Literalism, Please!
by Ronald Spencer
by Ronald Spencer, August 25, 2014
As our denomination struggles to tighten up its embrace of a literal, six-day, recent creation, I am appalled that so little is being said about the unapologetic erosion of the literal position over the long haul, even as early as the 1930s.
A Six-day Universal Creation
Early Adventists (including Ellen White) believed without a scintilla of doubt that not only the solar system, but the entire universe was created within the confines of one week of time—this was our Church’s original position, and should be our position still. But with the arrival of Einstein’s theories and a host of other faith-eroding hypotheses, this position was allowed to slowly change to something more "acceptable" to the speculative, academic community. Today, even self-declared "conservative" creationists accept with a shrug the proposition that a universe of matter (in fact, matter in organized form, whose light supposedly had already been traveling for immense numbers of light years) existed "out there," even as the Earth was undergoing miraculous, creative transformations by the word of the Lord a few thousand years ago.
Sanctioning a belief in the existence of stars in the Cosmos prior to Creation Week is, in fact, a massive, liberal step toward acceptance of creedal evolution, and must be addressed in our denomination’s current conservative reformation program.
To make such pivotal changes back to biblical literalism in our Fundamental Beliefs will undoubtedly upset theistic evolutionists, such as my good friend Ervin Taylor. But it will come as a welcome return to orthodoxy among the less-educated, who have really never stopped believing that the universe itself was literally created in six actual days. It takes considerably more faith today to accept the literal teachings of Scripture, but no one said it would be easy to stand true to the word of God in these End Times.
Do the Right Thing
We must simply do the right thing, regardless of the consequences—regardless of how patently difficult we make it for our scientists and teachers to recognize that today we may be seeing matter in the skies whose images are reaching us, perhaps at millions of times the speed of light. With God all things are possible.
I would further suggest that liberalizing changes in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church throughout the 20th Century were made primarily to allow our beliefs to become more widely popular among America’s scientifically trained middle class and the emerging middle classes in places like Brazil. This fanatical pursuit of numbers is one of the fundamental reasons we have let the pure strain of our beliefs become watered down, intentionally and by liberal attrition.
For example, it is now accepted, even by conservative creationists, that the huge mass of the sun preexisted the organizing creation of one of its smaller satellites.The sun, we are now told, was allowed to exist as a gravitational force to stabilize the solar system, but simply did not put out any light until the fourth day, or perhaps was effectively covered by clouds, and was invisible until that day. Okay, but that’s not what Genesis says! If we’re returning to the blessedness of literal truth, let’s not go only part way! Let’s complete the process; let’s go all the way!
It would seem that if our Fundamental Belief on Creation is to be reconfigured with iron-clad literal qualities acceptable to men and women of simple faith, we must also make sure that the redrafted prose clearly sets forth that the entirety of the cosmos was created in six days and that the sun, itself, did not preexist the fourth day of creation. If our purpose is to insist on a consistent literalism in the Creation account, we cannot afford to do things half way. And it's also high time we revisit the long day of Joshua and accept that the sun literally stood still (not the earth) during that compelling miracle. The Bible has it right, and by faith we must accept what it says, as it says it, and not allow ourselves to be swayed by revisionists.
Let us remember that our beloved Adventist people of simple faith throughout the world are very discerning and will not be taken in by something written with half-measures. Let the drafters of this revised Fundamental Belief keep this ever before their eyes. The World Church will not accept "half-literal" propositions on this matter. As in all things in the spiritual world of True Believers, either we accept it all or we reject it all. We can't cherry-pick and just accept the things we like, allegorizing or explaining away the harder sayings. Let's remember this truth when we come to vote in San Antonio next year. Let us not allow the forces of evil to tempt us to half-measures.
The historic Adventist way can be summarized coherently as “all or nothing.” Either we accept the entirety of Scripture as essentially literal (with the broad exception of the apocalyptic, which was written in code to disguise powerful political and religious forces, and which the Pen of Inspiration has explained to us fully) or we don't. The historical parts of Scripture were written literally as God dictated those passages through the Holy Spirit. Certainly, God as Creator understands science to a far deeper degree than any of us on earth, and knew exactly what he was saying when he claims to have created all things in a finite week of time, including the sun, the moon, and all the stars. God says it in Exodus 20:11, I believe it, and that settles it.
Ron,
It seems that neither you, Erv, or any of the others debating the proposed revision to the FB and the claims of evidence on either side of the creation debate are willing to see that you're caught-up in a classic "tempest in a teapot." It appears to be a major issue, when it isn't. But people like you and Erv keep stirring it into what looks like a major issue.
We've got far bigger issues to deal with than wasting our time debating the wording of a fundamental belief. All this debate is evidence of a far larger and more threatening problem: simple, functional belief in God is disappearing in the church. Evidence of this is all around us as we see how slowly the church is growing in North America and how it is shrinking in some areas, both in North America and around the world.
Please, Ron! Get your eyes out of your teapot to see what's really happening!
Belief creates a faux reality, a parallel universe, where facts, analysis and intellectual enterprises are ignored, in effect, inoperable. Ronald Spencer has perfectly illustrated the process, a version of the end justifies the means. He correctly determines the obvious, Adventism lives or dies on the concept of Scriptural inerrancy. The name Seventh-day Adventist has no meaning without it.
