Young Adults Convene Retention Summit
by Monte Sahlin
From a News Release, October 23, 2014
A lifelong Adventist and daughter of missionary parents, Natalie Bruzon is tired of seeing young adults walk out during a sermon and sometimes joining them. Feeling disconnected to the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, she even considered attending a nondenominational Christian church.
“The struggle is real,” said Bruzon, a student at Union College (UC) in Lincoln, Nebraska. Bruzon decided she wanted to see something change for her generation and became the driving force behind the three-day summit of student leaders from the Adventist colleges and universities in North America that began today (October 23) on the UC campus. The event gives young adults the opportunity to discuss ways that Adventist young adults can stay connected with their church and how the church can stay connected with their generation. The focus is "being a part of the solution."
Last year student leaders were invited to sit in on the annual meeting of the governing body for the Adventist denomination in North America. The student body presidents who attended "felt that the Adventist church needed more young adult support,” said Bruzon. “One of the big issues in the church right now is that 60 to 70 percent of our young adults, 18 to 30 years old, are leaving.”
The student senate at UC took up the idea and looked at various possibilities, events and other ways they could generate awareness of the issue. Feeling that they needed something different from the usual campus spiritual activities, the senate concluded that they needed a long-standing solution in the form of a five-year plan and a committee to steer it.
“As church members, we felt like we needed to do something to help,” explained Bruzon. “Everything I do is powered and encompassed by my beliefs,” she told her classmates. “I never stray from them.”
Passionate about her new-found goal, Bruzon organized a committee of UC students to figure out how to reach young adults of all ages and educational programs. The committee is not directly affiliated with the student government, but works independently.
“Our purpose was to discuss issues that we see in the church and reasons why we would not want to stay in the church, to bring to light this problem of young adults leaving.” Out of these discussions developed the idea for the summit.
As part of this week's summit, two representatives from each Adventist college and university in North America have been invited to Lincoln and the committee has invited four speakers. “The summit is not so much to offer concrete solutions, but more of presenting the young adults’ voice,” Bruzon explained. “We want to bridge the communication gap that we have with our church leaders.”
Over the next three days there will be four "think tank" sessions of guided discussion. Information from these sessions will be compiled, followed by a short presentation on the results. Then there will be a general discussion. Any young adult can participate in the discussion, and those who are not young adults are welcome to listen. The summit will wrap up with breakout groups exploring questions such as: Why do young adults leave the church? Why do young adults stay? What can we give the church? What would we like the church to give us?
The speakers will include Pastor Allan Martin from the Arlington Adventist Church in the suburbs of Dallas; Pastor Ben Lundquist, young adult ministries director for the denomination's Arizona Conference; Dr. Ron Pickell, pastor of the Berkeley (California) Adventist Church and coordinator of public campus ministries for the denomination's North American Division; and Pastor Harold Alomia, senior pastor of the College View Church on the UC campus.
The students also launched a social media campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with the hashtag #iAmTheChurch. This hashtag was intended to raise awareness about the summit, but organizers hope the campaign will also initiate critical thinking by young adults across North America, challenging them to consider what role they will be playing in the church five years into the future.
“We are the church of tomorrow. What are we going to be doing in five years?” ask students in a short video created as part of the campaign. “Are we going to be passively sitting on the pews and complaining about everything we don’t like, or are we going to be actively part of the solution?” The goal of the committee is that the student leaders who participate in the summit this week will continue the movement.
“The committee members are really passionate and have done all the work to make this possible,” said Bruzon. “It’s been amazing the way every single one of them has stepped up, taken on a project, and volunteered to be a part of something.”
The summit and the committee are especially important to Bruzon because she personally wants to see young adults take an active role in the church and a step forward in their spiritual journeys. “This committee has made me aware of the role church plays in our lives,” she explained. “It’s made me take it more seriously and actually look at it from a new perspective.”
“I would love to see committees like this in other schools,” she added, “to see young adults raising their voices and saying they want to be a part of the Adventist church, and strive to make things happen. I would love to see us take a part in our own problem and be proactive about it.” As for Bruzon’s five-year plan, she sees herself still actively and passionately involved with the committee and its mission to reach young adults struggling to connect with the Adventist Church.
"I hope this is a genuine, authentic grass-roots uprising," a retired NAD officer told Adventist Today. "We need a new generation of deeply rooted, centrist Adventist young adults to take hold of the church."
If you want more information about the movement join #TheFiveYearPlan (#TFYP) on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. The video can be seen at this Web address: https://youtu.be/iA2TYBng9c8
I pray that these young people will have the courage to establish new congregations where spiritual relevance will draw people in instead of driving them out.
When I was in college, when our boys were in college, and now as children of our friends are in college, the question of church attendance and participation looms large in our "adult" list of concerns.
There are myriad reasons why young people do not bother to go to church. One mundane reason is that on weekends they have a chance to sleep-in 8-). Young people tend to value social interaction and active engagement very highly and large campus churches often do not excel in these regards.
