Does Wilson II, the President of the Adventist General Conference, Believe That the Earth Is Billions of Years Old?
by Ervin Taylor
by Ervin Taylor, September 3, 2014
It now appears that one of the main reasons that the recently concluded invitation-only General Conference-sponsored International Conference on the Bible and Science: Affirming Creation meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, and St. George, Utah, was organized to ensure that the Adventist Theological Society (ATS)-inspired revision of Adventist Fundamental Belief (FB) No. 6 at the 2015 General Conference session would be adopted overwhelmingly with the votes of Third World delegates. It would also make sure that the current General Conference president was reelected with no opposition.
The main targets attending the conference were Church administrators and those teaching at Adventist schools in the Third World who may not have been aware of the pressing nature of this issue to fundamentalist and conservative forces in the First World Adventist Church. ATS and their supporters in the GC administration apparently did not want to take any chances and so spent tens of thousands of dollars of Church funds and some donated money to make sure that the vote in 2015 from the Third World would go their way.
According to usually reliable sources, the ATS plan was to push its longstanding plan to change FB No. 6 wording to make sure that it says that there was a recent creation of life in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago and that there was a recent worldwide flood. However, they hoped that they could be ambiguous about the age of the earth since even some very conservative theologians belonging to the ATS have indicated publicly that the earth itself (not life) is billions of years old. However, the ordinary Adventist member may not understand the difference and might be shocked to be told that the president of the General Conference believes in an earth billions of years old, especially since the Adventist prophet was opposed to such an interpretation of Genesis.
But someone in the ATS apparently forgot to cue in the current General Conference president to make sure that he would be careful to follow the exact specifications of the ATS party line in his public statements as he usually has done in the past.
Thus, in his first speech at the conference, Wilson II not only condemned any Adventist who believed that life was old but also stated that any “real” Adventist must reject any idea that the “world [is] much older than the 6,000-odd years that Creationists believe had passed since the Earth was formed.” Uh-oh.
Where would Wilson II get the idea that a “good” Adventist had to believe that both the earth and life had to be not more than “6,000-odd” years old? A disinterested observer who was not aware of the details of Adventist history would perhaps assume that belief in the 6,000-year age of the earth was derived from the figure 4004 BC (which, of course, would be about 6,000 years ago), originally calculated by the 16th-century English scholar and Anglican Church Archbishop James Ussher.
However, if this hypothetical disinterested observer would have an opportunity to examine carefully the history of early Seventh-day Adventism, he/she would discover that for the average Adventist reader and probably Wilson II, the figure of “about 6,000 years” came from the writings of the 19th-century American mystic and charismatic visionary and co-founder of the Adventist Church, Ellen Gould Harmon-White (EGHW).
It is almost certainly true that EGHW, like most of her contemporaries belonging to the Protestant evangelical churches of her day, believed in the 6,000-year figure for creation, primarily because the Protestant version of the Bible they and she mostly used (the King James, or Authorized Version) contained in its margins the dates calculated by Ussher, including 4004 BC as the date of creation of both the earth and life on the earth.
Ever since the conclusion of the Las Vegas/St. George conference, rumors have been floating around the Adventist blogosphere and elsewhere (including the hallways of the General Conference building in Silver Spring, Maryland, thanks to the reports of informants there) to the effect that Wilson II must have misspoken (or was misquoted) in his remarks and then been quoted (or misquoted) in the pages of the Adventist Review to the effect that the earth itself is only 6,000 years old.
It has been reported by the same usually reliable sources that several in the conservative Adventist camp who are supporters of Wilson II and his allies in the ATS are now spreading the word that Wilson II really believes that the earth itself is billions of years old! He apparently was not aware of the difference between Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Young Life Creationism (YLC).
If these reports are correct, then it would seem that it would be very helpful for the ordinary Adventist to be directly informed about what the GC president actually believes on this issue. Is the earth billions of years old? Or like Ellen White, does he believe that both the creation of the world and life upon it occurred about 6,000 years ago?
Another article in the Adventist Review by him could clear this confusion up. One would think that his supporters would want him to explain his views. Or perhaps not.
Brother Erv, Nay Nay Nay. I must object most strenuously. You've got this one all wrong. You say:
"… 6,000 years” came from the writings of the 19th-century American mystic and charismatic visionary and co-founder of the Adventist Church, Ellen Gould Harmon-White (EGHW)."
This is a mis-characterisation. EGHW was no mystic. She herself would also object in the strongest possible terms. Mysticism for her was akin to spiritualism, and we know what she thought of that. She was far too much the literalist/materialist to ever countenance mysticism as representing a viable way of knowing God. As for her charisma, one must also doubt, given her materialist philosophy, if this could have been a genuine charism of the Holy pneuma, since even this pneuma was of material nature, in her view. Perhaps we are left with only one possible description of her status: psychic. 1Cor2.14 (the Grk word for 'natural' here is psychic).
As for the main point of your article, does Elder Wilson believe the earth is 6,000 or 6 trillion years old? I venture no opinion, except to observe that I find it a source of wonderment that such a non-issue could become so pivotal, vital, as you seem to suggest, to the ongoing viability of the NAD, and perhaps Australasia. I just don't get it. Unless modern SDAs are the same materialists that the founders were. If mysticism is to be avoided because it results in spiritualism, then perhaps 'religious materialism' should have been avoided because it has now resulted in a scientific materialism which truly threatens the church? Which is the greater apostasy?