Personal accommodation to the dichotomy of facts/belief is a natural religious function always in flux. "Believers" choose their position, opinions rule. But the institution, as a means of self-preservation, must uphold a tradition as a protection against its dissolution. The pain it suffers to justify its institutional survival is less than the hurt it would endure with the loss of identity through conceptual deconstruction.
The onus is on the participants, where it belongs, not the institution. Those who pine for it to modify are transferring their responsibility to adjust to the established institution whose job is to maintain.
Wishful revisers of the Adventist doctrines have a process of politicking built into the system. However, if their desires are achieved, Adventism would become something else.
Shape up or ship out! Or, continue as some are doing, one foot here, another there.
Bugs,
Belief CAN cause people to embrace a faux reality. But let's be fair. Religion is not the only place where this happens. A huge example of belief not supported by fact is the idea of man-caused global climate change/global warming. Upon closer examination all the "scientific facts" presented to support it fall apart into deceptive nonsense.
Religion offers us a significant difference: the opportunity to build a relationship with a living God who does not change as opposed to an ever-shifting body of claims that do not survive scrutiny.
A faux reality actually is required for our emotional accommodation to our world where birth, life and death offers no internal explanation. We have no choice but to conjecture which we do through religious belief. I'm using "faux" as a synonym for metaphor.
Your point is well made with the global warming illustration. The man-made allegation also is specious since there really is no effective strategy that could change it short of shutting down all fossil fuel consumption for a few years. The radical environmentalists would savor the effect of that as the demise of the evil human race!
I value religion in a different way than you. I see it as the metaphor for explaining the unexplainable. Hope and faith in the face of death grows out of that. I don't see God as "personal" but as an experience, a daily living experience encompassed in the Christ-revealed God as Love. God, therefore, has been in the world as long people have been, and is not constrained by any religious system.
Larry, let me suggest that you not jump too quickly onto the climate-change denial bandwagon. Sadly, there are people who do not adequately use their brains to evaluate the evidence. My advice, of course, is do not blindly believe anyone on one side of the issue or the other. If you are not able to evaluate the evidence but really want to understand, consult more sources of information and develop your abilities to understand scientific information.
Don't trust anyone, scientist or religionist or politician or physician who tells you to "just believe."
I was just watching "The Hunt with John Walsh" about Victor somebody, a religious sexual predator. He assembled a bunch of religious believers and developed a fanatical cult (sound familiar?) and preyed on a bunch of young girls and then started bedding their mothers and little sisters. How anyone would put themselves under the spell of such an A-hole is almost unbelievable, yet it happens time and again.
Bob said something about people putting too much faith in science or scientists. This might surprise you, but I urge you to be quite skeptical of science and scientists too. Use your brains. Teach your children to use their brains. Fortunately, this is advice is consistent with science. Religion? Hmmm. Not so much. Maybe not all religion, but too much, has been invented as a means of exerting control over, or enslaving, other people.
Joe, my skepticism for human caused warming is based first on the fact that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. The ice remaining is left over from that event. There is historical evidence for lots of variations in earth temperatures, including times when there was no ice on either pole and that once the world was virtually covered in ice. Each was before human life, apparently.
The brevity of our lives is part of the problem. It's a close-up lens that provides a faulty view. If we lived a thousand years, we could recall fluxuations of chilling and warming which we now can track only with Google! Longer memories would "cool" the cooling hucksters.
Back when you and I were at Pacific Union College, the climate hysteria was global cooling and the danger of the approaching ice age.
My skepticism is based partly on the money trail. The loudest advocates have, it appears, have been enriched, example is Al Gore. Scientists seeking grants have a motive for a skewed advocacy.
I have walked on the moraines below Mount McKinley in Alaska where glaciers once ground down the slopes at the behest of gravity. I have walked in Central Park where grooved bed rock is visibly displaying the signature of ice age glaciers.
Climate change is ongoing. Warming and cooling. We are parasites on the earth not built for us so we can only endure fluxuations that either bless our lives or offer serious threats.
Presently solar activity is heading for the lowest in four centuries. A similar episode is correlated with the Maunder Minimum, the Little Ice Age of four millennia ago. Prior to that was the the opposite, the Medieval Warm Period of around a thousand A.D.
Overall, the earth is warming, has been for approximately ten thousand years. Human caused? That's where my skepticism kicks in.
My skepticism is based partly on the money trail. The loudest advocates have, it appears, have been enriched, example is Al Gore. Scientists seeking grants have a motive for a skewed advocacy.
I have walked on the moraines below Mount McKinley in Alaska where glaciers once ground down the slopes at the behest of gravity. I have walked in Central Park where grooved bed rock is visibly displaying the signature of ice age glaciers.
Climate change is ongoing. If humans are now contributing to it, how do we know? And if so, what can we really do to significantly reverse or at least, impede it short of turning off all the fires.
Presently solar activity is heading for the lowest in four centuries. A similar episode is correlated with the Maunder Minimum, the Little Ice Age of four millennia ago. Prior to that was the Medieval Warm Period of around a thousand A.D.
Overall, the earth is warming, has been for approximately ten thousand years. Human caused? That's where my skepticism kicks in.
Larry, I think you are correct in being skeptical. Climate change really does seem to be real. The magnitude of the human impact is certainly debatable, and beyond that, what can be done about it? There is certainly a combination of factors to consider, and it seems to me that is what you are doing.