Campus pastors and youth workers are generally aware of these matters and try different approaches to deal with them. Many campuses have "alternative" churches operated by and for youg people. Some adult leaders feel threatened by this whereas others embrace it. Some campuses open up facilities on Sabbaths to facilitate campus life, whereas others keep everything locked-down except the church dormitories and cafeteria, thereby encouraging students to simply leave the campus on Sabbath for whatever else (good and bad) may beckon in the surrounding community. If there is no other reason for students to hang-around on campus, after they catch-up on their sleep they are more likely to head-out than to go to any church on campus.
Beyond all of these is simply the fact that often for the first time in their lives college students have the choice of what to do with their time. They can and do experiment with a variety of different choices, some better and others worse. And they develop habits that do not change until they have children of their own.
The increasing delay in marrying and having children, also delays when these young people tend to return to churches. In our own "non traditional" church most of the new participants are young familes, or older people on the "rebound" after some spiritually devastating experience.
I am gratified that these young people are taking it upon themselves to try to understand and address these questions. And I am gratified that the current NAD leaders are inviting student leaders to join in their meetings.
When I was a campus leader we tried to initiate some on-campus alternatives to the big campus church but the school administration was adamantly opposed. So we organized off-campus spiritual retreats, etc, beyond their reach. The wave of spiritual revival that swept through many Adventist campuses was beyond their control and therefore it was a threat.
On some occasions when we met with high church officials, the fear and even loathing was palpable. They would not dare to invite us to any of their own meetings. They seemd to have forgotten that, other than Joseph Bates, almost all of the founders of the SDA church were in their late teens and early twenties.
One very positive thing that can be said for most of the current college and church leaders (my generation) in North America is that we remember the much more repressve attitudes toward young people from the prior era and are actively seeking to avoid passing this "gift" along to future generations.
Jim,
At some point we have to move beyond identifying causes to finding solutions that work. I think those solutions require major modifications to our concepts of how we "do church" and that we nurture faith in ways where questioning and testing are respected as powerful teaching tools as our youth learn to build a relationship with God instead of exclusively learning proof-texts and memorizing fundamental doctrines.
A dozen years ago when my congregation was being gestated, one of the things we did was take a look at every aspect we could identify about how we "did church" to ask if it was a positive or a negative. Negatives quickly got thrown-out. I think first to get trashed was organ music. Not far behind it was collecting an offering as part of the service because it was "dead time." (We have offering boxes at the entrances and giving has always exceeded budget.) Church hymnals were another thing that went away and were replaced by projecting the words to songs on the screen. I could give you a long list of changes we made. One result is a very high youth attendance rate of about 55-60% of attendance on any given Sabbath.
Most of all, our youth need role models who have working relationships with God. If a child sees their parents do not have a functional, growing relationship with God, they will not expect to discover God, either. I look at my son and see evidence of that because he was going through a formative time when my faith was very weak so I could give him no positive example to follow on spiritual matters. More than that, he was being beaten-down by the same "saints of traditionalism" who were battering me. So I don't think we should be surprised by the high rate at which the youth are leaving because they're following in the footsteps of their parents who probably are barely in the church themselves.
Our youth attendance rate is also very high. A few years ago I even had a Jr High student who invited one of his non-Adventist (actually non-Christian) friends to our class.
When children go away to college things change fro the reasons I have described above (and doubless others). There is an age where people decide for themselves what to do and how to do it. For many Adventist young people that begins with going away to college (some start earler – others wait until later).
I pray that these young people may have the courage to do whatever God is leading them to do in their particular situations.
May their tribe increase!
And thank you, Jim, for forwarding to me the recent report on Svante Paabo's work on a femur determined to be from a "modern human" who lived about 45,000 years befor the present. I'm looking forward to a comment from Erv Taylor about this. Are SDAs allowed by their president to consider information of this sort on its merits?
That would be 45,000 years ago if you trust the current C14 dating methodology. Understanding that I am waving a huge red flag in front of Dr Taylor, I remain unconvinced of the accuracy (as opposed to resolution) of estimation within that last half-life of C14 before you reach the typical background levels in the biosphere. I think it would be more accurate to say something like "based upon our best available dating methodology this femur appears to be older than 30,000 years and closer to 50,000 years".
To me the most amazing thing about this experiment is that they were able to extract sufficient DNA from a femur that had been exposed to a variety of different environmental effects.
Jim, I did say "about," and giving due consideration to the information on its merits may well be better expressed as a range of values from 30K to 50K as you say. I think you are agreeing with me when I suggest that SDAs (and others) should be able to consider such matters on their merits.
Further, any additional extrapolations based on this information, such as the suggestion that modern humans and Neanderthal humans probably interbred between 50 and 60 thousand years ago, also needs to be considered on merit–not rejected out of hand because it does not fit into a YEC box.
Can such matters be discussed in SDA academy science classes, or is this forbidden?
The 60K estimate for the Neanderthal genes is probably the speculative part of the article I sent you. It assumes that you know what was the gene sequence of the most recent Neanderthal ancestor, and then proceeds to estimate how many generations of "shuffling" of the genes occurred on the various chromosomes. Shuffling is a random or pseudo-random process (depending on what or who is doing the shuffling). A more accurate statement would have been something like "based upon the distribution of Neanderthal genes within the chromosomes it is estimated that the most recent Neanderthal ancestor was 500 generations previous" (or whatever the underlying estimate was).
