I'm glad this was posted.  I read the Asscherick letter several days ago in a viral email, and the Wisbey response last night on Sean Pitman's site.  I would have expected the Wisbey response to be a smarmy, vague, non-denial, and it is.  I would not have expected Wisbey to openly endorse Darwinism, as he has in the 7th paragraph of the letter. 

If Wisbey had written something like: "Many of our students will pursue post-graduate education in which they will be expected to be familiar with Darwninian concepts.  Accordingly, we familiarize our students with those concepts and arguments, so as to prepare them for post-graduate studies in public universities" I don't think many would have a problem with that.  Instead, he states that Darwinism "is foundational to the modern biological and behavioral sciences" and is "of growing importance in biomedical applications," a sweeping endorsement of the utility, and by extension the truth, of Darwinian understanding and interpretation of the natural world and human behavior.  There is no reasonable way to read that paragraph except as an endorsement of the truth of Darwinism.  

During the course of writing my book on dinosaurs, I became aware that many of the science teachers in SDA colleges were Darwinists, so I wasn't that surprised by Asscherick's letter.  I am a bit surprised, however, that the president of an Adventist college would give Darwnism a full-throated endorsement in an open letter intended to be read by the laity and administrators alike.

If you read between the lines of Wisbey's letter, he is saying, "Don't worry, our young people can be Darwinists and good Adventists at the same time. We'll see to that."  But that isn't true.  A Seventh-day Darwinian is condemned to a life of congnitive dissonance, if not outright schizophrenia.

Wisbey presents the standard argument heard over and over again for decades that the promotion of Darwinism at LSU shouldn't matter because all of LSU's professors believe in God as the ultimate Creator and are good Christian men and women who actually "value" Adventism.  Wisbey explains that LSU is all about teaching the "prevailing scientific views within a supportive classroom environment that values the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s contribution to the understanding of biblical creation."

I'm confused here.  What aspect of the stated fundamental positions of the SDA Church are being valued when a professor explains to his/her students that the Church's clearly stated position on origins is actually ludicrously mistaken?  - that life on this planet really did evolve over hundreds and thousands of millions of years in a Darwinian manner?  - that humans and apes really do share a common ancestor that gave rise to all hominids over the course of millions of years?  That death and suffering on this planet did not begin with the moral fall of Adam and Eve, but predates Homo sapiens by hundreds of millions of years of untold suffering and carnage? 

Wisbey admirably tries to put lipstick on this pig (Palin style), by pointing out all the good things that LSU is doing to make up for what he tries to describe as a this minor discrepancy and a general commitment to openmindedness  -  a "willingness to consider a variety of views." Wisbey goes on to explain that, "This grows from our church’s commitment to ever be open to new light." - to include "new light" that challenges the fundamental basis for the very existence of the church?  What happens to the uniqueness of the SDA Church if it actually accepts and starts promoting the validity of Darwinism? 

This isn't about atheistic thinking here.  It is quite possible to believe in God while also believing in Darwinian-style evolution over the course of billions of years.  However, it is very difficult if not logically impossible to reconcile this view with what makes the SDA Church unique among Christian denominations.  

At the very least Wisbey and LSU should be open and honest about what is actually being actively promoted at LSU.  It is no secret what many of the science and even religion professors believe and promote as the gospel truth to their students.

For decades Larry McCloskey actively promoted Darwinian evolution occurring over billions of years to his students to the active exclusion of any substantive discussion or presentation of the unique SDA view on origins in his classroom.  In his own syllabus he wrote:

    “It is vitally important for you to realize that this course—as a science course—is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs…

     Evolution is supported by an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of scientific evidence. New discoveries continue to fill the gaps identified by Darwin in The Origin of Species. The evidence is in the form of direct, measurable, empirical observation. Is it informed to dismiss Darwin's ideas as ‘just a theory’?... There is nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin's original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea.  It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.

     The reason this unifying theory has become so widely accepted in the scientific world is that it has stood up to intense, thorough, continual observation and criticism. The way to become rich & famous in science would be to show a fundamental error in the theory. The built-in skepticism of science prevents these ideas from becoming dogma.”

Lee Grismer has done and is doing the same thing.  His own publications as sole author overwhelmingly clarify his position for anyone who wishes to consider what he is actually teaching his LSU students.  Grismer is an expert on the vertebrate life of Baja California, which he argues, in his papers, has been affected by the "dynamic environmental history . . . over the last 4-5 million years" and that this history "has had a profound effect on the evolution, distribution, and genetic structuring of Baja California's terrestrial vertebrates." - L. Lee Grismer, Evolutionary biogeography on Mexico's Baja California peninsula: A synthesis of molecules and historical geology, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 December 19; 97(26): 14017–14018.

Lee Greer, who actually refers to himself as an "evolutionary biologist" (http://www.riversidethemag.com/issues/april_09/green.php) is fairly new to LSU's faculty, but is already very active in promoting the gospel of Darwinian evolution to his students - as I know by conversations with students and personal discussions with Greer and a review of Greer's published position on origins.  Even in his bimonthly "chapels" at LSU he has actively promoted the idea that the various accounts of creation in Genesis are contradictory and allegorical - i.e., that there was no literal creation week or worldwide Noachian flood just a few thousand years ago.  It is no secret, which is a shame because I personally think a lot of Greer in particular and think he is an honest, sincere, very concerned teacher who really does care about his students and wants with all his heart to lead them in what he considers to be the right direction. 

But again, this isn't about sincerity or nobility of purpose or all of the other wonderful things that LSU has done and is doing.  This is about the willingness of LSU, as an institution, to support one of the most fundamental of all SDA doctrinal positions - beyond mere lip service to their employer.  So far, such support is not only lacking, but is actively scorned in a very public and open manner.  The Church's position on origins is actually belittled and ridiculed in the science and even religion classrooms at LSU.  It is not only disrespected, it is undermined in a most active and most open way possible by LSU professors - and not without effect.  Many of LSU's students have lost their faith in the Gospel story as stated by the SDA Church and have either left the Church or become what I like to call "Country Club Adventists" - who only stick around because they appreciate the society, not the fundamental doctrines, of Adventism.  Many of my own family have left the Church over this issue as well.  So, it is actually quite personal for me. 