Now, the young earth thing is quite different. There is no combination of evidence that suggests a young earth origin. People can try to invent explanations, but they cannot and do not make the tangible real world evidence go away.
Then I would ask you when metaphor becomes reality and what evidence is required to be one or the other. Even metaphor has a basis in reality, or contrasts a reality with the lack of it. I haven't heard God directly speak to me, but I have had quite a number of times where God gave me a very direct and specific instruction that I understood as clearly as if He had spoken it in an audible voice. Let me tell you, when God does that, it gets my attention and the things I've seen him guide me away from or into, those experiences were very significant evidence of his existence and that I could trust other things He has told us.
Actually metaphor is a figure of speech, a coded representation of reality or a device in search of it. By definition it cannot "become" reality.
God has ignored me. He hasn't spoken to me. He has never instructed me in any perceivable way. Maybe He just doesn't like me!
If God is Love, then my life has been blessed since it began. I don't call that presence, too limiting. Experience.
Our experiences may be different, but there should be no doubt about God's love for each of us.
I didn't begin receiving those messages from God until I got involved in gift-base ministry.
To imply that it is merely the less educated who believe in literal six day Creation seems a bit disingenuous, doesn't it? I do not think anyone could honestly characterize Ariel Roth as not being very well educated.
Maranatha
No, it is not merely the less educated who believe in literal 6-day YEC; but being naive and uneducated renders people vulnerable to such beliefs. After all, one can be easily misled if s/he is not exposed to contrary evidence, or if s/he is repeatedly told by people who are ostensibly educated (though actually indoctrinated) that YEC is true and secular scientists are wicked deceivers and Satan's spawn.
"But with the arrival of Einstein’s theories and a host of other faith-eroding hypotheses, this position was allowed to slowly change to something more 'acceptable' to the speculative, academic community" Ronald Spencer.
Very clearly the author of this appeal for literal Bible interpretation believes the academic community (liberal scientists in particular) are responsible for introducing faith-destroying elements into the Church, and that administrators, educators, and writers are responsible for allowing these ideas to find currency in our publications and curricula. It would stand to reason, then, that those less exposed (less educated) to these faith-destroying points of view would be less affected by them. Mr. Spencer appears to have little patience with those who see advanced education as a "plus" in the Adventist experience; rather, he sees it as somewhat dangerous and potentially faith-destroying. This is not a topic we often discuss (here at Adventist Today), but why not get it out in the open? Anyone who has visited a large mainstream/conservative Sabbath school class within the past five years recognizes that there exists a very strong apprehension that intellectuals, in particular, are set on destroying the convictions of those nested in a simple faith experience. I predict that many readers across the globe, at this very moment, are saying 'Amen' to Spencer's views….
Fellow "Truthseeker,"
I would substitute "disinterested" for uneducated in this context. Education is available to all via the internet. It seems to me most Christians have higher priorities for their religious lives. Concern about the time of hatching of the world is continually trumped by life and death issues where Christianity provides understanding and hope.
Education is not necessarily a shortcut to wisdom. Belief in a six day creation is really a commitment to a view of the Scriptures as authoritative and inerrant. I once had that belief myself but was always vexed by the multitude of contradictions. Contrary to the speculation of some of my replying associates herein who are suspicious of my rationale for exiting the Adventist ministry and church, no one, no higher criticism advocates, no subversive influences distorted my thinking. I simply lost the power to believe after getting all the information I could. I just thought my way down a different path. Peace. I no longer had to rationalize scientific developments to conform somehow to my belief. I discovered that faith lives without the baggage.
I have no argument with you or anyone in your position since I respect your choice. I am more than willing, however to dialogue over these issues! Religious belief is a personal choice. As I stated somewhere else, religion and science create strange bedfellows. I'm guessing that angst is partly responsible for your presence on this forum.
Angst= anxiety, fear. My courteous friend I have absolutely no Angst about this subject at all and it is totally unrelated to my presence on this forum. God still rules and Romans 1:18-26 is still part of the New Testament.
Maranatha
Larry, you seem to have followed somewhat the same path as I did, except that I stopped being a theology major before becoming a minister. Then, as I gradually learned more about the available evidence, I found that I was no longer able to believe the literal story. The transition was pretty peaceful and I was relieved of much baggage that I do not miss at all.
We could use the term "indifference" or "active ignorance" to describe what the true believers seem to be doing, but there is no need to disparage or insult the faith of believers. As I keep saying, believe whatever it is you believe for as long as you can. But when it becomes too cumbersome to explain away mountains of evidence, don't be devastated. One gets the impression that some sort of Millerite obsession leading to disappointment is the essence of adventism.
Do you deny Joe that there are people with terminal scientific degrees, even multiple terminal scientific degrees, who disagree with you; and who subscribe to a YEC theory? Is it possible for an educated, rational, thinking individual to view and evaluate evidence differently than say, you do, for example?
I don’t believe anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a hoax; but suppose it is. Or suppose that it’s just a mistake. This would mean that the preponderance of scientific evidence along these lines has been fabricated and/or has been evaluated rather poorly.
Is this ever a possibility in science? Has the consensus of scientific opinion ever been proven to have been just wrong? If the global warming avalanche of consensus has effectively perpetrated a hoax, even unwittingly, is this possible in other scientific areas?
The answers to these questions are “yes.” As such you should hold your beliefs about “what actually happened” much more gently; and be less zealous with regard to those who disagree with your ‘origins’ opinion(s).
