Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 1

Faulty Analysis of La Sierra University Biology

Student Survey Provokes Unjustified Apology
Alternative title:
Near Fatal Wound from the La Sierra Biology Survey Provokes
Unjustified Apology

For more than two years the biology program at La Sierra University
(LSU) has been in the maelstrom of controversy over the teaching of
evidence-based science as opposed to young-earth creationism. This
conflict has gone so far, according to an Adventist Review article, that
some believe that the university is teaching the “theory of evolution to
biology students as the explanation for the origin of life.” i This is an
example of conflated polemics that arises when the worlds of science
and religion collide and wash over each other. The assumption that
one must exclude the other in part has been the failure to adequately
analyze the characteristics of diverse ways of knowing. It is apparent
that even in matters of religion, scientists enjoy great respect in the
modern world. But for science to be respected truthfulness has to be
an iron law not a vague aspiration, otherwise it becomes something
else.

After listening to a welter of allegations swirling around the issues, the

LSU Board of Trustees appointed a Creation-Evolution Study Group
(hereafter the “Committee”) to summarize their apprehensions of
teaching biological science in a faith-based institution. Three
allegations emerged and the Committee decided to adopt these
allegations and go directly to the students and seek their opinions. A
six-level Likert (1932) questionnaire was created and a quarter of
students that were in the biology program during the past four years
participated in the survey. Sixty-seven percent had only taken
freshman General Biology and the well-heeled four-year graduates
represented 33 percent. Twenty-nine percent were non-Adventists,
but mostly from Christian background. (see Jared Wright. Spectrum
13 May 2011.) The three allegations are important in this report and
include:

o The Biblical account of six literal consecutive 24-hour days of

creation has been discredited and labeled as merely figurative
language;
o The theory of evolution is taught as having greater scientific
merit than the Biblical account of creation and as more accurately
portraying the origin and development of life, and
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 2

o Students who maintain a traditional SDA perspective with regard

to creation are marginalized and sometimes ridiculed for holding
this position.
After the survey was taken, the Committee combined the upper two
items (“strongly agree” and “agree”) into one item called, “agree.”
The lower two items below the “neutral” response or middle choice
(“agree” and “strongly disagree”) were also combined into one item
and labelled “disagree.” Then for good measure the “neutral”
responses were combined with all the “disagree” responses, except
one important difference in question Q6. In this question, the “neutral”
was move up into the “agree.” (see below). Students filling out the
questionnaire were not told that the “neutral” response would be
turned into a “disagree” response. So what would be effect of this
non-standard procedure of collapsing the Likert scales into a “yes” /
“no” survey and shifting the “neutral” responses into “disagree?”
Especially now that we know it was the outcome from the biology
student survey which provoked the “Open Apology Letter” from the
LSU Board. The apology letter in turn, according the Adventist Review,
entered the decision matrix for withholding the Church’s five-year
accreditation that was first approved by the Adventist Accreditation
Association site visiting team.

To analyze possible distortional effects I took the same survey

questions the Committee used and also combined the “agrees”
together and the “disagrees” for each question. There was one
difference. I considered the “neutral” response as neither “agree” nor
“disagree,” and nothing more than “neutral.” The “no basis for
response” was ignored in the Committee’s report and also in this study
(this item was not moved around as was the “neutral.” In the
Committee’s report the “disagree” was discussed as a “shortcoming”
of the biology program. The Committee conducted no statistical
evaluations. ii

After calculating the percentage responses for the “agree” and

“disagree” items in each question statistical methods were applied in
the present study. These percentages make up the bar plots below
and the two graphs compare the Committee’s results (red/blue bars)
and the present study (green/orange bars). The “neutral” responses
do enter this study (but are found in the Committee’s bar graph). The
frequency for the “neutral” and “no basis for response” are each
shown below the question. For the statistical analyses we only have
one variable in each question—the “agree(s)” and “disagree(s)”— and
Chi-square goodness of fit can be used to test the null hypothesis for
each question. Using this statistical method we can determine
whether there is a significant difference in the number of “agree(s)”
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 3

responses compared to the number of “disagree(s)” responses in each

question. One degree of freedom was used. The statistical
significance of the difference is shown below each question. No
assumptions in this study were made concerning any allegations or
“shortcomings” in the biology program. That was the interest of the
Committee.