Even this would be working backward to the presumed gene sequence on the chromosomes of the Neanderthal ancestor. Itself a process fraught with errors and assumptions as we do not have DNA samples from a known Neanderthal ancestor of this particular gentleman. Though I personally do not doubt that most if not all Europeans (myself included) carry some Neanderthal DNA. And the same may probably be true for many Asians.
So-called "DNA genealogy" gets a lot of attention right now. But unless you can identify specific permutations (I avoid "mutation" in this context) on specific genes within groups of descendants of particular known ancestors, it is basically a statistical procees that, albeit very interesting, can only provide general information as we both know.
On the other hand here we have DNA taken from one individual with putative but indeterminate Neanderthal ancestry. If additonal DNA can be extracted from other fossil human remains of similar C14 age from the same region, then there might be a bit more statistical confidence in the conclusions.
As a young person (more than 40 years ago), I left the church of my childhood and youth. My departure was not an act of defiance nor a search for worldly adventure. I left because I was honest. I could no longer belong to a church that insisted that I believe things that were unbelievable to me in the light of abundant tangible scientific evidence.
The biggest problem I had then, and the problem I continue to have with the church as an institution and some of its members, is the unnecessary unwillingness to consider evidence on its merits. This is most apparent in the insistence (by the church president and some others) on a "recent" originof life on earth–despite enormous amounts of tangible evidence to the contrary that cannot reasonably be ignored.
The church has painted itself into a corner on this issue. Amazingly, given the commitment to health and education, people who teach science in adventist institutions are told that they MUST teach a YEC perspective or they should "get out." Not surprisingly, many sensible people leave. The only remarkable outcome is that ALL scientists, science educators, and physicians do not leave SDA institutions.
When a position is taken that forbids due consideration of tangible evidence from nature, the church has gone far, far off track. Sensible young people must demand a change in this policy in order to save their church from being entrenched as a bastion of ignorance.
There needs to be an emancipation proclamation. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the scriptural advice would be taken that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free?" Or even the PUC motto based on EGHW's goal stated in Education that our young people should learn to be "thinkers, and not mere reflectors" of others' ideas?
Those in the church who ARE thinkers, should INSIST on having the freedom, and conveying the same to young people, of learning to use science appropriately as a process for obtaining and evaluating objective evidence on its merits.
Perhaps the wisest course for science educators on Adventist campuses is to present the best available evidence and let students draw their own conclusions.
The problem with this approach as in most other disciplines, is that it is more work for both the teacher and the student to take the trouble to understand the underlying evidence than to simply state the conclusions. In other words, the conclusions are more accessible to a wider audience than is the underlying evidence.
Creation and Evolution are not "facts" nor are they even "theories". They are explanations of origins drawn from differing and sometimes conflicting sources of evidence. Teaching either of these as "theory" or "fact" is dis-ingenuous at best. If you object to dogmatic indoctrination with Creation bias then you should also object to dogmatic indoctrination with Evolution bias.
If you define Evolution as "descent with modification" then I have little quarrel with this explanation. There is an enormous body of supporting evidence that demonstrates and explains this concept. In this regard a more accurate title for Darwin's (revised) work would be Development of Species. If you further claim that "descent with modification" is sufficient to explain Origins then you have made an enormous leap for which there is little evidentiary basis and many counter-arguments.
Jim, I think you and I are largely in agreement about the importance of presenting the best available evidence and accurate descriptions of the methods of science.
Terms like "creation" and "evolution" have become so laden with misunderstandings that we almost need a new vocabulary as an interface for rational discussion. I agree that these are explanations rather than "facts."
I have always liked use of the term "development" for both ontogeny and phylogeny, so we are also in agreement there, and these processes are intimately entwined, which is also helpful.
Personally, I am much less concerned with what people think about ultimate origins that I am about rigidly institutionalized insistence on "recent" timescale that is unwilling to consider evidence on merit. That is, essentially, an anti-science position, rather than an anti-evolution stance.
The following will help to correct many minunderstandings.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
For the most part, I agree Jim. But if indeed “the wisest course for science educators on Adventists campuses is to present the best available evidence;” then this evidence should be evidence of exactly what—given the rest of what you've said?
The difference I continue to have with Joe is that he positions that with which he disagrees as ignoring/ignorant of evidence; as if consensus interpretation of the evidence represents “the best available” thus definitive interpretation; or that what the current scientific consensus says comprises evidence of origins represents reality/fact.
Joe is inadvertently advocating that Adventist science teachers teach reflections of other men’s thoughts, with their assumptions and conjecture representing evidence/reality/fact.
Dear brother Stephen. I love you–and I mean that in the sense that I want what is best for you. It is not up to me to know or say what is best for you, but what I think I want for you and others is for you to be free of the traditional constraints on what evidence you can consider and on what you can think about.
What I want for you is to be able to consider any evidence without prejudging what it must mean and where it must fit in terms of time. Far be it from me to advocate that anyone accept any interpretation of anything on the basis of consensus or other authority. What I would like for you, and for adventist educators and their students, is to be able to examine any evidence on its merits, rather than to be afraid of what you might learn.