Serge,
To me this sounds like a confusion of terminology. We fear the term "mystic" because of its associations in the past. To be honest, in today's world, EGW as a mystic would be correct. In its public use, at least, someone having visions would be a mystic. Nor do I believe she was a "materialist" as most of us use the term. She was quite spiritual in her religious interpretations of the Bible in meaning and principle.
I don't understand material as interchangable with "physical." As physical bodies, we are to care for ourselves and others. There is no division in the physical and spiritual in our bodies, as one influences the other.
Materialism is more an obsession with the secular, possessions, and those things we can see and hear, whether good or bad. Perhaps it is more obsessed with what feels good, immediate satisfaction than principle. The Bible talks about deeds of the "flesh" and harmful desires.
You do have a point in that we are obsessed with the material "facts"–things we can see–that determine our belief in how creation came about. While the meaning is spiritual–God created.
Unfortunately our founders did accept much of the 19th-century secular "facts" which cause confusion today because our "knowledge has increased" in both secular and religious scholarship.
Erv,
Excuse me, but I think you're waving your offended ego at us again. Sure, the shrinking chorus of people who have nothing more important to discuss will post long treatises on one side or the other. But to what eternal result? None. Get over it, Erv! It's time to man-up and find a different subject about which to write.
What I’d like to know is who appointed Noel the arbiter of what is worthwhile to write about or to discuss? He gets to pick his views of racism/politics about which to argue at length; but subjects not of interest to him are labeled as wastes of time, etc.
He gets on Erv to “man-up,” yet he can’t own up to factual misstatements. He can never defend them as factual, so he just attempts to ignore them.
Maybe some of the principles of journalistic writing I picked up from Bill Garber a lifetime ago aren’t totally forgotten. In this piece Erv quotes a usually reliable anonymous source as saying that certain elements “are now spreading the word that Wilson II really believes that the earth itself is billions of years old!” Imagine that! Usually reliable anonymous sources report that supporters of Wilson are now “spreading the word that Wilson really believes that the earth…”
Are you kidding us Erv? What kind of journalism does this purport to represent? This is tantamount to rumors about rumors—that you are now reporting as fact; or at least as something that Wilson as some sort of obligation to address.
Stephen,
Take a chill pill, man! You're letting your intolerance for the opinions of others show in high-voltage neon. Maybe it's time for you to take a vacation. Or Prozac. Or Valium. Something to help you calm down and see that not everyone thinks or sees the world as you do.
Stephen, if you check at the top of the page, you will see that Erv's article comes under the heading of 'opinion.' Rumours of rumours are perfectly entitled to appear, especially when the author fairly clearly states that they are from anonymous sources. To misuse a phrase from Wall St, 'buy the rumour!'
Actually Serge, Erv didn’t “clearly [state] that they are from anonymous sources,” but only that they are “informants” and “usually reliable.” Obviously they are anonymous, something that Erv didn’t really have say; but in all fairness, aren’t rumors about a rumor supposedly beneath the journalistic standards of this site?
Here’s the AT Mission Statement: “Adventist Today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members. Following basic principles of ethics and canons of journalism, this publication strives for fairness, candor, and good taste.”
The truth is that it would be rather interesting to hear Wilson comment on the fact that the Bible in fact gives no indication as to how long “the earth was without form and void.” But why didn’t Erv just say that?
In case you hadn’t noticed, Wilson is a punching bag of sorts for Erv. Rumors about rumors doesn’t seem fair to me; and in using them Erv may not exactly be “following basic principles of ethics and canons of journalism…[and] fairness,” Serge.
God has not called us to endless debate on topics that are never settled. He has called us to carry the Good News of Salvation by a loving, redeeming and transforming savior to the world. Please explain how any of this discussion serves that mission Jesus gave us to perform? Can ANY of you who debate endlessly show me where you have brought even ONE person to belief in Jesus in the past year? The past five years? If you can't do that, why are you distracting yourself and others away from doing what God told us to do?
Certainly we should discuss important topics, but I think the exercise of debating without rancor certain positions taken by denominational leaders is healthy and participatory, the way good Christian citizens should behave. There are some who contribute comments to AT who clearly invest serious emotional energy (perhaps one might say angst) in these discussions, and those individuals stand out from the crowd. But by and large our discussion recently has centered on the expeditionary decision by the GC president to prescribe a narrow tolerance for belief and discussion (among denominational workers) regarding the proper (and only) allowable interpretation of the creation account, and to extrapolate that account into our scientific curriculum regarding origins.This is a fairly important item. Would it be less important if the topic were Sabbath observance, and Brother Wilson announced that all denominational workers would henceforth be watched to see (for example) if they even occasionally kicked a soccer ball or tossed a Frisbee prior to sundown? Or if they added fuel to the tanks of their vehicles and paid cash during Sabbath hours? How to observe the Sabbath is explicitly taught in Exodus as not working, trading, or hiring work done but that still calls for a lot of individual decision-making and implementation. The creation account, in like fashion, presents some "problems," and how to solve those "problems" of the sun, moon, and stars being created on the fourth day (though they are the controlling orbs in the rotation of the earth itself) has led to a plethora of interpretations, often many within a lifetime. One way to help resolve these questions is to say, "Well, here we have the sticking points regarding Creationism; here are various ways to look at those problems." Adventist Today has published a book on these questions; the denomination has not (at least recently, perhaps the publishing houses feel that in the current climate, the less published on this point, the safer). I can tell you straight up and now that many persons with whom I have studied the Bible and who have accepted the Adventist doctrines would have been "lost" by a doctrinaire position of the church regarding super-literalist limits on the interpretation of Genesis. The same would have occurred if the Church had published super-prescriptive limitations on how the Sabbath is to be observed. We often say that doctrines are the steppingstones to Jesus, and they rightly are. But when a doctrinaire prescription on how those doctrines must be implemented becomes non-optional, we make stumbling blocks out of staircases. And this is an important topic of discussion….a very important topic indeed.