But consider one more thing about the analysis undertaken in this
study before reviewing the results. This was not a professional
conceived questionnaire (many have already pointed out its defects
and inappropriate assumptions)—surveys are difficult to create and
this one has more than its share of shortcomings. But in this analysis
the survey questions and response are all that we have, and by
working with the survey there are some important insights that can be
obtained from the student’s responses. Furthermore, this student
survey is what the LSU Committee used to report its findings to the
Board of Trustees. If nothing else, we will see the ever danger of
motivated reasoning driven by dogma and prejudice to get the desired
results even, as in this case, as the data is shifted about to support
pre-existing notions. In the present study, the wording in each
question was used to assign, as closely as possible, each question to
only one of three allegations. This allows us to presuppose, using the
statistical results from each question, whether or not the allegation
was identified in the question, and did the student’s response support
the allegation? Often, there was only a loose fit between the
allegations and the survey questions. The Committee seemed
reluctant to test its own allegations. Student responses are graphically
plotted below each question, along with comments and data
summaries.

Results of the Biology Student Survey

Allegation 1: The Biblical account of six literal consecutive

24-hour days of creation has been discredited and labeled as
merely figurative language. iii

6: Evolutionary theories were taught as the factual explanation of

the origin of life.
Present Study

41% A gree
59% Disagree
Committee

49% A gree
49% Disagree
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 4

Comments: The question is posed in the opposite direction and freshmen biology
students might find the question confusing. The question is similar to Q13 and like
Q13 it could be attached to allegation 2. This is the only question in the entire
survey where the Committee combined thirteen of the “neutral” responses to the
“agree” variable, not as in the other questions. Better students might have difficulty
knowing how to answer this declarative question because they are taught in biology
that evolutionary theories accounts for life’s unity and diversity, and not as the
“factual explanation of the origin of life.” There is a difference. The upper two bars
(green/orange) represent data from the current study. The lower two bars (red/blue)
are comprised from data from the Committee. There is no statistical difference
between “agree” and “disagree” responses, therefore the Committee’s interpretation
is NOT supported by the students responses in this question. N = 77. Statistically,
“no difference.” P = 0.1385. Neutral responses (13). No basis for response (1).

8: The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was presented in

biology classes.

60% A gree

40% Disagree

50% A gree

Comments: In the preceding two 44%years

Disagree
all incoming biology students participated in
BIOL 111A, a multiple instructor class involving both biology and theology faculty. So
it is surprising that the students did not remember taking a class where the emphasis
was on the SDA Church’s teachings on creation. A high number of responses
contained the middle option or “neutral” (10/76). Perhaps the students might be
confused by the clause “in biology classes” since BIOL 111A was taught as a seminar
where the SDA viewpoint was emphasized. The distribution does not show a
statistical difference between the “agree” and “disagree” responses. N = 76.
Statistically, “no difference,” between “agree” and “disagree” responses. P =
0.0665. Neutral responses = 10. No basis for response = 5.

9: The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was supported in

biology classes.

60% A gree

40% Disagree

40% A gree

Comment: Nearly the same question as above 53%only

Disagree
the word “presented” changed
to “supported.”
This question drew the largest “neutral” response in the study. When neutral is not
included in the “disagree” both questions show the same distribution (this should be
expected). N = 62. Statistically, “no difference,” between “agree” and “disagree”
responses. P = 0.1275. Neutral responses = 23. No basis for response = 6.
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 5

