GC President Wilson II Ex Cathedra Pronouncement: “Believe My Theology on Young Earth/Young Life Creationism or Get Out”
by Ervin Taylor
by Ervin Taylor, August 18, 2014
On August 17, 2014, the news editor of the Adventist Review (AR) reported the following: “World church President Ted N.C. Wilson forcefully asserted that life has existed on the Earth for only a few thousand years, not millions of years, as he opened an educators conference in Utah on Friday . . . [He] said teachers who believe otherwise should not call themselves Seventh-day Adventists or work in church-operated schools.” He expanded on this his view with the comment that “If one does not accept the recent six-day creation understanding, then that person is actually not a 'Seventh-day' Adventist. . . .” His remarks were made at an invitation-only meeting of what were characterized as “mainly teachers.”
He addressed his remarks specifically at those who taught at Adventist “academies, colleges and universities” (as well as "leaders in God's church") and continued by telling his listeners that they should “hold firmly to a literal recent creation and absolutely reject theistic and general evolutionary theory.” He was further quoted as having cautioned Adventist educators "against associating with scientists, humanists and 'some who claim to be Seventh-day Adventists' who have embraced an evolution-based creation theory.”
He further called on these Adventist educators to be “champions of creation based on the [b]iblical account and reinforced so explicitly by the Spirit of Prophecy,” i.e., the 19th-century views of Ellen White. According to Wilson II, they should reject a “popular teaching” that the “world [is] much older than the 6,000-odd years that Creationists believe have passed since the Earth was formed.”
He noted that that this “popular teaching . . . has crept into some Adventist schools in recent years and prompted, in part, a decision by the Adventist Church to start organizing Bible and science conferences in 2002.”
Commentary: One interpretation of what Wilson II is attempting to accomplish is to force the institutional Adventist Church to embrace overtly the kind of hyper-sectarian, anti-intellectual fundamentalism that characterized it in the early part of the 20th century. He and his supporters in the Adventist Theological Society are carrying out their long-term plan to return Adventism to what it was theologically from about 1920 to 1940. One part of that openly-declared plan is to add explicitly fundamentalist language to SDA Fundamental Belief number 6 to state that the days of creation were six, literal, 24-hour days. That plan now appears also to include a publicly-declared direct frontal assault on Adventist higher education with the intention of dismantling the intellectual and academic freedom that has come to characterize a number of Adventist academic institutions.
It may not be an exaggeration to suggest that what might literally be at stake is the theological and intellectual soul of 21st-century Adventism. To attack openly several fields of theological and scientific study in the manner that Wilson II has done will inevitably foster the kinds of intellectual and political repression that inspired the forces that organized the 16th-century Catholic Counter-Reformation and particularly that institution known as the Inquisition. What Wilson II apparently wishes to do is to be the presiding pontifical cleric of a 21st century who will establish the Adventist version of the Counter Reformation-and Inquisition with the intention of turning back the clock on Adventism and returning it to an intellectual Dark Age.
What will be interesting to watch is the public reaction of moderate and progressive Adventist academics to this public frontal assault on the freedom of open inquiry within Adventist institutions of higher education. Wilson II and his supporters have a perfect right to seek publicly to have their agenda turned into official policy in the Adventist Church. They have the advantage in that they have the control of the major avenues of communication with the average church member and can issue pronouncements in the name of official Adventism. They also have essentially unlimited funds due to their control of the GC share of the tithe.
But this is the 21st Century and there are other channels of communication, and there is now a free press in Adventism in the form of Adventist Today and Spectrum and their web sites. The question will be whether key members of the Adventist academy will publicly confront the propaganda issued by Wilson II and his supporters. The behavior of Adventist academics will be a critical element in determining whether an intellectually viable Adventism will continue to expand and flourish. If those who have led in moving Adventist theology and higher education in a positive direction over the last four decades are now rendered silent by this direct attack and a new type of Dark Age descends on our faith tradition, there may rapidly come a time when there will be little left to recommend the Adventist faith tradition to our children and grandchildren.
As additional information leaks out from this meeting of Adventist educators, it will be reported and commented upon.
~~
Erv,
I disagree with Brother Wilson in that the Theory of Evolution MUST be taught in SDA schools to show all its fatal faults, assumptions, and the many failures of its predictions. It is very easy to show how inadequate it is when it comes to creating new organs, new types of animals, and the information required to produce them. The same is true of cosmology. There is plenty of evidence for a young earth and a global flood.
Start as early as possible and integrate it with a good science program.
I am not familiar with what is being taught is SDA Elementary and High Schools in science and how well they handle the Theory of Evolution and the evidence for young life on earth. I do know that there are Home School Classes that address this very well by very qualified instructors.
Kelso Fortner
"The theory of evolution is, of course a philosophy – a philosophy which promises something “for nothing” gratis, that is) – a principal which has always been popular among the naïve, for it promises the formation and creation of order – of machines – from nonorder without any concept or teleonomy, that is “for nothing”.
It promises to bring about the creation of life spontaneously using nondirctional energy (without a concept) out of nonorder of nonliving matter. It promises the formation of the most complex biological machine, the cell – for the biological cell is an incredibly complex metabolic machine- without the necessity of know-how or machine concept. Where in the history of experimental science does one find a postulate for the construction of a machine from “raw” matter without concept, know-how, or information – merely by means of autoorganization? Whenever in the history of the world did a machine arise spontaneously from matter?
Neo-Darwinism postulates the development through chance and auto organization of the most refined coding system for a machine (the cell) ever seen. This cell machine is far more complex than any machine invented by
man. What information engineer would attribute the development of code and code-content to chance? Such a postulate would be refuted immediately in all other areas of science- except Neodarwinian biology. Plain common sense eliminates such ideas in any other realm of science but biology! But biology retains this plain nonsense in the sole interest of materialistic philosophy."
Wilder Smith
So, there you go. To be an adventist educator you must teach the big lie of YEC. So much for being devoted to truth and freedom. This spells requirement of an absolute commitment to ignorance.
So Erv, you are predicting that Fundamental Belief number 6 will be changed in 2015?
This is NOT intended to be a defense of Ted Wilson, but I do have some questions for Dr Taylor:
1) What in your opinion would constitute the minimal set of core beliefs for someone to consider themself an Adventist? And more specifically a Seventh-day Adventist? Might these include a belief that God exists? That God has miraculously intervened at some point in the history of the material cosmos that we can observe today? That God might have intentionally caused humans to appear on earth? That God might have appeared on earth in the form of Jesus Christ to save fallen humans? That Jesus Christ might at some point fulfill His reported promise to return to this earth?
2) In your opinion should employees of SDA churches, schools, etc, have an absolute inalienable right to believe and teach anything they choose? Should they have any obligation to uphold some core subset of Adventist beliefs if they expect the church to pay or subsidize their salaries?
3) I have never been a full-time employee of the SDA church or any of its institutions. In my own secular career I have always been expected to operate in the best interests of my clients and employers. Actions detrimental to the best interests of my clients and employers has always been grounds for termination of the business relationship. Should or should not this expectation hold for academic professors and researchers?
Agree with you on this Jim. Any church, almost by definition, has the right, nay duty, to set out its beliefs, core or otherwise. People usually join a church because it represents beliefs which resonate with them. Trouble with churches such as SDA, after many generations, those who are born into it, may find that there is more dissonance than resonance. I suspect this is where most of the conflict is now to be found…… among those who are born into it, baptized far too early, and for reasons of employment, or social circle, etc, do not wish to leave, but also find it difficult to 'sign off' (as I was asked to do back in 1981) on the 28FBs. Of course, if one doesnt wish to lose some things, then do a Galileo. Stay quiet, keep your head, and your job, but stay in prison.
Perfect opportunity to 'come out of her,' My people, wouldn't you agree?
Anyone who claims to hold to 28 distinct Fundamental Beliefs needs to consider which of them are truly fundamental. Jesus Christ was able to state which commandment was most important, and which was second most important. Beyond these Big Two all the others were derivative, not fundamental.
The problem for a large organization is that different people have different favorite teachings. In order to build a broad enough consensus to actually get something adopted, you have to include enough different things to give everyone something they can vote for. That is why the US Congress cannot vote a simple bill. That is also why any other document in any field of endeavor that requires broad consensus, inevitably grows more bloated the farther it progresses.
No GC session will ever vote to repeal any of the Fundamental Beliefs. So the list will inexorably and inevitably grow longer.
I have a book that traces the history of the various Christian creeds, going all the way back to the Interrogatory of Hippolytus (the earliest recorded set of baptismal questions). The same thing happened over the centuries of the early church that is happening now in the Adventist church. What started out as a set of basic questions for bringing-in converts morphed into a set of dogmatic assertions for rooting-out heretics.
Perfect opportunity to 'come out of her,' My people, wouldn't you agree?
I grew-up in a family where various topics were and are vigorously debated. I do not always agree with everything that my family says or does, but they are still my family.
One test of whether a belief is truly fundamental is whether it is worth breaking fellowship with those who differ. Jesus came to restore fellowship between God and Man. If we have the mind of Christ we will be seeking for opportunities to restore fellowship rather than to break fellowship.
From Ted Wilson on down, Adventists would be well-served to prayerfully contemplate John 17. Ditto for former Adventists and fellow-travelers.
I'll be interested to see if Dr Taylor actually replies to Jim. I doubt it.
'What will be interesting to watch is the public reaction of moderate and progressive Adventist academics to this public frontal assault on the freedom of open inquiry within Adventist institutions of higher education.'
I think I'd be willing to consider myself a 'moderate' Adventist.
My view is that such pronouncements by Pres. Wilson come close to creedalism, very much against the original spirit of our 1st generation of Adventist pioneers – as opposed to the 2nd generation of fundamentalist pioneers in the 1920s. I note the GC officially says in its own 1971 document, “Making New Light Known,” that:
'The handing down of dogma is contrary to the pioneering spirit and experience of the movement.'
For me personally, I think the current FB#6 is to be preferred. The SDA Church has the right to affirm that the creation of the world was in six days, because that is what scripture says. But I fear attempts to further 'clarify' that in fact amount to adding words to scripture, which attracts very harsh penalties (Deut. 4:2; Prob. 30:6; Rev. 22:19)
As I have said repeatedly, we don't even know if 6×24 hours of creation (144 literal hours) was time as experienced subjectively by humans (who didn't yet exist) here on earth (which didn't yet exist), or rather the angelic beings (the 'us' who were watching creation) as in heaven (which did exist). Einstein's Theory of Relativity proves time is not absolute but actually ticks away at different rates depending upon the location of the observer to the thing observed. So even in that 'literal' reading of Gen 1-2a we have a possible alternative theory, which I doubt President Wilson has turned his mind to.
Does relativity mean that heavens clock was 6 days and Earth's 4.5 billion years?
Who knows. I don't have the answer. Does anyone know how fast angels count time in heaven?
In fact, my point is that none of us probably know exactly what Gen 1-2a means or is meant to mean. At most we're all making an educated guess.
Ellen White herself admitted she didn't really know how creation occured in 6 literal days:
J'ust how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence.'[1]
That is why I think the best option is to leave the current FB#6 as it is, simply affirming what the Bible says. We can speculate on what the Bible means, but we need to realise that it is fundamentally just speculation.
Same feeling and concern Steve
Our fore fathers argued against a creed. Ellen White does not support the idea that we must all think alike. "
One man may be conversant with the Scriptures, and some particular portion of the Scripture may be especially appreciated by him; another sees another portion as very important, and thus one may present one point, and another, another point, and both may be of highest value. This is all in the order of God. But if a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists of viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinion, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may
conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing element. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls." MS Releases vol 2 p. 291
David,
These quaint messages are so easily dismissed by those whose leadership powers have failed them and who have thus become desparate to separate themselves from those with whom they differ.