So, what does endless discussion without resolution do to help anyone spread the Gospel? Nothing.
Edwin, the church is dying because of endless debate like we are seeing on the topic of creation vs. evolution. How long will we let such endless debate continue destroying basic faith in God and preventing people from discovering the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that is offered to us so we can do the work He wants us to be doing? How long will you cooperate with those who are unwittingly destroying the church with their endless argument?
Perhaps this matter is on the verge of resolution one way or another, in San Antonio. The auguries seem to point that way, last I consulted the oracle.
Given the differences of opinion expressed here, what makes you think any decision made in San Antonio will resolve anything? I expect only that there will be a change in wording adopted that will just be fuel for new arguments among those who are choosing to let Satan distract them into endless argument. If anything, the volume of the arguments may be increased.
The problem is not the subject, it is that people whom God wants to be spreading the Gospel are instead lost in devoting their energies to what does not accomplish the purpose to which He called all of us. It has been my experience that God often does not give us clear understanding and resolution of issues unless we are first doing what He told us to do.
Nobody compels us to comment, or to limit ourselves to this topic. Let's enjoy the Sabbath and allow one another the honor of selecting without recriminations those topics about which we feel most deeply. Perhaps it is for this moment that AT was created in God's foresight and Providence to allow us to rise and challenge the status quo whose effect is to limit discussion and stifle those honestly engaged in the valley of decision on the question of origins, as I was as a teenager many years ago.
I came to terms with the topic at age 17, in part by studying deeply and discussing the topic at length, until one day my pastor said, "Ed, I think it's time you were baptized," and I said, "Yes, Pastor, you're absolutely right, I've been thinking the same thing." The question of origins was at one time central to whether or not I remained in the Church. How blessed that we have a site here, where we can share our frustrations and concerns, recognizing that we are not alone and that others have tread, and continue to tread, this winepress with us….
I might add that during the time of my midnight wrestling with the strongman of origins, I was extremely active, preaching from age 14 and earlier, for I truly loved the Lord through it all….
I didn't start preaching as young as you, but I was weaned on arguing about scripture and doctrine. That's just what people in the church did. They argued people into "correct doctrine." Or, at least they tried to do it. Then I learned that arguing just turns people off. For a long time that left me wandering spiritually and my faith in God died because what I was seeing of Him didn't match the old model. Then His love broke-through into my darkness and revived me into a ministry that I never would have imagined could be so effective at bringing people to Him. So I wish greatly that those for whom their spiritual existence is expressed in endless argument could enjoy the same revival God has given me.
One big lesson God has taught me in that spiritual revival is that argument about spiritual topics gives us a direct measurement of a person's distance from God and how much they imagine is the strength of their faith. In other words, the more a person argues about spiritual topics, the less they actually know God and the weaker their faith.
God has reminded me of this in recent days. A few months ago I spoke at a small, dying church about gift-based ministry and some of the things I've seen God do in the course of my ministry. At the end of the service a man came to me with intensity on his face wanting to know more. He was a former Adventist pastor who had argued himself out of the church and away from God for many years. This was his first time in the church in a long time. He was amazed to hear someone talking about experiencing God instead of just spouting facts about God and arguing issues. He began coming to church more often. Then he asked for help with some needs at his 75 year-old house. When I visited to do a need evaluation, I delievered some groceries from our church food pantry to help stretch his limited income. He's been in church every week since and is also coming to prayer meeting on Wednesday nights. Why? Because of God's love instead of argument about God. One week from tomorrow a group of us will be there in the morning to work on a number of tasks and people from two churches much closer to him than me will be helping.
What a wonderful testimony! Many times we find that those who seem most argumentative on the surface may be struggling internally far beyond our ability to comprehend. Yes, at times our denomination seems to attract and hold those with a disposition to argue—and those of us who display a touch of introversion are often are very sensitive to the harshness of continued disputation. We can ourselves argue at times, if we feel a principle is at stake, but by and large we seek interaction (or even estrangement) rather than confrontation.