So, I challenge Wisbey the leadership of LSU and the SDA Church in general to at least take the lipstick off the pig and present the unvarnished truth of what is being promoted at LSU and let the parents of the students who are paying and often sacrificing a great deal for "Adventist education" to decide what they really want to pay for.  The lipstick looks silly anyway.        

 Sincerely,

Sean Pitman, MD

www.DetectingDesign.com

"We all have the same data.  How we interpret that data is our religion."  - KH

Let me also make one more thing quite clear. The specific comment by Wisbey that this is all about a concern over atheistic ideology being taught at LSU simply isn't true.  The problem isn't the Darwinian evolution or methodological naturalism is inherently atheistic.  Obviously it isn't because there are many who hold to these philosophical positions who also, somehow, still believe in a God of some sort.  The problem is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has taken a specific stand on the topic of origins that isn't just "religious" as Greer defines the term, but is also a scientific position that is actually subject to testability and potential falsification.  In fact, many scientists strongly feel that the stated SDA position on origins, as in life on this planet in all of its fantastic variety being produced in just six literal days in the recent past, is obviously ludicrous and clearly falsified by the data of the fossil record, geologic column, radiometric dating methods, etc. 

Therefore, the very argument itself that the SDA position has been falsified means that it is actually a scientific argument as stated.  An argument that is beyond scientific investigation could not be so clearly falsified - by definition.  It follows then that those who honestly believe that the Church's position is mistaken aren't simply attacking a religious doctrine of the Church, but a scientific doctrine of the Church.  There can be no "synthesis" here since the argument isn't "religion vs. science" but "science vs. science" and "religion vs. religion".

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Further information on this issue with numerous reactions to both Asscherick's and Wisbey's letters can be found at:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Review

Such as, 3ABN, Amazing Facts, etc.... Not that these ministries are flawless in what they present. Even some of their doctrine is not biblical in its full context and application. Most independent ministries deny original sin and its implication and are either ignorant and mis-informed of the doctrines true meaning, or refuse to acknowledge this clear biblical truth.

It seems more than obvious that administration is more interested in administration than bible truth.

I suggest that someday everyone will be challenged to make a decision concerning loyalty to Christ and the bible vs. loyalty to the church.

I know many will not agree, and because of this fact, "the church" can survive inspite of many errors for the majority will continue to support it regardless of what it teaches, or, how it acts. "Church infallibility" is the devil's favorite tool to manipulate and control, even honest well meaning individuals.

Few would leave Rome even when they knew Luther was right because of this mis-conception that is advocated again and again in all the denominations, each on their own level.

The "truth" and "the church" are not one and the same thing and seldom are. It may be the ideal, but sin has a way of denying this reality. Especially when time becomes a major factor in preserving a true biblical continuity.

Bill Sorensen

I am confused by the reply from the LSU president.

Does LSU present evolution as the means of creation, or do they support the Biblical view of creation of life on earth by God in 6 days? If I ask a biology professor at LSU whether I should believe the Adventist position on creation, or whether I should believe in evolution (whether Darwinist, theistic, whatever it may be as long as it is opposed to the SDA position on evolution), what will he/she tell me?

This doesn't have to get into an argument about whether evolution or creation is right or wrong. The core thing is that the Adventist church doctrines teaches creation, and if an Adventist institution is promoting  something other than what the Adventist church teaches, then there is a major problem. I would say the same thing if it were an atheistic university with a professor teaching creationism; are you working with the program or are you doing your own thing? You cannot have it both ways.

Sean,

Is Ron Carter still around at LSU, or has he retired?

He taught creation vs. evolution classes at Southern back in the early 1980's, and did a good job. I know he was around LSU about 1998. Can't imagine him teaching evolution as fact or viable.

I took great exception to, as I recall, Richard Osborne's suggestion that the job of our schools is to destroy the beliefs instilled in our kids by their parents, and then be supportive as they rebuild their belief structure. That's not what Christian education is all about.

Sean wrote:

"Lee Greer, who actually refers to himself as an "evolutionary biologist" (http://www.riversidethemag.com/issues/april_09/green.php) is fairly new to LSU's faculty, but is already very active in promoting the gospel of Darwinian evolution to his students - as I know by conversations with students and personal discussions with Greer and a review of Greer's published position on origins.  Even in his bimonthly "chapels" at LSU he has actively promoted the idea that the various accounts of creation in Genesis are contradictory and allegorical - i.e., that there was no literal creation week or worldwide Noachian flood just a few thousand years ago. "

So there are interpretations of the Biblical stories that don't match those of the Adventist denomination. Wow, should that surprise anyone. Well it would be logical to attempt to match up the scientific evidence with how we interpret the Bible. I would expect that kind of activity at any Christian school. So the reason this is such a big deal is that the new ways of looking at things is not the same as the old way. In other words we are progressing in understanding while another side just wants to remain with their traditional views. That is really what this comes down to. You would think however that as much as we have changed our modern understanding of the Investigative Judgment, because what we once said does not fit what the Bible says and does not fit anything we can determine in reality, that we should be a little more willing to engage our minds. That even includes the reason and the purpose or even the claim to remant status or reasons for resting on the Sabbath. 

Simply put our tradition is not our reason to exist. Our schools don't exist to maintain our traditions or at least that should not be their purpose. But their lies the problem in philosophies, some think our tradition is the most important thing.

Hi Ron,

In any organization that wishes to remain orderly and viable, the individual is not at liberty to "advance" faster or more slowly than the organization itself.   The individual representative is not the organization.  He/she is only a representative who is voluntarily subject to the government of the organization that he/she freely joined as an employee - an employee who is bound by a moral duty to give the employer what the employer is paying for.  In this case, what is being paid for is a certain perspective on reality to be presented in the classroom.  If the teacher is "more advanced" than the current employer, that teacher should feel free to go and work for another equally "advanced" employer.

This is the case at LSU.  Teachers at LSU are teaching, as the Gospel truth, that Darwinian style evolution occurring over billions of years is clearly the creative force responsible for the all the diversity of life on this planet.   This view is directly counter to the most fundamental views of their employer, the SDA Church in this case, who clearly states, as an organization, that all life on this planet was in fact produced in six literal days in the fairly recent past. 