Stephen, my friend and brother, I am absolutely not advocating that adventist science teachers reflect other men's thoughts–not Ted Wilson, not Chuck Darwin, and not Carl Sagan. I am just urging that adventist science teachers learn how to use science as a method of obtaining and evaluating information, and to teach their students how to use science to increase understanding, advance knowledge, and solve problems. All this without being bound into an incredible 6000 year box or being forced to deny real evidence.
Stephen,
What evidence to present depends upon the subject matter of the class, and the level of knowledge and maturity of the students. In a 9th grade science class we studied a chapter on the geological/biological column amongst other things, complete with their estimated ages. I do not think it turned any of us into atheists or drove any of us away from the church. We all understood that this was a method of organizing and analyzing fossils that had been dug-up over the last couple centuries. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ditto for studying relativity and cosmology and astronomy in Physics classes. Including the methods for measuring the apparent distance of deep space objects. As a retired physics professor at an Adventist institution remarked when somebody asked him about the ages of objects seen through the telescope, "my God is a lot older than 6,000 years".
Joe,
In my own experience almost all Adventist science teachers in North America know how to use science as a method of obtaining and evaluating information. Your insinuation that they need to learn how to do this is unfair and misleading and condescending. Ditto for your insinuation that Adventist science students do not learn this.
Maybe you went to the wrong schools at the wrong time. There were a few schools where this was still the case while I was a student (including Stephen's darling 8-). Today in North America I do not think you would find this to be the case (with perhaps very few exceptions). Even in our academies many if not most of our science teachers have their students doing direct field observations as well as laboratory experiments (depending on the class).
Now if you wanted to assert that theology majors need to learn how to use science as a method of obtaining and evaluating information, that would be a very interesting discussion 8-). Here I have seen a very mixed bag. You might be surprised how scientifically trained and literate are some of our theologians and administrators, and probably not surprised at how scientifically illiterate are some others. Consider for example this widely-published theologian whose first degree was in Chemical Engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Johnsson). We once hosted a visiting conference president whose first degree was in Mechanical Engineering and whose hobbies included writing a paper proposing an alternative solution to Einstein's equations of General Relativity. He was overjoyed as a guest at our house, to discover a fellow Adventist who could share a discussion (that went late into the night) regarding science and technology, not just church politics.
Jim,
I regret and apologize for appearing to disrespect SDA science educators, and I think there is a need for everyone–SDA or not, theologian, teacher, engineer, or physician–to be well-grounded in the understanding and methods of science. Learning how to acquire and evaluate information is important to everyone.
Scientific illiteracy in "high places" is a serious problem that is not unique to the SDA church. But the extent to which such ignorance is apparent within your own earthy leadership has recently been made clear when your head church administrator instructed your science educators to teach something false (recent creation) as if it were true, or get out. Now that, my friend, is showing far more disrespect for SDA science educators than anything I insinuated.
Now, this is your church and your problem. If not teaching full-spectrum science is the way the church deals with this issue, and attempting to shield young people from evidence is the attempted approach, that strategy will fail, and sensible young people will leave the church.
Not only that, but having been taught a brand of Christianity that holds literal recent creation as fundamental to practically everything, they will often have an enduring struggle to figure out how to accommodate honesty with faith.
It is all so unnecessary. A commitment to advancing truth and being honest should not require denial of freedom of thought and exploration or witholding academic freedom from educators. You can just pay them to teach the church dogma instead of real science, as your esteemed leader seems to want, or you can insist on truth and honesty and engaging with reality.
Joe,
Science and mathematics literacy in general is very poor in America. This is a reflection of what our society and our schools value most. In this regard the Adventist church is no exception.
You and I are the exception 8-(.
Jim,
It is true that science and math literacy is astonishingly poor in America. My wife, Nancy, worked for many years at the headquarters of the National Science Teachers Association, editing, among other things, materials to assist in the implementation of the national science teaching standards. While I think many science teachers are very devoted, far too many of them, in my opinion, have ever actually done any original scientific research themselves.
Those who actually go through the entire process of devising original research projects, designing experiments and surveys, and analyzing and reporting results often have worthwhile epiphanies. I like to see that happen more in secondary school and undergraduate college years.
When I went to PUC as a math/physics major, I found myself already discouragingly behind because I had not had enough math–even though I took all the math and science that had been offered at the academy I attended. But, never mind. That was long ago and it does not matter anymore. I ultimately found my way. I'm glad for you, Jim, that you did too.
Wishing you well.
When I went to Andrews University as a math/physics major I found that I was more than well enough prepared and was not behind in any way. The only knock that I would have given my academy regarding physics is that their science laboratory was far better equipped for chemistry than for physics.
In my case the shoe was on the other foot. My intention was to go to MIT because I was not convinced there was any Adventist college/university that had an adequate physics program. I knew Andrews had a good math department but it took a campus visit to convince me about physics.
I will readily admit that at an earlier time or a different academy or college or in some other academic disciplines the outcome would have been different.
How’s this for “incredible”?: To deny that the scientific consensus doesn’t have its own assumptions relative to disputing the “six days” claim is not credible. I would like for Joe to be free to consider evidence without any preconceived notions or assumptions; and to hold his beliefs about how young things are not much more gently.
We’ve all been to this rodeo before; with confirmation bias cutting in every direction. No one disputes that God is more than 6,000 years old. I do not know how old the earth is or how old it isn’t; but Joe insists that he knows that it is more than 6,000 years old. I don’t recall ever arguing about that.