Ervin, I've sent in my own blog this morning on the same topic, that for some reason has not been indexed on our home page. (https://atoday.org/article/2643/opinion/hoehn-jack/don-t-call-yourselves-seventh-day-adventists) . Thank you for your clear analysis. This is a crisis of intergrity, and one wonders how the church can impeach an administrator who steps beyond the bonds of administering the church, into purging the church. We do not elect presidents to be popes.
We elect them to serve us, not to dictate our thinking, or to settle doctrinal issues. Each Seventh-day Adventist is defined by Sabbath Observance, and Jesus Anticipation. We are not defined by our opinions on the chronology of anything.
Thank you Erv for the timely reporting. Now let me throw out a couple of questions for posters to consider. Regarding the age of the earth, I would ask, “Are Adventists interested in truth, or in defending a traditionally held view?” If we are interested in what ever the reality may be, then we probably should be welcoming all relevant data, and an open inquiry, but if all we are interest in is a defensive of a long held view, then by all means let’s quit pretending and just shut down all science programs. Secondly, let me say that while I am not much inclined to be too hard on EGW whom I very much admire for her outsized contribution in getting Adventism off the ground, it is important to be mindful that she was a child of her times, yet I suspect that the elephant in the room on this issue are her views. To the extent that this is the case, it is probably worth asking, “Was she wrong about anything, and if so, could she have been wrong about the age of the earth?”
Two excellent questions, Jan. And not easily answered. As one who has spent almost my entire life studying both the natural sciences and the Bible, I have been asking myself these very questions for many years.
Regarding your first question, the answer is probably Yes. Those who are defending the traditionsal views honestly believe they are defending truth.
What is truth? This is probably one of the most honest questions Pilate ever asked. If we all were more honest with ourselves we would be more willing to acknowledge our limitations in ascertaining and comprehending truth. When you have spent 40 years preaching and teaching the SDA message, and recruitng and supervising other preachers and teachers, it is hard to admit you might not actually know everything there is to know about God and the Bible and human nature. Likewise for those who have spent 40 years researching and teching and publishing about the natural sciences.
Whether you are an authority figure in the church or in academia or in industry, the more you achieve in your chosen field, the more you trust your own judgment and the less inclined you are to seriously listen to those who disagree with you. Most highly succesful people in any field are not terribly interested in serious and potentially threatening dialog with those who hold very different opinions. They consider it to be a waste of time, unproductive, they have better things to do with their time and with their minds, etc. This progresses to doubting the motives of anyone who dares to differ with one's own views.
In other words successful people are satisfied with what they already know or think they know. For them it is operational truth. It can be very hard to distinguish between being settled in truth and being settled in one's own mental ruts.
Of course we never observe these tendencies among the writers and commenters on this web site 8-). When was the last time you changed your own opinion about anything that was really important to you?
Jim, I, for one, learn things every day, and on most days this means that new understanding replaces what I previously thought I knew. In fact, I have been committed for many years to this pattern. Aha! So that is my rut! Changing my mind when evidence enables or requires it.
I don't feel a great need, though, to be a "defender" of my opinions. It seems to me that if people are willing and able to examine evidence, they can form their own opinions. Those opinions can (and will) differ from mine, but if they are evidence-based, so be it.
What I see as a deep and profound problem is an unwillingness to examine evidence in reasonably impartial ways–a deep commitment to opinions contrary to the best available evidence. And a commitment to teach young people distorted and bizarre ways of thinking to enable them to swallow unsupportable opinions.
Joe, my comments were not directed at you. I actually enjoy discussions with people who hold rather different opinions than mine, and/or have uncovered information that is new to me.
I seem to never have lost my innate immense childish curiosity about many different things. Some of us just never seem to grow up 8-).
I am afraid we may have jumped to conclusions. I notice that the initial news story has been significantly edited. This is the comment that I have posted on the AR website:
"Thank you for making the small but important change to the title of this news story. And thank you for providing a link to the transcript of Elder Wilson's speech.
It is easy for the innocent or careless reader to misconstrue what Elder Wilson has stated or infer something that he has not implied. Elder Wilson's speech is directed to an informed audience. He does what he is allowed to do: he moves as close to the line as possible without crossing it by making an erroneous statement. And he gives the points that he urges salience through the use of his passionate but not unduly passionate rhetoric. I find the speech to be well-written and cerebral. I look forward to explaining to others the full import and significance of what he said."
I look forward to explaining to others the full import and significance of what he said.
I look forward to your explanation. When and where will we be able to find it?
I agree with you that this speech was well-written and cerebral. I think Elder Wilson said exactly what he intended to say. I take him at face value. He apparently wishes that those who privately disagree with his stance would make for the exits with as little fanfare as possible.
Elder Wilson lives in a fish bowl. There is no such thing for him as making a personal speech to an informed audience, unless it is a very small audience indeed. When his activities are widely publicized by the Adventist PR mill and his speeches are published online there is no place to hide.
Similarly, would President Wilson expect someone who adhere's to John Walton's Cosmic Temple model of creation to 'get out of the Church'?
For those who are unfamilar, Walton effectively argues that the 6 literal days of creation describe not the material construction of the earth, but rather its inauguration. He uses the analogy of the Temple, which is the sort of ancient mindset Moses’ audience would have understood. To use a modern analogy of a restaurant:
'When does a restaurant, he says, begin to exist? It is not just when the building is finished and the kitchen is installed and the chairs and tables set up. It is when the restaurant opens for business and begins to function as a restaurant. That is when the restaurant is really created. It is not enough just for the material building to be built for that to be a restaurant. It needs to be functioning in a certain way. When it begins to function in that way, that is the date at which you would say “this restaurant began to exist.”'[1]
When you think about it logically, even though it took twenty years for Solomon to build the Temple (1 Kings 9:10), the Temple technically didn’t exist until it was inaugurated (2 Chron. 7:5). Otherwise, how could they construct the Most Holy Place, which only the High Priest was allowed to enter once a year (Heb. 9:7)?
As admitted by Adventist theologian Roy Gane from Andrews University:
'Like Seventh-day Adventists, John Walton accepts literal days in Genesis 1 and a special role for the Sabbath. It appears that we could adopt his interpretation of the Sabbath as the culmination of a week-long inauguration of God’s cosmic temple—an idea that he finds in the Bible, in agreement with some analogies in ancient Near Eastern texts—as a significant contribution to Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Sabbath. He has also enhanced our understanding by drawing attention to God’s role in assigning functions as an integral part of his creative process. Walton is right that not every day of creation brought new material into being: For example, the Sabbath was not new material.' (emphasis added)[2]
Now I am not saying I endorse Walton’s views. I am simply pointing out that there is possibly more than one way to read Genesis 1-2a literally, and to affirm 6 literal days of creation.
Surely an SDA science teacher who adhere to Walton's model, because it still affirms 6 literal days of creation?
<http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-07>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
<http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2011/03/the-lost-and-found-world-of-genesis-1.html#more>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
Interesting that this was the keynote address of a "10-day international conference on the Bible and science". Tell everyone what is the answer to the most important question. And apply not-so-subtle pressure to ignore any contravening evidence during your 10 days of field trips. I am wondering if Ted bothered to go on any of those field trips seeing as he already knows the answers?
In other words, you people should learn to study science like I study the Bible and Ellen White. First learn all of the right answers and then go looking for supporting evidence. Well to be honest, some of my science teachers taught that way as did most (but not all) of my Bible teachers.
I did have some science teachers and one Bible teacher who actually encouraged us to search for our own answers. That requires a lot more courage on the part of the teacher as well as the students. There is a huge risk that you might uncover something that you or your teacher would rather not know about.
Reading Ted's speech he does say that he intends to be there for the entire conference. It also appears that there is not likely to be much discussion of contervailing evidence. So the focus seems to be on the theology side with a nod and a wink to the science side.
I am not denigrating the organizers, who are good Adventist theologians. But if you want to take the trouble to master any question you need to study it from multiple viewpoints, including those you do not like or agree with.
"As we can see, the Spirit of Prophecy provides tremendous counsel and light on this subject. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are absolutely trustworthy and accurate. Actually, most who do not believe in Biblical creation would not believe in the Spirit of Prophecy as a defining element in historical accuracy and therefore unreliable for scientific or theological contribution.
Actually, the Spirit of Prophecy points back to the Bible. The Holy Word of God is the absolute foundation of our faith and belief. I stand here today to state that both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are absolutely reliable and are inspired by the Creator Himself. Rely on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy as the basis of your understanding of origins."
http://www.adventistreview.org/affirming-creation/%E2%80%98god%E2%80%99s-authoritative-voice%E2%80%99
Sola Scriptura ?
Several comments have raised interesting issues and questions. Some responses to just a few of them::
For example, Jan Long’s excellent question asked whether certain Adventists (could he be thinking of Wilson II and his band of supporters in the Adventist Theological Society (ATS)?] are interested in “truth or defending a traditionally held view.” Of course, Wilson II/ATS will answer that question one way and other, more objective observers will answer it in another way.
One reason for that might be that the Wilson II/ATS group seems to think that “Truth” and “Their Truth” are always and eternally identical. Sometimes we all fall into that line of thinking, but they never seem never to be able to consider carefully what is really motivating their own beliefs or the beliefs of those who disagree with them. If they would only consider carefully Jan’s comment that “We do not elect presidents to be popes. [We do not elect them] . . . to dictate our thinking, or to settle doctrinal issues.” If only that would be true, we would have peace in the Adventist Church.
As for the questions which one individual said I would never answer:
Question: What would be the minimal set core beliefs for someone to consider him/herself an Adventist?
Response: In my view, that would be up to each individual and the local Adventist Church in which he/she holds his/her membership. Who and who is not an Adventist and a member of the Adventist Church are squarely in the hands of each local Adventist Church. Thus, in that sense, Adventism has created a congregational system in the way that it defines membership and “Who is an Adventist?” Thank heaven that is not in the hands of Wilson II or his fundamentalist allies.
Question: Should employees of SDA churches, schools, etc. have an absolute, inalienable right to believe and teach anything they choose?
Response: I don’t know about the “absolute, inalienable” part, but what an individual who happens to be employed at an Adventist institution believes is his/her own business. What he/she “teaches” will be influenced by many factors, all of which will be determined at the local level of each school, college, university or other local church by the community of his peers. If it is a scientific curriculum, then his peers are other scientists, not a group of theologians and administrators.
There are a number of other interesting questions which Wilson II declaration of war on academic freedom and other important values have raised.
Thanks Ervin for your straight answers. Regarding my own list you have answered two out of three which is two more than someone else predicted 8-).
Regarding my third question, I recognize that as long as you can generate significant research funding from outside sources (typically the US taxpayers) you are considered a revenue generator rather than a cost burden in academia. In my career in industry I have never worked somewhere as either an employee or a consultant, where I was accountable only to my peers, but not to my employers or customers. I do wonder what would happen within those lofty ivory towers if the NSF took a major hit in funding? (This is not a political agenda – just a hypothetical question 😎
Consider the April 12, 1615 letter from Cardinal Belarmine to Father Foscarini. A translation can be found at http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html
Here are some excerpts.
First, a strident stance.
"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."
Finally a moderated position.
"Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false."
Jim (quoting Ted): 'As we can see, the Spirit of Prophecy provides tremendous counsel and light on this subject. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are absolutely trustworthy and accurate. Actually, most who do not believe in Biblical creation would not believe in the Spirit of Prophecy as a defining element in historical accuracy and therefore unreliable for scientific or theological contribution.'
Actually, Ellen White suggested that she didn't really know how creation worked:
'Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence.'[1]
The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are absolutely trustworthy and accurate.
Trustworthy I would agree with. Absolutely accurate? Ellen herself never made this claim about either her own writings or the Bible. She recognized all too well the problems with trying to describe the things of God in human language. Of searching through the existing body of human knowledge for explanations. of having to change her own views and revise her earlier works to reflect greater understanding.