That said, very early in my life somehow the insight dawned that those most brutal in their confrontational display were often precious souls in disguise, in great need of assurance and encouragement. Yes, there is a small, zealous group that seems unalterably dedicated to picking away at the faults of others and rejecting any association inside or outside the Church that comes from what they believe to be a polluted source (fears of creeping liberalism/conservatism being primary fears). Even genuine, Spirit-moved overtures of fellowship and kindness can be rejected flat-out by those consumed by this kind of zeal, and one must adopt an attitude of patience until perhaps a crisis in their lives leads them to value loving fellowship without making dire assumptions about the worthiness of the source. But by and large those prone to disagreement and disputation are themselves wrestling to try to hold onto their faith and work through difficulties in their lives. What a mission field!
Somehow the Holy Spirit has a way of combining zeal with loving bondedness among the "Peters and Pauls" who seem at unmitigated odds with one another. But often there are uncountable walls to break down and moats to ford before we reach any kind of blessed, coexistive understanding, and there seem to be instances, as well, where an individual has lost the social capability to respond, even to the most loving gestures of intended friendship in Christ. But God can and does work miracles, from time to time, even in these diabolically complex impasses.
I agree, sometimes we cringe here at AT at the apparent insensitivity of some remarks we occationally read and write. Sometimes we must be "less than literal" in our condemnation, and perceive a soul reaching out for careful help from beneath the layers of protestation and condemnation. My father, a physician, taught me this fairly early in life; don't judge a person on the basis of rhetoric alone; probe to find an avenue to the soul.
Again, what a wonderful testimony!
Edwin, what a careful and considerate reply. One can only wonder how many reasonable people have been driven away from the church–and even from Christianity and God–by the brittle and narrow (however well-meant) message of dogmatic adventism and other inflexible versions of religion.
Now something for those given to bizarre speculation: Much has been made of the year 1844 and what it means (or meant) in relation to the second advent. Much has also been made of "Darwinism" as a religion, as if some Christians simply substituted belief in Chuck Darwin for belief in Jesus.
Aha! Perhaps such people should read Darwin's "Essay of 1844" in which he described (but did not publish or distribute) an early description of his ideas about the origin of species. He was reluctant to publish his theory, in part, out of consideration for his wife, Emma, and others whose beliefs would have been challenged by it. Only after the deaths of his father and daughter were his views about divine providence solidified, and he published his views on the concept of natural selection as an important mechanism of biological change only after Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the idea. Hmmm. A crazy person might imagine that Charles Darwin was the neo-Messiah….
One can get into all sorts of trouble when one plays too much with numbers and magical explanations…. Or tries to turn science into religion.
In the debate about whether EGW meant 6,000 yers of life or the earth, I want to present what I read in an old Review & Herald. I found the piece in the library of an educational institution where I was a secretary many yeas ago. This was in a volume of articles written by EGW. On the back of one of them was another article by one of our pioneers whose name I don't remember. His article discussed the above topic and proposed that the earth was much older than life, so it was being talked about and EGW did not oppose it as wrong.
When learning about creation in college, I was taught an old-earth interpretation in Gen. 1:1 and never questioned it. This set us apart from evangelicals like those at the San Diego institution. It seems only in the last decade or more that some Adventists have claimed a YEC. Am I wrong?
Ella, I believe you are correct! The earth itself, for most Adventist can be understood to be very very old. Today it is more "life on earth" that is the problem–how old is it. "The rocks might be a million years old but when God created life, THAT was only 6000 years ago," Today, is a very typical understanding. How long ago did God create the Cambrian animals? Were they created before God created the Mammals as the strata clearly show or is the flood the answer to The Sequence Problem?
These are the cental issues in Adventist understanding of the debate I feel.
As a fall back position that recognizes solid geological reality, that might work (old earth, young life), but geology (and paleontology) also yield solid evidence of ancient life, as Darrel points out. As a young adventist at PUC, I recall debates on this issue–and I recall people suggesting that either God or Satan had recently created and placed the fossil record in geological strata to test our faith, and other bizarre attempts to explain away the evidence. I also remember that Erv Taylor was one of the bright young students who expressed skepticism of these explanations and sought a fuller understanding.
Perhaps the young life concept comes from the beginnings of recorded history. Written language, if I understand correctly, is thought to have originated between 9000 and 3200 years ago, beginning with enumeration, followed by pictographs, and later cuneiform writing. This notion draws loosely on the scriptural indication that "In the beginning was the Word…." One could speculate that humans only became "fully" human when they developed written language (or when it was "revealed" to them, somehow). Even so, written language seems to have arisen independently in several locations.
Some people clearly have no difficulty accepting and believing the 6000 year YEC scenario. Others of us just don't seem to be built that way. Are we nothing more than damned fools?
I'm wondering of it is not the answers, but the questions that are at the heart of the relentless anxiety over Genesis these days.
Since we only get answers to the questions we ask, it seems pretty important to ask the most helpful questions.
Let’s consider a question like, ‘How do we reconcile Genesis with current science?’
This is already proven to set off alarms and to launch debates that totally escape the question. This question is lost in the compulsion by many, whether rooted in science or in religion, to resolve the ruckus already swirling among people holding different positions regarding the supposed threat Genesis brings to science and vice versus.
Clearly this has not proven to be a useful question.
So, how about we change the question.
“What does it seem that the Genesis writer, and in light of biblical inspiration, God, actually, hoped the Israelites would, and by analogy we also as hearers of Genesis will, come to individually understand about ourselves and about God’s presence in our lives day by day?”