Oh, dear Stephen. Thank you for your instruction and advice. The thing is, I do hold knowledge gently, regarding climate change and regarding origins and on most other issues. In the beginning, one can simply entertain information without accepting it as truth or rejecting it as false. There is a big area of "maybe," and of "I don't know yet."
With regard to anthropogenic climate change, I agree with you. The proponderance of evidence suggests that it is real. Evidence from different places, different sources, using different measures varies somewhat. Very few well-informed and scientifically competent people disagree that the activities of humans can and do have consequences for climate. My sensible conservative friend and colleague, Terry Maple, wrote a book, Contract with the Earth, published by Johns Hopkins University Press (with Newt Gingerich as the first author) in which the reality of climate change is acknowledged. The book takes issue with how the problem should be addressed, while recognizing that anthropogenic influences are almost certainly real. This, like many issues, is very complicated. All I ask on this issue is that people carefully consider the evidence. I do not require that they agree with me.
In modern science, hoaxes seldom exist, and when they are attempted, they are nearly always dispatched rather quickly by honest people and careful consideration of evidence. The scientific method is highly focused on reliability, replicability, using multiple methods and measures, and other devices to ensure that inaccurate conclusions are detected and corrected.
This contrasts dramatically with dogma based on religious revelation. With the passage of time and the refinement of information processing and the accummulation of evidence, it becomes increasingly difficult, to a point approaching impossibility, for anyone to perpetrate and sustain a hoax.
There are many people with whom I disagree on many things, however, with many people, degreed or not, I agree to attempt to honestly examine objective evidence, and to base my opinions on the preponderance of carefully considered evidence. Rational, thinking people, whether highly educated or not, often reach similar conclusions on the basis of real specimens and real information. Some, otherwise reasonable and rational people, educated or not, filter all evidence through some previously held ideological dogma, and reject any information that does not align with what they already believe.
This happens with climate change and it happens with origins and it happens on many other topics. What also happens is that people assemble rationalizations for deciding to believe what they already believe that is inconsistent with evidence. The more evidence they reject, the more bizarre and elaborate and incredible their rationalizations become. Of course, one of the easiest things to do with evidence contrary to what one believes is just to ignore it. Pretend it does not exist. Don't look at it. Don't carefully consider it, or consider it at all. Ridicule it. Retreat into active ignorance. Shield your children from exposure to the troubling evidence. Tell yourself over and over that the evidence is part of a hoax. An enormous conspiracy of cosmic proportions and significance.
Very few independent and rational people are able to honestly, examine the massive amount of real and tangible evidence that the earth and life on it is very, very old, and come away continuing to claim that the evidence is consistent with a YEC scenario. Few, if any. And that is because such a view is, in fact, irrational. One must hold that view in contradiction to the evidence (hence, "irrational") or refuse to actually consider the evidence. While I am fine with people having differing opinions, including irrational ones, I hate to see them teach young people to follow irrationality as a way of life. It is pretty close to child abuse to guide them into patterns of irrationality.
So, anyway, no, Stephen, I do not expect anyone to think just as I do. I would, however, like for people to know that they are free to carefully consider all the evidence and reach their own conclusions. If someone tells you otherwise, take that advice for what it is worth.
Dear Joe,
I want to use your words to guard against twisting them into saying something you’re not trying to communicate; and I do want your meaning understood.
In your view “very few independent and rational people are able to honestly examine the massive amount of real and tangible evidence the earth and life on it is very, very old, and come away continuing to claim that the evidence is consistent with a YEC scenario. Few if any. And that is because such a view is, in fact, irrational;” you say.
So then, the "real and tangible evidence," I take it are the fossils and rocks in which they are generally found; and things like that, I suppose; right? Now I’m not a scientist by any means so bear with me on this; but it seems that the age of these things would comprise the preponderance of the evidence “that the earth and life on it is very, very old,” right?
Ipso facto, according to you, any of the “few, if any” who do not buy or believe or concur with the consensus dates and the consensus dating methods are “hence, irrational;” is that your position?
Further those who teach young people that the dates and dating methods through which “old” dates have been derived are flawed, are pretty close to child abusers, right?
Please clarify and correct wherein I’ve misunderstood.
With regard to climate change, Joe, and the drastic differences of opinion as to the anthropogenic influences (or lack thereof); does this mean that one side is “irrational”—or does that just apply to YEC? (Would those who teach that AGW/ACC is real qualify as close to child abusers or those who think it is not?)
Joe, I could be wrong but I think we crossed paths at PUC where I attended for only the fall quarter of 1958. I remember some spirited conversations where Larry Richards and I determined you had a wrong versions of something (I may deserve some credit for assisting your detour)! Jack Staddon was my roommate. Might be wrong, pardon me if it was someone else needing correction then! I don't regret my choice of profession, though would probably pursue my first choice of electrical engineering in a do-over.
Your comment on Millerism meets my approval. Considering the birth of the SDA church under perverse circumstances (great disappointments) shepherded by a stone bashed lady, laden with extremely bizarre dogmas, a demanding cloistered life style, a puritan concept of behavior, a premise that the future life is best achieved by sacrificing this one, it is amazing it has arrived relatively healthily to this stage. Like you, I have no quarrel with present believers since belief is personal. Neither do I label or categorize anyone. (I thrive on dialogue, however!) As mentioned elsewhere, my old college roommate from Union College left Adventism about when I did (thanks to my EGW plagiarism revelations) but relatively recently joined the Church of Christ. I congratulated him on finding a spiritual vehicle that assisted his life.
