A recent article published at EducateTruth.com made allegations that new La Sierra University assistant biology professor Raul Diaz was an atheist, a hardcore evolutionist, and an antagonist of Adventism and Christianity.
However, Diaz said he is not an atheist or opponent of Christianity or any religion that does not follow Jesus Christ. He said, “I am a humanitarian and conservationist above everything, and people and nature come first, not silly debates.” He stated he is an evolutionary biologist, but suggested it had nothing to do with creation or religion.
When asked what he thought of Diaz’s response to his allegations, Educate Truth’s Sean Pitman said, “All I want to know is if he believes in and will teach neo-Darwinism, that life has existed and evolved on this planet over hundreds of millions of years? Or, will he promote the Adventist position on origins to include a recent arrival of the diversity of life on this planet and limited evolutionary potential to the lowest levels of functional complexity?”
Diaz attended La Sierra for part of his undergraduate degree, but transferred to University of California, Berkeley, to finish a bachelor’s degree in integrative biology. Diaz received his PhD from the University of Kansas. His thesis was on frog skeletal development and evolution. He now teaches a class called “Genetics” (BIOL 302) at La Sierra, and is currently working out an adjunct position at Loma Linda University Medical Center.
La Sierra was put on probation by the Adventist Accreditation Association (AAA) in Oct. 2012 because it had deviated from the philosophy and objectives of Seventh-day Adventist education. However, AAA granted an extension of accreditation to Dec. 31, 2012 in order for the university to act upon its commitments and implement changes and enhancements. According to Vice President of Education for the North American Division Larry Blackmer, a visit to La Sierra is planned for March 2013.
Sounds like “business as usual” at LSU. As long as Wisbey and his gaggle of cronies run LSU, things will simply go on as we see them–right down the toilet bowl.
“I am a humanitarian and conservationist above everything, and people and nature come first, not silly debates.”
If you translate it, this statement is actually quite religious. Environmentalism is the fastest growing religion in the western world, if not the whole planet. Buyers beware.
It is easy to deny being an atheist. After all, who is foolish enough to express certainty that no God exists? The fall back position is agnosticism–not sure whether or not God exists. Whatever. It is obvious that Diaz is not a Christian.
His hiring contravenes the La Sierra Faculty Handbook, which provides that full time faculty positions are to be filled by Seventh-day Adventists. At least ninety percent of the University’s full time faculty must be Seventh-day Adventists. When a suitable Seventh-day Adventist cannot be recruited for the position, other Christians, who understand and appreciate the University’s religious mission, will be given a non-tenure track full time position. The Faculty Handbook does not provide for the hiring of non-Christians to full time teaching positions.
This was ignored when Randal Wisbey hired a Muslim biology professor, so it doesn’t surprise me that he’s either changed the faculty handbook or else ignored it again to hire an agnostic or “humanitarian and conservationist.”
Another argument might be that because he is a cultural Adventist, then he simply IS a Seventh-day Adventist, even though he currently is not a believing Christian but a “humanitarian and conservationist.” That would make sense, since La Sierra itself is culturally Adventist but not believing Adventist.
As a behavioural scientist I can testify that science and theology do go hand in hand (I’m not a theologian!).
I would not like to enter into any debate but would like to rather give my humble opinion on this matter.
We ought to remember that whatever we know as science is man-made science following man-made conclusions over falsified ideas (Null Hypotheses)… These are interchangeable at any time…
Whatever we know now and that may be established for certain (e.g., gravity, circumference of the earth) under man-defined laws is merely a discovery of rules that have been placed under the design of a Supreme Being. – Unless of course you came from a monkey then I would not expect you to fully understand it! (sorry, but I couldn’t help my self hehe…)
Having brought up in an SDA academy and following college and postgraduates in three secular Universities I can testify that I was made aware of many paradigms contradictory to God’s ruling – even in the SDA institution!
I believe the difference is that I was taught by God-filled people who only made students aware of the counteractive initiatives outside of the fundamentals of Christian and Adventist beliefs, nevertheless they were not animated, devoted or grounded in such beliefs themselves. It was a mere curriculum filling process… and was always brought back to the Scriptural foundation.