It seems that in answering this question, anyone can join in because we individually share the experience, and experience being what it is, understanding is not expected to be universally shared. And like the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church found, a shared experience rather than a share understanding of scripture is what the Holy Spirit makes the most of on our behalf.
By way of background …
John confirms that God sent Jesus, the Creator, as a human manifestation of God to specifically reiterate the Genesis explanation of who we are and what God’s presence in our lives looks like day by day and thus to remedy the generations of compounding misunderstanding that followed outsourcing the understanding of the original, simple, reassuring Genesis testimony about ourselves and about God, to tribe of Levi.
In light of this being why God sent Creator Jesus, we will find for ourselves the original and true meaning of Genesis in the Gospel of Jesus, and not in parsing long dead Hebrew words or organizing long dead remains of ancient life.
I, for one, would enjoy seeing the quilt of our individual understandings of who we are and who God is in our lives as we live them after reading Genesis and the Gospel and free from all the technical confusions.
Bill,
Along these lines, it would seem that another appropriate question would be, “What it actually means for man to have been made in God’s image and likeness?”
What value is there in asking the question unless a person is willing to surrender their concepts to God and let Him answer the question by transforming them according to His will? Until we are willing to let God be in control the question is purely rhetorical and any answer a waste of keystrokes.
Stephen, the answer is man is a creature of the Creator, and the Creator is L O V E. Although a few are maniacs, terroists, murderers, malefactors of every type, most, yes most, exhibit love to their neighbors. These that display love are at a disadvantage to the malcontents, as they will not drop the banner of love. God's chosen, those who love and honor Him express His image to the world. By their fruits ye shall know them. Then in that great day adawning, He will change that corruptable flesh into an incorruptable bodily spirit alike the Creators glorious body. A supernaturalbody that knows and is known. Praise God for that great day that is imminent for you and for me, because when we give up the ghost here, the next thing we are aware of is in the presence of our Lord God. Halelujah.
Yes, indeed, Stephen … In fact your question feels like another, if more general, way of asking the same question I asked.
But my question is, if the Genesis story is not literally true, what else in scripture is not literally true?
But many people are unwilling to ask this question, or even entertain the possibility that it needs asking.
Joe,
My sense is that literalists as well as non-literalists can equally and fully understand the intent of the author of Genesis, and by reason of inspiration, God's intent with regard to what is intended for the original hearers and in turn we, ourselves, to understand about God, the present world in which we live, and ourselves individually.
And to go down the path of attempting to establish whether Genesis is literal or not is to risk overlooking everything the author and by reason of inspiration God intends for us to understand about God, the present world in which we live, and ourselves.
I admit I am optimistic to a fault sometimes …
Joe, we know the Bible has truths and untruths, many are able to discern the allegories, metaphorics, wild stories unbelieveable, passages that speak of the individuals personal likes and dislikes, contradictions etc, etc, etc. However i believe that God uses the Bible, with its falsehoods, warts and all, to penetrate the psyche of man, convicts his heart, and leads him by the Holy Spirit to the TRUTH also embeded in the whole. Search and ye shall find the true Light that is Jesus Christ, and the love that will thrill your heart. Without LOVE, life is not worth living in this then ungodly world of horror and hatred. But God has filled the soul of man with His LOVE, and i'm absolutely certain He will restore my soul from the dust. The 23rd psalm "He restores my soul, He leads me in the paths of righteousness".
Praise Jesus, our Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, our Lord God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the Great IAM, Eternal, The ALMIGHTY.
Testimonies are the revelation of the unasalable truth of Scripture.
I am inspired by yours!
Joe,
I think that Earl has provided an excellent answer to both our questions; although I have a somewhat different take.
I agree that your question is a question that isn’t often faced squarely; and is the one that I have occasionally asked, though from an entirely different perspective. Accordingly, I don’t understand how people can believe some of the Bible’s incredibly sounding accounts and stories to be truthful accounts, yet simultaneously disbelieve other incredible sounding narratives.
By the same token, it’s difficult to comprehend how many can live to be old yet fail to perceive the hand of God (or of intentional supernatural favor) in their lives or in their experiences. Do we really believe that long and happy life in this dangerous world is entirely due to a series of fortunate coincidences and smart (or wise) individual choices? In other words, getting back to my question, do we think we are God?
Incredibly, some have expressed an affirmative answer.
So true, Stephen …. and let me respell unassailable as in unassailable truth of scripture is always found the personal testimonies rather than biblical analysis.
Bill and Stephen and Earl, I love that we can be together here in a conversation. How cool it is that the trajectories of our lives bring us together here!
I do not see this as just a "happy accident." At the same time, I do not attribute it to the "hand of God." But, I should quickly affirm that it does not bother me at all if you see God's providence at work here and elsewhere.
There is, I think, an apt metaphor here that applies well to evolution–something somewhat contrary to what many people attribute to "evolutionary thought."
Are we here just because we have survived? Are we here just because we are the smartest? Are we here because we are the strongest or meanest or most competitive? Are we here because we are the "fittest?"
In my opinion our presence here is not "random." One reason were are here is because we were born into or joined with the same religion at some point in our lives. We are here partly because we share background and friends.
Beyond that, we were not killed in military combat or automobile accidents. No one stuck a shiv into us while we were serving time for some heinous crime or mistaken identity. We have not yet died of strokes or cardiac events or liver failure. Or ebola.