What you call "indifference" and "active ignorance", probably a difference without a distinction I parse into two different categories. The first is purposeful evasion in light of higher priorities, life and death issues. Mental reservations apply to the brainy participants still in Adventism. Maybe one more, those who consciously choose myth (scriptural inerrancy and its barnacles) in spite of copious contradictions.
Stephen,
The Nazi Party had lots of people with terminal scientific degrees who contributed to the concept of Aryan superiority. Were they right? Obviously not. So, does the popularity of a concept mean that the claims of science used to support it are correct? No. You don't believe man-caused global climate change is a hoax. OK, consider this. The National Science Foundation now admits that there are more scientists with terminal degrees who are on-record disputing the concept of global warming than support it. So the sands under the feet of your reason for belief are being washed-away by the revelation of disputing information.
Yet there is a far bigger problem here than the question of the age of the earth. Two issues, actually. The first is the lack of functional faith in God among the people who claim to be followers of God. This is evidenced by how Christianity is not growing and even disappearing in parts of the world and being overwhelmed by Islam. Second is that many who claim to be followers of God are far more concerned about defending their egos about their beliefs than understanding the basis for their beliefs or even knowing God. So they are far more focused on arguing about what does not matter than focusing on cultivating faith that survives in times of trial.
I think your arguments need a huge dose of faith trials to refocus your energies and words away from devotion to debate and defense of your ego and onto real experience with God.
In regard to your second paragraph, William, I don't see a problem. You are demonstrating some anxiety. Why?
It is true the Christian depression is operating and has most afflicted the old, "mainline" communities (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, etc.).
Studies show a decline in church attendance and even membership. Mega evangelical churches are growing, small churches shrinking. The Assemblies of God and the Latter Day Saints are virtually alone showing positive growth.
Organized religion is a business subject to the waxing and waning of all corporate enterprises. At the moment McDonalds and Walmart appear to be waning.
Religious exercise is a private event that cannot be measured by passage through church doors. What can be measured is the decline in income. Fret not. Bankruptcy is not on their horizon, either.
Bugs,
Depression? Hardly!
A little insight about the Latter-Day Saints. My eldest brother is a Bishop in the LDS and a few years ago before a relocation was a statewide Bishop for Pennsylvania. According to him, the only thing keeping the church from showing rapid decline is that they never take anyone off the membership rolls because, according to their teachings, that would have a serious negative impact on their future potential as the progenitors populating other worlds.
About those Mega-churches, they have a reputation for being huge and creating church growth. That's an illusion. They primarily attract the disillusioned from the churches that are already in decline and themselves have little staying power after their founder dies or leaves. There is a long and growing list of them that have passed into history after the cult of personality around which they were built ended for one reason or another. I can show you two such churches within an hour's drive of my home that had memberships in excess of 2,500 just a few years ago, but which today are empty shells and for sale.
The reason I see for the decline of Christianity is the members being detached from the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who deny the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit die spiritually. But before they slip into their spiritual graves they often spend a long time debating about what is meaningless in the eternal view.
Ronald, I'm glad you've decided to tackle this topic of literalism. It is very basic ot Adventism, so it is not surprising that it shoudl eb recognised for what it is. But now that you've broached the topic, perhaps you might be able to help me with a question I've had since I was a youngin in sabbath school.
Do you know what has happened to teh firmament and the 'waters above the firmament?' They don't seem to be there anymore. Do you think this is an example of something which God created 6,000, give or take, years go, but which has now disappeared? Any help you can offer would be much appreciated.
Serge, I think Ronald has made it pretty clear that your question is useless. His conclusion is that as The Word Of God there is no value to questions. He (God) has spoken. The end.
Stephen, of making many words there is no end. Be as skeptical as you like of various methods of dating strata and artifacts. Consider the strengths and weaknesses and make an intelligent decision about which data has merit and which does not.
OR, decide ahead of time how things are, and discard any methods of estimating age that do not appeal to you. But if you do that, do not claim that you are giving fair consideration to the evidence. You are just accepting evidence that agrees with what you have already decided–and you are quick to accuse others of "confirmation bias," when that is the basis of your method of rationalization.
So, we both know that you will think whatever you wish to, and I would not want you to do otherwise. Just don't pretend that what you are promoting is reasonable consideration of tangible evidence.
“…of making many words there is no end.”
C’mon Joe, is that it then?
You indicated that the “very few” of those “independent and rational people” who “[honestly] examine the massive amount of real and tangible evidence that the earth and life on it is very, very old, and come away continuing to claim that the evidence is consistent with a YEC scenario” are irrational, or hold an irrational perspective.
I am basically asking you to clarify exactly why is it an irrational perspective? I’ve asked you if the consensus of scientific opinion has ever been proven wrong; and have cited an example wherein science is on either side of a controversy.
Haven’t you, among others, accepted “methods of estimating age” that do appeal to you; much like others have “[discarded] any methods of estimating age that do not appeal…” If the preponderance of the evidence is based on a method of age estimation, isn’t it the methodology that constitutes “evidence”?
So then, why is it not “reasonable” to doubt a methodology that no one claims is accurate for even 100,000 years?