I agree with a previous comment that after all if a person does not resonate with the employee’s core values mission and beliefs, then we have a few problems with the person who accepted the position and most importantly with the employer.
As the owner of an organisation I personally would not employ anyone who does not follow my own company’s mission, vision and underlying goal.
Any SDA commenting here I wish to invite you all to track back the origin of our institutions, but most importantly the purpose for their establishment!
Love in Christ,
Dan
Should we please men or God? For if we please men we cannot be the servants of Christ!!
[Your real name is required.]
And we wonder why the Adventist church is losing our youth especially when they get to college. Living in the end times….
It will be hard to identify those who will eventually make up the special group known as the 144,000, but it will be easy to identify those who will not make up this group….for they follow not the commandments, nor the spirit of prophecy. By their “fruits” you shall know them.
I wish I could remember the name of a famous military officer of days gone by who was in the process of a court marshall of a young soldier. As the story is told…the officer asked this young man, “what is your name?”…the young man told him…the officer and this young soldier had the same name. The officer took stock of himself….extended mercy and said “young man…change your behavior or change your name”
Those running La Sierra are not biblical…..they need to be removed…..or, come back to Christ….they are not fit to carry God’s Name….
God’s Blessings’
Deborah
The whole denomination is infused through and through with apostacy. Some seem to think it is an issue that can be somehow resolved by dialogue, meetings, and/or other avenues to correct the situation. Unless like Gideon and his army, you are willing to go the war, you just as well stay home and believe in the statis quo. If and when the church is preserved on any level, it will only be a reality if individuals recoginze the real situation and deal with it accordingly. It is not likely the issue at LSU, or the WO discussion or any other discussions will produce anything positive in the way of correcting the situation.
What I said above is simply because the liberals have firm control and will not relent by way of any “sissy” measures like telling them, “You know you shouldn’t do that.” It seems the shaking will simply intensify until honest Christians realize there is no cure by way of dialogue. I am sure I don’t know the exact answer to the problem, But I do know the methods being used now are futile.
Here we go again. “People and nature (Rom. 1:21-23) come first”? I guess Dr.DIaz IS ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and doesn’t realize that “he that is not for Me IS against Me.” Can anything good come out of La Sierra?
I used to be proud to be a La Sierra College [now LSU] alumnus. No more! This action plus the honoring of a notorious abortionist with a building in his honor is more than I can stomach. I am beginning to think that it might be time for the church to cut its connection with this institution. The church financial contribution to this institution should be used for evangelism instead.
What I said should also apply to Adventist medical institutions which continue to provide elective abortions to their patients. Thousands of innocent human beings have lost their lives before they had a chance to take their first breath in Adventist hospitals, and this is documented in our Adventist literature. It is high time for the church to repent of this great evil which has been compromising the mission of the church.
The church is not growing in North America. How can the Lord bless a church which tolerates the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for origins and which has redefined the true and crystal clear meaning of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue? The membership of the church is not growing in North America, while it is growing by leaps and bounds in other countries of the world where the doctrine of creation and the respect for human life is still appreciated by our leaders.
My personal feeling is that open rebellion should be decisively dealt with. If allowed to continue to develop it will surely get worse. However I understand the reluctance to fire high level administrators. As someone has pointed out, among them there may be an Aaron here and there along with the Caiaphuses, and how does one know which is which?
BTW, Ellen White wrote that towards the end we would lose some of our institutions. Could La Sierra be the first? That will be quite a shock for those students who are sincerely trying to get an Adventist education, especially those not in the sciences, not to mention their parents who are footing the bill.
“However, Diaz said he is not an atheist or opponent of Christianity or any religion that does not follow Jesus Christ. He said, “I am a humanitarian and conservationist above everything else,”
Being a humanitarian conservationist “above everything else” is not as opposed to the atheist and agnostic mindset as some might have hoped for – “humanism and naturalism are at times more like religion than anything else.
So — was this supposed to be a “good thing” for Diaz?
in Christ,
Bob .