This statement seriously suggests that Elder Wilson is trying to revert to the teachings of Bible and Ellen inerrancy that prevailed from the 1920s through the 1940s. An era some would regard as the theological dark ages of Adventism. And a teaching that was opposed by people who actually knew and worked closely with Ellen including her son and also A G Daniells.
Actually, most who do not believe in Biblical creation would not believe in the Spirit of Prophecy as a defining element in historical accuracy and therefore unreliable for scientific or theological contribution.
This strongly suggests that those who do not understand the Bible exactly as he does, do not believe the Bible. Ditto for Ellen. He refuses to acknowledge the limitations of fallible and fallen human minds to comprehend and accurately describe God, nature or history.
So we should not bother to fund history departments that do anything more than study the Bible and Ellen and look for historical confirmation of same. And our archaeologists and anthropologists should only dig where they are likely to be able to confirm the Bible and Ellen. When you get down to strata not clearly described in the Bible or Ellen you should cover up the hole and walk away. Nor would any true Adventist drill deeper into the earth's crust looking for oil. Nor would any Adventist astronomer study incoming light or other signals that appear to be older than 6,000 years because that was when light was created. Nor should our biologists use their microscopes to study micro-organisms whose creation day is not described in the Bible.
Disclaimer – we have received revelation from Ellen that she believed in electricity and germs even though they are not mentioned in the Bible. So maybe we can study these phenomena after all? But what about nuclear physics, or relativity? Neither the Bible nor Ellen mentions these phenomena so they are best avoided given the danger that they might tell us things about the cosmos that we know to be false?
Again a return to the Adventist scientific dark ages of the 1920s to 1940s.
In my childhood and youth I heard Adventist preachers saying that God would not allow our sinful space explorations to reach the moon or the other planets or (horror of horrors) to leave the solar system. This was like building a Tower of Babel all over again and God would not permit it to happen.
Now I may or may not think that NASA and its cohort are a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars, but I hardly think this endeavor has such huge theological ramifications. In my own opinion, any other sentient beings that would need to be shielded from sinful humanity are probably at least 6,000 light-years away and thus undetectable by Wilson's rules until some time in the distant future.
Elder Wilson needs to seriously consider whether he wants us to be the tail or the head. There is evidently more risk in being the head. But if we opt for the tail we incur a serious risk of lagging ever farther behind until we become irrelevant.
Apologies to other fields of study that may have to be curtailed. I meant you no slight by excluding you.
For example, what becomes of lingusts who study the history of ancient languages before the Tower of Babel? You have to stop 4,000 years ago because all the inhabitants aboard Noah's ark spoke the same language. Could we date the invention of writing to after the Tower of Babel? Was the language spoken there the Indo-European mother tongue or was it Akkadian? What about non Indo-European languages from places like Africa and Mongolia?
This list could become very long so I will forbear and desist.
Disclaimer – I happen to believe that Adam and Eve and Noah actually existed. As did Jesus and Peter and Paul. But I doubt they lived as recently as 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.
I believe in Little Red Riding Hood, Paul Bunyan, Bugs Bunny, Santa Claus, Neptune, Bigfoot, Tooth Fairy (gave me money once), Apollo, Zeus, actually existed, but I too, am fuzzy, on the time factor.
Joe: 'But SDA leadership seems to be forbidding people to give due consideration to evidence. I'm not an SDA, although I am a former SDA school teacher, as were my mother and sister. If I cared to be a member of the church I would certainly strongly oppose such restrictions on teaching young people about science and how to obtain and evaluate evidence.'
I am still struggling to see why there has to even be such restriction. The SDA position reflects the Bible, which is to say creation in 6 literal days (hang-in there with me). But the Bible doesn't talk about evolution, whether for or against. That is an extra-biblical discussion.
As far as I know, there are at least three different theological models that an SDA science teacher or academic could adhere to, which does uphold creation in 6 literal days, but without necessarily limitating thoughts on scientific origins:
1. The 'Heaven-Centric' model
As I have explained previously, this is the observation that time is not constant but in fact relative. Atomic clocks in space proove this 100%.
So is Genesis 1-2a actually 6 literal days of creation from the perspective of God and the angels in heaven, not human beings (who didn't yet exist) on earth (which didn't yet exist)? That would be a more 'literal' reading of the Bible. And how fast do angels count time in heaven – who knows?
2. John Walton’s ‘Cosmic Temple’ model
Walton effectively argues that the 6 literal days of creation describe not the material construction of the earth, but rather its inauguration. He uses the analogy of the Temple, which is the sort of ancient near-eastern mindset Moses’ audience would have understood.
Walton uses the modern analogy of a restaurant:
'When does a restaurant, he says, begin to exist? It is not just when the building is finished and the kitchen is installed and the chairs and tables set up. It is when the restaurant opens for business and begins to function as a restaurant. That is when the restaurant is really created. It is not enough just for the material building to be built for that to be a restaurant. It needs to be functioning in a certain way. When it begins to function in that way, that is the date at which you would say “this restaurant began to exist.”'[1]
3. The ‘Omphalos’ model
As Serge rightly pointed out, the ‘Omphalos’ model is a third alternative way of affirming 6 literal days of creation. It is actually a very old theory, originating from an 1857 book by Phillip Henry Goose, where:
'Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.
…Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches.'[1]
Some might mock these three models of creation, but it seems the GRI doesn't have its own model. With all respect, if there is to be any blame (or sympathy) in this whole discussion, then much of it lies with the GRI itself.
I do wonder how dogmatic the official world Adventist leadership can be on this subject, when its own handpicked scientists can’t even offer a viable model.[1] The GRI also quite honestly lists a range of common anti-evolution arguments and conspiracy theories, which they say Creationists should avoid.[2]
In the absence of the GRI (and by extension the world Adventist leadership) resolving these issues, then presumably it would be open to all Adventists, including any employed SDA science teacher or academic, to pick any model provided it affirmed 6 literal days of creation. And as outlined above, there is more than just one model of 6 literal days of creation.
< http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s9-07>, retrieved 19 Aug 14.
So, perhaps there will be a major exodus of SDA science teachers who will go to secular schools systems where they will surely be much better paid. When my Mom left SDA teaching for public school her salary more than doubled.
There are many opportunities to teach in STEM (science, technology, engineering, & math) programs in both public and private schools. Sensible SDA science teachers will look into these opportunities and weigh their options.
Has Elder Wilson bought into the view shared by most all athiests, that evolution is the opposite of creation? The opposite of created is not created. Created or not created is the question theologians and clerics should be addressing.
He seems to have bought into the idea that created recently is the opposite of everything else, whether created on some other schedule or in some other way, or created by God in His own way and on His own schedule, or that there is no God. I agree that the battle should not be over WHEN.
And, since science cannot and does not prove there is no God, what's the problem? I differ with atheists on this–even though I am not really a believer either.
Erv,
It just comes across to me as a bit bizarre that you would liken believing the Bible to the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation rather than to the Protestant Reformation. The suggested parallel simply does not fit.
Plus, your piece would be much more believable if you could name at least one Bible story that you believed actually happened as written. To denounce Wilson as a Catholic-like dignitary who wants to subvert the authority of the Bible by … tradition? … would come across as much more believable if the author of the denuciatory piece stood solidly for the supreme authority of the Word of God.
"… there may rapidly come a time when there will be little left to recommend the Adventist faith tradition to our children and grandchildren."
But you don't believe the Adventist faith, right? So why would you care?
But you don't believe the Adventist faith, right? So why would you care?
It seems a distinct possibility that on both hands are those seeking vindication for their own personal views.
At the restoration of all things it will be God who is vindicated, not any human (not even Ellen or any of the Bible authors or clerics or theologians or evangelists or historians or scientists or engineers or practitioners of the healing arts). And God will graciously accord us another millennium to sort-out our own personal issues. And we will probably need it.
SDA teachers in SDA institutions must teach what SDA doctrine interprets as Biblical truth. Whether they believe it or not are actually separate issues it seems to me. If they don’t believe whatever Adventist doctrine interprets as Biblical truth then they have a personal intellectual integrity issue at hand; because they are taking compensation from Adventists.
If they can’t reconcile any differences between what they personally believe and what the denomination doctrinally believes and promulgates as truth, they should simply seek gainful employment elsewhere. Teachers are accountable to department chair personnel, who are accountable to institutional academic administrators, who are accountable to the institutional president, who is accountable to the trustee board.
The board is responsible to the constituencies, which is inclusive of students and their ‘sponsors,’ the church, accrediting bodies (as the case may be), the alumni, and faculty/staff. (Sadly, Adventist boards/institutions are in a position to also be held accountable by government.)
Whew! The plethora of issues swirling in this area are all worthy of thought. Where to start.
That said, we have created our own monster by allowing some in our church for whom power and control is of primary importance to so narrowly restrict the definition of what is orthodox that even moderates are beginning to chafe. It will be one thiang to go through "the shaking" when it occurs as a matter of course. It is something altogether different, in the name of control to conciously and intentionally create it in the misguided desire to purify the church. A return to the Adventism of the 20s-50s is not the Adventism of Ellen White; nor is it the Adventism of most in the Adventist pew. It is the distorted Adventism of a few who without meaning to, are in the process of destroying our church.
It could be the beginning of the end of the Adventist Church as we know it.
Moose,
I've never looked for an "I was shown" statement about the age of the earth, but the biblical chronology is fairly easy to put together. No manuscripts that I know of allow for a 25,000 year old earth. The only real wiggle room, as far as Palestinian villages go, is the date of Peleg's birth, since the dispersion from Babel is tied to him. Since those villages presumably would not be occupied before the dispersion, one could make a case for using a textual tradition that pushed back his birth a little, but it wouldn't be much, certainly not enough to make the biblical record harmonize.with the thinking of many of today's archaeologists.
As far as Horn's date for those villages go, on what basis did he arrive at that conclusion? Courville claimed that the chronology of the ancient world was tied to a list of Egyptian dynasties, which over time has collapsed in length because it has been discovered that certain dynasties were contemporaneous and ruling over different parts of Egypt rather than consecutive. Courville asserted that that list of dynasties needed to be collapsed further in length of time. And why not, if by doing so we can obtain greater harmony between reconstructed ancient chronologies and the historical biblical record?
Moose,
"That said, we have created our own monster by allowing some in our church for whom power and control is of primary importance to so narrowly restrict the definition of what is orthodox that even moderates are beginning to chafe."
I don't know of any "moderates" who would chafe at Elder Wilson rejecting "a popular teaching that each day in the biblical creation week might have lasted millions of years, thereby making the world much older than the 6,000-odd years that Creationists believe have passed since the Earth was formed." I think that Erv's omission of part of the sentence left an impression contrary to the article Erv refers to. The article isn't contrasting 6,000 years with 25,000 years, but 6,000 years since creation with 6 x millions of years. 25,000 isn't much older than 6,000, in that context.
That being said, I do believe the earth is about 6,000 years old.
Depends on what the meaning of "about" is.
I don't think there is any question about what I mean when I say that I believe that the earth is "about" 6,000 years old. You certainly don't have any question what I mean, do you?
I, too, am "about" 6,000 yeas old.
Bob,
Just one thought.
You imply that if you don't believe in a 6000 year old Creation you are not a Creationist.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I not only believe in a fiat creation by God of the universe several million years ago – including the inorganic rock, without form and void of any life, (Note my other post below) I believe in fiat 6 day creation of all of the organic components – flowers, birds, trees, whales, wolves, man, etc. – by God. It is not accurate to consign those who believe such to the camp of either deists or evolutionists. It might work well as a polemic but it is not accurate.