Analysis of Allegation 1: The presupposition that the “Biblical account

of creation has been discredited and labeled as merely figurative language”
was not presented or tested by specific questions in this questionnaire. In a
court of law the allegation would have no standing simply because no
evidence was presented. But the statistical results in this study removes any
doubts that the allegation is valid. The Chi-square goodness-of-fit test failed
to show a statistical difference between “agree” and “disagree” responses in
all of the above three questions. Therefore, by attaching these three
questions to this allegation and by assuming the Committee equated the
“Biblical account of six literal consecutive 24-hour days of creation” to what
they called “The SDA view of creation” the statistical results from the survey
help us to decide that we can vacate the allegation. All three questions had a
high observed frequency of “neutral” responses. When the “neutral”
responses are not included, as in this study, the students opinions in Q8
“presented” and Q9 “supported” was actually 60 percent—not the 50 percent
or 40 percent that made its way into the apology letter. These three
questions demonstrate that by combining the “neutral” with either the
“agree” or “disagree” the results were corrupted and useless. Now the
question arises, how can you account for this when the welfare of LSU is
threatened? Would the “neutral” responses combined with the “disagree”
embrace the prevailing fundamental opinions and deprive the University of
energy and vitality? For many, the official “apology” letter and ensuing
consequences answers that question.

Allegation 2: The theory of evolution is taught as having

greater scientific merit than the Biblical account of creation
and as more accurately portraying the origin and
development of life.

1: It is appropriate to present evolutionary theories in biology

classes at La Sierra University.

95% A gree
5% Disagree

92% A gree
7% Disagree
Comment: The student’s “agree(d)” to this question by 95 percent, whatever that
means. The theory of evolution continues to be tested with evidence in biology and
students recognize how the theory allows and promotes scientific inquiry in the
context of naturalistic methodology. No part of the question asks if the “theory of
evolution is taught as having greater scientific merit than the Biblical account of
creation. The allegation is incongruous since consilience between science and
religion do not overlap as disciplines. The theory of evolution has no power or
scientific merit over the Biblical account of creation. N = 88. Statistically this
question resulted in a “very significant difference” between agree and disagree. P =
<0.0001. Neutral = 3.
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 6

2: Evolution is presented as a scientific working theory in biology

classes.

88% A gree
12% Disagree

84% A gree

Comment: In view of the15% factDisagree

that evolution is always presented as a
working hypothesis, it is difficult to understand how 12 % of the students
perceived that evolution was not presented as a scientific non-working
theory. The student majority underscores that evolution was presented as a
scientific working theory. N = 87. “Very significant difference” between
agree and disagree. P = <0.0001. Neutral = 4.

3: The differences between theories, facts, and beliefs were

explained in my biology classes.

81% A gree

19% Disagree

76% A gree
24% Disagree
Comment: It is reasonable to wonder whether a “belief” is really a single
phenomenon at the level of the brain. N = 85. “Very significant difference.” P
= <0.0001. Neutral = 6.

4: The changing and always tentative nature of even strongly-

established theories was explained in my biology classes.

82% A gree

18% Disagree

74% A gree
24% methodology.
Comment: One of the rules of naturalistic Disagree N = 82. “Very
significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 6. No basis for answer =
3.

5: Data relevant to testing the strengths and weaknesses of

evolutionary theories were discussed in my biology classes.
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 7

73% A gree
27% Disagree

63% A gree

Comment: Scientific judgments presuppose “epistemic 34% Disagree

values,” coherence,
simplicity, beauty, parsimony, etc. Students understand the nature of
scientific theories. N = 79. “Very significant difference.” P =<0.0001.
Neutral = 10. No basis for answer = 2.

10: Science is an effective, but tentative, way to understand and

explain natural processes.

90% A gree
10% Disagree

83% A gree

Comment: This question only 16% Disagree

addresses one side of the allegation.
Responses show the students understand methodological naturalism. N =
84. “Very Significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 7.

12: Science and religion are valid but different ways of

understanding the world.

78% A gree
22% Disagree

67% A gree
32% Disagree
Comment: The first question that approaches a comparison between science
and religion, as distinguished between knowing and belief. The statistic
shows that the students understood the difference of the two worlds. N = 78.
“Very significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 12. No basis for
response = 1.

13: Science is unable to definitively answer questions about the

ultimate origins of human life.
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 8

75% A gree
25% Disagree

57% A gree

39% Disagree
Comment: The “neutral” and “no basis” responses were relatively high in
this question. Generally, biologists and the teaching texts do not make an
intemperate claim that “science can ultimately answer the question of the
origin of human life,”
life,” and 75 percent of the students “agreed.” The
declarative statement is a claim made by religion, not science. N = 69.
“Very significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 18. No basis for
response = 4.