It doesn't matter if the church's views are right or wrong here.  It could wish to promote a flat Earth view if it wanted.  This is a free country and an organization is free to be right or wrong and to hire those who will actually promote what the organization wants to promote - as long as the employees are free to come or go as they please (i.e., free of civil consequences or penalties).

I'm amazed how often this line of reasoning is compared to the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages and to its actions against Galileo.  The experience of Galileo has nothing at all to do with the current situation at LSU.  Galileo was in fear of civil reprisals to the point of loosing his own life over his disagreement with the Church.  The Church should never have the power of civil authority to enforce its views on the general public.  However, the Church, as a viable organization, must always have power over its own employees. If it were ever to loose this power, it would soon loose viability and crumble into pieces as would any other organization which did not govern its own representatives. 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

Mr. Wisbey has committed a  straw man fallacy in his open letter, thereby avoiding the issue.

1.       David said naturalist evolution is being taught at LSU.

2.       Randal said that implies that atheistic evolution is being taught.

3.       Randal said, “We reject this implied atheistic charge.”

4.       Randal concluded that the accusations are false or least undercut the education being offered.

He never denied that naturalist evolution was being taught. Instead, he denied that atheistic evolution was being taught.

"As an institution of higher education a Seventh-day Adventist University provides an excellent setting for examining evolutionary process -- a subject that is foundational to the modern biological and behavioral sciences."   The President of La Sierra has effectively admitted what is happening at La Sierra and he obviously agrees with it.

He along with those who teach evolution should either resign or be given their walking papers and replaced with persons who fully embrace Adventism.  Where is the University Board? Where is our GC President?

Wisbey's further description of activities at La Sierra has little or nothing to do with the question posed -- Why is La Sierra teaching evolution?

Truth Seeker

Hi Shane,

You're exactly right.  Wisbey is using the same old strawman technique in an effort to redirect the focus of Asscherick's actual concern.  The actual concern is that LSU professors are promoting Darwinian-style evolution occurring over billions of years on this planet.  This issue isn't about atheism.  It is about LSU professors promoting of a doctrinal belief system that goes directly counter to that of their employer - the SDA Church's view that creation took place in six literal days in this case.  Wisbey's argument that, "We all believe in God here at LSU" is completely irrelevant to the case at hand - a true strawman misdirect in an effort to avoid actually addressing the real issue.

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

I wrote him a personal email, pointing out what he did:

Shane Hilde

I wonder do you believe the Genesis account is literal? If so would you care to explain what was created that first day, "And God said let there be light and there was light." If you believe the account is literal then you should be able to explain what was created that first day, where was it from where did it go.

I think many times people say how literal they think Genesis is yet there are a couple of things there that really can't be taken literally. But maybe I just don't understand, perhaps you can explain it.

Ron:

I think you are referring to the fact that God said "let there be light" on the first day, but apparently did not create the sun until the fourth day.  Is your difficulty that you don't believe God could have created a temporary light source to work by until he created the sun?  Why not?  Revelation 21:23 indicates that God does not need the sun to light anything.  Any other view seems an unconscious form of sun worship, putting the created light and heat source above the Creator.

But, of course, we're getting pretty far afield from whether professors in an Adventist college should be teaching Darwinism as truth, which is what is happening at LaSierra, with the enthusiastic support of President Randal Wisbey.

To Sean regarding Galileo:

Unfortunately you don't seem to have a good grasp of the history of Galileo.But  Wikipedia puts it pretty simply:

"Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within hislifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers stillsubscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth remained motionless at thecentre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrismpublicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, andtwo of the latter eventually denounced him to the RomanInquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at thattime, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemnedheliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,^[8] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support forit—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famouswork, Dialogue Concerning theTwo Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by theInquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant,and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.”

Surely you can see the similarity now, We have the traditional SDAphilosophers and clerics denouncing Universityprofessors. True the inquisitionis not about tortureand death anymore. But the parallelis similar.

Now where do you suppose they got this geocentric idea. Why it was theGenesis Creation story which places the earth here first and then on the fourthday Sun and stars and moon are created. But as David said he does not know whatthe light was that was created on the first day. It could have been is hisanswer. But  could have been is not literal is it. Literal in this contextwould be defined by the dictionary as:

"being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy".

How can you have something without exaggeration or inaccuracy if you answeris well God could have done something and that something is the Light. So whileyou decry those who don't take the story literal you also don't take itliteral. You believe you are taking it literally based upon what you assume theinterpretation to be. When asked to explain the meaning, the part that isliteral, you really can't. You are accepting a traditional interpretation, otherinterpretation cannot be allowed. They must be removed from the Church, just likewhat happened to Galileo only we can't excommunicate them out of salvation likethe Roman Catholic Church. 

This is far from being off the subject it is the subject. Some it seems justassume that their position is correct; their interpretation is the onlypossible interpretation. Their problem is how to make the decision of the bureaucratsas to what the membership of the church must believe effective wherescholarship and science meet the traditional church beliefs. The answer is ofcourse first to determine if the bureaucrat’s methods and interpretation arereally correct. Otherwise we would simply be following the Dark Ages methods.  

Hi Ron,

Again you miss the entire point.  Galileo was under the threat of civil penalties and reprisals to the point of loosing his life over his beliefs.   This is not the case today.  You are basically suggesting that no organization has the right to have and internally enforce any opinion contrary to the opinion of mainstream scientists.  That's a ludicrous notion.  Even the Flat Earth Society has a right to their opinion as well as a right to hire only those of like mind who will actually promote the goals of their own society - regardless of how ludicrously mistaken everyone else thinks their ideas might be. 

Again, no organization would long remain organized if it went about hiring just anybody without any regard for his/her position on any issues of importance to the organization.  I'm afraid the very common attempts to compare the inquisition in Galileo's day to the effort to maintain a semblance of an organization via at least some form of internal control over the type of employees it hires is a desperate comparison at best.  Not even public universities would tolerate a significant dissent from their stated goals on the part of an individual professor.  How long do you think a science professor at a public university would be tolerated if he/she were to go around publicly informing the student body that mainstream science was completely wrong - that life really was the result of recent Divine design over the course of a single week?  Or, how long do you think a Catholic priest would last if that priest went around telling everybody that the Virgin Mary wasn't really a virgin after all and that she never went to heaven - that she is dead and buried to this day? 