LSU has been a faith breaker and embarrassment far too long. The time has come to put the ax to the root. Fire Wisbey and replace him with someone who is after God’s own heart and whose integrity can be trusted. If LSU cannot be run as a God Fearing Adventist Institution then close it. If those charged with over sight of the school can’t do their jobs and administer it to the Glory of God then they should be introduced to a shovel and seek a new line of work. Clean house boys…it is way over due.
For the sake of our Saviour, Jim
Yes, a very sad and disappointing development. LSU is imposing upon the credulity of the parents who send their children expecting a high-quality Adventist educational experience. Enrollment may begin to suffer, as it did when I was at PUC during the Desmond Ford years.
I am going to plug my good friend Nic Samojluk’s website because he posted there a very interesting lecture by John Baumgardner. Check out his answer to a question at 1:50:00 regarding changes at the Institute for Creation Research that has left many creationist scientists without support.
Sounds to me like the Lord could be providing a new faculty for La Sierra University.
Sorry, here is the link for the video on Nic’s site:
http://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-explained-by-dr-john-baumgardner/
Why am I not surprised? It would be better to dissolve Adventist Education all together than to continue this insanity. When do we cease being Seventh-day Adventists. Is this a contract teacher? It would be one thing if he was a piano teacher, vocal teacher, brass teacher, a teacher in the humanities, but biology? Where is La Sierra’s head?
Does the General Conference own LSU? If it does, there is perhaps hope; but if it doesn’t, then any effort to undo what has been done already will fail to achieve the desired end. Dr. Raul Diaz is very likely under contract by now and if fired he would probably be entitled for at least one year worth of his salary.
The relationship with Dr. Edward Allred, the notorious abortionist, goes back many decades and he has contributed large sums of money to the institution. How do you undo this? Can you rename the building which bears his name and dedicate it to someone else? I doubt!
The only viable solution is to effect a friendly divorce. Let LSU fend for itself and function independently like 3ABN, The Quiet Hour, and many other independent ministries. Such an action would send a signal to the Adventist world that we are serious about out commitment to the fundamental doctrine of creation and our adherence to the respect for human life.
If God will function as a wise Physician, and excise the cancer of sin from the Universe once and for all at the end of time, that the truth of God may be vindicated…why cannot the powers responsible for the existence of this college within the sisterhood of Adventist colleges worldwide do the right thing and sever the ties with LSU? This stand must be taken as an example to the world church and in respect of every other SDA Educational institution that
rests firmly on our creationist platform.
Frank, the political aspects of the church often transcend the spiritual. Politics is about money and power. In this case, the spiritual aspects of the issue must take a back seat. This is also a reflection of the Catholic church that also works on the same principle. The Catholic church is far more interested in the civil and secular power it will have, and will only use any spiritual aspect to promote this final agenda.
Frank, I worry that severing ties will discourage SDA youth from the sciences and create a rift between clergy and scientist. We need good Adventists scientists to stand up and protest, like Sean Pitman.
These types of problems are not unique to LSU, which seems to be the WORST. I attended a Sac Central Church meeting last night, and this same type of “invasion of the world” is happening at Sacrmento Adventist Academy Although evolution is not the issue (yet!) “Black Sabbath” tee shirts worn on campus,skimpy dresses, dancing at school, quesionable music and reading materials are among the problems. Parents and many pastors have expressed concern for YEARS with virtually no response by the administration.
The same type of problems are rampant at Pacific Union College–alcohol, marijuana, lack of any type of dress standards are common. Where are the supposed “leaders?” Sitting behind their desks in the “ivory towers” wondering how to attract MORE students, especially non-SDA students, who will even further dilute our Biblical values and standards!
Science and Seventh Day Adventism are if fact, in direct opposition to each other. That’s why true Adventists such as myself, have abandoned all faith in the secular scienific community of this nation, to focus on Adventist theological issues instead. Enough pandering to Athiestic Godless pagans.
Bob Briggs, PhD, wrote, “Science and Seventh Day Adventism are if fact, in direct opposition to each other.”
John Sanford, PhD and John Baumgardner, PhD, are two scientists who would disagree. All they need is a place to work and teach. Would your advice to them be to hang it up?
Science and Seventh-day Adventism are,in fact,not in direct opposition to each other. Adventism and certain scientific hypotheses are in direct opposition to each other. Scientists that present the theory as fact are not really practicing scientists.
