La Sierra University - My Blog

By: Sean Pitman, Elder Warren Ashworth, and Pastor Ron Cook

July 12, 2001

On the front cover of the spring 2011 edition of La Sierra University Magazine there is a wonderful photograph of Dr. Lee Grismer smiling at a gecko in his hand and titled, “The Reptile King”.  The article goes on to detail Dr. Grismer’s wonderful passion for nature and for God and several of his thrilling experiences discovering new species in exotic locations around the world.

The only problem, of course, is that the article says nothing about Dr. Grismer’s ardent opposition to the Adventist position on origins and his active support and promotion of mainstream evolutionary theories in his classes.  While the article does describe Grismer’s love for God and his experience of God in through nature (and even his baptism into the Adventist Church), all wonderful things indeed, what about the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has asked all educators in all Adventist schools to “uphold and advocate the church’s position on origins”? and for our students “to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world”? (reference)

Dr. Grismer believes and teaches that living things on this planet have existed and evolved over billions of years through a process that involved the death and untold suffering of sentient creatures through countless generations. He teaches that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs and that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals, etc… all in line with mainstream evolutionary thinking (see slide from one of Dr. Grismer’s LSU class lectures below). There is no mention in any of Dr. Grismer’s lectures of any counter evidence to mainstream evolutionary thinking, the age of life on Earth, or any empirical support for the Adventist position on a recent creation by God of much of the diversity and adaptability of living things within six literal days.

Given Dr. Grismer’s significant charisma and evident popularity with his students, his evolutionary beliefs and teachings carry a great deal of weight with nearly all of his students.  Most come away from his classes shaken in their understanding and belief in the Adventist position on a literal creation week of all life on this planet within fairly recent history.  Many leave Adventism behind, or, if they do stay in the church, do so as social Adventists who really do not believe in several of the basic doctrinal positions of the church.  They somehow meld a form of theistic evolutionism with Christianity in line with Dr. Grismer’s own beliefs and influence.

I am well aware of the influence of Dr. Grismer’s teachings, and those of several other science professors at LSU who hold and teach similar views, as I’ve spoken with many students who have taken courses from these professors.  Even members of my own family have been dramatically affected by such teachings and have either left the church or no longer subscribe to various official doctrinal positions of the church.

It seems, therefore, rather brazen of LSU to actively promote a professor who is so actively undermining at least one of the bedrock fundamental positions of the Adventist Church within our own school system.  Does the governing body of the Seventh-day Adventist Church take no notice of such subversive activity?  or is the government of the church simply too powerless or intimidated by the intelligentsia within the church to do anything or even to say anything of any real substance to address this serious issue within many of our schools and universities?

While LSU has been among the most bold in its open defiance of the clearly stated goals and ideals of the Adventist Church, as an organization, this is by no means a unique situation to LSU.   If the unique contribution of the Adventist Church to the reality of the Gospel message of hope is to remain viable, something must be done to address the magnetic influence of those who are most ardently opposed to our doctrines and who are undermining the order and government of the church from within.

At the very least the Adventist Church should be active in warning parents, students, and the church membership at large of these problems within our schools and of the risks involved with sending our young people to be placed under the influence of those like Dr. Grismer.  At the very least the members of our church deserve greater transparency as to what can be expected from so-called “Adventist Education” which is often purchased at great price and personal sacrifice by those who are entrusting their greatest possessions on this Earth into the hands of an institution that bears the name, “Seventh-day Adventist”.

For those who may be interested, Dr. Sean Pitman has been asked to give a presentation on July 23 (Sabbath), at Loma Linda University campus, Mortensen Hall (upstairs amphitheater) starting at 10:00 am.  Directions can be found by clicking on the following Link:  Map

His topic will be:  Intelligent Design:  Science or Religion?

Educate Truth shares the following article from Adventist Today as a service to readers.