It seems then that you are promoting a completely hands off approach for the organization of the SDA Church - and approach that is never used by any other viable organization - ever.  Tell me, what would you say should be done with a "SDA" teacher or pastor who started promoting the idea that the Virgin Mary is really alive and well in Heaven and that we SDAs should actually be praying to her to help in the salvation of our souls?  Or, what if someone starting promoting the idea that the Earth was really flat and not spherical after all?  What should be done in such cases - in your opinion? 

You see, it seems to me that you are perfectly fine with placing limits on what can and cannot be taught in an SDA institution as long as it is in line with what you personally believe.  That's really what it boils down to doesn't it?

Ever hear the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand?"

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

As in Galeleo's time the church is a poor judge of science.

I suppose this boils down to a difference in our attitudes about what the church should be about. A church either explores and searches for truth and looks at reality to influence their theology or a church simply believes it's tradition is the sum total of the reason for the church. In which case the church simply refuses to consider anything but her traditions. I favor the first view, it seems you favor the second. 

Hi Ron,

You write, "As in Galileo's time the church is a poor judge of science."  You go on to argue that the church should "explore and search for truth and look at reality to influence theology."

Well Ron, who gets to decide if the church or any other group or organization has or has not found "truth" or "reality"? or is or is not searching for it appropriately? or is or is not a "poor judge of science"?  You?  Me?  Mainstream scientists?  You're sounding almost like you're arguing for a dictatorship of sorts - with you in charge!

What you really get to decide, as an individual in a civilly free country like the USA, is if you think the church is or is not on the "right path", so to speak, and do your voting with your feet.  You are not morally free to take money from an organization to do a particular job and promote a particular idea and then do just the opposite.   However, you are perfectly free, and on good moral ground, to leave any organization that you find so narrow minded and illogical. 

You see, this really isn't about how you or I think the Church should or should not function or what positions it should or should not hold given that we are free of civil penalty when it comes to joining or to leaving it at will.  This is all about the Church's necessary ability to promote whatever nonsense it wishes to promote as an organization - an organization that is actually organized and hires only those who accurately represent its own unique views of the world - however "crazy" those ideas might seem to you or me. 

Again, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  If you disagree with the Church, just go and join a different group that is more in line with your own ideals.  Easy.  No big deal.  Why get so worked up if some crazy organization doesn't agree with you and doesn't want to pay you for your contrary ideas? - why should it? What right do you have to demand that crazy people give you money to tell them and everyone else that they are crazy? Now that would be crazy! 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com  

Sean, it seems to me that your prime motivation is maintaining the integrity of the institution.  Could it be that issues like this are the very reason that we resisted establishing the "fundamental beliefs" for so long.  As so as we establish a "creed" we have effectively closed off the ability to have open and honest dialogue about the issues that many of us struggle with.  

I regret the fact that my adventist education did not encourage me to explore other alternatives to the problems in the world.  I had to wait until my 30's to begin to wrestle with the issues.  I think our students are intelligent enough to hear professors teach alternative theories and still reconcile them with the traditional beliefs.   I am thankful that at least one of our institutions are willing present a variety of viewpoints.   I have good friends who are both faculty and students at La Sierra and according to them, both sides of this issue are presented in a fair and balanced way.   The religion classes that all students are required to take present stated church position as well as acknowleding that there is much dispute in the scholarly fields as to the nature of Genesis 1.

Keep up the good work La Sierra.. you are in my prayers.

 j 

jwskier,

At the very least LSU should be honest and open with what it is promoting in its classrooms; explaining to the parents and to the SDA Church membership at large that it has decided to directly counter one of the most fundamental, most cherished, and most basic of all the SDA fundamental beliefs in its science classrooms.  The explanation should be openly given that the clearly stated fundamental SDA position on origins is too far outdated to be reasonably promoted by any credentialed science professors at LSU.  Therefore, the students will be told the truth about the real origin of life on this planet and how the SDA Church, as an organization, is simply behind the times on this issue.  

If LSU were at least open about it, there wouldn't be much of a discussion since the parents would be getting what they are paying for with their full knowledge and consent.  There would be no hint of false advertising and therefore any moral shadiness on the part of the professors - aside from the fact that they would still be countering the position of their employer of course.   

Why then doesn't LSU become more open about what it is promoting within its classrooms?  Why all this effort to sidestep it?  Why all the slick language in letters like the one Wisbey put out in response to Asscherick's concerns?  Why didn't Wisbey simply say, in very clear language, "Yes, we do promote Darwinian-style evolution here at LSU and we are proud of the fact that we have advanced beyond the old tired views of fundamentalist Adventism."  That would have cleared things right up . . . don't you think?

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

I just published an article on my blog which should help you understand my position better.

It seems the President of La Sierra does quite a nice job extolling the virtues of his school, but unfortunately does not give a straight answer about the creation vs. evolution controversy.  I have no doubt that evolution is being taught there by the majority of science professors (just as it has been here at CUC in Alberta), however I wouldn't think that it is atheistic evolution, but rather theistic evolution.  Nevertheless, theistic evolution isn't really much different from the older atheistic version; it just adds God to the picture.  All the evolutionary processes and time-frames remain essentially unchanged.  So it really has nothing to do with Christianity, and it is a great deception from the evil one. 

In fact, theistic evolution has been promoted by the Catholic Church at least since the 1950s, and is instrumental in undermining key Biblical doctrines such as the Sabbath.  This is because the Sabbath hinges upon the fact that the earth was created by God in six literal days, and that God rested on the seventh day, whereas evolution of course teaches that the earth developed over a process of billions of years.  Evolutionary teaching also undermines the entire foundation of scripture, such as even the basics of sin and salvation, as death could start before Adam's sin and the curse upon the world.  So basically, theistic evolution is contrary to everything that we as Bible-believing Christians stand for.

The President's letter is also somewhat confusing because he doesn't define exactly what he is talking about.  At some point in his defense, he appears to be referring to micro-evolution, which nobody questions, and is simply genetic variability in the gene pool.  Evolutionists often use the fact that these variations take place and then assume that other types of evolution also happened, such as macro-evolution (creation of species from other types of life), geologic evolution (production of the geologic column over millions of years, apart from the worldwide flood) and cosmic evolution (creation of the universe through the Big Bang billions of years ago). 