The Bible makes no mention of how old the earth is, or is not. But Joe persists in making my case with terms like “incredible” and “real evidence.” This is dogmatic language, pure and simple. It is a non-starter from my perspective. Dogmatism and confirmation bias cut both ways. “Real evidence” basically represents Joe’s euphemism for indisputable factual reality. You can’t speculate, estimate or reasonably, or ‘best guess,’ reality—and declare it factual.
I understand that, based on the consensus of evaluation of tangible evidence, it is incredible that the world was created in six days; much less spoken into existence—just as, based on the consensus of evaluation of tangible evidence, it is plausible that the basis of Christianity is fraudulent.
What Joe fails to accept is that Adventist Christianity is essentially a faith proposition; and that Scripture is regarded as inspired. Perhaps nevertheless we can find some agreement. By attending public schools I know that it is possible—and possibly beneficial—to learn what the consensus of geologists believe and why with reference to anything; and regurgitate it for a grade on tests. Believing and accepting such information as factual is not necessary; and is another matter.
Maybe Joe would be satisfied with that. If so, I understand that this is happening at Adventist colleges and universities now.
The only information that I cite and the primary reason for believing what I do relative to Creation is my literal interpretation of certain related texts: Genesis 1:1, 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, Genesis 2:2, 3, Exodus 20:11, and Hebrews 11:3.
For those who happen not to regard the Bible as entirely inspired by God, this is admittedly inadequate and insufficient information. For those who do regard the Bible as entirely inspired by God, it is all but impossible to circumvent these texts. My brother Joe is resistant to acknowledge that reality and left Adventism over his inability to intellectually reconcile that as reality. I respect his decision to do so and I pray that, as a result of scientific consensus and intellectual integrity, he doesn’t deny Jesus’ sacrificial death for him. I love Joe, as he loves me.
God isn’t trying to fool us about Creation. What anyone believes about geological evidence is a result of what one is willing to believe (confirmation bias) in every instance. You Jim have correctly stated, “Creation and Evolution are not "facts" nor are they even "theories". They are explanations of origins drawn from differing and sometimes conflicting sources of evidence. Teaching either of these as "theory" or "fact" is dis-ingenuous at best.”
Joe said that he agrees with this, but when he definitively and dogmatically asserts that Creationism or some aspect of it is not true; he is indicating an unwillingness to acknowledge that the C14 dating methodology is merely perceived by scientific community consensus as the “best available dating methodology.”
There are such huge gaps in the interminable dialog between Stephen and Joe that I generally forbear and desist.
I will step-in merely to point-out that science is not based upon faith but rather upon facts. Faith and facts are two different ways of looking at things. It does no good whatsoever to drag one of them into a discussion of the other.
I have previously commented on this web site about "binocular vision" ie learning to view things uisng both the eye of faith and the eye of facts. Stephen tends to write with one eye closed and Joe with the other eye closed. Of course they see very differnt things 8-).
I would hasten to add that some scientists (and most science writers) fall into the trap of presenting as facts teachings that involve major elements of faith. And a very large majority of preachers fall into the trap of presenting as facts teachings that are entirely a matter of faith (not to mention stories that even the most cursory investigation will show not to e factual).
No, pastor, Fleming did not save young Churchill's life, nor did the Churchill family fund his medical studies, nor have Churchill's medical records revealed that Churchill's life was later saved by penicillin. This has been traced back to a book of inspirational children's stories. A generation of future pastors grew-up reading or hearing this story (and many others like it) and accepting it by faith without ever bothering to ask about facts, and repeating to subsequent generations of the faithful who believe whatever they see on television or hear from preachers or teachers.
I merely offer this as an example of something that I would classify as neither fact nor faith but fancy. Humans have an amazing tendency to want to accept by faith putative facts that can easily be demonstrated as only fancy. How often in the Adventist church have we heard "Ellen White says"? How often in the Western world have we heard "the Bible says"? How often all over the world have we heard "it is a scientific fact"? In this day when a proper Googel search can open-up a huge library of information (and mis-information) on almost every subject imaginable, it is mental laziness to accept any of those three famous utterances.
Many of my own teachers did not realize how much ignorance they exhibited in the classroom, nor did many preachers in the pulpit, because they simply repeated what they read or heard somewhere. My late father who was my pastor for many years, spent his childhood and youth building and repairing electrical and mechanical things. His favorite high school subject was physics. He understood how hard it was to actually make things work. He often reminded his sons that it was not enough to understand the theory but that we needed to be able to apply it in a useful manner. Not only in science and technology but also in our spiritual life. Still very good advice.
I appreciate your attempts at even-handed criticism. Since I have admitted to operating from a faith perspective, and have admitted bias, and have admitted that Creationism is faith-based, and to relying on “the Bible says,” I am curious as to how I am writing with one eye closed Jim.
Or should I ask, what have I written here with which you disagree most?
Do us the service, if you will, of identifying some of these “huge gaps” with which you have decided to “forbear.”
I should clarify that it would appear to be ‘one-eyed’ if one denies that there is another valid, worthy, worthwhile, perspective.