Jim and Ervin, and kindred spirits, your church "wife" has filed for divorce. You stand accused of infidelity. Time for you and kindred spirits to surrender, pack your stuff, get out! Don't cry. Sing a new song! Free at last, free at last! Wilson is correct. Not so much ex cathedra, more ipso facto (there is technical difference)! He's the boss and has the job of defining and enforcing the laws of the club. Take some time to purge. `I know, difficult if not impossible. You have spent your lives defending the defenseless. The doctrinal lemons you have spent decades messaging have produced no lemonade, only squishy, sour, intellectual accommodations, placebos, as valueless as pulp. You have left the church and it has left you, take your pick, both are true. Confess, revert or exit. Man up!
Now that judgment day has arrived, the question I have for you and the others is, what price have you paid for your commitment to a spouse intellectually divorced from you for a long, long time?
I'm aware that marriages have different attractions, not the same for everyone. There are countless psychological, emotional, dependent and relational, and rational/irrational components that either keep couples to together or finally contribute to splitsville. Wild speculation on my part, but it's my conjecture that thinking people don't stay attached to Adventism because of it doctrines, but in spite of them. You have had to drink the cool aide of mental reservations to stomach bizarre doctrines (including a baby earth) so you are bound by other attachments (power base, perhaps?). My question is, what right do you have to compel the club to adjust its doctrines to meet your criteria? Those critics are correct who say a church with your viewpoints would no longer be SDA.
Start your own version of a church with your rules. I left the Adventist church about forty years ago because of a whole range of mental gymnastics I could no longer stomach. I realized I was no longer SDA. You really aren't either.
Although from what I’ve read I would classify Erv and Jim together as such; I personally think that much of what you say here Larry makes perfect sense. It is interesting to note that no one had anything to say about it. Sometimes truth is self-evident to that extent.
Correction: …wouldn’t classify Erv and Jim together…
He's the boss and has the job of defining and enforcing the laws of the club.
Well that is not the club I belong to. According to a recently released statement from most of the SDA Theological Seminary faculty, Christ is the sole head of His club. If Wilson is in Christ's club, then Wilson is a servant and not the boss. He may be a bigger part of the body than I, but he is certainly not the head.
Of course if you do not believe in Jesus Christ then it would be hard to understand His club, musch less join it. And should you find yourself in or near it, it might actually make more sense to leave if you cannot or prefer not to look for and hang-out with the Head. Why? Because His club is a fan club. Would anyone want to be part of a fan club if they do not know or like the object of all the adoration?
What club has your membership, Jim? If Christ is the sole Head of His Club, why bother with the SDA club? Apparently they aren't the same in your estimation, a conclusion I reached forty years ago. So, maybe we agree!
Your invective attempts to sully my faith, but without success! I think it is an attempt to ignore the truth of the entirety of my post. Adventism is based on the concept of inerrancy of Scripture. Mental gymnastics won't change that. Your marriage is doomed by irreconcilable differences!
Well as I see it, the Jesus fan club is actually a fairly large club. The chapter that I belong to (Adventists in general and our local congregation in particular) happens to function well enough for me.
Apparently the Adventist church in general did not function well enough for you, I like ot think that if you tried our local congregation you might be in for some surprises. We are certainly far from perfect, as I am sure you are also.
In any case, I do not discount the possibility that your "love guy" fan club might actually turn out to another chapter of the Jesus fan club (remember that altar to the Unknown God in Athens?). Nor should you should discount that possibility.
Have you not heard of the historical concept of the invisible church? Looks like you have blown my cover! That's OK. Although I'm not sure if you intended "love guy" a pejorative or a complement.
But you have ignored my charge that thinking people don't remain SDA because of the doctrines, but in spite of them. Perhaps you are avoiding reply because you are keeping mum as an external ruse for the purpose of concealing your membership in the Invisible Church!
I would like to know whose bright idea it was to insist that our faith must be supported by science. The Bible and science, they seem to say, are related. They are not. Science is a secular method of systematic doubt that has provided many useful explanations for how nature works. The Bible has no science in it. We go to the Bible to find or deepen faith, and to find meaning. When we rail against science in defense of our faith, we have already lost the argument by giving to science a power it does not deserve in an arena where it does not belong.
To the extent that we can ascertain correlations between the Bible and science they are related. To the extent that we cannot they are not.
Admittedly this is a scientific answer to your question 8-).
Admittedly this answer does not work for those who insist that either science (for science fanatics) ot the Bible (for Bible fanatics) must answer every important question.
Science does answer important questions. The Bible does answer important questions. Sometimes there is a correlation. Sometimes there isn't. Some important questions are answered by both. Some important questions are answered by neither.
Bah humbug! That is my final answer! At first I had the same impression as Joe. But then it seemed too good. So after about ten seconds I reached the Final Answer: Religion and science is an inseparable amalgam of strange bedfellows (I borrowed this from a war analogy). The purity you seek doesn’t exist in the real world. (I think you are actually decrying the actual world). Sorry Fred. Nice try. Dreamsville. On analysis your ideal is endlessly confounded in most Christian discourse. Christian thought is the arena, the gym where ideas work out on the machines of scientific foundations and endless challenges.
Hi Fred, as I began to read your statement above, I was getting prepared to disagree with you; but by the end, I find that I quite agree with your last sentence.
Science is not equipped to dabble in spiritual matters.
Science gathers factual evidence and evaluates it. Scientists do attempt to figure out what the evidence means, and in the process, they make guesses about meaning and, ideally, those guesses are made in ways that are testable. Science is neither religious or secular, but it is not able to step outside tangible, physical reality into intangible or spiritual dimensions. Those are the dimensions in which faith functions.
Tangible physical reality does not require faith. In fact, faith has no value in deciding whether something tangible and physical exists or not. It does physically exist. No faith is required to know that. Scientific methods have revealed much about the tangible physical world, and has, indeed, "provided many useful explanations for how nature works."
Faith can add value to established facts by exploring meaning, but faith does not need to invent alternate physical realities to do so. As you say, faith and science do not need to compete. In fact, there is hardly any such things as competition between faith and science except when people deliberately inject one or the other into "an arena where it does not belong."
Yes, The Bible is a faith book, it is not a science book or text book, and it should not be treated as such. Why not just treat The Bible as what it is?
Joe,
The problem is that some people out there insist on proposing theories based on inferences that explicitly conflict with the historical record of Scripture. If they would stop doing so, that would be great.
If premises are incorrect, conclusions based on them are faulty. There is no historical, geological, record in Scripture. Therefore it has no explanation for the age of the earth. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but it has no universal application.
What you wish and choose to ignore is that there are countless mountains of factual evidence that show earth and life to be very, very old. The scriptural account is rather obviously a folk tale that does not match the facts as revealed by nature. Many people recognize this, while other stubbornly refuse to face facts. Genesis is neither a science book nor a history book. But, love could bring us all together.
It has been said (someone may recognize the source):
"In essentials, unity.
In nonessentials, liberty.
In all things, love."
But Joe, true love demands that we have standards, and blatant unbelief in the Word of God is incompatible with child-like faith. We have to draw the line somewhere. Let's put it another way. How can you genuinely love a person if you adamantly refuse to believe what they say? What you are therefore proposing is that the church welcome as members in good and regular standing those who refuse to love God to the point that they believe Him.
As far as your first sentence goes, I'll rewrite it: "What you wish and choose to ignore is that there are countless mountains of factual evidence that show earth and life to be about 6,000 years old." Certainly you can list inferences that seem to say otherwise, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is evidence that supports a recent creation. And I would say that your "countless mountains" wording is a gross exaggeration.
Bob, what you seem to be saying is that if someone does not believe the same things about God and scripture as you do, they are, of course, unworthy of love or fellowship in your church.
Even though you are unwilling and unable to see that all of nature testifies to a long enduring existence, and that essentially nothing but some ancient writings by people (who could not have understood what is clear today) suggest otherwise, you are so deeply invested in your view that you are entirely blind to the clear revelation of nature. You can rewrite anything you like and assert whatever you wish to–but that will never make it so. Even so, you are entirely free to believe what you wish. Sadly, you cannot extend the same right to others. Everyone is wrong who does not believe as you do. Oh well….
If people stopped proposing theories based on inferences that explicitly conflict with the historical record of Scripture, and if people stopped proposing theories based on inferences that explicitly conflict with the empirical evidence of Science, then we might collectively have to acknowledge how little we rally know with a high degree of certainty.
Simply lobbing rhetorical grenades at those with whom we differ may produce smoke and noise and collateral damage to nearby persons and objects. It does not yield understanding or enlightenment. To have any hope of achieving the latter one must take the trouble to actually study and understand the views of those with whom we differ, and to allow for the possibility that they might know something we don't know, and that we might be able to learn something from them.
It is difficult to communicate your ideas effectively to different people if you do not take the trouble to learn and understand their language. Understanding another language is not just consulting a pocket lexicon. "Jede neue Sprache giebt eine neue Seele" was the most important thing I learnt in German class.
Joe,
"Bob, what you seem to be saying is that if someone does not believe the same things about God and scripture as you do, they are, of course, unworthy of love or fellowship in your church."
I never said such a thing. But it is a fact that those who refuse to believe what God has explicitly stated in His Word are not Seventh-day Adventists in good and regular standing since they are living in opposition to the fundamental belief that says that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice.
"Even though you are unwilling and unable to see that all of nature testifies to a long enduring existence, and that essentially nothing but some ancient writings by people (who could not have understood what is clear today) suggest otherwise, …"
Your statement, in light of what we have already discussed elsewhere, suggests, rightly or wrongly, closemindedness and lack of objectivity, which are both unbecoming in a scientist. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones testifies of a long and enduring existence? Pb and He retention rates in deeply buried Precambrian zircon crystals testifies of a long and enduring existence? How so?
But Joe, in all fairness, I must thank you and Chris for being forthright about where this sort of skepticism leads. Neither of you believe the Bible, and neither of you are reticent about saying so. That will make many less likely to buy into Erv and Jack's reasoning.
Right Jim. Learning another language does not make you into a new person. But, in some ways, being able to hear things differently can help one become a changed person. Hearing more sources may broaden the spectrum of information to which one is exposed.
Perhaps you are correct, Bob, but it was actually being open minded and objective that led me to be skeptical of the claims of inerrancy of scripture. I came to find those claims just plain unbelievable in the light of evidence. You have picked a few ostensible mysteries as a basis for rejecting billions of tons of real and tangible evidence. You will believe as you do because your mind is locked tightly and desperately to your concept of God and scripture. Not that there is anything wrong with that childlike faith.
As a child I believed this: "Jesus loves me. Nothing else matters."
That may well be enough. But as soon as this is cluttered up with all sorts of extra stuff, including
requiring that others believe whatever I believe–that ceases to be the simple wisdom of childhood.
As one matures, if one does, it turns out that some other things do matter, and that we must engage
with the world as it really exists (or we can lock ourselves into an exclusive and elitist little cult where
we find some people who will claim to believe as we do and give support to our literalist concepts).
If you can believe that what is written in the Bible is literally words from God, by all means do so, and cling to that concept for as long as you can believe it. I do not find it believable–not because I started out to be skeptical of it, quite the contrary. I believed it for as long as I could.
Why is it difficult if not inconceivable for you to understand that it is quite possible to “engage with the world as it really exists” while also believing that the Bible is inspired by God; and that God could have done anything—including what the Bible says He did?
Who is the "elitist" in this thinking? How can you consider yourself any less ignorant than those who don’t buy into the same assumptions and confirmation biases that you do, yet not consider yourself elitist?
What anyone considers to be "evidence" is largely affected and/or influenced by their biases.
Dear Stephen. I urge you to cherish the great gift you have been given–the abilty to believe what you believe, which seems to include that you have been granted that gift by God because He sees something special and worthy in you. As humble about that as you might feel, you also feel honored, and rightly so. You have been chosen to be among God's elite, and that has to be pretty cool.
