The conference reaffirms Adventist creation doctrine. The author says he was misunderstood.
The Pacific Union Conference issued a statement March 9 distancing itself from a February Pacific Union Recorder article that affirmed evolutionary theory, triggered sustained criticism across Adventist media, and placed the denomination’s California regional conference in a dispute it had not anticipated.
Publisher Ray Tetz was direct: “The views expressed in the article ‘Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,’ which appeared in the February 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder, solely represent the perspective of author, Alberto Valenzuela, and do not constitute the policy of the Pacific Union Conference.”
The statement quoted Fundamental Belief No. 6 in full, affirming a recent six-day creation week and the Sabbath as its memorial. It also announced that Dr. Leonard Brand, emeritus professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University and a recognized defender of biblical creation, will publish a response in the May issue.
Valenzuela offered his own clarification alongside the conference statement. He apologized for the confusion and denied holding the perspective readers had attributed to him. “I am not an advocate of either Darwinian evolution or theistic evolution,” he wrote. “I fully affirm the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Fundamental Belief #6: Creation, including a literal six day creation.”
Anyone who reads that clarification and then returns to the February article will notice an issue.
The original essay called the theory of evolution “foundational, not speculative.” It cited the fossil Tiktaalik as evidence bridging fish and land animals. It dismissed intelligent design as theology dressed up as science.
The conference statement does not attempt to address this contradiction. It draws an institutional boundary, characterizes the article as a personal reflection, and moves forward. Valenzuela expresses regret for confusion without retracting a single substantive claim.
Whether the clarification reflects personal conviction or a response to institutional pressure following sustained criticism, the statement does not say.
The stakes are not theoretical. Fifteen years ago, disputes over evolution instruction at La Sierra University became a major denominational conflict that we followed on this site. Faculty, administrators, and members clashed over whether evolutionary theory was being presented in ways that contradicted the church’s doctrine of creation. That dispute was never fully resolved. For many Adventists, questions about Genesis carry doctrinal weight that extends to the Sabbath, the Fall, and the logic of redemption. An article in the official regional publication affirming evolution as established science was not going to pass without a response.
The March statement attempts to contain that response by drawing a line between the institution and the article. Whether readers accept that line, or whether they conclude the more important question is how the article appeared in the first place, will determine whether this controversy is actually over.
Brand’s May article will likely clarify which direction the conversation is heading.