Submitted Jul 1, 2011
By Atoday Editorial Team

On June 10, 2011, three La Sierra University (LSU) faculty members and a board member resigned. News of their resignations set off a storm of rumor and speculation.

The stranger-than-fiction saga came to the attention of the general Adventist public with a short announcement by a LSU administration. Four individuals — Jeff Kaatz, Vice President for university advancement; Jim Beach, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences; Gary Bradley part-time contract biology professor; and Lenny Darnell, member of the Board of Trustees — had been asked to resign. The announcement specifically stated the resignations were not connected to the on-going controversy over the teaching of evolutionary biology at LSU, a claim that was initially doubted by many.

Central to the resignations was a digital recording made by one of the four affected individuals. Within hours of the announcement, Adventist Today received a copy of the recording from an anonymous source.

The first part of the recording was of a meeting, held in a public hall on campus and called by North American Division leaders. This was to discuss the likelihood the church’s accrediting association would probably not re-certify the university for a maximum five-year term. There was a perception, reported the leaders, that LSU was ‘deviating’ from standards of instruction expected of Adventist universities. It was clear from the recording, the word ‘deviating’ was generally held to refer to LSU’s approaches to teaching biology.

Prominent speakers at the meeting were Dan Jackson, president of the North American Division (NAD), and Larry Blackmer, NAD vice president for education.

After the meeting, the digital recording device/telephone, operated on his person by one of the four men, was left running. This appeared unintentional while the four men went to a private home to discuss the meeting and watch a basketball playoff game between the Lakers and the Dallas Mavericks.

Apparently unaware the follow-up discussion was part of the recording, one of the men forwarded a copy of the recording to various individuals, so they could hear the meeting with the church officials. This digital file was forwarded by someone else to the General Conference. When Larry Blackmer listened to the recording he discovered it contained more that just the meeting at which he had been a principal presenter. After listening to the entire recording, including the conversation during the basketball game which contained some rather inflammatory rhetoric, he had the recording transcribed and sent a copy of this to the leadership of LSU. In light of that transcript, the four men were asked to resign, and they complied.

What was so inflammatory about the recording that the men agreed to resign? (Read more)

By Sean Pitman

Transparency

Many, by now, have heard of the recent resignation of three faculty and one board trustee from La Sierra University (LSU) over the public recording and release of a private conversation.  On April 20th, a board trustee, Lenny Darnell, turned on the record function of his cell phone in a private town hall-style meeting attended by more than 100 select LSU faculty and staff and two representatives from the General Conference, Elders Dan Jackson, President of the North American Division, and Larry Blackmer, Education Director of the North American Division.

The purpose of the town hall meeting, apparently, was to address the two year struggle over the evolution controversy that has been raging at LSU.  Reportedly, Darnell “wanted to be sure that he could recall all that transpired,” so he recorded the meeting.  The next day Darnell sent copies of his recording to several people including at least one LSU faculty member and Spectrum Magazine. What prompted Darnell to pass on the recording of a private meeting? Perhaps he thought there was something said at the meeting that would favor the efforts of some to turn LSU into a “progressive” Adventist institution rather than have it end up as some kind of “Bible college”?  However, no one, except Darnell, really knows. And Darnell isn’t talking.

Not surprisingly in this internet age, the recordings ended up being posted online for a time before being suddenly pulled. (They have since showed up on numerous “torrent” sites.)  During this time the recording made its way to the office of the North American Division. A transcript was made of the recording and subsequently passed on to Ricardo Graham, LSU Board Chairman.

Unaccountably, Darnell failed to turn off the recording function on his phone at the end of the town hall meeting.  While his phone continued recording, Darnell drove to a friend’s house where he met up with Jeff Kaatz, LSU Vice President of Development, Jim Beach, LSU Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Gary Bradley, LSU biology professor.  While watching the Los Angeles Lakers play the Denver Nuggets in an NBA basketball playoff game, the four men discussed that day’s town hall meeting. While occasionally using some rather colorful language, they expressed less than flattering evaluations of church leaders (including Blackmer and Jackson), board members, and others.

