moon even if we believed in the tooth fairy.

  • How about a dispassionate look here...
  • Posted by Glenn Orin Clifford Stansal on February 4, 2010 at 1:30pm EST
  • Though it may sound heretical for an SDA to say so, I will say, right here at the beginning of my comments, that I see absolutely no threat in evolutionary theory being taught to students, even those whose religious affiliation is Adventist, and within an Adventist University. The day we see evolutionary theory, with all its flaws, foibles, silliness, inconsistencies, unsolvable mysteries and a priori assumptions, as any kind of threat to the biblical account of Divine fiat creation will be a sad day for Christendom indeed--and particularly for Adventistism as a part of that Christendom. And so, though obviously a creationist, I still must also say, in defence of the professor (Bradley), that I do have to admire his frank and honest admissions in regard to his own leanings; however, with the complication of the tenure/non-tenure issue as it presently stands, it must also be recognized that he seems to be within his rights, pedagogically speaking.

    Respectfully, I suggest that the real issue should be considered to be an inability, maybe even an unwilingness, of such a highly-trained person to teach BOTH explanations in a dispassionately non-paritsan manner, and, in the spirit of TRUE academic freedom, allow the students to be guided by conscience and beliefs, however acquired, in making their own decision as to what they themselves will ultimately choose to espouse. This would also allow for the students to come down either way in their own research papers, and expect even those with decidedly creationist veiws to back up their stand with as much evidence and scholastic endeavour as they can muster in favour of their own choice. It is, after all, a matter of choice, neither explanation being, in many, many respects 'provable', in the truest sense of that word. An admirable amount of faith must be exercised by the believer, no matter which one is chosen, after all

    One final observation: perhaps it would help if the university exercised more effort in getting out all sides of this issue to the membership and thus forestall many of the assumptions being made on it now.
    .