If you were to simply say that in your opinion, the best scientific information currently available is that the earth and life on it is much older than 6,000 years and were to leave it at that, it would be one thing. But you call those who see things differently “ignorant,” “irrational,” “elitist,” and not “reasonable;” and categorize those who teach young people other than what you believe as almost child abusers.
That represents an evangelistic zeal. I’m simply addressing questions to the evangelist.
I noted today that "Kennewick Man" is back in the news. A book has been published about the evidence scientifically extrapolated from Kennewick's hardy remains. Those bones were unearthed 18 years or so ago by the Corps of Engineers in Eastern Washington, near the Columbia River, in the vicinity of the city of Kennewick. Since my mother has lived in Kennewick for the past 23 years, and Dad did so until his death in 2008, we have always had an almost "family interest" in Mr. Kennewick, who scientists tell us was an approximately 40-year-old nomadic hunter whose bones show evidence of a strenuous and even violent life, and who came to his end some 9,000 years ago.
Kennewick Man seems to have died before the creation of the world, if both modern science and traditional Bible interpretation are to be believed. Adventists in the Kennewick area don't seem to be particularly upset by the prospect that a man of apparent Siberian coastal extraction roamed the shores of the great Columbia sometime before the official creation date postulated by Cardinal Ussher. Perhaps there would be more debate had the carbon-decay measurements declared that Kennewick Man had passed away, say, 20,000 years ago, or even more. And I wonder to what degree these rather "personal" encounters with ancient fossils upset the actual faith of the faithful. Does it really jolt us when we hear of yet another scientist predicating his interpretations on the basis of the existence of an earth that has been inhabited by humans more than 6,000, 9,000, 30,000, or even 75,000 years?
Ellen White long ago added her pen to that of Cardinal Ussher in declaring the created earth to be in the vicinity of 6,000 years old, but Sister White does not (to my knowledge) make serious theological points based on that assertion, and the age of the created earth, in particular, does not impinge fundamentally (to my reckoning) on any of our central doctrines, except for those who declare the inerrancy of Sister White's writings to be one of our Cardinal truths….
Much has been made of the position that at Creation we all gained common ancestry (Adam and Eve) and science so far fundamentally agrees that the human race is indeed descended from a central line, and it is (paradoxically) Sister White who introduces (against scientific counsel) the assertion that the human family tree has been affected by amalgamation with other species. But I have yet to find a serious Adventist (at least above the American Mason-Dixon Line) who entertains even for a moment that racial characteristics are even remotely the product of such inter-species contact.
If Ellen White could be mistaken about amalgamation of species, could she not also be mistaken in her support for the chronology of the good Catholic Cardinal? And if she were alive today would she not cheerfully acknowledge those mistakes and move on, like most of us who sojourn in search of the truth?
Long blog, Ed, which I will not take time to respond to except to say that the old canard about amalgamation is about the weakest argument one can use to demean the writings of EGW. By now you should know better.
See: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c1
Maranatha
The evidence is the bones and fossils and the places where they are found. The evidence is the genomic sequences. Measures are made using various techniques to characterize/describe the evidence. People make inferences based on the measurements. The inferences about age are based in part on the assumptions made about the measurement methods. The methods are tested and validated and are found to have strengths and weaknesses. We are right to be skeptical of how measures are done and to require that they are reliable and valid. We are even right to teach young people to be skeptical of measurement methods and learn about when those methods are most appropriate and when they are least appropriate. And, of course, we want to see multiple measures and multiple methods of age estimation. We also want age estimate to be presented as a range from upper to lower limits within certain specified levels of confidence.
So, if various methods of estimating age yield a range from 60,000 to 40,000 years ago with 95% confidence, one just takes that information as a scientific report. One need not accept it as fact or discard it as false. It just is a report. There are other reports on other specimens from other places. Each reports an estimated age range. One can acknowledge that there are such reports without accepting as true or rejecting them as false. One can become aware that there are thousands of such reports. Tens of thousands. The age estimates may be from 6,000 to 4,000 years, from 600,000 to 400,000, from 600 million to 400 million. Many methods are used. Methods that have been tested and validated and are open to you to test and validate.
Scientists can measure evidence using differing methods. They can reach somewhat different conclusions based on methods and assumptions. But people rarely, if ever, find that evidence thought to be 60,000 years old is less than 6,000 years old, or that anything that was estimated to be 60 million years old was actually less than 6 million or 6 thousand years old.
The thing is, you can't just make up the evidence, and trying to fit all the evidence into a 6,000 year scenario is highly irrational and by that I mean that it makes no sense. It makes no sense. Do not raise your children to believe that things that make no sense are absolutely and undeniably true, and do not require science teachers to teach nonsense.
Joe, please at your leisure, reread your second and third paragraphs, in the above. There is clearly no way to determine what if anything happened 60,000, or 600,000, or 6 million, or 60 million, or 600 million, or 6 billion years ago.
In your last paragraph you say “The thing is, you can't just make up the evidence…;” but dear Joe, you’re discounting the reality that any suggestion that we can reliably determine what if anything happened that long ago is/represents/exemplifies making up evidence.
As I say, it would be one thing to simply agree to disagree, brother; but you persist in disparaging those who dare happen to disagree with the consensus. (We now add “nonsense” to your list.) I’d say the “evidence” points to you holding this information rather tightly, my friend.
See? You are just making that up! "There is no way to determine…." And, if there was, you would still say there was not.