I have admitted to operating from a faith perspective
That's only one eye as I see it. You offer only an occasional glance with the other eye.
Meanwhile Joe by his own admission abandoned his own eye of faith several decades ago when he concluded that it was failing him. His infrequent attempts to communicate using his eye of faith are no more convincing than are yours from the eye of facts.
Neither of you can understand enough of the other's language to effectively communicate. Until one or the other gives serious exercise to their weaker eye you will never communicate effectively with each other. Unless or until I might see more than cursory evidence that either of you is attempting to train their other eye, there would be little value in my attempting to serve as an interlocutor.
Respectfully Jim, I actually think that Joe and I understand each other very well. We just don’t agree with each other, and I don’t agree (with Joe) that he is not dogmatic in his beliefs about the age of the earth in accordance with the consensus of dating estimates.
I frankly think that we understand each other much better than you understand us; which isn’t a criticism, but an observation/opinion.
The “facts” that I see is that there are rocks, and fossils, and bones. This is precisely why when you said that “the wisest course for science educators on Adventists campuses is to present the best available evidence,” I asked you of exactly what should things like this be presented as proof or as evidence, Jim. The answer is not what the subject matter is but what the assumptions are.
I am truly intrigued how (or why) one seeks/obtains reconciliation between these two perspectives; especially in light of Hebrews 11:3 Jim. Besides, we’re talking about a faith community; what its members believe, and what it teaches students in the schools it operates.
The answer is not what the subject matter is but what the assumptions are.
Here I respectfully disagree. It makes no more sense to use the Bible as a primary source in a geology class than to use geology as a primary source in a Bible class.
When I was in high school in Adventist academies, we studied the geological column and also various evolutionary ideas in biology class. Every student who paid attention knew that most of the scientific community did not agree with the Bible accounts of beginnings. Before the November 1966 Leonid meteor shower (probably the biggest since 1833) we were taught that this was the cause of the "falling of the stars" in 1833.
Our teachers were not under pressure to offer supernatural explanations for things that could be explained by natural phenomena. Later the Adventist Review published an article explaining that the Dark Day of May 1780 was caused by a combinaiton of smoke from forest fires and a storm front moving through the area.
Today "historic adventists" are pressuring Adventists to return to the "scientific" views and explanations of the 19th century. This is not a new idea within the Adventist church. When I arrived at an Adventist university campus there were purges underway in both the science and the religion departments. The result was NOT that the surviving Bible and science teachers returned to teaching "historic adventism". Rather they became reluctant to teach anything other than vague generalities. The result being that many students were convinced that the church was covering-up the truth regarding many things.
When questions could be more openly discussed on an Academy campus than on a college campus something is clearly wrong.
I agree with the principle that teachers who are overtly hostile to the beliefs and values of the Adventist church, should not seek employment in Adventist schools. I do object to the notion that Church administrators are empowered by God or man to exercise de facto censorship over the curriculum of academic institutions.
As with the history of creeds in the early Christian church, so now in the Adventist church, what was put forward as a vehicle to affirm what we believe to the surrounding world, is now being proposed as a tool to weed-out heretics among us. Beware of what you ask for because you may get it (and sometimes you may wish you had never asked).
we’re talking about a faith community; what its members believe, and what it teaches students in the schools it operates
I have screend many resumes and interviewed many candidates for technical jobs. I never once asked about their faith. After you interview a few candideates who graduated from the same school you get a pretty good feeling for how well or poorly that school educates their students in your field of expertise.
If you want to see the result of operating colleges whose primary goal is to cater to the "faith community" then I would suggest that you spend quality time in India as I have, and visit an Adventist college in one of the high-tech centers in India as I have. There are very few Adventists engaged in high tech in India. The growth in the Indian economy has almost entirely passed-by the Indian Adventist church. The church education system there has failed to equip our young people big-time.
In North America there are three Adventist schools of higher education that I routinely recommend to young people who are interested in careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). (In certain fields there are two others worthy of consideration.) This is not a matter of personal bias but rather of the generally high caliber of the STEM graduates that I have seen from these schools. It has nothing to do with their faith or their ideological conformity.
Beware of what you ask for because you may get it (and sometimes you may wish you had never asked).
“I agree with the principle that teachers who are overtly hostile to the beliefs and values of the Adventist church, should not seek employment in Adventist schools.”
That it would seem is a proverbial no-brainer. The question clearly is what constitutes “overt [hostility]” and by whose standards and opinion?
I just hope that you understand, as you seem to when conversing with Joe, that it is entirely routine in an Adventist college or university for a Seventh-day Adventist creationist to be a top flight science instructor; and for an Adventist Creationist to become a top flight scientist after being instructed by Adventist Creationist science instructors; which sometimes does not seem quite clear.
As I’ve previously indicated, I think it is beneficial to learn what the scientific consensus is and the basis for it; but in Adventist schools this should be taught by scientists who are Biblical creationists. So tell me Jim, is that to much to ask for, much less expect?
“It makes no more sense to use the Bible as a primary source in a geology class than to use geology as a primary source in a Bible class.”
I don’t recall anyone hinting that this should be the case—at all. The Bible should be recognized and regarded as entirely inspired by God, who is the Source of all truth and wisdom; in Adventist colleges and universities, that is.