According to that manner of thinking, I am one of those NOT blessed with the ability to believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and whatever else you are able to just accept. As a child, I lived in a tar paper clad cabin without indoor plumbing or electricity–hardly elite origins. But I was blessed with living in the midst of an edenic wilderness, where I learned about plants and animals and geology and life. And there were plenty of books. Not just The Bible and all those red books, but encyclopedias and animal stories and adventure tales, and National Geographic, and lots and lots of other books.
Of course I learned along the way that "God could have done anything." And the study of nature and natural history is not anti-God. What I was learning was not what God "could have done," but what actually occurred. God COULD have done anything, but what actually happened does not align with the Genesis account. That does not negate the existence of God or His power. It just reveals the Genesis story to be just that: a story. A folk tale. A tradition.
We are all ignorant, of course. Attention enables us to focus. To be aware of some things, we must and do ignore other things. I do consider people ignorant who deliberately choose to ignore facts of nature (e.g., fossils and genomic information) while advancing arguments about origins that are inconsistant with objective evidence. Worst of all, they make great efforts to teach their children how to be deliberately ignorant–how to avoid valuing objective information, and how to avoid regarding the real world as real.
So, yes, believe what you can believe. Rationalize that evidence is not really evidence, no matter how rock solid it may look, "evidence" is only what the always profoundly biased observer thinks it is, there is no such thing as solidly objective evidence. Reality is not real. Unless, of course, it aligns with what you believe. When one gets lost in such a never-never land of unknowable spirituality, one does need some sort of salvation.
Go for it, my dear brother. I'm so far gone that I don't even envy you or covet the great gift that you have been selected to receive. I wish you well.
Dear Joe,
You've used such phrases as “…what actually happened…,” and “I do consider people ignorant who deliberately choose to ignore facts of nature…,” “teach their children how to be deliberately ignorant…,” and “objective information,” and “the real world as real,” etc.; yet manage to call other people elitists. (Let’s face it, anyone who claims to know “what actually happened” billions of years ago must at least qualify as elite.)
Try as you might Joe this represents a trail that is impossible to camouflage. (You seem to be increasing in zeal.)
This may be hard to believe, but there are Bible-believing folk who have also been exposed to “encyclopedias and animal stories and adventure tales, and National Geographic,” etc.; many of whom (believe it or not) have never heard of “those red books.”
Which brings me to this novel concept: why not allow people to believe whatever it is that they believe without calling them ignorant; or, for that matter, elitists?
Besides, just because you consider me elite does not make me an elitist Joe.
Joe,
"Rationalize that evidence is not really evidence, no matter how rock solid it may look, "evidence" is only what the always profoundly biased observer thinks it is, there is no such thing as solidly objective evidence. Reality is not real."
But don't you do that yourself? Lack of erosion between layers at the Grand Canyon? Po-218 halos in Precambrian granites? Soft tissue in dinosaur bones? Lack of transitional forms? Widespread, uniform deposits laid down by water action? etc. etc.
Bob, the frailty of your baby earth position is loudly announced by the puny evidence you display in defense. Are you sure you aren't a defense lawyer? They resort to the flimsiest "facts" to defend clients whose crimes were openly committed in hopes of diverting attention from reality. You are entitled to your skepticism bolstered by interpretative minutiae, but the "crime" of geology is open for all to see.
Your view is a religious belief. Leave it at that.
If it's so flimsy, how come no scientist has been able to explain the Po-218 halos without resorting to explanations that have already been falsified?
The fact of the matter is that there is an element of religion in pretty much everyone's beliefs about origins, denials notwithstanding.
Bob, as you may have determined already, I am not a scientist and I cannot digest or answer your "question." But I know a rhetorical questions when I see one. It is a mental flash-bang in a discussion, a diversionary device. In your case, it is your little mouse exposed to the elephant of observable facts. In every science there are issues that rise to the level of rhetorical question, but don’t remotely defeat the general premise or contradict the evident. Take my advice, publically proclaim that you like the idea of Scriptural inerrancy and surrender your "rhetorical flash-bangs" to the locked vault where they belong!
I deny there is an element of religion in MY beliefs about origins!
Bugs,
Po-218 halos are observable facts, and no one has proposed a uniformitarian theory for their origin that has not yet been falsified.
If your beliefs about origins include uniformitarianism, the idea that miracles have never occurred, then there is an element of religious belief in your beliefs about origins. I think the same can be said if your beliefs include the idea that the Bible isn't the sacred record it purports to be.
Wow! I have missed much good discussion being gone. As I reviewed everything here I would say Moose wins the discussion so far: "Ellen White never supports the idea of a 6000 year old earth – only cites it. I have asked BRI scholars, EGW Estate scholars, GRI Scientists and a number of other teachers, scientists and scholars in the Adventist Church if they are aware of at least a single statement where Ellen White says that she was shown, she saw in vision, she was told by the angel, etc. that the earth was 6000 years old. To make a long story short, no such statement exists a fact upon which they all concur. Ellen White was using the best chronology available to serious Christians at the time (Ussher's) and citing it."
Could a person be "considered a non-heretical Seventh-day Adventist and still believe in a literal 6 day creation within recent time – defining recent time as 25,000 years? "
This is an extremely important point Moose about Siegfried Horn, teaching very clearly about the serious problems with a 6000 year chronology because of the "clear evidence of villages in Palestine with occupation lasting at least 12,000 years. "
Do we really want to through out of our church half of our great Bible believing scholars–men and women of God?
Darrel,
Moose never gave any biblical justification for Horn's position, so I don't think we can yet conclude that Horn's position was the result of his believing the Bible, or even compatible with his believing the Bible. No textual tradition of the Pentateuch would permit us to push back the date for the dispersion from Babel to 12,000 years. That's a simple fact. Check out the LXX, the Masoretic text, Josephus, and the Samritan Pentateuch.
Bob,
It seems that rather than pitting various sources against each other, we have an intellectual responsibility to try to harmonize them – when we can.
Adventists claim to take as their first rule of faith and practice the Bible and the Bible alone – what the reformers called Sola Scriptura. While we pay lip service to that belief, when it comes down to it we pay as much, if not more, attention to our "a priori" assumptions (prior assumptions) and what Ellen White wrote – only citing contemporary science and authorities when it agrees with what we already believe. In other words, we approach both the Bible and science's contributions to the larger body of knowledge with a closed mind.
You are absolutely correct that as far as we can asceertain what was written in the original manuscripts and in the LXX translation there is no contention that the world is more than 6000 years old. You could be equally correct if you said that there is absolutely no contention that it is not 20,000 years old, or 20 million for that matter. It simply does not address the issue. We, following various schema of interpretation, have imposed the 6000 year figure on the Old Testament. What gets us in trouble is not the Biblical evidence but our interpretation based on three different lines of reasoning:
As stated in other places in this months Opinion Pages – particularly in the material from the recent ICBSAC Conference, there are any number of very conservative Adventist scholars who do not subscribe to a 6000 year age of either the Universe or the inorganic material of this earth. "First curiosity: Based on the presenters at this faith and science conference, Adventists no longer believe God created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago. Richard Davidson and Randy Younker (and by implication Elder Wilson) believe God created the heavens 14.5 billion years ago. They believe God created the material of earth 4.5 billion years ago. They disagree with science only in their dating of the phanerozoic rocks. (To be more precise, in papers presented at earlier faith and science conferences, Davidson and Younker argued that Genesis One gives us no information about the date of the creation of extra-terrestrial or pre-biological material, which leaves the conventional dates unchallenged.)"
Even when it comes to the age of the organic material, most conservative Adventist scientist/scholars would not argue that the Biblical evidence points to a 6000 year old Creation and that somewhere less than 25,000 years is much more easily defended by both the Bible and current scientific understanding. Siegried Horn merely stated the obvious and does not deserve to be denigrated for it. The logic behind the idea that he is declaring the Bible wrong because he disasgrees with my narrow interpretation (which is not in reality even the Conservative position in most of Adventism) is patently unfair!
Make no mistake, I believe that God created the organic material originally found on this earth, fiat, in 6 literal 24 hour days. I believe it happened within recent history – to be precise, sometime within the past 50,000 years (the limit of Carbon 14's ability to verify the age of any organic material. I also believe that what current science calls "The Big Bang" is one of the best evidences that exists to support the Biblcal story. It is his thumbprint on the Creation – all energy and matter in the unverse moving out from a central spot with no other credible explanation for where it originated other than that it apparently began "fiat."
Having said that, I don't believe such a position should predispose me to being a scientific Luddite. The more I see the harmony of what much of the Bible and the Scientific community reveal, the more my faith is affirmed.
I thought of one other thing after I posted this reply.
For most Adventists this whole issue is important because of the implications when it comes to the Sabbath. Every week that goes by I thank God for the gift of the Sabbath. I look forward to the day when I retire as a Pastor and can actually experience it the way God designed it to be enjoyed rather than just working to enable others to experience and enjoy it! I have written a book published by Review and Herald Publishing that is all about the Sabbath (115,000 copies at last count – titled "A Bridge Across Time.") A person can believe what I do about Creation and still love the Sabbath and celebrate it!
I have no dispute with anyone who has found a religious stance that they like. However, I am interested in what I call religiosity, that is, the need I perceive in some believers to have a rhythm of life marked by religious language and rituals. The conversation on the age of the of the earth is a good example. It seems to me the outcome only matters to the defenders of ritual, a cocoon mentality for the religious people who have an emotional attachment to the Sabbath.
Moose, I think your are an example. I've not read your Sabbath book, it might answer some of my questions. My point is that it appears to me that religiosity is self-imposed without reward or penalty. One of my reasons for leaving the Adventist ministry about forty years ago was to escape that milieu. In the thirty five years I was SDA I found I never "enjoyed" the Sabbath, hated fretting about the Second Advent, disliked the process of defending Scriptural inerrancy, never found value in the endless interpretations and applications of the "Spirit of Prophecy."
Never accepted the guilt warning of the Spirit of Prophecy that "some of the brightest lights would go out." I despised the cloistering (church schools, vegetarianism, demographic dissonance imposed by peculiar Adventist doctrines). I thrilled in getting my two grade schoolers into the "real" world of public schools. I wanted them to be able to cope in the "real" world (never have regretted the move, son is an airline captain, my daughter is in Dental Hygiene school after raising two kids, one of whom is ranked thirtieth in the nation as a gymnast, none of these achievements were achievable as SDAs).
It is pretty clear why I'm not SDA. I have never been religious. Why are you?
From <http://www.atodayarchive.org/article/2644/opinion/taylor-ervin/gc-president-wilson-ii-ex-cathedra-pronouncement-believe-my-theology-on-young-earth-young-life-creationism-or-get-out>
My wife is Catholic and, partcularly in the clergy
Well, howeverl one would get that interpretation it would be obviously a wrong interpretation if the actual physical evidence said otherwise. I am sure Dr. Horn understood both and held to a view of harmonization!
But what actual physical evidence is that view based upon? We can't just take someone's mere assertions and use those assertions to declare the Bible wrong. If the proposed date of those villages is in part due to thinking that certain contemporaneous Egyptian dynasties were consecutive, then we're certainly not talking about physical evidence. We're talking about interpretations of evidence.
Can you name any specific physical evidence that stands on its own without any interpretation whatsoever?
Apply your argument to Scriptural inerrancy. What evidence do you have? There is nothing inside of Scripture making such a claim. Certainly nothing external remotely makes such a claim. Bob, if science lives or dies based on the degree of "interpretation" exercised, your Scriptural arguments are DOA in comparison.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Bugs, I wonder if you've ever studied the Scriptures to see if the Scriptures make the claim that they are authoritative and accurate. Ponder the above text, as well as the stories about Nathan telling David he could build the temple, and Balaam trying to curse the Israelites. God ensured that the messages Balaam and Nathan gave were accurate.