Both PhDs George Evans referenced make straw-man arguments concerning evolution by misrepresenting true modern theories on evolution, which directly challenge Biblical inerrancy. Therefore evolutionary theory as presented by Atheist evolutionists at secular colleges is a threat to our beliefs. Sugarcoating or misrepresenting the scientific community’s generally accepted theory of evolution does nothing to prevent the pernicious lie from propagating in our community. As such, why try to reconcile evolution with our beliefs, instead of rejecting it wholly?
Doug, as far as I’m aware, evolutionists are very careful to present evolution as a theory, not fact, much the same as all other science. Thus it can be seen by not claiming absolute truth, these “theories” can infiltrate our communities and turn youth away from the absolute truth. Many scientific theories present the same methodology in infiltration this way, which is why I say science and Adventism are in direct opposition. In fact, any attempt to look for truth outside of the truth of God is heinous and evil.
I learned about evolution in one of our Adventist academies several decades ago, but my science teacher taught said Darwinian philosophy as mere theory and as a belief which was in a direct opposition to the biblical crystal clear teaching on origins. What happened to our Adventist education?
Bob Briggs wrote, “Both PhDs [Sanford and Baumgardner] George Evans referenced make straw-man arguments concerning evolution by misrepresenting true modern theories on evolution…”
I wasn’t aware of this. Could Dr. Briggs elaborate?
In the meantime I think we should not directly equate evolution with science. It is one school of thought, creation is another school of thought. I think we need to considered Ellen White’s term “science falsely so-called” in this discussion.
Dr. Baumgardner, using the tried and true method of computer modeling, has demonstrated that runaway subduction is possible and is a plausible mechanism to help explain the rapid geological changes recorded in the flood account in Genesis. This is as valid a pursuit as an astrophysicist using computer modeling to study the inside of stars.
Sanford’s whole thesis relies on misrepresenting the fuction of genetic mutations in the process of evolution. He states that only 1 in every 1000 mutations are beneficial, while the rest are harmful. If that were true, every living species would have died thousands of years ago due to an accumulation of harmful genes, with every generation being more imperfect than the last. This is clearly not the case, which is why Sanford is at the fringes of the scientific community today. Furthermore, Sanford’s hypothesis doesn’t hold true in the laboratory. Read any scholarly review on his work and you’ll see Sanford’s work for what it is; an attempt at fitting genomics and evolution into his worldview. This is exactly what the church doesn’t need, since we don’t need to justify our faith with science. Sanford’s theories about genetic entropy should never be taught to any Adventist, since any due dilligence done in research of Sanford’s work will lead the inquiring party to refute genetic entropy and possible accept mainstream evolution as a more realistic alternative. Why allow this wolf in sheep’s clothing near the church in the first place?
Bob writes, “[Sanford] states that only 1 in every 1000 mutations are beneficial, while the rest are harmful. If that were true, every living species would have died thousands of years ago due to an accumulation of harmful genes, with every generation being more imperfect than the last.”
Am I safe in assuming that, scientifically, you accept the theory of the evolution of species? It’s hard to tell for sure because you use a fairly short time span of a few thousand years in your argument. Your reasoning seems to be that since all the present species have been in existence for much longer than a few thousand years, Sanford’s hypothesis would have resulted in mass extinction, which is clearly inconsistent with evidence. Am I understanding you correctly.
And your second sentence implies you think there is a general improvement from age to age. If that is your starting position then your conclusion is understandable. Certainly students taught Sanford’s school of thought would be ridiculed in secular halls of science. So what? I am critical of the secular notion that random chance can produce progress, even guided by natural selection.
I simply disagree with your starting assumptions. I assume that Genesis is historical. So there is no reason for me to think species have been here longer than 10,000 years tops. In that case your “straw man” disagreement with Sanford vanishes.
I categorically reject evolution. What I’m saying, is that the mutation Sanford describes would take a few hundred years to devolve all species to the point of extinction. Read my argument more carefully. I’m saying that the distortion of science to fit with God’s account of creation is frivolous and time wasting, as well as pernicious. Why expose any students to any form of evolutionary theory, which is still what Sanford’s argument is based upon.