Our lives have not been without risk. At the same time, others not so different from us in "goodness" or "fitness" have not survived to meet us here. Why?
Seeing all this as complicated and not easily explained does not mean that any of us is claiming to "be God." Of course, for some, the concept of God as omnipresent means that God is not only with us and in us, but that we are literally parts of God. But, of course, we know that "pantheism" is a dangerous idea that we should not think much about.
Regardless of the reasons behind the intersection of our life trajectories, I'm pleased that it is happening. I feel fortunate to know each of you and to learn from you.
Here’s the thing Brother Joe, and this I’m afraid is clearly where we differ, I accept that I can’t know what God knows, and that He does know. That is why I don’t know exactly why some people live to be old while others die horrible or accidental deaths.
But I do accept that I am not God and that God is not made in my image, that’s for sure. I realize everyone’s experiences are different Joe, but I have a hard time believing that people such as us (you, Bill, Earl, and myself) who have all lived at least three score years, have not seen enough in our individual experiences and circumstances to conclude, if not know, that 'Somebody up there likes us,' or something.
I have for whatever reason (and I think I know what it is) survived or avoided “cardiac events,” “automobile accidents,” and “mistaken identity,” that had nothing to do with my "goodness" or "fitness," or anything. I have had favorable circumstances and opportunities and have been the beneficiary of not having had to pay the full cash on delivery price of/for my own stupidity.
Experience tells me that I’m not alone.
Like you, I don’t believe that our meeting here is just a “happy accident.” Like you, “I’m pleased that it is happening [and] feel fortunate to know each of you and to learn from you.”
Very nicely explained, Joe. I share your sense of community here. It feels reassuring and refreshing.
And, I'm thinking that there is no need to consider Genesis as the result of Divine inspiration in order for any of us to approach my question with regard to what we sense the author of Genesis may have believed and hoped the hearers' of his words individually would come to understand about themselves and about God’s presence in their lives day by day. Genesis is, after all, about God and Life.
I am very much attracted to your sense that what we see about us is better explained by one thing leading to another than by everything being dependent on ongoing Divine engagement. You make a very good point about what is happening among and in and thus through us as not random. And this is surely a conversation that may well find its genesis in Genesis. And I'd like to suggest that the response to my question does not require that this matter of randomness must first be decided.
What does the author of Genesis have to say about us, the world around us, and about God in light of simply reading the story as it is translated into a familiar tongue?
This question surely can lead to a profitable conversation between, say, Elder Ted Wilson and Professor Richard Dawkins. This is possible because the question does not require that Elder Wilson or Professor Dawkins declare what they believe, only that they assess what the writer of Genesis was hopeful his readers would believe about themselves, the world around them, and about God.
I at first thought Professor might have an advantage in that he would not bring religious experiences to the conversation, though his boldness in supporting anti-religious undertakings may be a handicap.
So do you care to take a go at my question?
Either way, your bring yourself to the community in wonderfully engaging manner.
I was hopeful that a photo would have been visually displayed … alas … we'll have to link to Richard Dawkins anti-religious campaing … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg
I was hopeful that a photo would have been visually displayed … alas … we'll have to link to Richard Dawkins anti-religious campaing … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg
First of all, let me clarify that I have little confidence that Richard Dawkins would shed
much light on this issue. His claim to KNOW that God does not exist except in the minds
of humans largely disqualifies him from participating in discussions with believers. It is
difficult enough for someone like me, who claims that it is not possible to establish with
certainty that God does not exist. At the same time, I am personally unable to be certain
that God does exist or to understand the mind of God or anything about God's nature.
But I can opine about what the author of Genesis may have intended to convey.
I think s/he meant to say "We [the children of Israel] are a very special group. We worship
the one and only true God. Our God is more powerful than any other god. He has chosen
us and we are His favorite people. No one and nothing could be more powerful than our
God. He is the creator of all things! He created the sun, moon, and stars, and the earth and
everything in it. Everyone who does not worship this God is powerless to oppose Him,
and us as His chosen people. You children of Israel will always win as long as you do as
God tells you (through His prophets). All the power is on your side, if only you do as you
are told by the people God puts in charge."
In essence, the message to the Israelites is, "stick together and serve God." The message to
everyone else is, "don't mess with my people–resistance is futile."
And how does this relate to the advice of Jesus as to the character of God, and who is
is empowered by Him? The emphasis is less on the overarching POWER of God and
more on His LOVE. The emphasis is much less on being a special and select people,
and much more on the universal inclusiveness of God's love. With Jesus, so the message
seems to go, the love and grace of God is open to everyone. The only requirement is
that they believe it to be so.
It seems to me that the message of Jesus, if it was as I suggest, was a "game changer."
What we have, I think, with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination–and many others–
is an attempt to hold on to the exclusivity of the Genesis claims to the power and authority
of God and His relationship to a chosen people who obey His commands. Anything that
erodes the authoritarian and omnipotent concept of God, or the duty to obey God and His
prophets or church hierarchy, must be rejected. Internal conflict arises (in churches and in
individuals) between authoritarian dutiful obediance and living life freely and joyfully.