So it is obviously OK to teach micro-evolution and to show that this is due to the built-in potential for variation that God put into the gene pool of different species.  But the other types of evolution need to be shown to be only what are the establishment's positions, and not in harmony with our Biblical worldview.  Not only that, they should be soundly refuted by creation science, which has a much more logical and sensible explanation for what we see in the world than what theistic evolution can produce. 

That is another major problem with all this evolutionary teaching: it is a complete denial of the large amounts of good scientific evidence discovered by creation scientists, contrary to the evolutionary interpretations.  This evidence is suppressed by evolutionists and many of them know surprisingly little about creation science because they don't often study it, and keep their minds closed to this great light of scientific truth.  So if anything, our Adventist schools should be centers of creation science education, so that our students can go out armed with knowledge and sound reasons not to believe in evolutionary interpretations, but rather in a Biblical worldview.  But as it stands, most of our students do not learn these things at their schools unless they study them on their own, and many graduate with a great deal of confusion over these matters.  In fact, some other Christian churches are stronger in the areas of creationism than we are.

Here at CUC we have had the majority of the science faculty on the side of theistic evolution for many years.  I believe the administration has tried at certain times to purge the problem, but haven’t been successful.  The leadership seems to be confused or blinded as to what has been going on, and does not really try to investigate the matter to find out.  The teachers themselves try to keep their true evolutionary stance/agenda hidden from school administrators and denominational accreditation committees, but even a cursory reading of handout/textbook materials from certain classes would reveal the theistic evolutionary beliefs of the teachers.  One of the deceptive ways these men keep their true views hidden from the public is that they often call themselves creationists.  But the fact is they believe that God used evolution to create, rather than creating instantaneously as the Word of God teaches.  So they are not really creationists at all, but theistic evolutionists. 

But I am glad to see someone like David Asscherick standing up and calling our leaders to address this long-overdue issue, which has been weakening our church for a long time.  What the administrators need to do is launch a full investigation, in which students (present and former) as well as professors and school officials are carefully interviewed, class materials are closely examined and a determination is made about has been really going on.  This needs to be done at all our SDA Colleges and Universities.  Then, those who are found to be promoting the evolutionist worldview need to be let go and qualified creationists hired to take their place.  Some new people who are experts in creation science should also be appointed to help oversee these matters, and make sure that good creationist teaching then continues to be upheld.  We also need to be careful as to what textbooks are being chosen in our institutions, and if necessary some new ones should be written by creationist authors to take the place of the evolutionary ones now in use. 

Starman80:  Excellent points!  Wisbey's response is that as long as LaSierra is not inculcating "naturalistic" or "atheistic" evolution, then everything is fine.  But of course, as you correctly point out, theistic evolution is no more compatible with Adventism than atheistic evolution.  The SDA church teaches that God created the world in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, which is totally at loggerheads with the idea that God allowed evolution to grow the world and its flora and fauna over the course of 600 million years. 

The Wisbey letter is essentially an exercise in misdirection, not a denial.  In fact, as I noted above, Wisbey actually endorses the truth of evolution in paragraph 7 of his letter.

Wisbey's "answer" is very typical of nearly all adminstrators--pure mumbo-jumbo malarkey.  Rather than actually address the issues and face the problem, IF he actually thinks there is one, he dances around the topic with vague, ridiculous phrases seemingly written by a "Presidential Spokesperson."

My response to these types of problems has been to contact, mainly be email, the appropriate officials, notifying them of my personal objection to whatever issue I disagree with, and telling them in no uncertain terms that they had better be showing some LEADERSHIP in solving said problem. 

The results?  So far--NO RESPONSES!  Yeh, not even one out of about a half dozen sent so far.  Well, one referred me to ANOTHER "academic" person who would be "appropriate" to contact.

All Bible-believing SDA's need to face the facts that our institutions of higher education are being "flushed down the toilet" by people like Wisbey and Osborn up at PUC!

I read the response by LSU's President. It is very reasoned and is not threatening. There are many Christians who are scientists and have no problem with God operating through evolution. I meet them all the time at scientific meetings.

It seems this issue has brought out people born in the wrong century. They would have made great inquisitors. Thank heavens they have no real power to inflict damage physical or otherwise on people who threaten their "absolute truth."

You're entirely correct, Bill

The strategy of people like Wisbey is to APPEAR to be addressing an issue, while actually doing NOTHING direct to face, address, or attempt to solve anything.  Hey, he did a GREAT JOB, too.  Pure baloney!

OK, so you are arguing for "pre-existing meaningful informational complexity." Which may or may not have come from the "creative" activity of a supernatural God. If we start at the "pre-existing...complexity" from there evolution would appear to be a mechanism for novelty in nature. After all we have discovered thousands of new species of fish, insects and birds. Where did they come from? Evolution seems to be occurring and we are at a time where we can observe it. Whether its phenotype or genotype.

Taking a few points from Pastor Asscherick's letter

1. "...I personally visited with many of them. They told me what was being taught in some of their science classes. I shall never forget the looks and questions of unadorned incredulity that I witnessed among those students. I have talked to many more since. "What should I do?" "Should I say something?" "Should I just attend a non-SDA school?" "Do our leaders know about this?" "How come these people are allowed to teach at a Seventh-day Adventist University?" These young people, and many others like them, are justifiably nonplussed. Frankly, I share their confusion!"

 This is statement represents an anecdote and I do not doubt that it is truthfully stated from the Pastors perspective. However, "these young people...are justifiably nonplussed." OK, how many? Do they represent a plurality of opinion of LSU students at LSU? Has a survey been done to lend some statistics to the claims by Pastor Asscherick? The problem with these types of issues is that we are likely hearing from a vocal minority and I am not trying to say "truth" comes from the majority or a vocal minority.

Pastor Asscherick seems to have no problem with teaching of evolutionary principles at our schools but he wants "equal time" for traditional SDA understanding of genesis? Fine, where should this be done? At LLU this is being done within the context of theology classes which is the proper forum for this type of dialogue. This class has the support of the Dept of Religion and the University and is in the combined hands of some basic scientists (as advisory) and taught by trained theologians.

