Creation-Evolution Issues Focus of Meeting & Field Trips
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, August 19, 2014
Corrected August 23 and 28
This week about 300 faculty from Adventist colleges and universities, along with church administrators and pastors, are participating in an International Conference on the Bible and Science convened by the General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination at the Dixie Convention Center in St. George, Utah. The meeting includes presentations by Adventist and other Christian scholars, as well as field trips to look at various examples of geology.
Pastor Ted Wilson, the president of the GC, gave the keynote sermon last Friday morning (August 15) and made it clear that science teachers in Adventist schools are expected to believe in creation, not evolution. “As teachers on the campuses of Seventh-day Adventist academies, colleges and universities, and leaders in God’s church … hold firmly to a literal recent creation and absolutely reject theistic and general evolutionary theory,” Wilson said. “I call on you to be champions of creation based on the Biblical account and reinforced so explicitly by the Spirit of Prophecy,” he said referring to the writings of Adventist Church co-founder Ellen G. White.
Wilson pointed to Bible passages such as Genesis 1, 2 and Psalm 33:6, 9 and the writings of White to reject the Bible interpretation that each day in creation week might have lasted a long period of time, making the world older than a few thousand years. This is an interpretation widely accepted among Christians, even conservative Protestants. According to the Adventist Review, it "has crept into some Adventist schools in recent years and prompted, in part, a decision … to start organizing Bible and science conferences in 2002." The event this week is another in the series of such meetings.
Field trips during the meeting include a half day viewing the geological column in the Virgin River Gorge, most of Sabbath (August 16) touring Zion National Park and an entire day on Wednesday (August 20) on a geology tour of the Grand Canyon. More than 70 presentations will be made over the 10 days, including at least 30 of a scientific nature and nearly 40 on theology, Biblical studies and related philosophical topics (including devotionals).
Most of the presentations will be made by Adventist scholars and scientists from the Geoscience Research Institute, the research center funded by the GC, and several Adventist universities. At least four of the speakers are Christians from other denominations. Dr. Kurt Wise is a Baptist who directs the Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia. He earned a PhD in geology from Harvard University and is well known for his writing on the topic of creationism.
Dr. John Baumgardner was a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory with a PhD in geophysics and space physics from the University of California at Los Angeles. In 2005 he became a staff member at the Institute for Creation Research. In 1997, US News & World Report labeled him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." In 2005 he also began the development of a computer program to model the accumulation of mutations in a genome so that the validity of neo-Darwinian theory can be tested.
Dr. Marcus Ross is an associate professor of geology at Liberty University in Virginia. He earned a PhD in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island and was featured in a New York Times article in February 2007 about his doctoral dissertation which involved animals generally understood to have been extinct for millions of years. He is also assistant director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University.
Dr. John Whitmore is a geology professor at Cedarville University in Ohio. It is a Baptist institution fully accredited by the regional accrediting body with about 3,200 students, most in undergraduate programs. Whitmore earned his PhD at Loma Linda University.
The meeting also included a presentation on academic freedom by Dr. Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, the education director for the GC, and several opportunities for the participating science teachers to declare their position on the controversial topics under consideration. Some observers have called the meeting an exercise in "laying down the law" to Adventist scientists.
It is also important to note that on the last day of the meeting (Sunday, August 24) there will be a cluster of presentations on environmental issues. This is a new development in the long-standing Adventist interest in issues related to origins, but not out of line with the Adventist history of concern for natural living and conservation.
Adventist Today regrets misinformation that was published earlier and that has been corrected in this story.
International Conference on the Bible As Science ?
From my reading of the schedule of presentations and field trips, it seems likely that the theologians will be doing more talking than listening?
By listening I mean not just "duly noted and discarded" but actually trying to understand various points of view. But from the list of science presenters it may be easier for the theologians to listen since they should not have as much trouble understanding the limited variety of points of view.
Good scientists are trained to ask difficult questions. Good evangelists are trained to offer simple answers. No wonder they have so much trouble communicating 8-).
And so the cult-like brainwashing continues. Why pretend to do science at all if you claim to already have all the answers?
So how is it that these "geologists" explain away practically everything that is known about geology, geography, and paleontology? It is the construction and reinforcement of an alternative reality designed to indoctrinate those who are charged with the indoctrination of the youth. Can you in the church not see that you are getting trapped in a cult? Ignorance is its own reward.
How sad to see an organization that could and should be devoted to seeking truth deliberately deceiving itself and others.