Bob, I woke up in the hospital as a newborn SDA, went to church every week, attended church school through college and seminary, except for grades one through three. Spent ten years in the SDA ministry. Finally came to realize there is no external imposition of Biblical authority, no reward or punishment in its personal application. So I chose to adopt a different style. One chooses their guide for life since there are many options, so I chose one I liked better.
I came to view the Scriptures as evidence of mankind's search for God, not the Word of God. So the story of Nathan and David and Balaam, one that I probably heard as a Cradle Roll Kid, shows me only that people have always, since human time began, searched for literal evidence of God. His absence has always been way more profound than his perceived presence. Israel after leaving Egypt while waiting for Moses to return from his mountain expedition, created physical emulations of a god. To heck with this Jehovah guy! Why? They couldn't find him because they had to imagine him. They wanted to really see him, so they built him to their specifications, their visible version of our Superguy. Moses claimed to have seen J. God, but the rest of the Israeli folk had no such experience. Later He was fearfully imagined in the Most Holy Place.
Scriptures are full of wonderful stories. Nathans is one. They prove nothing, but offer insights to human behavior, yearnings, and consequences. And the endless quest for "God."
Of course, we do it all the time. For example it is not a matter of interpretation that the United States has existed in North America for less than 300 years! It is not a matter of interpretation that Ellen White was alive in 1888. It is not a matter of interpretation that there are fossils of creatures in the earth that are no longer alive Today. It is not a matter of interpretation that life shows all the signs of being intelligently designed! It is not a matter of interpretation that the land masses of earth move and drift on plates. It is not a matter of interpretation that coal burning in the earth is not involved in earthquacks. One could go on and on and on! So in short, yes, I believe many facts stand on their own.
There are many 'res ipsa loquitur' – things that speak for themselves!
Darrel you may not have noticed but you jumped midstream from facts to interpretation with your statement:
It is not a matter of interpretation that life shows all the signs of being intelligently designed.
Yes it is! (my emphasis).
I truely don't think that is the case at this time. Nothing but a mind has ever been demonstrated to produce digital code. Nothing but a mind has ever been shown to produce specified functional information and information processing systems.
The irreducablity if opertating system and code is unmistakably a product of Mind
Here is a little of what we know. Not a matter of interpretation!
· the specific genetic program (genome) is an application of the operating system
· the native language has a codon-based encryption system;
· the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system;
· each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome;
· codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers;
· each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and
in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized input/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life.
(Third try to get a comment to stick)
I have some sympathy for the assertion that "intelligent design" explains life on earth, but, as some
proponents admit, the evidence does not specify by what process, person, or purpose the design
emerged. Many, if not most, ID explainers do admit to very ancient origins followed by some
evolutionary process.
That the process is somewhat orderly is the basis for claiming that the order was externally imposed
(perhaps by a creative intelligence). But every chemical and every life form exhibits orderliness,
along with some variability. The test of existence within the real world is mere survival. There
must be enough order and enough flexibility to survive and reproduce.
So, at each generation, there is a passing on of nonrandom chemicals that enable functionality
within environmental context. It is not random, nor is it left up to chance. That does not mean
that Someone designed it to be that way.
Darrel, why didn't the "designer" do a better job? Why did "IT" create this wonderful "watch," with amazingly intricate, engineered parts and leave it laying in the desert to be discovered, with a defective balance spring? Death. What was the motivation? If humor was its IT's motivation, what's so funny about our popping into existence encapsulated within the most amazing machine in the universe (as far as we know), our bodies, only to have our wonder scuttled by a broken spring, a death sentence?
You have enumerated what apparently are facts about the awesome human form. Intelligent design, as attractive as the mental creation, fails the most important test. It accounts for something but explains nothing. It is the last intellectual fallback position for meaning. And it is hopelessly flawed.
Religious metaphors are almost entirely optimistic that the unknown is beneficent. Intelligent design can be seen as a pessimistic projection. If the "watch" is perfect except for the "balance spring," the "designer" couldn't have run out of perfection, but purposely chose to inflict the flaw.
Bugs, "Why," is an interesting question? And I have no trouble discussing theology, but I believe the "why" question takes us into matters of "interpretation." I was attempting to stay away from interpretation and stay with our discussion of "things that are NOT a matter of simple interpretation.
Joe and Larry. The "main spring" of man, his HEART, is known to operate flawlessly, for upwards of 100 years, continuous, constantly, with no rest. No other invention, by any power, of pulsating or movable parts, has man devised, that can approach that life record. It was designed that way by someone or something with a thinking process greater than the combined intelligence of all mankind.
We design aircraft, ICBM's, satellites that circle the Earth, yet they must have constant maintenance and parts replacement. Man, designs obsolescense in every new system. Look outward into space, we see marvelous heavenly bodies, stars, galaxies, universes, that as far as we know are still existent for upwards of 15 billion years and counting. And the answer is, there is no answer, except that time
has the answers. It "just happened", all on its own, without any intelligence planning, for all we see and observe, that has "intelligence", written all over it, "just happened", all by it"s very own little existence, just happened. In this day and age, anything that has value, has a plan of intelligence as its origin, whether the design is for the betterment or health of mankind, or, for the destruction of mankind. Spare me please!! What is the origin of all the elements that Science studies for substantuation of their empirical evidence come from?????? Brothers, you are comparing Earthly
evidence with the UNKNOWN, and saying IT JUST HAPPENED, FOLKS, AND THAT'S THAT.
Why it happened, Earl, is the mystery of all mysteries. I don't advocate it "just happened." I can only say that all of our hypotheticals are guesses. That's what I meant when I wrote above " It accounts for something but explains nothing." There are thousands of physical conditions that create our "goldilocks" universe that, like the biological evidence you supply, cannot reasonably be called coincidences. But, they are still unexplainable as my post above illustrates.
Maybe it did just happen, the mother of all coincidences! Perhaps our definition of "coincidences" is too puny. We simply don't and will probably never know. One of the first conclusion I came to years ago when I started listening to my brain was that questions are easy and primary, adequate verifiable answers are difficult and sparse. It turns out that living without answers is fine. The mental search engines thrive anyway as part of the spice of life.
Finally, if there is a "designer" what difference does it make? Unless like the stores that raise base prices to enable the show of huge discounts IT purposely left holes in the creation so the patching (discounts) at the proper time would be impressive?
I am comfortable unemploying the word "interpretation." The word "why" not so much since it is central to all potential speculations about meaning.
All true Earl. Larry, now regarding the "imperfection" of God's design. This is going to be a little long. Forgive me all! But, we are actually discovering highly optimized nature of nature! An example is from recent research on 'redundancy' in Genetics. Only computer programmers fully see this logic maybe but here we go.
A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Frontiers in Genetics, "Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing," finds that so-called "redundant" codons have actually very important functions in the genome. Redundant codons (at one time called 'degenerate') includes triplets of nucleotides that encode the same amino acid for example. It seems wastful but NO!
Much of the other parts of the genome were called "junk DNA" and was used as proof of mindless evolution's search for useable code. This at one time did fulfill a prediction of evolution but is now discarded.
The theory of intelligent design predicts the opposite, that living organisms will be rich in information, and thus it encourages us to seek out new sources of functionally important information in the genome. This new paper fulfills an ID prediction by finding that synonymous codons can lead to different rates of translation that can ultimately impact protein folding and function.
This means that DNA contains multiple languages or encoded commands occupying the same string of contiguous bases. On the one hand, a string of nucleotide bases encodes amino acids. On the other hand, that same string contains information about the rate at which the ribosome should translate the protein so that it can properly fold into the right shape. The paper calls this "translational pausing." The ribosome is capable of reading both sets of commands — as they put it, "ribosome can be thought of as an autonomous functional processor of data that it sees at its input." To put it another way, the genetic code is "multidimensional," a code within a code. This multidimensional nature exceeds the complexity of computer codes generated by humans, which lack the kind of redundancy of the genetic code. As the abstract states:
The codon redundancy found in protein-coding regions of mRNA also prescribes Translational Pausing (TP). When coupled with the appropriate interpreters, multiple meanings and functions are programmed into the same sequence of configurable switch-settings. This additional layer of Ontological-Prescriptive-Information (PIo) [super interesting word I think!] purposely slows or speeds up the translation decoding process within the ribosome. Variable translation rates help prescribe functional folding of the nascent protein. Redundancy of the codon to amino acid mapping, therefore, is anything but superfluous or degenerate. Redundancy programming allows for simultaneous dual prescriptions of TP and amino acid assignments without cross-talk. This allows both functions to be coincident and realizable. We will demonstrate that the TP schema is a bona fide rule-based code, conforming to logical code-like properties. Second, we will demonstrate that this TP code is programmed into the redundancy of the codon table. We will show that algorithmic processes play a dominant role in the realization of this multi-dimensional code.
They write that the ribosome's ability to undergo translational pausing "reveal[s] the ribosome, among other things, to be not only a machine, but an independent computer-mediated manufacturing system." The paper even suggests, "Cause-and-effect physical determinism…cannot account for the programming of sequence-dependent biofunction."
Apart from ID's expectation of finding new layers of information in the genome, the paper implicitly challenges some common evolutionary assumptions. The notion that shared synonymous codons are functionally irrelevant has been used to buttress arguments for Darwinian evolution.
For one thing, some evolutionists claim that phylogenetic signals can be carried by the distribution of synonymous codons since they're functionally equivalent. This paper suggests otherwise.
For another, seeking to infer the activity of natural selection, evolutionary biologists statistically analyze the frequency of synonymous (thought to be functionally unimportant) and nonsynonymous (thought to be functionally important) codons in a gene.
As the thinking goes, if synonymous codons are functionally unimportant, then three conclusions may follow: a bias toward synonymous codons implies purifying selection in the gene, a bias towards nonsynonymous codons implies positive selection, and an equal balance implies neutral evolution (no selection). But if synonymous codons can have important functional meaning, then the whole methodology goes out the window, and hundreds of studies that used these methods to infer "selection" during the supposed "evolution of genes" could be wrong.
The evidence supports the view that synonymous codons have divergent effects upon translation, as the paper finds: "Data shows that with fixed levels of tRNA's, synonymously encoded mRNA's translate with different speeds" and "Recent work has built on the above observations showing a strong relationship between specific arrangements of codons in mRNA to the rate of translation."
In short, "redundant" codons are not necessarily redundant at all. As the paper puts it: "we show why the term "degeneracy" is completely inappropriate. The dual coding functionality of redundancy is anything but 'degenerate.' It represents, instead, far more sophistication, layers, and dimensions of formal prescription." In fact, this paper "defines new universal linguistic-like rules needed to identify and characterize codon mappings of TP events." The authors write:
The TP code exhibits distinct meaning in relation to mappings between codons and pausing units. The TP code also exhibits a syntax or grammar that obeys strict codon relationships that demonstrate language properties. Because of the redundancy of the genetic code, it could be argued that the TP language is a subset of the genetic language. The subspace of the TP language resides, and thus appears to have a dependency on, the primary genetic code. Within this subspace, however, we argue that the TP language is decoupled from and remains independent of the protein-coding language.
Their conclusion about the high-information capacity of the genetic code is striking:
Redundancy in the primary genetic code allows for additional independent codes. Coupled with the appropriate interpreters and algorithmic processors, multiple dimensions of meaning, and function can be instantiated into the same codon string. We have shown a secondary code superimposed upon the primary codonic prescription of amino acid sequence in proteins. Dual interpretations enable the assembly of the protein's primary structure while enabling additional folding controls via pausing of the translation process. TP provides for temporal control of the translation process allowing the nascent protein to fold appropriately as per its defined function. This duality in the coding function acts to reduce the redundancy in the genetic code when viewed holistically. The functionality of condonic redundancy denies the ill-advised label of "degeneracy." When simultaneously combined with other coding schemas such as intron/exon boundary conditions, and overlapping and oppositely oriented promoters, multiple dimensions of independent coding by the same codon string has become apparent.