Basic Biomedical Science seminars that occur on a weekly basis on the LLU campus, has invitees who discuss the evolution of conserved gene sequences and changes in gene function both related to sequence information as well as "epigenetic changes" which are modifications in gene function that are not directly related to the base sequence. No one seems to be threatened by these exchanges and students are going on for advanced training in first rate laboratories following their education. 

2. "What deeply concerns me is that the faith of many students, who look up to their Adventist professors as more than just academic instructors, but also as spiritual leaders, is being undermined. Jesus' words in Luke 17:1, 2 about causing "one of these little ones to stumble" 

Pastor Asscherlick seems to take this text out of context. College, medical, dental, and PhD candidates are not "little ones." They are educated free moral agents. Some do not take the concept of being a free moral agent seriously. There comes a point when professors are no longer "spiritual advisors" and students must think for themselves and become partners with their professors in the seeking of knowledge. 

Many educated at SDA secondary schools, after reading the genesis account of creation and the flood through the writings of biblical scholars, have come to the conclusion that this is a "story" with spiritual overtones and not a literal account. Furthermore, the biblical writers seemed to borrow from other creation stories (which were polytheistic) and adapted the pagan accounts into a monotheistic creation story. The "flood" in genesis appears to be a parallel of other flood stories which can be read in books such as "Understanding Genesis."

No amount of threatening or cajoling by "SDA spiritual leaders" is going to cause those who view the genesis accounts as anything other than a story with spiritual meaning, to recant. One must make their own conclusions as to the  interpretations of the bible.

From the numerous comments on this issue the voices seem to be most concerned about what they think is Church Orthodoxy, that there are "heretics" in the group and are calling on the iron hand of the GC to bring these people to account for themselves. Wow, how much we have learned from the early Catholic Church.  In the end we do not know "how God operates" as a creator. God as a "creator" is a faith assertion and science is ill equipped to determine what God does, can do or cannot do. 

I think Sean misses the issues in the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church. Galileo started the "Academy of Linxes" of which Francisco Barbarini (later Pope Urban VIII) was a charter member. Thinking that he has a friend now at the helm of the Catholic Church, Galileo reignites the controversy between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the solar system. The former was consistent with Catholic Theology the latter considered heresy. From Steven Jay Goulds book (The Lying Stones) Galileo was indeed persecuted by the Church and was forced to recant. The Pope was not interested in what was the truth he was interested in maintaining the authority of the Church and adherence of its non-educated and educated classes to classic Catholic theology.

Starman,

Good luck with the GC starting an inquisition. That said lets begin with a few of your assertions.

 "Nevertheless, theistic evolution isn't really much different from the older atheistic version; it just adds God to the picture... and it is a great deception from the evil one."

A great deception by the evil one? How do you know? Where is your evidence? So I am to regard my good friends who are Christians and have no problem with evolution as deluded by the devil? Enemies of God? When you make these types of claims you do not sound rational.

"This evidence is suppressed by evolutionists and many of them know surprisingly little about creation science because they don't often study it, and keep their minds closed to this great light of scientific truth.  So if anything, our Adventist schools should be centers of creation science education, so that our students can go out armed with knowledge and sound reasons not to believe in evolutionary interpretations, but rather in a Biblical worldview."

Really? Where are the well designed studies by Creation Scientists, where data sets are derived from the experiments and the conclusion that a creator is involved in nature appears reasonable? You say that these studies  are "rejected" by evolutionists. No, they are rejected because Creationist studies are  a hodge-podge of arguments, attacks on scientific data in a vain attempt to stuff a billion years of life into a 10,000 yr bottle. At least these people are moving from 6,000 yrs to 10,000 yrs. Much of what Creationists do is "reinterpret" data so it fits into a worldview that is "known to be correct in advance." When you can "test for God" let me know.

The P story in genesis (6 day story) looks a lot like the Babylonian creation myth. The difference? One is polytheisitic one monotheistic. Your version of "factual" is far different from many other reasonable and intelligent people. Moreover, there are numerous contradictions in the story. Taken as as story of "beginnings" its fine. Taken as literal the whole thing falls apart.

The paleontological record provides not one shred of evidence for immortal life. Death is a part of life. Predators have always been around. Would you care to enlighten us, outside of a biblical story, where predators and death did not exist? If such evidence does exist, fine, go find it. But, I suspect you will not. And if you cannot find it you can always blame it on the "flood."

I support your view that "Creationism" should be discussed and the traditional SDA view of Gods hand in creation should also be a topic. But, that belongs in the classroom taught by Theologians, not scientists. Science can only investigate how the "natural" world works. Once one assumes supernatural causes, science is ill equipped to deal with such propositions. 

"Many educated at SDA secondary schools, after reading the genesis account of creation and the flood through the writings of biblical scholars, have come to the conclusion that this is a 'story' with spiritual overtones and not a literal account."

Pickle,

Charge I have made? I am stating an opinion based on experience. You are entitled to whatever beliefs you want and I support your right to have your beliefs. 

"Sacred history of creation"? So if I understand you correctly you think the Bible account of creation can be read as forensic history? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the biblical writers borrowed mythical stories from surrounding civilizations. So how do you explain the 6 day creation account, also called the "P" story coming 400 yrs after the "J" story (Adam and Eve account)? Isn't it interesting that the biblical "P" story is written at the time of the Jewish Babylonian captivity and that it is a parallel of the 6 day Babylonian creation story? One difference, the Jewish story is monotheistic. I recognize that what I am saying is based on Theologians like Marcus Borg, who can actually read the ancient texts. I do not think the man is trying to deceive me.  I do not think I am being blind because I accept that the Bible is "more" than what literalists make it.

So the bible can only be explained "within" itself? If that is your position I think you are wrong. Biblical writers existed but they also told a lot of "stories." Real historical context enlightens the Bible. 

DoctorF and Pickle - I hope my comment is not an intrusion into your discussion. 

I know that people who become SDA agree to accept the Bible as a literal account.  But I was born into the SDA church, and rather than resign my membership before exploring my religion, I am often guilty of asking questions from within.  Call it a sense of multi-generational Adventist entitlement, I guess.  But I am both blessed and cursed with genuine, non-malicious, non-heretical curiosity.