I would agree that the theologians who organized this event probably intend it as indoctrination. I suspect that many of the teachers who attend this event probably view it from the other side as indoctrination.
I would not however be so quick to bash on all of the scientists in cluding those presenting. While they have certainly been chosen because of their own religious persuasions, that does not mean they will be presenting junk science. I attended a seminar organizd by my own local conference a few years ago with some but by no means all of the same presenters. The GRI scientists and their fellow-travelers made generally good presentations (including one explaining the standard model for the evolution of hominids). In the Q & A session they were reasonably candid in acknowledging what they knew and what they did not know (a fair amount of the latter) and also rebutting various "junk science" ideas that make the rounds among some Bible literalists (including the "omphalos" idea).
Joe, I can tell you that none of the science presenters attempted to "explain away practically everything that is known about geology, geography, and paleontology" or anthropology for that matter. And none of them made any rash claims about the age of the earth (a la Wilson). Of course they were presenting in a venue where the local leaders do not insist that we have to have the final answers to every question. How these same gentlemen will fare in a different venue I do not know.
I cannot say the same for the presenter from BRI. He basically trotted-out the standard Adventist Genesis rationale and did not handle questions well that departed from his prepared script. I know other Adventist theologians who could have done much better.
Joe, In response to your rather harsh criticism of 15 days ago that I just read, it doesn't sound very scientific for someone to make who was not there. (The scientific method depends on observation.)
Even though the goal of the meetings may have been indocrination (learning is indocrination), there is nothing wrong with that. It is the CEO's dogmatism and lack of understanding that ruined the atmosphere.
I admit to not knowing enough about macro-evolution to make any judgements on its specifics. You are much more knowledgeable about such things. I can only bring what I consider to be common sense to the issue. I am wondering, however, how much agnostics know about classical theology or have studied it. How many books and lectures have you heard from the other side of the issue? Do you understand the difference between materialistic science and the spiritual? Do you deny a dimension or world can exist outside this one?
Is your vision that small? Compare it to the size of space and time and what little we know about them. And what makes up the dark matter of the universe we know? How does consciousness work–where did it come from? You can't ignore the meta-physical and believe only in the physical.
And now I read there is another theory afoot. A government-sponsored research facility has just proposed that we and our universe is a hologram–an illusion.
I will comment on the work of Dr John Baumgardner, formerly of LANL.
Perhaps because of my own bent toward mathematics and physics, I find this gentleman's web site to be worth reading. And I think he has done much to boost the calibre of the output from ICR. I might add that these are not my own preferred primary sources of scientific information, but I do consult them (along with GRI) occasionally when various debates arise to see what they have to say.
I understand that Dr Taylor may not approve of or agree with the claims regarding C14 dating published by Baumgardner, Giem and others. Perhaps Dr Taylor's new book will attempt to refute these claims?
I myself consider some of what Baumgardner has published as very speculative. Notably I do not buy the speculation regarding accelerated nuclear decay, since there is no known physical mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, operable within the environmental limits where rocks could form or survive. If Baumgardner and his fellow-travelers want to advance this as a scientific theory they need to propose a physical mechanism. It is worth noting that without the assumption of accelerated neclear decay Baumgardner's own work would yield an age of 50,000 to 100,000,000 years for the sediments attributed to the Flood.
On the other hand, Baumgardner does indeed propose a physical mechanism (thermal runaway in silicates at the crust/mantle boundary) for the idea that "catastrophic plate tectonics" was involved in a relatively rapid worldwide catastrophic geological event. His is the only geophysical Flood model I have seen that has any degree of plausibility.
The third area where Baumgardner is said to be directing his attention is modeling the processes by which DNA would have to evolve to account for so-called "macro" evolution. To this point I have seen no results.
I personally speculate that within perhaps another century, the current rapid advances in molecular biology will sound the death knell for the common explanation that unguided naturalistic evolution accounts for the origin or proliferation of life forms observed today and in the fossil record. Like religious beliefs, entrenched scientific beliefs tend to die slowly even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Basically it does not happen until after all of those previously holding said beliefs die. Humans tend not to change their minds about important questions as we age.
Of course should the predicted Second Advent occur sooner, then these ideas might change more rapidly (or perhaps more slowly if God gives us a millennium to sort-out our own issues unimpeded by sin 8-). I wonder whether it will take theologians or scientists longer to change their opinions? Since I like to dabble in both I may be the one everyone else is waiting for (whether to die or to change my mind). Lord help me always to be right because it is so hard to change my mind when I am wrong!