"Is too," says Joe. "Is not," says Stephen. Stale mate. Joe says there is evidence and Stephen says there isn't. Fossils are not what they seem to be. Geological strata are not what they seem to be. Mountains and mountains of hard evidence just is not what it seems to be. We know that it is not what it seems to be because what it seems to be (very old, and very, very, very old) simply cannot be known.
It cannot be known if it seems to be more than about 6000 years old. If all indications suggest that something is older than that, those indications are erroneous. Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
Ignoring tangible and credible evidence is the very meaning of the term "ignorance." Perhaps we can generate something worthwhile here: maybe a bumper sticker that says "Proud to be Ignorant." A whole movement could ensue. "Ignorant Pride." There could be festive parades. The "Ignorant Rights" movement could resonate with some legislators.
But I should also join with others who are ignorant, because I ignore the testimony of people who have died and gone to heaven and returned to write about it. I am ignorant because I tend to think spiritual experiences are often the result of schizophrenia or bladder infections (or something physical). I am ignorant of spirits and goblins and imps. I ignore the obvious fact that someone designed and deliberately formed all living things 6000 years ago and placed bugs inside rocks and made them look 300 million years old. Obviously, that is the sort of thing that would have been done by someone with too much time on His hands.
Joe,
If you will notice, I’ve never said anything about 6,000 years, my brother. I haven’t even said anything to you about what the Bible actually does say.
(Are you talking to someone besides me?)
Let’s put it this way Joe, someone who holds information lightly might say, “Something that may look 300 million years old may not be 300 million years old.” (How exactly something on earth looks 300 million years old is clearly another question.)
Remember Joe, I didn’t say there was no “evidence;”I am saying however that there really is no reliable way to find out how old some things actually are.
Once again, since we can’t agree it would be OK if we just disagreed. But the thing is; that’s apparently not OK with you for some strange reason. You feel compelled to denigrate others’ opinions.
If dinosaurs were contemporary with mankind, and supposedly there were thousands or millions of different kinds, including massive 40 foot tall, 100 ft long, weighing 10 tons specimens, with teeth made for rending flesh, and claws for ripping flesh, wouldn't you think there would be more than a very few comments, other than just say behemouth, or liviathan??
A to the absence of human imprints coexistence with dinosaurs, many were so huge they may have simply have snacked on humans in one gulp. Chazam, no trace left! Of course Ellen did say people were twice the present size. But then, the big carnivores could have handled that minor difference.
So, how does such endless debate equip a person to grow the Kingdom of God?
William, bless you brother with your continuing exhortation to love your neighbor and serve him. Ever the "good Samaritan". Man looks on the exterior of man, but the Holy Spirit knows the heart.
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, speaking to you of your work to be done, He is speaking to all who will listen of the talents they will provide. Not all talents are the same. The Holy Spirit will reach every seeking soul which does not shun Him. Heaven wants each of our input, but the job will be completed without a great amount of human endeavour. God calls us to love and serve.
Yes, Stephen, I think holding knowledge gently applies very well to age estimates. After all,
they are ESTIMATES. It doesn't worry me much that an age estimate of hundreds of millions
of years might be off by a few million years–even tens of millions of years. In some cases,
rough estimates of relative age may be enough to be useful. It is interesting, for example, that
the youngest of the dinosaur specimens are from about the time when the oldest primate specimens
[lemur-like mammals] have been found (roughly 65 million years ago).
You are entitle to have any opinions you like, Stephen, but the opinion that no one is able to
make reasonable estimates of things that happened a long time ago is an opinion that does not
align with actual evidence that is available to you and everyone else. Of course, you are free
to ignore the evidence and believe whatever suits you.
It’s possible estimates that may be tens of millions of years off, may also be hundreds of millions of years off.
If that’s true, then estimates of billions, hundreds of millions, or tens of millions of years are not evidence of anything. Estimates are one thing, evidence is another.
But it seems you have great faith in the estimates and consider them evidence. I’m ignoring the estimates, not the evidence.
We view estimates and evidence somewhat differently. You too may believe whatever suits you. I think it’s important that I grant that you freedom without reservation or denigration.
Correction: …think it’s important that I grant you that freedom without reservation or denigration.
It's interesting that some of the bravest, best, and most ballyhooed archaeologists working year after year on digs in the Middle East have been God-believing Christians, some of whom have come up with solid evaluations that surpass the 6,000-year maximum many Creationists prefer to see on paper as the age of a site such as ancient Jericho. In matters of pottery shards, style of artistic expression, and parallel manifestations of building and art across the Middle East, Christian archaeologists seem as willing to "estimate" and gather "evidence" as truly and as thoroughly as any evolutionist using similar forms of evaluation (and often coming up with identical conclusions). It's clear that an enlightened mixture of evidence and theory (estimates) are endemic tools to the intelligent nature of curious man, as he labors to pull aside the veils that shroud the realities we believe can ultimately be revealed through a combination of these means.
The primary problem between archaeologists of various persuasions is that some will choose to believe that the other side is hedging the evidence and estimates to conspiratorially produce results to favor a particular theoretical viewpoint. In the matter of Kennewick Man, did someone down in California "goose" the voltage to give a death date of 9,000 years rather than the true 4,500? I understand from those who were present that to forestall as much as possible any charges of favoritism, that samples of the bones were sent to a considerable number of labs, and only when these labs certified that in all essential parts of the evaluation the numbers were similar, was a consensus number of years and an accompanying anthropological analysis disclosed in a press conference.