In his 2001 book No Free Lunch, William Dembski explained the primary prediction of intelligent design:
[W]hat about the predictive power of intelligent design? Intelligent design offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be chock-full of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers to design … This prediction is increasingly being confirmed. (p. 362)
Multidimensional codes and new levels of specified complexity are exactly what ID predicts, and they're exactly what this paper is reporting. It's this sort of sophisticated, information-rich control that is expected by intelligent design, in contrast to Darwinian biology which fails to anticipate it. On the contrary, Darwinian advocates publish mountains of papers banking upon the unquestioned assumption that there is no important, functional reason for the existence of "redundant" or "degenerate" features. Slowly but surely, the data are turning the tide towards the self-evident Intelligence and near Perfection of life systems.
Darrel, as a science dilettante I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of your article ! I'm awed by the intricacy you describe and have recently read that the each human cell is more complex than the internal structure of a Boeing 777 airplane.
Harmonized complexity creates awe, but proves nothing except for those with a bias to support. The "imperfection of God's design" is death, not the processes of life. Don't you agree? Am I not correct that somewhere inside all that coding is a death warrant? Death is purposeful, then, part of the designers intent. If so, I don't have much use for IT (Intelligent Design), and I am skeptical of the entire paradigm.
If IT is correct, it is not good news for mankind. It upholds death as a normal function of complexity. If there is an Intention behind life there is also one behind death.
Unless death has a "hidden" advantage, part of a dark, tricky IT agenda, we still pass into that dark night with intellectual question marks, either purposely imposed by the Complexity Master (IT), or victim to the truth of that is just the way it is. There is no hope in IT. At least religious faith as metaphor eases the mental journey from darkness to light.
Intelligent design is an intellectual attempt to affirm the creation argument. I like the idea that death is an anomaly for which there is some kind of solution. I can accept that death might be positive step to something else but, it appears, I will have to wait until my travel passes me into that "dark night." If there is nothing more, couldn't IT then wake me for just a moment to tell me "nope!"
Darrel,
I do not know how strong is your technical background in the field of computer science or the history of computation.
I have seen in your comments some technical details which appear to be incorrect. Particularly you or your news sources confuase the concepts of encoding and encryption. DNA represents a sophisticated microbiological encoding system, but it is NOT an encryption system.
Also you need to be aware that one of the properties of computers as defined since the 1940s is that they are able to store and potentially modify their own programs (whether or not this is always desirable is an open question). So if yout take this computer analogy too far you could claim that life was designed to be able to modify itself, which may por may not be true.
I certainly agree with you regarding the amazing sophistication and complexity of the microbiological machinery inside a single cell. I have previously speculated that within perhaps another century advances in knowledge of microbiology will spell the doom for the notion that new life forms arose by unguided heritable evolution (unless the mechanism that causes a cell to change its "programs" is desicovered).
Given the current state of knowledge of the micro-machinery of the cell, the information processing would more accurately be compared to the mechanical and electro-mechanical encoding systems of the 1800s and early 1900s, eg the Jaquard loom, Babbage's mechanical computing engines, Hollerith tabulating machines, etc. These machines could certainly perform computations and in the case of the Jaquard loom fabricate a variety of complex products, but they did NOT transform their own programs as meta-data like more modern computers whose advent dates from the 1940s.
So far as I am aware, no microbiological mechanism has yet been discovered that operates on DNA as metadata, as distinct from processing the DNA as instructions. Like today's programmable logic controllers that are used in many automation applications, they may be able to execute complex instructions sequences, but they are not compiling their own programs. But there is more to be learnt here. When and if the complete metabolic processes of the cell are unraveled, if no capacity for compiling (as opposed to replicating) DNA is discovered, that will be a considerable hole for the unaided evolutionary hypothesis to dig out of. On the othe hand if an intelligent means for modifying DNA is found within the cell then there will be an equally big hole for the Intelligent Desing crowd to dig out of.
Jim,
A thoughtful answer. Please think about this also: How does any of this endless discussion help build the Kingdom of God? How does it draw people closer to God? Or, does it drive people away because they see those who claim to be the followers of the loving Jesus lost in argument?
Suppose, Noel, there is a so far a mysterious life force that permeates the universe which activates when it crosses into a "goldilocks" zone. Would mean there are five natural forces, not four. Farfetched? To be sure. My creative idea? No. Of course not. But about ninety four percent of the mass of the universe seems to have an effect but is otherwise unidentified.
So, just in case, I have a name for it. God of Love.
Which could mean the endless discussions above might actually be on to something.
If they're "on to something" it is the glue in the rat trap of supposed knowledge that keeps them arguing instead of allowing them to arrive at what matters most, which is knowing God personally.
There is timeless counsel in Psalm 46:10 where God counsels us to "Be still and know that I am God." It is next to impossible to know God or to learn anything from Him when our mouths are flapping endlessly. Or, as a man I know who is an award-winning nature photographer phrased it, "Unlike the mouth, the camera shutter is one of the few things that can take-in revelations from God when it is open."
Noel, it seems you have the FINAL ANSWER. Please reveal it so we can all shut up, especially the scientists! It seems to me the point of this discussion is that there is none. Yours may be good for you but it is egoistic to imagine you have the secret knowledge that, if these idiots would only hear, they could sign off, happily ride into the sunset of "knowing God personally," and return "pie holes" to their original consumptive purposes. Come on, spill the beans of your secret!
As a landscape photographer I can appreciate the jest, the half-truth of your quote. Taking in "revelation of God" is an interpretation of data on two counts, the eye the camera. There is no beauty, no natural revelation of God in nature. The camera and the eye both record data. The data is decoded and the "viewer" decides its value and meaning. The "revelation" is a function of the mind that assembles and interprets the data as color, a scene. It's the capability of the mind to detect and assemble the data in an order we appreciate is where the awe lies. One is free to decide if that is revelation from God. Or not.
No matter how God and a "knowing God personally" is defined, it all is opinion, interpretation.
You and my friend are of different opinions which illustrates what we're talking about. People choose to believe based on what they see as supporting evidence. You interpret what you see through your camera lens one way and he interprets it another. Will his view persuade you, or vice versa? If it won't, then what value is to be gained by endless discussion other than stroking a person's ego?
Hello Jim, thank you. No, I am not into computer programming, so thank you for your comments. Regarding self programming some of the best research seems to be showing us that DNA can be treated as metadata through Epigenetics. In fact self-reprogramming is an extremely interesting finding of men like James Shapio at the University of Chicago. He is a molecular biologist and not a proponent of intelligent design. But his new book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century explains the newest research on biological organisms that are programmed to adapt by reprogramming themselves.
According to Shapiro, "countless random small changes over long periods of time" that are "accidental and random with respect to biological function or need" arose only as a reaction to "the perceived need to reject supernatural intervention." (pp. 1-2) Shapiro believes that novelty and variation are not produced randomly with respect to biological needs, and in fact organisms activate mechanisms to induce genetic and epigenetic changes at times when 'a change would do good.' He takes this view because (1) modern biology has uncovered various mechanisms by which organisms can "rewrite" their own genomes, especially in response to stress, and (2) many biological pathways and structures do not seem amenable to evolution. Shapiro explains:
(1) "The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an a priori philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive. Over time, conditions inevitably change, and the organisms that can best acquire novel inherited functions have the greatest potential to survive. We know this! We all agree on this! But this speaks to your question Jim: "The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas have to incorporate this basic fact of life." (p. 2)
"The data are overwhelmingly in favor of the saltationist school that postulated major genomic changes at key moments . …very little evidence fits unequivocally with the theory that evolution occurs through the gradual, very little acumulation of "numerous, successive, slight modifications." (pp. 89, 128)
Evolution: A View from the 21st Century includes lucid (though at times somewhat technical) explanations of the latest findings in cellular complexity — complexity which in the opinion of many pro-ID scientists defies a classical Darwinian explanation. Whether or not Shapiro intended it his book contains stunning descriptions of biochemical complexity and complex cellular regulation pathways that provide compelling arguments for biological fine-tuning that indicates intelligent design. For example:
• "One of the great scientific ironies of the last century is the fact that molecular biology, which its pioneers expected to provide a firm chemical and physical basis for understanding life, instead uncovered powerful sensor and communication networks essential to all vital processes , such as metabolism, growth, the cell cycle, cellular differentiation, and multicellular morphogenesis. … [T]he life sciences have converged with other disciplines to focus on questions of acquiring, processing, and transmitting information to ensure the correct operation of complex vital systems." (p. 4)
• "Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatics perspective, it appears that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations." (p. 6)
• "Because the interactions in any cell process invariably grow more complex and involve more molecules as we investigate them in greater detail, most biologists agree that we are now in the systems biology era of research. Although this term is subject to various interpretations, a widespread view is that systems biology implies understanding how groups of molecules work coordinately (as a system) to achieve some useful function dependent upon conditions. Gone is the atomistic view that molecules act independently and automatically." (p. 8)
• "There are a number of attempts to describe cellular information processing from a semiotic or linguistic perspective." (p. 10)
His discussions of the biochemical mechanisms that regulate accurate DNA replication show the complexity of basic biological systems that neo-Darwinians often take for granted.
We can think of this two-level proofreading process as equivalent to a quality-control system in human manufacturing. Like human quality-control systems, it is based on surveillance and correction (cognitive processes) rather than mechanical precision. The multistep nature of proofreading is typical of many control processes in cells, where final precision is achieved by a sequence of two or more interactions that are each themselves inherently less precise. In this regard, the most applicable cybernetic models are fuzzy logic control systems. In such systems, accurate regulation occurs by overlaying multiple imprecise ("fuzzy") feedback controls arranged so that each successive event results in greater precision. (p. 14)
Natural Selection Replaced by "Cognitive Networks" and "Self-Modification"
Shapiro describes his model of evolution as follows: Instead of "gradual selection of localized random changes" he proposes "sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems … It replaces the 'invisible hands' of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification." (pp. 145-146)
Anyway, you could get more out of the details than I, but it is extremely amazing that we are discovering the the "change over time" thing is a preprogrammed function of genetic codes that appear to be front-loaded. "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made!
Darrel, I'm pleased to see you are reading the original scientific literature for yourself.
What does William Dembski have to say about the age of life on earth and specification
of the identity of the designer?
So, let me point out that all biology is not Darwinian biology and that Darwin knew nothing
about molecular biology.
I happen to be interested in how things actually are, not what Darwin predicted. I do not
need to defend Darwin or anything he said about anything. We must recognize that there
have been (and continue to be) some very dramatic increases in knowledge and understanding
of molecular biology, and some of these have been surprising to traditionalists.
You should feel free to be convinced by ID if that works for you. I remain skeptical but
continue to learn something new every day. To me it dosn't look like ID is gaining any ground,
but the "evo-devo" continue to make progress–and they seem to me to not be blinded by
ideas from "Darwinian evolution."
Take care. Live and be well.
Joe, why do you keep bringing up what Darwin believed way back when?
Because people seem to think evolutionary biologists are basing their current work on some sort of chapter and verse authority from Charles Darwin. Many anti-evolution arguments address Darwin's assertions rather than the findings of modern evolutionary and developmental biologists, who are not "true believers" in what Darwin suggested. They may or may not find actual empirical validation for concepts Darwin suggested, and they are committed to finding out how things are, not to confirming what Darwin or anyone else guessed.
Darwin was reluctant to reveal his findings knowing it went against the creation story. He was a trained physician and clergyman, hid his observations gathered during the Beagle expedition (which had as a part of its mission to find evidence supporting the Biblical creation story) for a number of years. Evolutionary concepts were floating around at the time and the threat of another publication parallel to his conclusions motivated him to publish his work. He is not the intentional devil some creationist represents, but an observer and interpreter of information.
Bugs,
Did not Darwin intentionally interpret his observations in such a way that his interpretations contradicted the Word of God? I don't see how any objective person can deny that he did.