Jim,
Thanks for your note. Does anyone really think that believing in a short (or long) age creation will cause them to be saved or lost? In my judgment the attempts to prevent students from seeing the evidence about the age of the universe is really a matter of business, and contributions. After all, we have had the TRUTH for so long, that admitting that we made a mistake would certainly cause the demise of the church.
George Saxon
I agree with Jim that current advances in the sciences are demonstrating that unguided evolution is a myth; however I imagine that the death knell will be swifter. Since the mid-1950s the scientific community has been promising they are on the edge of explaining the origin of life issue. Not only have they been unsuccessful in this endeavor but they also have not been able to successfully thwart some of the major ideas coming from the Intelligent Design movement, and after 25 year they should have been able to do this.
No doubt Darwinian evolution will be challenged by the upcoming generation who is now learning of the real problems evolutionary thought faces. Soon these young people will be in key research positions discovering more problems with the old paradigm and will likely overthrow it within a generation or two.
In my opinion, the knowledge gained in the past few years and decades has already forced dramatic changes in the way well-informed scientists think about "Darwinian" evolution. What is emerging is recognition that genetic variation and expression has many, many causes that are not "random." There are real causes and real effects, including changes in response to exposure to viruses, hormones, and other aspects of the environment. We are now aware that the incorporation of retroviruses into host genomes can have major consequences in very short time periods. Darwin and Wallace had absolutely no clue about such things.
This needs to not be some sort of fight between 19th century ideas–it can and should be an investigation of 21st century evidence. Let the evidence lead where it may. There is no need to put God in a box (especially a 19th century box). And concepts of ontogenetic and phylogenetic change need not be tied up in a "Darwinian evolution" box either. "How it is" is what we need to aim to know.
evolution is dead! Long live evolution! ?
Let's just eliminate the biology, chemistry and physics departments of all SDA schools. And while we're at it, let's just eliminate anthropology, genetics, astronomy, and most other sciences. If Genesis 1 provides all the answers to all the questions, then let's save the money, save the headache and just stop pretending to teach science.
Barry, maybe you are right. We already pay for public schools. Why should we not benefit fully from them. Regilious education could be accomplished quite well through Sabbath Schools.
Or are SDAs too committed to cultish separation from the world and protection of our youth from its dangerous evidence and ideas?
We need teachers who can present Darwinian evolution intelligently to our students in church institutions along with its flaws. Many go into the sciences in secular institutions and without a foundation in this study, they will fail in unfamiliar territory or be easily converted to secularism by peer pressure and unspiritual goals.
An old-Earth perspective is not damaging to the Christian faith but it is often associated with evolution. There are a number of creation scenarios (gap creationism and progressive creationism, to name few) that avoid the theological implications an evolutionary view of man.
The main theological problem with evolution is that this idea denies the initial creation of man. This is important because if there is no real “first Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45-47) there is no need for a second Adam (Christ). The concept that Adam descended from some other hominid wipes out a core tenet of the Christian faith—the doctrine of original sin (Romans 5:12-21). If there is no sin to atone for, there is no need for a Savior and therefore no need for Christ.
You address the elephant in the theistic evolution room quite well. While, as others have mentioned, the cosmos and inorganic earth are eividently old, we can't ignore the idea of sin and the kind of God who would create through sin.
In my opinion, all the intelligent design, various creation scenarios, and evolutionary and developmental explanatory concepts should be able to compete in an open marketplace of evidence and ideas.
Whether or not "the fall" is something real, or merely something that has been taught and believed, there are people who feel or have felt that they were estranged from God–that they were lost and had no hope. It seems to me that the fundamental message of Jesus was (as I have said before), "…the idea that you are lost and estranged from God is just not true–God loves you, and wants only the best for you. Believe that, and it will become true for you." Beyond that, nothing matters, and that Love can be the basis of Christianity.
Christianity in its purest form needs to be accessible to anyone, whether or not they can read or write, whether or not they are educated in philosophy or logic or theology. The message is simple. God loves you. That we are not disabled or condemned or enslaved by the past is a powerful and emancipating idea.
Joe,
Your conclusions about Jesus are the best one could expect from a humanistic perspective.