Joe,
We have had this discussion before, but the message of Jesus is inseparable from the words of Jesus—that is, what He is reported to have said. In any case, in terms of it being a “game changer,” how is the message of Jesus any different in essence from that of Enoch, Noah, or Abraham and Isaac, or Joseph, or anyone else?
Genesis 3:15 was the “game changer” prophecy. The author meant to convey that message. For the believers in Jesus’ universal message, with the possible exception of Genesis 1:1, that is the single most important text. (Some SDAs might argue for Genesis 2:3.)
The message and mission of Jesus was in no way, shape, or form an indication of God's relinquishing His claim of authority; or His power to do anything. If anything Jesus’ message and mission was a reinforcement of God’s authority and power. It also fully revealed His loving character.
The Adventist denomination, among others, pleads guilty of trying "to hold on" to both (if I can perhaps be so bold).
I "get" that SDAs take more than a little pride in being "a peculiar people," but
how so many members and leaders can cling desperately to a young earth notion
in the face of so much geological and fossil evidence to the contrary is almost
beyond imagining (to me–even though I grew up as a deeply committed SDA
Christian).
Is recognition of tangible reality really that threatening to the intellectual and
emotional integrity of so many SDAs? And is the church so fragile that it would
come tumbling down like a house of cards if geological and paleontological
reality were acknowledged? What sort of science education can be possible
in SDA schools and colleges if anyone willing to acknowledge reality is forced
out? Denial of reality is not mentally healthy. Is all this just some devious way
of ensuring attraction of mentally imbalanced and unquestioning tithe-payers?
Joe,
Can you or can you not simply accept that there are people who do not have confidence in the dating methodology with which you have invested faith? Never mind the dating methods; there are scientists who disagree with other (aspects of) evidence. Can you not accept that there are scientists with backgrounds that are as impressive as yours who don’t agree with you? Granted, they are in a small minority, but some of what you call evidence is based on the consensus of conjecture. Although it may seem reasonable to you, everyone doesn’t have to agree with it.
Those that don’t aren’t necessarily conspiratorialists. (Suggesting that they are implies a conspiracy.) They also are not necessarily mentally unbalanced. (Suggesting that they are indicates some intolerance.)
Stephen. Your belief in the Lord Jesus, and your salvation, is not threatened by whether planet Earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion years old. If Christians & other souls faced a litmus test on the total knowledge of the Godhead, everysingle one would be lost. But in Christ, all will be saved. i am leaning a bit on the Mormon view that with the vast universes displayed for us to see a portion and imagine the continuation of the inflation of heavenly bodies forever, due to eternity, that there will be domiciles for every immortal soul ever to have life. There will be segregation on various planets and universes according to God's wisdom. Our GOD is LOVE, He will not annihilate a single one of His immortal souls, of which we are. We are spiritual creatures. WE've lived before. We will live again. This Earthly assignment is the last outside of heavenly abode. Why would i share this view?? i believe the Holy Spirit will be heard. Should the message be not true, i will not be penalized, even as the prophets will not be penalized, as they added their personal beliefs to their inspired allotment, by the Holy Spirit. GOD IS ETERNALLY LOVE.
Earl,
You are entitled to your opinion. Joe is entitled to his opinion too. My point is that those of us (SDAs) who have a different opinion are entitled to have a different opinion than Joe without necessarily being mentally imbalanced conspiratorialists.
We are not abusers if in our schools we promote our corporate worldview to students who pay to attend our schools.
There are some heavily credentialed scientists in a variety of fields of studies or disciplines who are creationists yet not SDAs. As your faith is in Him “your belief in the Lord Jesus, and your salvation,” are likewise not threatened if the Bible is right and you are mistaken.
Dear Friends Stephen and Earl,
What concerns me most about the topic at hand–the leader of the SDA church proclaiming
that all science teachers in adventist institutions must teach only young life creationism–
is that such a position can lead to a serious distortion of science education. It becomes
miseducation, and people are paying (and wasting) their money on an inferior product
that handicaps their children and can even promote mental illness in those most vulnerable.
Science can be taught as "a body of accepted knowledge" or as "a process of obtaining and
evaluating (and reevaluating) information." [Or people can be taught that science is a secular
anti-God conspiracy]
The prevailing view of science educators (see publications of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology
Teachers, etc.) is that teaching "science as a process" is really important. People need to
know about the methods of science and how to evaluate the credibility of information.
People need to know that science deals with objectively measurable phenomena. People
need to know that the process of science is dynamic–that science is not a static body of facts.
People need to understand that science does not pretend to deal with spiritual phenomena.
So, OBJECTIVITY is one of the key concepts on which the scientific process is based.
Another is EMPIRICAL reality. So, to be studied, something must be sufficiently real
to be observed by more than one person.
Subjective phenomena can only be scientifically studied as the "reports" of individuals,
not as having objective reality in themselves. Of course, there are measurable correlates
of some intangible phenomena that allow some inferences.
People can debate all they want to about whether material/tangible objects are "real," or
not, but there comes a time when most people have to accept that some things have objective
reality–regardles of how one feels about them. Thousands of different people, whether
scientists or not, whether believers in young life or ancient life, are able to view and
measure and photograph and analyze physically tangible and real rocks, including rocks
that are fossils. The tangible reality of fossils exists regardless of what one believes one
believes about them. Can reasonable people disagree about the tangible existence of
fossils? Not much. They can disagree about what they are and what they mean, but it
would really be a stretch to claim they do not exist. Doing so would almost certainly
qualify a person as "unreasonable." Or, one can ignore their existence and define oneself
as "ignorant."