Finally, I remain intrigued as to how and why we'd seek to obtain reconciliation between faith and the consensus “facts” of origins, especially in light of Hebrew 11:3.
in Adventist schools this should be taught by scientists who are Biblical creationists
How do you define a "Biblical creationsist"? Is this someone who agrees with everything Ted Wilson thinks the Bible and Ellen teach on the subject? Or is this someone who inteprets these parts of the Bible at least as literally (and with the same assumptions) as do you? Or is there some other person or body who should adjudicate this question?
If you have studied this in the depth that I have you will find that there are a large number of different explanations of Genesis 1 and 2 among people who very honestly believe in the Bible. I have previously pointed-out on this web site several claims regarding Genesis that are commonly made by "historic adventists" that do not in fact arise from a strictly literal reading of these chapters.
Most Adventist scholars agree that one of the primary rules of Biblical exposition is to first understand the passage in the context of the author. The first few chapters of Genesis were written in the context of the prevailing "scientific"cosmology of the Egyptians. Everyone who tries to interpret them in terms of any more modern cosmology must bring extra-Biblical assumptions to the table.
Likewise it is apparent that whoever wrote the early chapters of Genesis was familiar either via oral traditiosn or via access to other ancient writings, with a substantial portion of the content of the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. So any study of these chapters in the context of the writer must also account for this context.
The problem becomes even worse for those who maintain that Ted Wilson's views regarding "recent" as implying 6,000 years BP are correct (and buttress their claims using Ellen as a priamry source). Ussher's Chronology derives from a series of calculations based upon the Masoretic Texts. If you try to do the same calculations from the manuscripts collectively called the Septuagint (which was widely used in the time of Jesus and the Apostles) you reach different conclusions. I do not know what if anything the Dead Sea Scrolls contain from the early chapters of Genesis.
What should be the definition of the word "recent" that is being inserted in our Fundamental Belief on Creation? Or could we simply agree to ignore this word in our test of who is or is not a "Biblical creationist" unless or until we can agree on how to quantify "recent"? Especially given that both you and I are both on-record as stating we do not know how old is the earth or life on the earth.
Please note that I am NOT denying the inspiration or the authenticity of the early chapters of Genesis. I am only pointing-out that the designation of a "Biblical creationist" is not as simple as you wish to imply.
“It makes no more sense to use the Bible as a primary source in a geology class than to use geology as a primary source in a Bible class.”
I don’t recall anyone hinting that this should be the case—at all.
I gave this example in response to your prior statement:
The answer is not what the subject matter is but what the assumptions are.
Perhaps I totally misunderstood your prior statement. Could you offer an example of what you meant?
in Adventist schools this should be taught by scientists who are Biblical creationists
Would you also restrict the textbooks used in these classes to those written by "Biblical creationists"? If the teacher satisfies your requirements but the textbooks do not, what percentage of students will choose to believe the teacher rather than the textbooks?
Even if we could agree on how to screen the teachers we would still have to agree on how to screen the textbooks.
The textbook problem is not limited to science classes. In one of my upper-division Religion classes there were objections raised to the set of ooks we were to study. One of them was written by a Jesuit and most of the others by non-Adventists. In fact very few of the textbooks I used in college were written by Adventists and outside of my religion classes very few by Christians. (The syllabus for my first two years of mathematics classes was written by Adventist professors who were also my teachers.)
You may think I am stretching the point here, but other commenters on this web site have seriously suggested that we should not be using books by non-Adventist authors (and especially by Infidels who are presumed to be agents of Satan) as sources of knowledge. This despite the fact that both the Apostle Paul and Ellen White used such books.
What I meant Jim in saying that “The answer is not what the subject matter is but what the assumptions are,” was in response to your answer to my previous question (that the “best available evidence”…”should be evidence of exactly what?”), when you said “What evidence to present depends upon the subject matter of the class.”
I’m saying that the “subject matter of the class” is not the determiner of what is presented as the “best available evidence, ”so much as it’s the assumptions that the teacher of any class brings to the subject matter of any class. That is to say that if the teacher assumes that things came into existence a certain way over an indefinite or an approximate or a specific period of time, the teacher will present “the best available evidence” of whatever assumptions they’ve made.
The Bible should not be used as the geology textbook but as a source of the assumptions that Adventist teachers make. Faith is, and should be, a given assumption in Adventist academies, colleges, and universities.
At the risk of repeating myself Jim, I’m more concerned about “the six days” than I am about how long ago; and once again, my beliefs are based on more than Genesis 1 and 2. I have previously identified the texts on which I hang my personal creation beliefs. If you have an explanation for all of those texts that lead you elsewhere, or that you feel leads others elsewhere, I’m sure you won’t mind sharing it.
As for who/what determined a "Biblical creationist," I’m not privy to the interview questions for college professors and instructors Jim, but you know that I would prefer that they all share my views about everything8=).
I have no problem with textbooks written by people who are not Seventh-day Adventists—depending of course on how the assumptions made are presented and the subject matter.
OK I think I am beginning to understand what is the underlying issue between us. Your view of reality is primarily subjective. I acknowledge that there are indeede subjective elements to our understanding of reality but that there are also empirical elements.