Previously I have written about learning to look at things through both eyes – the eye of facts and the eye of faith. In John 3 Jesus says a lot of things that bear on your comment, but they ponly make sense if you are willing to use the eye of faith. As Jesus said, it is Sprit that gives birth to Spirit. And when Jesus says He did not come to condemn the world but to save the world, He was not only talking about saving us from incorrect notions about God. Clearly if you read all of John 3 and continue on through the rest of the book, Jesus teaches that humans are lost without Him.
Now I understand that early in your professional life your eye of faith received a serious wound, and that you have found it less painful to put a patch over that eye rather than trying to rehabilitate it. That is a reasonable and understandable choice which others have also made, including several who frequent this web site.
I think we would probably agree that anyone who is unwilling or unable to use the eye of fact and only looks through the eye of faith is in or headed for some kind of cult. You might also agree with me that someone who is visually impaired in both eyes often becomes a fanatic because they cannot see the larger picture.
How best to describe someone who is unwilling or unable to use the eye of faith?
My answer is that all of us are in this condition but for the (prevenient) Grace of God.
If we take Jesus' words literally as translated and out of the context of other things He said about belief in Him the only way to be saved, we face a conundrum. Was He talking only to His audience or to the whole world, who, of course never heard of Him? The Bible must be taken as a whole, and the theme is salvation by Jesus alone throughout. I am a believer in the truth that He died for us in heavenly time at the foundation of the world. His sacrifice is retroactive and for all humanity. God is mystery and no amount of human science or evidence can explain the spiritual when we live only in the flesh and hold only on to the material.
It's also why our belief in Sabbathkeeping goes beyond creation to Christ as our rest. While we worship a day–it's Christ we should be worshipping. The seal is rest in Jesus from our works of salvation.
I would suggest interested persons look at the Mars Hill audios provided in their #122. I wouild recommend them for any theological insights. N. T. Wright is one of their contributors on this series which also discusses the "war" between creation and evolution. Search for Mars Hill.
As Joe stated, believe in Love, the Father of Love, Jesus Christ, and He is yours, and you are His, and no one can ever seperate you, ever, from the saving grace of Jesus. Jesus said "I WILL NEVER FORSAKE YOU". This is eternal wisdom.
With all due respect, some of the comments above are strikingly similar to the heresy of universalism. If all men are saved by default through Christ’s atonement for sin then there is no need for the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20, and Mark 16:15-16).
Mark 16:15-16 “He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'”
In addition, if the Good News of Christ’s atonement does not need to be announced and received by all people then the atonement would be by osmosis, and we would have no need for a Bible to tell us about it.
The Bible declares that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
Wayne,
All Christians who try to pin this question down precisely are walking on a tightrope in gusty wind. It can be done if you have lots of practice and a good balance pole, but tightrope walkers can and do fall. Thank God for safety nets. And thank God that our own salvation does not depend on our ability to understand precisely who else and how else God can and will and does save.
Early protestant reformers grappled with this problem and came up with the answer of predestination, which was their way of explaining that it was God's problem and not ours. In this sense they were more correct than most Adventists are willing to admit. The problem with this formulation was that it appears to blame God for the loss of some non-trivial fraction of sentient creatures. Though I have many close relatives who are Calvinists and I do not see them blaming God for anything, more or less than do other Christians. And among non-Calvinists are many who envision God as having a detailed plan that works-out through the various pleasant and unpleasant experiences of life. I think of this as (perhaps unwitting) neo-Calvinism. I may not understand what God is doing but I have to accept that whatever happens is simply part of God's great plan.
Arminius introduced into Calvinist thought the idaea that human choice plays an important role. Arminius framed this in terms of how humans choose to respond to God's prevenient grace. The Wesleys and the early Adventist expanded this concept greatly with their emphasis on holy living as a necessity for salvation. Meanwhile the universalists went off in an entirely different direction with their assertion that all must be saved or God is not fair. And surely God must have some way of dealing justly with the untold billions who have died (young or old) without ever being told? Does the guilt for their presumptive loss rest upon God, or upon racalcitrant Christians who never did their job, or on their own heads?
Different Christians have different answers to these important questions, and different Bible verses to back-up their different answers.
My own explanation for the benefits of sharing what I have found, is the hope that in this life others may experience the grace of the Kingdom, rather than having to wait for the life to come. Saving people is God's problem not mine. Leaving the places and the people I encounter a bit better than I found them is the best that I can do, far better than abusing them which is all too common.