If we believe science is porous with fraud and exaggeration, all the more reason to strongly support Christian colleges with labs of our own, to be able to rule out skullduggery in those worldly labs that may profess no regard for God.
Ed-
Why not take a look at some of the books by Ariel Roth, a scientist. You might even find that some of your ideas are correct while others may lack substance.
Maranatha
Dear friend Stephen. I feel like we have gotten to know each other a little better through these discussions, and I want you to know that I respect you and your opinions. I confess that I have been harsher than necessary on some occasions and have lacked sensitivity to you and others whose view of the world differs somewhat from my own. We probably still are not in complete agreement about what does or does not constitute "evidence," but I think we might be getting closer.
I do consider bones and fossils as solid direct evidence. Measures of those specimens and the environments where they are found are what I would call "indirect evidence." "Estimates" of age or other characteristics are often (maybe even always) based on interpretations of indirect evidence. The farther we get from the actual specimens, the less likely we are to have reliable or valid estimates. But, fortunately, we often have the actual physical specimens to subject to additional measures by other scientists. Likewise, genomic sequences are data based on measures of something physically real that can be measured and remeasured reliably.
Edwin, there is no reason for honest scientists to obtain different results based on their religious beliefs. That is the point of using objective scientific methods. So, are you saying that you (or adventists in general) "believe science is porous with fraud and exaggeration?" I do have the impression that SDAs are teaching their young people that "skullduggery in those worldly labs that profess no regard for God" is reality. What a sadly distorted and paranoid view! And what a flimsy basis for supporting Christian colleges. Unless, of course, we "infidel" scientists are part of some enormous anti-God conspiracy….
Joe, I have every reason to believe that teaching universities and other labs have powerful reasons to be scrupulously honest with their results; however, not all my fellow members agree with me and some tell me that we simply cannot believe these laboratories, because of their interest in supporting a status quo vital to their interests—i.e., preservation of and compliance with certain established positions regarding long-term evolution. Even as we have our own seminaries throughout the world, it would seem that given the considerable tension on the matter of when life began on earth, Adventist academic institutions should participate actively in establishing labs that will enjoy greater credibility with the Adventist public. I think one of the concerns today is that if (for example) La Sierra U. post-grad students and their advisers published a paper showing that human beings have been living in the Americas for at least 28,000 years, given a new "6,000 years or less" rule enunciated by Silver Spring, the faculty supervising that paper could be fired and the students could be denied degrees, because the research would be seen as out of compliance with the Church's doctrinal standards.
I am a journalist, not a scientist or educator, but the stigma against "evolutionists" and the open invitation to all teachers to resign, if they feel compelled to perform research and offer instruction that includes allusions to evolution, seem unnecessarily stringent. I am told, for example, that even the study of DNA and the creation of drugs to fight dread diseases (based on meticulous study of DNA whose very existence appears to be supported by an evolutionary process surpassing 6,000 years time) could be terminated if Adventist institutions were to follow Elder Wilson's dis-invitation to the letter. I think we are playing with very flammable moral issues here, ones that spill over into our ability as a Church to participate in life-saving research. I hope others will weigh in on this aspect of the discussion. I (personally) am far more concerned about myself and my Church as moral benefactors of society, than whether or not we all concur with Brother Spencer and Brother Wilson on the precise number or years elapsed since creation. There are far weightier matters in my mind, but I do not blame Ronald Spencer for writing as he does. For many Adventists his views apparently strike a vital chord. If indeed this matter is going to come before the GC in Session next year, by all means let's start talking about its implications now. Those implications are indeed very serious ones, as I study the issues as a non-scientist….
" I am told, for example, that even the study of DNA and the creation of drugs to fight dread diseases (based on meticulous study of DNA whose very existence appears to be supported by an evolutionary process surpassing 6,000 years time) could be terminated if Adventist institutions were to follow Elder Wilson's dis-invitation to the letter."
Ed, if you really believe that let me know as I have a couple bridges I would like to sell.
Maranatha
Ah, yes, a theological bridge free for the asking, with the likeness of Jesus, his arms stretched out in blessing on the first suspension arch. That's the essence of Christianity, to sell the saving bridges of Christ's intercession to the world, without money, without price. Bless you, Truth Seeker. You have found Truth at last. Thrive with it and pass it on with rejoicing…
Ed-
Why don't you respond to this fable that one must believe evolution to create drugs?
Maranatha
Does no one else suspect that Ronald Spencer is writing tongue-in-cheek?
R. Wresch, M.D.
I strongly suspect the same thing. Is the satire too subtle or am I mself too skeptical?
O' you literalists. tweak tweak.
The reason that those 1000 foot glaciers at Niagara Falls began melting 12000 years ago was because all of those natives were tooling around in their SUVs.
Seriously, conservation of resources is almost(?) always a good idea. If the children are convinced that they are helping the environment by closing doors, turning off the lights, etc, that is probably a good thing. They do not seem to learn any other way.
In all the discussion about the science stuff, no one mentioned this sentence in the article: “The historical parts of Scripture were written literally as God dictated those passages through the Holy Spirit.”
Dictated? I don’t think so. And if I’m not mistaken, that does not reflect the general Adventist approach to inspiration. I'm beginning to side with those who think this article might be a spoof.