According to a Spectrum article, “Ricardo Graham received the tape and the transcription from Blackmer on June 1. Graham contacted University President Randal Wisbey on Thursday, June 9, and requested meetings with the three employees of the University on Friday, June 10, in Wisbey’s office. In separate meetings with each of the individuals, transcripts of the tape were shared. They were then given the option of signing a letter of resignation or having the material shared with the entire Board of Trustees. All signed letters of resignation.”  However, only Dr. Bradley lost his teaching job and Mr. Darnell his position on the school board.  The two other men lost their administrative positions but retain their tenured jobs at LSU.

Some who have listened to the private conversation have wondered why all four men resigned from any position over what appears to many to be a relatively harmless private conversation?  Sure, there were some inappropriate comments and even a little alcohol consumption, but, really, what’s the big deal? right?  After all, the conversation was largely one expressing frustration over the evolution/creation controversy and what could be done to release LSU from the constraints of Church oversight, especially the Adventist Accrediting Agency (AAA).  They argued against the required promotion of the faith positions of the SDA Church in science classes that, from their perspective, undermine the obvious discoveries of mainstream science and overwhelming empirical evidence on the topic of origins.

Frankly, I tend to sympathize with these men to a certain degree.  After all, neither LSU nor the church had asked them to substantively change what they were teaching since the controversy erupted. The problem is that the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council had asked all professors in SDA schools to also present a rigorous defense of the SDA perspective on origins in all classrooms:

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

It is this official guidance of the SDA Church, as an organization, that has not taken place at LSU for several decades now. For example, consider that Dr. Bradley, in an interview with the secular journal Inside Higher Education, made several very honest statements regarding his personal position on the topic of origins and how he intended to continue to teach his students:

“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.”

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 [b_s_],” he said.

“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.” In the Capstone Biology class for 2009, Bradley gave a 69-slide presentation entitled, “Hominin Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.”

Clearly Dr. Bradley never intended to follow the educational guidelines of the SDA Church, past or present.  Beyond this, several other science and even religion professors at LSU have voiced support of Bradley’s position and intention. Somewhat surprisingly then (in light of past inaction) the AAA, in response to the current controversy, did not fully renew LSU’s accreditation, but granted a probationary period of one year for LSU to improve its promotion of the church’s position on origins in science classrooms.

What seems a bit strange to me, however, is that Bradley wasn’t asked to resign until he uttered, in a private conversation, a few negative comments about particular individuals in the Church’s hierarchy.  It seems almost like the Church leadership is more concerned over private comments against individuals than public comments and public actions that directly undermine the church’s “fundamental” positions and policies.

A few questions that come to mind at this point: Why were church officials sent to apologize to LSU for the efforts of, for example, David Asscherick? Should not the situation that prompted Asscherick’s widely circulated letter have been addressed by LSU many years before? Why did Elder Jackson state, during the town hall meeting, that David Asscherick and the leadership of the Michigan Conference should be officially reprimanded by the Church? – for trying to uphold the fundamental goals and ideals of the SDA Church within our own universities?  Has the SDA world turned upside down?

If the church claims that certain doctrinal teachings are, in fact, “fundamental” to its basic goals and mission, why then does it align itself with those who are most emphatically opposed to those positions?  On the other hand, if the church is not really opposed to mainstream evolutionary theories on origins, or does not actually consider the issue of origins to be “fundamental,” why then doesn’t it make this new position clear to its worldwide constituents?

Do not the students and parents who are paying a great deal of money for a Seventh-day Adventist education deserve to know when a particular school is actively undermining one or more of the church’s doctrinal positions in its classrooms?  Calling the church’s position scientifically untenable? Believed only by the church’s “lunatic fringe”?  Don’t we all have a basic right to know what we are supporting with our tuition, tithes, and offerings?

In short then, my most basic wish for LSU and for the church at large is… Consistency and Transparency.