There is indeed a blessing that comes from truly benevolent giving, for both the giver and the receiver. For us that blessing is NOT eternal life because this is a gift we can only receive but we cannot give. Still for all humans for all time it is more blessed to give than to receive. Why? because in giving we experience being more like God, rather than like Satan who is the chief author and practitioner of taking rather than giving. It is our privilege to share in Christ's ministry but it is not God's necessity.
The belief that we can or must do something to save others from eternal loss or torment is the animus for spiritual abuse. The history of the Christian church and also of Islam is replete with examples of extreme forms of spiritual abuse right up to the present time.
Unfortunately Adventists in our collective zeal to promote holy living and hasten the work, have fallen into this trap. Too many of us have experienced spiritual abuse within the Adventist church and schools, as recipients of this spiritual "gift" and then by passing along this "gift" to others under our control. That is one of the main reasons why some commenters here so vehemently denounce the Adventist community as a cult.
Adventists collectively are beginning to confront the problems of sexual abuse and domestic violence within our own ranks. But we remain ins serious denial about other forms of abuse including spiritual abuse.
The cure is to understand that other humans are God's children. And that we are NOT their parent or guardians except in limited and temporary circumstances (I make no apologies for parenting my own offspring but nevertheless they belong to God not to me).
One of the first things that Jesus prays in John 17 is to give-back to God all those whom God gave to Him. This should be our own first prayer whenever we try to "help" someone else, even and especially within our own families. And especially for pastors and teachers and other church leaders within their own parishes and schools. Christian unity and Christain love begin when we give-back our fellow humans to God, rather than trying to exercise control.
In John 17 Jesus is giving-back control to His Heavenly Father, not taking control. We need to learn to pray this same prayer.
Genuine acceptance of the recent statement regarding spiritual headship in the church, from the majority of the faculty of the SDA Theological Seminary, would be a welcome first step in the direction of addressing spiritual abuse within the Adventist community.
The apparent resistance to this in some quarters shows how deep-rooted is our collective denial of spiritual abuse. How deep-rooted is our need to exercise spiritual control over others. How deep-rooted is our reluctance to relinquish personal power and prerogatives in service to others.
Earl, you are a loving and unifying force.
Isn't the Good News is that you are loved and are not inherently condemned?
That you were not even born into bondage as you were told,
and you need not continue living as if you were?
It is a pity that Jesus had to die just to get your attention.
In all things, love.
But all that is just heresy…. And, of course, I am only a heretic. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Joe,
There's a good amount of heretic in each of us. It's just that some of us (you and me included) are willing to admit that we're imperfect, infused with sin and prone to asking questions that expose the gaps between us and God's ideals for us.
Actually, Bill, I admit to some of what you say. I am not perfect nor ideal. Far from it. I am just who I am. I am prone to asking questions and applying skepticism. But I just do not think any of us are infused with "sin." I think Satan is a fictional character and that "the Devil made me do it" is just an excuse to not take resposibility for one's actions. Be that as it may, I wish you well, as we both feel our ways forward.
Roman 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This statement is either true or it is not.
Calvinists did not invent predestination. It is in the Bible and Arminians acknowledge it too.
Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Ephesians 4 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…..In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."
Roman 9:22 "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Look, the concept of hell is in the Bible for a reason, as much as we might find it distasteful, but it makes sense in the light of God's perfect holiness and man's sinful and fallen state.
So while we may struggle to construct a sound theodicy to save God from some apparent malevolence with predestination, we can’t dismiss these passages simply because they are hard to reconcile. We know that “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Those of us who have trusted in Christ ought to rest in that trust. In the same way we also need to trust in Him and in His justice for the wicked, and not worry about what the lost world has to say about it. No doubt the Gospel is an offense to the world.
Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
Well as long as we are trotting out our favorite memory verses, consider a few of mine 8-).
Joshua 24:15
Jeremiah 9:23-24
Ezekiel 33:11
2 Peter 3:9
while God takes no pleasure in the distruction of the wicked, He still destroys the wicked. Why, after all would they like to be in His presense if they Hate Him, Heaven would be Hell to the person who cares nothing of the creator.
Isn't "wicked" a pretty strong term for those who are imperfect or "not saved" according to the usual Christian concept of salvation?
Am I WICKED because I find your concept of God and "sin" and "salvation" incredible?
I am not rebelling against Almighty God. I sincerely doubt that there is any afterlife to be concerned
about. I think the concept of God that is widely disseminated is at best a distorted charicature.
For this I will burn in hell? Seriously? The threat of hell is probably nothing more than a device to
promote obediance and exercise control over the gullible by the greedy.