In my experience, I have found it interesting that a quote attributed directly to Jesus Christ in the book of Matthew gave us just 2 rules.  Love God, and Love thy Neighbor.  He distilled the 10 commandments into 2!  Why did we reconstitute Jesus' 2 rules into 28 fundamental beliefs? (There were 27 when I was in college, so we're finding more fundamentals.)  Where I come from, when you add too much water to the cool-aid mix, you ruin the cool-aid.  He made it so simple for us, and we, as we humans tend to do, complicated our own lives.  How did belief in the 6 day creation become a litmus test for salvation, or membership in God's SDA church?

I believe God gave us the Bible, a beautifully written account of history intertwined around a very, very few (2, to be exact) fundamental rules for a happy life on earth to be followed by a happy eternity with our Creator.  I find the 2 rules much, much more important than the historical account for application to my personal life, but I find the historical account to be a fascinating maze to explore.  There is an irresistable urge, by some of us, to not merely "read" history, but to explore it.  To put our hands in the dirt, to pore over ancient text.  That is the difference between simple students of history and historians. 

God loves us all, and the proof is in the 2 rules he gave us.  God especially loves historians, and the proof is in the fascinating stories he gave us to pick over, explore, and run our fingers through.  If he favored students of history, he'd have carved text into stone, and given it to us to just read.

So let historians explore.  Let us pick over the Bible.  As long as we don't tinker with the 2 rules, we aren't tinkering with the fundamental rules of Jesus Christ, even if we do question some of the 28 (for now, more will come later) "fundamental" beliefs of the SDA Church.  And let's limit the salvation litmus test to the one prescribed by Jesus himself:  Love God, and Love your Neighbor. 

Steve's  1 fundamental belief:  Don't put too much water into the cool-aid.

Pickle,

You can read about the dating of the "P and J" stories in numerous theological texts. I got it from Marcus Borg's book "Reading the Bible For The First Time." The "J" story is dated around 900 BCE with the "P" story coming around the time of Babylonian exile in 500 BCE. You can google it and come up with other texts. Dr. Ivan Blazen also deals with the "P" story as a polemic against pagan polytheism. I think its a chapter in "Understanding Genesis."

I like the 2nd book because it gives some thoughts by contemporary theologians of the SDA stripe. Over all "Understanding Genesis" pretty much agrees with theologians such as Borg on the dating of the creation stories. 

Pickle,

God did not write the words. Humans did. The idea of a God or God's (in pagan stories) "speaking" things into existence was not new. These stories predate the time of the Israelites. 

Sr. White is still "alive and well" to judge by those who quote her century-old perspective of science.  For those who do, why waste time in university education and simply devote to memorizing her concepts in all the sciences.  Do those who are so devoted to her messages also follow completely, all her medical advice for every condition, or do they also seek the latest medical advice.  "Nuff said."

It is probably only for lack of time or money that the White Estate has not produced such a book.  But for someone who relishes her every word, she has written voluminously on all sorts of physical and mental conditions:  too many eggs bring out the animal instinct; mustard and pickles shoud not be eaten; phrenology can disclose any mental problems; corsets cause multiple organ distortions; wigs cause fever and mental problems; masturbation causes everything from blindness to retardation.  Surely, you missed reading this!  It could save you much time and patients in their medical concerns--seek a phrenologist, not a CT scan, and masturbation, almost universally practiced, could protect the young from all mental problems and insanity!

Since this thread has been picked up again, I have a very honest question, to which perhaps a diehard opponent of Adventist creationism might want to offer a simple explanation, so I'll feel dumb for asking it.  Here is the question:  The Virgin Birth, Incarnation, and the Resurrection are absurd assertions from the standpoint of science.  So why do Christian evolutionists accept those fundamentals as objective fact, and scorn the possibility that the Genesis account of creation might be objective fact?  It seems inconsistent to me.  But maybe I'm missing something.  Of course there are dozens of other scientific absurdities in Scripture, related as fact, which are less fundamental to Christian faith.  But as a beginning point, it seems to me that Christians who claim that Creationism is absurd on the basis of science must find a persuasive way to reconcile that belief with the fact that they have presumably staked their lives on what would seem to be equally absurd claims - the Incarnation and the Resurrection.

Sorry if I'm late to the party, and this question has already been asked and answered.

Nate Schilt 

Nate, your question is not directed at me, but my impression, after about 5 months of reading and posting at Spectrum and Atoday, is that the Seventh-day Darwinians don't really believe in the incarnation, the virgin birth, or the resurrection, either.  Their version of Christianity is stripped of anything supernatural, and reduced (or as one Spectrum blogger told me, "enlarged") to good works and ethics.  I'd love to be contradicted on that point, but I fear the worst.

When will Christianity begin to focus on the principles Christ left us and not insist that only belief in the absurd miracles is the essence of Christianity.  Either belief in all the miracles is the sum and substance, or the timeless principles are the true characterization of Christianity.  To honor such a leader, it should be played out in our daily living, and not merely an allegiance to impossible beliefs that, in any other context or age, would be considered most questionable:  similar to those deluded folk who believe in extraterrerestial aliens, UFOs, weeping statues, and such.  It is in how we live, not merely what we claim to believe, that the totality of our lives are judged.

Wow Elaine!  Do you hear yourself?  Sounds like righteousness by works on steroids.  I didn't say anything about believing in "absurd" miracles.  I asked about the transcendent events that form the essence of Christianity.  Are you suggesting that it is absurd to believe in the resurrection!?  "Say it ain't so, Joe." 

You say, "Either belief in all miracles is the sum and substance, or the timeless principles are the true characterization of Christianity."   Surely you don't believe that.  I have heretofore taken a very dim view of faith oaths being a prerequisite to employment in SDA educational institutions.  But if David is right, I may have to rethink my position.  Most Christian Universities have them.  Maybe ours do too.  I just don't know. 

How does one define the "transcendent events that form the essence of Christianity."

What is meant by that term, and is it of equal importance as living the principles Christ left us.  Or, should they be separated, as they certainly are in the minds of millions. 

If one must believe in the miraculous events told in Scripture, is that belief suspended today in modern times, or is still considered a possibility that snakes will talk, the dead will rise today, or that ax heads can float, or someone can be raptured (like Elijah) any time.  IOW, is the antiquity of stories what makes them acceptable, or because they are written about in the Bible--while other contemporary tales are not considered factual.  Belief is subjective; facts are objective.  Conflating the two is a common fallacy.