That’s it.

If the church, as an organization, really does believe in a literal six-day creation week as fundamental to the gospel message of hope, then the church, and all organizations owned and operated under the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” should be active in promoting this basic message.  However, if the Church does not really stand for these doctrinal positions, or if the Church really cannot ensure unity on these basic issues within the various organizations that carry the church’s own name, then the church should be active in informing its worldwide membership of these facts. Those who send their children, their most precious possessions on this Earth, to a school that bears the name “Seventh-day Adventist” should not be misinformed or, worse yet, deceived as to what to expect from “Adventist Education”.

It simply isn’t right to for the church, or a church school like LSU, to advertise one thing in order to draw students (and donations) from Adventist families, but then deliver something “fundamentally different”.  In anyone’s book, that’s false advertising. More than this, it’s a form of both deception and theft.  And it’s wrong, plain and simple.

At the very least, let’s be consistent and transparent when it comes to what we stand for as a church organization and what anyone can expect from Seventh-day Adventist education… so we call can make the truly informed choices that we all deserve.

By Sean Pitman

Transparency

Many, by now, have heard of the recent resignation of three faculty and one board trustee from La Sierra University (LSU) over the public recording and release of a private conversation.  On April 20th, a board trustee, Lenny Darnell, turned on the record function of his cell phone in a private town hall-style meeting attended by more than 100 select LSU faculty and staff and two representatives from the General Conference, Elders Dan Jackson, President of the North American Division, and Larry Blackmer, Education Director of the North American Division.

The purpose of the town hall meeting, apparently, was to address the two year struggle over the evolution controversy that has been raging at LSU.  Reportedly, Darnell “wanted to be sure that he could recall all that transpired,” so he recorded the meeting.  The next day Darnell sent copies of his recording to several people including at least one LSU faculty member and Spectrum Magazine. What prompted Darnell to pass on the recording of a private meeting? Perhaps he thought there was something said at the meeting that would favor the efforts of some to turn LSU into a “progressive” Adventist institution rather than have it end up as some kind of “Bible college”?  However, no one, except Darnell, really knows. And Darnell isn’t talking.

Not surprisingly in this internet age, the recordings ended up being posted online for a time before being suddenly pulled. (They have since showed up on numerous “torrent” sites.)  During this time the recording made its way to the office of the North American Division. A transcript was made of the recording and subsequently passed on to Ricardo Graham, LSU Board Chairman.

Unaccountably, Darnell failed to turn off the recording function on his phone at the end of the town hall meeting.  While his phone continued recording, Darnell drove to a friend’s house where he met up with Jeff Kaatz, LSU Vice President of Development, Jim Beach, LSU Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Gary Bradley, LSU biology professor.  While watching the Los Angeles Lakers play the Denver Nuggets in an NBA basketball playoff game, the four men discussed that day’s town hall meeting. While occasionally using some rather colorful language, they expressed less than flattering evaluations of church leaders (including Blackmer and Jackson), board members, and others.

According to a Spectrum article, “Ricardo Graham received the tape and the transcription from Blackmer on June 1. Graham contacted University President Randal Wisbey on Thursday, June 9, and requested meetings with the three employees of the University on Friday, June 10, in Wisbey’s office. In separate meetings with each of the individuals, transcripts of the tape were shared. They were then given the option of signing a letter of resignation or having the material shared with the entire Board of Trustees. All signed letters of resignation.”  However, only Dr. Bradley lost his teaching job and Mr. Darnell his position on the school board.  The two other men lost their administrative positions but retain their tenured jobs at LSU.

Some who have listened to the private conversation have wondered why all four men resigned from any position over what appears to many to be a relatively harmless private conversation?  Sure, there were some inappropriate comments and even a little alcohol consumption, but, really, what’s the big deal? right?  After all, the conversation was largely one expressing frustration over the evolution/creation controversy and what could be done to release LSU from the constraints of church oversight, especially the Adventist Accrediting Agency (AAA).  They argued against the required promotion of the faith positions of the church in science classes that, from their perspective, undermine the obvious discoveries of mainstream science and overwhelming empirical evidence on the topic of origins.