I am not a scientist, but I read the book written by former evolutionist entitled Genetic Entropy, authored by John Sanford. In it he shows the weakness of the theory of evolution and traces the connection between the Darwinian evolution theory, the eugenic movement which led Hitler to his belief in the superiority of the German race, and the current abortion genocide. What he says in his book makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering that he is a convert from evolution and natural selection to the theory of special creation.
Bob, I am at a loss to understand your position, and I am truly wanting to understand. So here are three things I would like to address.
1. I have heard estimates of roughly 50,000 years for the extinction of humans in circles discussing Sanford’s ideas. You seem to be differing by two orders of magnitude in your estimate. Are you sure you are assuming a realistic mutation rate, reproduction rate, and the effects of population dilution?
2. Given that nature is God’s second book, how could working to UNdistort science to bring it back into agreement with scripture be in any way “frivolous and time wasting, as well as pernicious”?
3. In your thinking, how is Sanford’s argument still based on evolutionary theory?
Nic, Sanford’s book is one long misrepresentation of evolution. I am a former evolutionary biologist, and reading Sanford’s book made me sick. After conversion, I realized that to be an Adventist, I needed to reject evolution because it contradicts the Bible directly. Sanford “shows weakness of the theory” by horribly misrepresenting the theory (which is wrong in my opinion in any case). What Sanford does in his book is akin to a Muslim telling Adventists that Jesus told people to kill their neighbors, and then saying why that is wrong morally.
To conclude: evolution is wrong, but we do not need to justify our unbelief in it with nonsensical, counter factual arguments, such as the ones Sanford proposes. Also, if you read Sanford carefully, you’ll see he relies on one scholarly study by another biologist for all of his figures, and did not do any research or laboratory work himself in the writing of that book.
[Sanford is not the topic for this thread. Further posts about Sanford or any other unrelated comments to LSU's hiring of an evolutionary biologist will not be published. -Moderator]
I’d be interested to know the reaction of the religion department at LSU to the evolutionary teachings there. Are there any disagreements or protests against such beliefs?
That’s a good question,Jim. There was no reported uproar over the naming of the Allred Center. I wonder if the religion dept. has no qualms about evolution if it’s the theistic kind? It’s been kinda quiet over there for the past 40 years (except for WO, of course).Don’t ask, don’t tell?
The answer was provided by a La Sierra University student:
“When I talked with President Randal Wisbey and the former Provost, they were not concerned about what I was telling them. Instead, they instituted a Freshman Seminar where students were told by the Dean of the School of Religion, John Webster, that it’s high time that the SDA Church endorse Darwinian evolution. And, that seminar was touted by Randal Wisbey to parents, supporters, and SDA members as a “balanced” look at the issue of origins. No, Dr Webster told us that the literal interpretation of the Bible on origins is not correct. This is the Dean of the School of Religion folks! And now he is the Dean of the new HMS Richards Divinity School! I know one thing: If HMS Richards were alive, he would be defending the Bible against the teachings of John Webster.”
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/louie-bishop-testifies-about-his-experience-at-la-sierra-university/
Shane,can you verify the accuracy of this story?
@James Gale, Have you personally checked out the Religion Dept. at LSU and seen who is there? I believe Richards would give each one a good swift kick out the door. Not one person in that department will stand up for God’s Truth regarding teaching “evolution as fact” which we see happening (or NOT happening) at LSU.
When I was running Educate Truth I posted a video of the new seminar class and it showed that the religion department was not at all supporting the church’s position on creation, but was in fact support the biology department.
The religion department at LSU is as heretical and apostate as the leadership of the SECC, SCC, and the NCC.
@Shane You wrote, “When I was running Educate Truth I posted a video of the new seminar class and it showed that the religion department…” Can we see the video, please.
Here is the link where it was posted. We still have the video somewhere, but I’ll have to find out where.
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/presentations/biology-seminar-111a-class-videos/
Shane, you should re-post it on Educate Truth so Jeff Kent can see it.
Doug, did you read the full version of Louie Bishop testimony. If you do, it may help clarify this issue for you. Here is the link:
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/two-conflicting-arguments-in-defense-of-la-sierra-university/