Well, Elaine, I'm not sure that anything is to be gained by a Clintonian parsing of words.  But common sense tells me that when we talk about "events" we're talking about something that actually happened.  Is that too simplistic?  I thought so. I didn't ask about ax heads floating or Elijah being raptured.  I asked about the resurrection and the Incarnation.  Why don't you want to answer that question?  Is Christianity sort of like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, where words mean exactly what we want them to mean, or is it based on the FACT of the Incarnation and Resurrection? 

It sounds to me like your pretty mired in the thinking of Foucault and Derrida. If so, you have my condolences and sincere apologies for troubling your nihilistic serenity. 

Nathan:

No one is saying that the Biblical creation story is not possible. They are saying the evidence points to other methods and far greater time involved and that the story itself does not itself work as a literal historical event.

David says that his created term seventh day darwinians don't believe in the possible manifestations of God in human form or the resurrection. Of course like the term he created he creates the characterization of this fictional group. But there is no scientific evidence to say that God cannot impregnate a woman, no scientific evidence to say that God cannot raise people or Jesus from the Dead. Science can say that purely humans don't rise from the dead or impregnate sexual virgins. But science says nothing about supernatural beings. 

The the resurrection is a historically witnesses event but not subject to scientific investigation. The creation however is scientifically investigatable at least many aspects. Like the Big Bang or God speaking those things are not investigatable but the evidence we do have is pretty convincing scientifically. The Genesis story in essence expains God as the creator, the how or the why are not really that clear, but why discount the evidence merely to cling to a tradition...one particular means of interpretation when there are indeed other ways of interpreting the same information.

"when we talk about 'events' we're talking about something that actually happened."

 There is no "unwatched" nor "unobserved" event that can be accurately called an "event." The more appropriate term would be "reported event."  The Resurrection was NOT observed; only the report of those who saw an "apparition, who walked through walls and locked doors, and was unrecognizable to his former associates.

If it were of ultimate importance, why did the two earliest NT writers never mention a "virgin birth," and event that could never have been observed.  Who reported it and to whom is the question.  The two gospel writers that included this in the narration, neglected to check their stories as there are multiple contradictions, indicating that there was no "fact check" and it is never mentioned by Jesus or his disciples, only reports at least a generation, or more, after the event was supposed to have occurred.

Belief in these is still belief.  Beliefs are personal and subjective; facts are available to full inquiry and cannot rely on beliefs as being factual nor literal.  This certainly applies to creation.

Ron, when asked if he had said that if his army were between the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, he would fight in both directions, General Patton replied, "I never that, never said any such thing. . . . but I wish I had."  Likewise, I did not create the term "Seventh-day Darwinians" and, although I wish I had, it was actually coined by Clifford Goldstein as the title to one of his articles in the Review:

http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1530/story4.html.

The article is quite infamous among the Spectrum/Atoday crowd; I'm surprised you never heard of it. 

I think that Elaine, a strict naturalist and functionally an atheist, is an extreme example, and that most of the Seventh-day Darwinians are closer to you, Ron, in wanting to leave open the possibility of historical miracles.  For example, I think that Chuck Scriven, who blogs at Spectrum, would like to hang onto the Resurrection, and typically that is the very last miracle to be surrendered in liberal theology. 

Your distinction, however, is specious.  I defy you to find a scientist who, upon observing a pregnant woman, would say, "she might have been exposed to sperm, or she might have been impregnated by the Holy Spirit."  He will assume a natural explanation and do his science accordingly.  He will also assume some natural explanation for reports that a man was raised from the dead, and utterly discount and dismiss any supernatural explanation.  The same assumption of naturalism underlies all the vaunted "evidence" of Lyellian/Darwinian origins.  In reality, the actual evidence is exactly the same for the Darwinist and the creationist, but each camp views the evidence with different assumptions.  The creationist assumes that God created, and then there was a worldwide aqueous catastrophe; the Darwinist/Lyellian assumes a naturalistic/gradualistic explanation of the things we see in the earth. 

RonCorson,

Thank you for a very thoughtful response.  Quite frankly, I have to be somewhat agnostic on the scientific issues since I am not a scientist.  Because God is transcendent and eternal, I am loathe to to confine Him, as fundamentalists seem wont to do, within the temporal, finite categories through which He has so graciously revealed Himself to earthbound humanity. 

It is my sense that evolutionary theories have contributed much to our knowledge of the biological and physical universe in ways that Genesis Creation theory could never have discovered.  But that knowledge has led its possessors to overwhelmingly reject a transcendent God and His revelations about human nature.  And so, while I try to listen carefully and openly, I am very wary of the truth claims coming from evolutionists - not because they are untrue, but because they usually seem to make God much smaller and undermine trust in Him, contracting, rather than expanding His role in my life.

In the story of the Fall, Adam and Eve were offered a     means by which they would become as gods, understanding good and evil.  Yet as we learn in the story, they were seduced by a truth that led them away from God - toward tragedy and self-destruction.  I don't know why God seems to have created a reality, or permitted a reality, that is impregnated with dueling truths; there always seems, at every turn, to be a truth that leads toward God, and a truth that leads away from Him, either of which can be made to appear more compelling than the other.  Sometimes we only realize in hindsight that the path we have taken is terribly dangerous.  When I look at the truths of Darwinian "science", I see truths that have led humanity away from God, toward tragedy and self-destruction. Evolutionary science, which has led to determinism, rejects both free will and the sinful nature of humanity.  The profound social, political and spiritual impacts of rejecting those beliefs, deeply embedded in Scripture and Judeo-Christian history, cannot be overstated.

I am disturbed if evolutionary theories are taught in our colleges without recognition of the toxic byproducts ithey have produced and can produce - spiritual poisons which eat away at the sinews that bind us to God and Scripture in faith communities.  I wish that science teachers in SDA universities could honestly acknowledge that science threatens faith today much more than the Church posed an barrier to science in Galileo's time.  Is it unreasonable for Adventists of faith to ask that, in SDA education, evolutionary science be confined to science; that the dangers of evolutionary theory be recognized and guarded against; and that doses be served with heaping plates full of faith-building spiritual fare to strengthen our children's trust in the Word of the transcendent, transforming God that we worship?