Analysis of Allegation 2: Many Christian thinkers believe or argue that

evidence gathered by scientific inquiry could not possibly undermine religious
faith, for they are two different worlds. Others have a different view believing
that some of thehe tools of science—fact and reason—can even advance the
knowledge of God. But like the first allegation, the second was not directly
tested by the Committee. Apparently, the Committee was reluctant to
expect the faculty in biology to apply scientific falsification (as is done in
science) to the Biblical account of creation, and so did not bring it up directly.
It is impossible to compare scientific methodology as having “greater merit
than the Biblical account of creation…” which is implied in the allegation.
There is no way to scientifically gather data dealing with Biblical creation,
then check the validity of God’s creative methods, falsify any hypotheses that
might be created and repeat the observations over attempting to falsify a
theory of Biblical creation. The results from the survey showed that the LSU
biology students understood
underst d the methods of scientific inquiry (hypothesis-
based science). In all of the responses the statistic for “agree” was a “very
significant difference.”

Allegation 3: Students who maintain a traditional SDA

perspective with regard to creation are marginalized and
sometimes ridiculed for holding this position.

7: My professors presented helpful ways of relating science and

religious faith.

79% A gree
21% Disagree

69% A gree

30% Disagree
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 9

Comment: Committee recognized that biology professors were doing a good

job. You can see for yourself through this section. N = 78. “Very significant
difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 11. No basis for response = 2.

11: Science offers an effective way to prove beliefs about God and
God’s creation.

68% A gree
32% Disagree

52% A gree
45% Disagree
Comment: Students appeared to be confused by this question as there were
20 percent who responded with a “neutral” answer (almost as high as
“strongly agree”). Better students would know that “science does not offer
empirical evidence for “proving” beliefs about God and God’s creation.
Maybe the students thought they could help out their biology teachers by
answering “agree,” but science does not reshape the debate over whether
there is a Creator God or not, despite what some believe. N = 69.
“Significant difference.” 0.0026. Neutral = 19. No basis for response = 3.

14: Biology professors treated my questions and views on issues of

origins, science, and religious faith with dignity and respect.

88% A gree

12% Disagree

71% A gree

20% Disagree
Comment: A significantly greater percentage of the students (88 percent as
opposed to the erroneous Committee calculation of 71 percent) indicated
that their beliefs were treated with dignity and respect. The Committee
appears to distort the “shortcomings” of the biology program by combining
nine “neutral” into “disagree” choice. It has the effect of lowering “agree”
and rising “disagree.” You can see these effects in all the questions in this
section. All of the questions in this section showed significant separation
between “disagree” and “agree” in the answers. N = 74. “Very significant
difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 9. No basis for response = 8.

15: Biology professors encouraged my faith in a personal God.

Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 10

82% A gree

18% Disagree

69% A gree

24% Disagree
Comment: N = 77. “Very significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral = 7.
No basis for response = 7.

16: Biology professors supported my faithfulness to my religious

heritage.

85% A gree

15% Disagree

69% A gree

24% Disagree
Comments: N = 73. “Very significant difference.” P = <0.0001. Neutral
=11. No basis for response 7.

Analysis of Allegation 3: This section was devoted to understanding the

allegation that students enrolled in the biology program and who maintained
a traditional “SDA perspective with regard to creation” were marginalized
and sometimes ridiculed for holding this position.
position All of the responses show
“very significant difference” between “agree” and “disagree,” with the
percentages more favorable than the Committee’s analysis. If the board has
heard that biology students “are marginalized and sometimes ridiculed,”
these biology students do not agree (although one disappointed student
would be enough to be concerned). But again this allegation was not directly
made a part of the questionnaire nor is it stated in such a way as to bring to
the surface the allegations. One can say with confidence that the answers to
these questions in this section demonstrated a statistical separation greater
than P <0.0001. This goes without saying. The majority of the students
perceived that they were treated with respect and their faith in a personal
God as well as their faithfulness to religious heritage was encouraged. No
matter how hard you may try in a classroom environment it is difficult to
know when you fail to meet the needs of a student on a particular day, etc.
The 42 comments or written responses were not included in the
Memorandum.