Frankly, I tend to sympathize with these men to a certain degree.  After all, neither LSU nor the church had asked them to substantively change what they were teaching since the controversy erupted. The problem is that the General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council had asked all professors in Adventist schools to also present a rigorous defense of the Adventist perspective on origins in all classrooms:

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

It is this official guidance of the church, as an organization, that has not taken place at LSU for several decades now. For example, consider that Dr. Bradley, in an interview with the secular journal Inside Higher Education, made several very honest statements regarding his personal position on the topic of origins and how he intended to continue to teach his students:

“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.”

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 [b_s_],” he said.

“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.” In the Capstone Biology class for 2009, Bradley gave a 69-slide presentation entitled, “Hominin Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.”

Clearly Dr. Bradley never intended to follow the educational guidelines of the church, past or present.  Beyond this, several other science and even religion professors at LSU have voiced support of Bradley’s position and intention. Somewhat surprisingly then (in light of past inaction) the AAA, in response to the current controversy, did not fully renew LSU’s accreditation, but granted a probationary period of one year for LSU to improve its promotion of the church’s position on origins in science classrooms.

What seems a bit strange to me, however, is that Bradley wasn’t asked to resign until he uttered, in a private conversation, a few negative comments about particular individuals in the church’s hierarchy.  It seems almost like the church leadership is more concerned over private comments against individuals than public comments and public actions that directly undermine the church’s “fundamental” positions and policies.

A few questions that come to mind at this point: Why were church officials sent to apologize to LSU for the efforts of, for example, David Asscherick? Should not the situation that prompted Asscherick’s widely circulated letter have been addressed by LSU many years before? Why did Elder Jackson state, during the town hall meeting, that David Asscherick and the leadership of the Michigan Conference should be officially reprimanded by the church? – for trying to uphold the fundamental goals and ideals of the church within our own universities?  Has the Adventist world turned upside down?

If the church claims that certain doctrinal teachings are, in fact, “fundamental” to its basic goals and mission, why then does it align itself with those who are most emphatically opposed to those positions?  On the other hand, if the church is not really opposed to mainstream evolutionary theories on origins, or does not actually consider the issue of origins to be “fundamental,” why then doesn’t it make this new position clear to its worldwide constituents?

Do not the students and parents who are paying a great deal of money for a Seventh-day Adventist education deserve to know when a particular school is actively undermining one or more of the church’s doctrinal positions in its classrooms?  Calling the church’s position scientifically untenable? Believed only by the church’s “lunatic fringe”?  Don’t we all have a basic right to know what we are supporting with our tuition, tithes, and offerings?

In short then, my most basic wish for LSU and for the church at large is… Consistency and Transparency.

That’s it.

If the church, as an organization, really does believe in a literal six-day creation week as fundamental to the gospel message of hope, then the church, and all organizations owned and operated under the name “Seventh-day Adventist,” should be active in promoting this basic message.  However, if the church does not really stand for these doctrinal positions, or if the church really cannot ensure unity on these basic issues within the various organizations that carry the church’s own name, then the church should be active in informing its worldwide membership of these facts. Those who send their children, their most precious possessions on this Earth, to a school that bears the name “Seventh-day Adventist” should not be misinformed or, worse yet, deceived as to what to expect from “Adventist Education”.

It simply isn’t right to for the church, or a church school like LSU, to advertise one thing in order to draw students (and donations) from Adventist families, but then deliver something “fundamentally different”.  In anyone’s book, that’s false advertising. More than this, it’s a form of both deception and theft.  It’s wrong, plain and simple.

At the very least, let’s be consistent and transparent when it comes to what we stand for as a church organization and what anyone can expect from Seventh-day Adventist education…