So, what about fossils? What are they? Why do they exist? How old are they? What can
be learned from them?
I'm confident that Stephen, Earl, and I could all look at a fossil specimen and agree that it
really exists. Wouldn't we ALL be able to agree it exists?
We can measure the composition of the specimen–or have others do so, and what they find
in terms of composition might vary some based on the methods or instruments they use,
but the result should not vary at all based on what they think the object is or where it came
from. It is what it is.
Where a fossil or other specimen came from–its immediate environmental context can give
some clues. That environment has physical and measurable aspects that are relevant–that
do not depend on what we believe about its location or origin. The existence of a fossil and
its environmental context (if known and fully described) are not mere matters of opinion.
While some aspects of objects can be directly measured, others can only be estimated or
inferred from direct measures. Such estimates can and do vary according to the methods used.
For this reason, several different methods are often used to generate estimates of age of
specimens. C14 is one of many such methods. It has credibility within some limits–as do
most methods–and is not credible beyond those limits. Opinions can vary about how much
confidence to place in C14 estimates, and it is valuable to compare estimates from different
labs using a variety of methods.
In my opinion, science students in fields in which specimen age estimates are important
should be exposed to the entire range of information on age estimation, including all the
strengths and weaknesses. This should certainly be true for students in SDA schools. Their
training–if it is to be credible–must objectively address the strengths and weaknesses
of the various methods without claiming that the outcome measures are wrong if they do
not yield answers that agree with the young life bias they bring to the situation. The results
are whatever they are.
People can take those objective estimates that are replicable and reliable and try to explain
them away. Or, they can just discard those results and decide not to believe in science or
objective reality–but they should get to know how the process of science works. How that
translates into a general grasp on reality is another matter. If one's grasp is already tenuous,
as in people inclined toward schizophrenia, being taught that objective and physically tangible
reality is no more real than fantasy or hallucinations, well, that increases vulnerability to
doing and saying crazy and destructive things. I don't think we want to encourage that. Do
we? Is that what we want?
And don't we want our SDA-trained health scientists to understand science as a process?
Joe,
You’ve used many words to explain why you have faith and/or confidence in the consensus of estimates based on certain dating methods that all agree are not reliable past an approximate age or date. (Doing so is like me doing the same to explain why in my view the Biblical worldview makes even more sense.)
Believe it or not, there are scientists (who are as impressively credentialed as you) who do not believe that these are reliable even up to that (consensus) age/date. For that reason and others they’ve made different evaluations and conclusions regarding fossil evidence. (Some of them even acknowledge its existence!)
I believe that in most if not all Adventists colleges and universities, the consensus conclusions are discussed to some considerable extent. In your view the credibility or ‘weight’ to which you would attach consensus conclusions is apparently lacking in Adventist higher education. That is because some/most/all use a different paradigm or rubric in evaluating all information. Having a different perspective doesn’t mean that students aren’t taught "science as a process." Needless to say, all scientists do not come to the same conclusions about everything; though they may well have used the scientific method to reach those differing conclusions.
(Personally, I do not believe it is any more possible to determine what happened on earth one billion years ago than it is to determine what would happen here one billion years into the future. Frankly, the same goes for 100,000 years.)
One should not place any more faith or confidence in any scientific method (or non-scientific method)
than is warranted. I am fine with anyone who wishes to honestly examine the evidence and the methods and provide an opinion. When one decides ahead of time what the evidence must show and mean, they are no longer using an honest scientific approach.
It would be unfair for me to claim that I know what happens now in SDA colleges and universities. Perhaps care is given to the teaching of science as a method. It was not the case when I attended PUC, but that was more than 50 years ago–and the character of science has changed ramatically during that time.
How impressive my credentials are has nothing to do with this discussion. I do not insist that you TRUST me as an authority.
I get it that you do not think anyone can know that a fossil is old, regardless of where it is found or what estimates are based on. And, it seems, you also do not care.
There are many issues in science on which there is not an absolute consensus. Careful, thinking, highly qualified and objective scientists can disagree. Their age estimates can span quite a range. But it is highly unlikely that someone is believable who decides in advance that the entire range is impossible, and thus denies all those other estimates. You can't just make up the answers in advance. If you do, you are not doing science.
But, very cool, Stephen. Not everyone has to do science–I'm just saying that they should be doing science if they are in science class.
Stephen, i believe you would be surprised should a poll be taken of SDA Phd's and other scientific regimens, as well as Religion theologians, as to the approx age of the Earth. i venture that a great majority would estimate "old age", millions or billions of years, this has been my experience in conversation with most i've encountered. Be assured that neither i nor others here view those of YEC are mentally imbalancd conspiratorialists.
We who study the sciences, biology, geology, basic sciences, etc, having experienced the great scientific production of creature comforts, medical advances, astronomy, space exploration, etc, place some confidence in their measuring of estimates of age of rock and sediment formations, fossils, etc.
But we all do not know what we don't know for a certainty.