From your point of view, ignorance is God's highest value. And Darwin did, albeit reluctantly violate, his Word" (may gain a shorter sojourn in purgatory for that consideration). I'm sure that God has a special punishment in store for him and just about everyone. Galileo, too. Einstein, too. Isaac Newton, too. Unfortunately from your religious point of view almost all intellectual advancement in our world has come at the expense, the violation, of the "Word of God!" Either He is madder then H. or His word isn't what you think it is.
Bob, you are welcome to your private belief. My sarcasm is aimed at the public expression of such a totally discounted position.
We were talking about "modern evolution" Joe.
i know nothing of the study of the Double Helix/Genomics. i see lines turned outside to inside, and inside to ouside and then twisted. The input of Darrel is fascinating that scientists with their lifetime studies, are able to discover the processes of the Human Genome, to a degree, however they have not yet opened Pandora's Box, and possibly never will. All research is likened to peeling an onion, layer by layer, revealing some truth, but must be continued to the next more intricate essense of micro input of layers of an onion the size of our solar system, ever more, and more, complexity. Infinite potential but never winning the Golden Ring of award from the Majesty of Majesties.
Joe, perhaps skepticysm is your life's forte, never to be impressed by the nuances of intellectual small knowledge gains of finite truths, until you awake with your "s o u l " restored. O' happy day. There appears to be no "junk" in the building blocks of life, other than what blockheads have contributed by their environmental contributions, and sordid sadistic living styles, passing on to the unfortunate progeny. Personally i am greatly impressed with the apparent finding of no redundancy in the Genome, but ever more and more evidence of living strings of code, simultaneously working in the system of "man" the greatest creative speciman we will ever know, ON EARTH, BUT LOOK UP, "THE HEAVENS ARE TELLING "
Dear friend Earl. The study of genomics and the ways biologically coded information steer development within organismic and environmental contexts is really quite a marvelous revelation of nature. It is what it is. But while genomic information conveys more meaning to some of us than others, it can convey a wonderful sense of kinship with all of nature–feelings of unity with what some experience as the Majestic God and designer of all things who exists everywhere all at once. For some of us, it does not go that far; even so, nature is awesomely inspiring.
So, for those who may be concerned about what sorts of science would not be permitted at adventist colleges/universities/med schools, may I suggest having a look at some of the current work in genomics, as related to health and understanding of biological processes. There are thousands of scientists who are working in this field. The ones I will mention are just a few I know personally and think some of you might find interesting.
Mark Batzer (LSU), Sara Sawyer (U of Texas, Austin), Evan Eichler (U of Washington), Ed Green (UC Santa Cruz), and there are many, many others. They are easy to find and just googling them will provide access to their massive publications lists.
Google: Batzer Lab, Sawyer Lab, Eichler Lab, UCSC Paleogenomics Lab.
Be aware that there are a few people out there trying very hard to "spin" the results of these studies to mean something they think they already know, but few of them are very competent in genomics, and they just can't keep up with the pace of discovery in these other labs.
If biology and biomedical students and faculty in SDA institutions are prohibited from considering and discussing the realities of modern biology, and doing original research at the "cutting edge," they will be hopelessly and pathetically handicapped. Is that what you want?
I missed this Bugs: "Harmonized complexity creates awe, but proves nothing except for those with a bias to support." Not at all in my opinion!
"The "imperfection of God's design" is death, not the processes of life. Don't you agree?" No, I believe it is part of that perfection–free creatures freely choosing a relationship with God and the Idea of The Good.
"Death is purposeful, then, part of the designers intent." Finally, Yes, I agree with you! At least in a very nuanced sense.
From Paul and other Scripture we learn that The Creator, before He created, would foreknow perfectly the negative outcomes due to free choice, and from the beginning He would design nature with the ability to adapt and maintain balance.
Nature was “made subject to vanity, not of its own [God’s] will . . .” Rom. 8:20 which is not referring to Adam but to God.
Death and predation–“Vanity” according to Paul, would be a reality until the “restoration of all things.” Acts 3:21
The Creator, in the final day, would free nature from this “bondage and corruption.” Paul again reminds us, “The creature was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him [God] who subjected the same in hope.” Rom. 8:20
9
“In Hope!” There is an inner sense in human hearts that something is wrong with this world, and a desire or hope for a “better country.” There is a hope in the heart of man for God, and a sense that God in heaven is good, and that things are wrong here, but there must be a plan.
Our desire and hope for a ‘better world’ resonates with Scripture’s promises that “. . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. 8:21
Darrel,
Let's not get too dependent on belief in 'free creatures freely choosing a relationship with God …' (your emphasis) I'm intersted in the biblical basis of people freely choosing anything, let alone a relationship with God.
My experience in attending Seventh-day Adventist evangelistic services is that the average number of Bible texts used by the presenter is several a minute, with one exception. When the topic moves to the role of free choice and thus the importance of one's choice, the preaching continues for several minutes without a Bible text.
What is your basis for understanding people being in a position to freely choose, well, anything?
As you probably have observed, economists have for a very long time built their models on people being rational … until they eventually realized that it wasn't the model but rather the inability of the model to count on people being rational, that explained the failure of the model. Choice is a rational process, I think/hope we all agree.
So, not only is the Bible short on evidence, as far as I can tell, regarding human beings choosing, economics is catching up with the Bible, I guess, now that it realizes that people do not behave rationally, that is choosing what is obviously in their personal best interest.
Do jump in here if there is more we can all note in better understanding humans.
Thanks,
The brain (human, other primate, other mammal) is equipped to evaluate situations and make choices. These choices are not entirely free, in the sense that they are based on experiential history and otherwise motivated values, and even though they may often be motivated by self interest, that clearly is not always the case. Some choices are easy to make. Others are difficult–among equally attractive or equally repugnant alternatives. There is much current interest in choice behavior and the neurobiology of choice (which focuses especially on the frontal insula and other areas connected with them). How value is established and relative value is processed is an important aspect of neuroeconomics. As it turns out, this area of neurobiology and behavior informs topics ranging from autism and schizophrenia to religious experience and ethical behavior.
This area is notable for those who would better understand humans and other animals–not to mention, eternal salvation.
Joe,
I’m in way over my head here from the research associated with the neurobiology of choice. I have only a very casual acquaintance with those who study neurobiology. I remember reading Antonio Damasio’s Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain.
I recall an interesting takeaway from his research, and he is noted to have perhaps the largest collection of studies of brains compromised by trauma or disease. One of his patients had an area deep in his brain compromised, while his cortex was untouched. Testing indicated his IQ was as it was, his memory was as it was, and his ability to do rational processes was undiminished. However, the part of the patient’s brain that was compromised was the source of the person’s ability to desire or attach or prefer something, indeed anything. The classic outcome was described this way. At the end of the appointment, the physician told the patient that he would like to see him again in one week. The only question was whether Wednesday or Tuesday would be better for the patient. The report was that the patient went about describing the pluses and the minuses of making the appointment for Tuesday as well as for Wednesday, but was not able to pick one of the days because he really did not have the ability to see the benefit to himself, to prefer one day over the other.
While I am overly simplistic, what some call choice seems to be about allowing one preference to take precedence over other preferences before the rational process begins. And apparently if our non-rational part of our brain is inactive, no rational engagement can cause a preference to be brought forth.
In any case, just observing the human population when it comes to less than optimal behaviors (yes, I guess you could call that line another case of misery loves company), I’m uneasy with personal salvation being the result of anyone’s ‘choice.’ Indeed, if salvation is by right choices, it feels like it is the ultimate evidence of God endorsing evolution’s classic ‘survival of the fittest’ explanation, and even more so in combination with the destruction of the failures.
Yes, Bill. This is a very interesting area. Antonio and Hanna Damasio have done some great work, and Antonio has written several books describing their approach, findings, and hypotheses. As I understand his findings, he found that emotion was essential to choice–not just thinking about the alternatives. This suggests to me that there is a critical role, in setting relative value, of emotion–how we feel about something. What feels good or bad, or did so in the past, is highly relevant to its value for us, and informs our choice. Cognitively weighing the objective strengths and weaknesses can be important–but that needs to be integrated, somehow, with how we "feel" about it. All this gets bound up with awareness, salience, etc., and it is pretty complicated. If it were not complicated, we would have it all figured out already. So the connections of the frontal insula with other areas, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, are important, and these connections seem to enable processing of information in ways that integrate socio-emotional and cognitive factors.
For some discussion of all this, have a look at the paper by John Allman of CalTech and some of my other colleagues:
doi: 10.1007/s00429-010-0254-0
This was published four years ago, and already there are a few statements that are out of date. Never mind–that's science. Always changing.
"What is your basis for understanding people being in a position to freely choose, well, anything?"
If this is so, are then actually we are not having a discussion here, but only the interaction of two machines reacting to input with wholly predictable (materialist based) outcomes?
Genesis 2:9, Genesis 2:17, Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 17:9, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 6:2, Hebrews 3:8-15, Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 4:18, Matthew 13:14-15, Mark 7: 20-22, Philippians 2:2-8,13, Philippians 4: 6-8, Romans 12:2, Romans 11:33, Proverbs 4:23, are among a very few of the many, many references to awareness, consciousness.
This whole life for humans, and the battle for humanity, is about our minds. This is where I believe unbiased science will/has actually stumble(d) into the truth previously revealed in the inspired words of scripture. It seems to me that's where the Damasio study cited by Joe is headed; and why the emotion of supreme love for God and for others as oneself invariably leads humans to good decision making.
The facts that Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness and that we are encouraged to have faith similar to that of children argue forcefully against sotierological Darwinism.
So, I'm trying to understand what "sotierological Darwinism" is? The study of salvation according to Darwin? What does that even mean?
The whole "free will" versus "destiny" or "biological determinism" controversy is just another one of these topics in which extreme positions are taken and argument sheds little light. First of all, freedom is constrained in so many ways that complete freedom of choice is obviously not a reality–probably not ever. And yet, even with environmental and biological and psychological constraints, selectable alternatives often exist. Some of the choices are easy, while at other times any or none of the options is attractive. I think it is clear that we sometimes can have choices.
Some of these choices are between doing destructive things and doing constructive ones. Sometimes we can choose selfishly. Other times, less so.
The debate over whether we choose Jesus or He chooses us may be an endless question. Choosing to believe versus being able to believe (or being "enabled" to believe) may not be something that can be resolved. Oh well….
By “soteriological Darwinism “Joe I simply had reference to Bill Garber’s statement “Indeed, if salvation is by right choices, it feels like it is the ultimate evidence of God endorsing evolution’s classic ‘survival of the fittest’ explanation, and even more so in combination with the destruction of the failures.”
Yes, Darrel, we are create social creatures. It is not good that we are alone the Creator has confirmed in Genesis.
Yes, Stephen Foster, we are aware, including self-aware. What a great collection of Biblical statements you have offered us. Thanks so much!
Yes, Joe, it sure seems that we are very complex and that we are by no means biologically determined, something my incredibly limited exposer to biological fields of study such as epigenetics surely seems to confirm.
In fact, we are so not self-responsible that John describes not just the inclusiveness, but quite possibly the essentialness with regard to God giving the gift of His love in Jesus His only begotten Son to the W-O-R-L-D. We quite possibly cannot be distinguished by our differences, but rather only by our commonness. What makes us who we are individually is sourced and identified in everyone we meet and in modest degrees of separation to everyone who is living, has ever lived or will ever live.
Indeed, it seems that for God’s grace to prevent one from perishing but rather to live forever is to truly have saved the W-O-R-L-D.
While it may be debatable if it was Adam or Eve, I read that genetics confirms that every human alive today is reverberating with genetics of a single woman living an amazingly short time ago, relative to the age of the Earth or the Universe when measured on the same time scale. In a very real way we are all, by design, in life together.