Conclusion: Despite the fact that the student survey revealed

incompleteness in what the Committee had set out to determine, it is a
treasure chest of insightful information. The students actually passed
along important information about the biology program at LSU. But
then through the lens of fabrication, valuable insights were misread,
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 11

overlooked or lost. In this family feud, the survey said—that the LSU
biology program was performing as it was expected in a university,
and in fact expecting the professors to don the hat of a pastor too,
they stepped out and according to the survey were consistent in
supporting student’s religious pilgrimage. Judging from this survey, as
with most surveys when used as a tool for gathering opinions, the
results can be said to have not achieved perfection. This is one reason
for turning to statistics. How confident are we in the findings? The
trouble is that individuals who already had their minds made up,
possessing motivated reasoning, will not be able to see or understand
these results.

As the celebrated psychologist Leon Festinger pointed out. “A man

with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and
he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”

Many students enter a biology program in preparation for medicine

and dentistry, and other health professions. Science professors in
Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities introduce these
students to critical thinking (as in other secular universities) and they
begin by explaining that all scientific theories face potential
disturbances, although much of what they will learn is factual and
based on hard evidence (truth without certainty). This can all change
by an ugly little fact or observation. The scientific method adheres
rigidly to a set of rules (think of a game of chest) based on the success
of gaining and the growing accumulation of reliable knowledge.
Students learn the sequence of creating hypothesis, gathering data or
evidence, testing the validity of the ideas and attempting to falsify
observations or the experiment. And they learn biology through the
man-made rules of naturalistic methodology and inductive reasoning.
Creationism (in the broad meaning that a supernatural force created)
by its very nature cannot be falsified. This supernatural force is God,
and thus special creationism is a theological doctrine, which through
deductive reasoning becomes a belief.

The case study here is a classic example where a fundamentalist

wedge of the church seems to be suffering from the “curse of the cult
of certainty.” History is replete with similar examples of individuals
who are convinced they know the truth and they must act as self-
appointed “swords of the Lord.”

Of course now it is too late to unwind the damage by the Committee’s

distortion and faulty interpretation of the student survey. This should
remind us that people in contested issues sometimes may push faulty
information and data out on the table and make supposedly sound
Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 12

declarations (but you already knew this). However, seeing this out in
the open reminds us how beliefs rooted in emotions often treat facts as
irrelevant. This constant nagging on the part of the fundamentalist is
destructive and incredibly non-productive for LSU and the biological
sciences in other Adventist educational institutions (look at the past
debris fields created in every college in the Adventist educational
system beginning with Battle Creek). Church sponsored educational
institutions can fail because they place too much emphasis upon
controversial doctrines. Also, the tendency to indoctrinate rather than
enlighten (educate) could cause Adventist education to lose
intellectual respectability. What we see here is a case study of what
appears to be an agenda-driven group in the Committee trying to forge
a negative image of the science program at LSU by employing outright
data biasing to serve a particular purpose or ambition. At the end of
all of this conflict, we are likely to admire how these science teachers
stood up to this challenge and maintained a strong naturalistic
methodology in teaching science to students where a good education
made all the difference for success in the world.

T. Joe Willey received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in
neuroscience and was a postdoctoral fellow at New York University in Buffalo
and the Brain Research Institute at UCLA. He also taught neuroscience at the
Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Walla Walla and La Sierra
Universities.

T Joe Willey © May 17, 2001 Written for Spectrum Blog.

Willey, T Joe LSU Biology Student Survey 13
i
La Sierra University Gains Window to Show Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief.
Adventist Review. April 28, 2011. The suspicion that the origin of life is being taught at
La Sierra, highlighted by the critics in the Adventist Review, is absolutely false.
ii
It should be noted that Provost Steven Pawluk in his Powerpoint presentation in Jared Wrights article
also did not combine “neutral” with either “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” Pawluk was careful to
exclude “neutral” in his presentation.
None of the questions in the survey addresses the important issue whether or not the
iii

biblical creation story was “labeled as merely figurative language.”