When trying to understand how to relate to God and spiritual things I think the subject elemenats will be predominant. We cnnot design controlled experimetns to analyze God. God is inherently beyond human control and analysis. Here we depend very much on the eye of faith.
The physical sciences are rather different. An important part of training people to be good scientists and engineers is teaching them NOT to trust their prior assumptions and inital impressions. It is all about being as emprical and objective as possible. It is about learning to observe things you did not expect and take actions based upon what you observe. Here the eye of faith can lead you to very bad conclusions and destructive actions. Here we must depend primarily on the eye of fact.
Your primary purpose for education seems to be to inculcate or reinforce the presuppositions of those who operate the school or pay the bills. (It is difficult to escape the irony in this statement now that the taxpayers and the students themselves are paying more of the bills via various forms of financial aid to the schools and the students.) So for you the best evidence is whatever evidence will support or reinforce those presuppositions.
It is indeed true that science and technology professors do not leave their presuppositions at the classroom door. It is also true that students can and do tend to acquire the biases of their professors. One way to counteract this is to try to draw upon professors from a variety of background and textbooks from a variety of sources, to avoid selection bias.
Another way is to give primacy to carefully constructed experiments as a primary learning tool. Learning by experimentation is more costly and inefficient but it is also extremely valuable. In the short term it is cheaper and less risky to simply teach the answers. In the long term there is reduced payoff, especially if it turns oth that some of the answers were wrong.
There may be less risk in your approach but there will also be less rewards. Whether your own philosophy is representative of the board and faculty of your favorite Adventist insititution of higher eduction, I do not know. Nor am I in any position to assess the calibre of your STEM education since I do not recall ever encountering a STEM graduate from your fine campus in either a personal or a professional capacity.
You hve previously proclaimed that your favorite school is doing just fine in that regard. I have no emprirical basis for evaluating your claim. Until I do I must allow for the distinct possibility of selection bias.
PS – I have actually visited your fine campus a few times. Last time I was there one of my schoolmates and friends was a department chair and another on the staff. While I hold both of them in high esteem, their own areas of competency did not extend to STEM.
Apologies for my especially poor typing and proof-reading of the above 8-(.
Stephen,
Please do not conclude that I find no place for the eye of faith in technical disciplines. Only that in these disciplines the eye of fact must have primacy and the eye of faith must be supplementary.
In my own career I have drawn heavily on the eye of faith. I believe that God has intervend in various ways not only in my personal life but also in my professional life. I have claime the "consultant's promise" (James 1:5) many times. In my SS class two days ago I shared an incident where I claimed this promise. Here I will share another that might make more sense to you personally.
On a Thursday night in July 1972 lightning struck the power lines on the Lake Region Conference campground. Among other damages, the sound system was knocked-out. Friday morning my father received a phone call from Elder Bradford. I was asked to go to the campground to see what could be done.
When I arrived Friday afternoon my first stop was Elder Bradford's office. I begged him to let me buy a new amplifier for the auditiorium. The old amp was was a dinosaur, older than I, unlikely to be able to find parts, no manuals, very few tools, very low chance it could be repaired in time for the big meeting on Sabbath. Elder Bradford replied that at that point they could not afford to buy anything, please do what I could, they would be praying and they would understand if I could not succeed.
They were not the only ones praying. I disassembled the old amplifier. It was clear there was an electrical short but I had way of determining where. Trying to visualize how and where the lightning surge might have propagated inside, I made my best guess. Then it was off to an electronics warehouse that was almost ready to close when we arrived. They looked at that ancient part and said there was no way they could match it. The best they could do was give us a different part that we might or might not be able to adapt.
The sun was setting but for me there would be no Sabbath rest. From some components that had survived the strike I rigged a temporary sound system for the main auditorium. By now the entire staff was praying. They were not the only ones praying.
I decided to call a good friend whom I will call Sam. Sam and I were fellow geeks and fellow PKs. Sam's religious views were more akin to Joe Erwin than to Stephen Foster. he was an avowed agnostic with strong atheistic inclinations. Sam had a kind and generous spirit, a veritable museum of ancient electronics, old tube manuals that had long been discarded by anyone else, and an excellent collection of all the right tools and parts and skills.
Sabbath morning I drove to Sam's place. We had a detailed discussion of what might have gone wrong, what kind of amp, how we might try to fix it. Then we grabbed some manuals, tools and parts and drove to the campground. All the way Sam was predicting scant odds of success and I could not disagree, only encourage him to try.
The preacher had begun his sermon but could barely be heard. Sweating profusely from the heat and pressure, in front of thousands of people watching us and praying for us, Sam and I managed to adapt the new part and that old amp into a Rube Goldberg that actually worked (but was definitely a safety hazard). We left before they finished the sermon. We took the old part back to Sam's lab and tested it and verified where was the short. In engineering we call that a failure effects analysis.
Ever the kind and generous agnostic, Sam refused to be paid for his services. I do not recall whether I accepted any pay for working on the Sabbath. I do recall that Elder Bradford, being a man of faith but not presumption, did agree to buy a new amplifier before their next camp meeting.
For many years Sam and I argued whether I had made a lucky guess or whether it was skill or whether it was an answer to prayer. You can draw your own conclusions. I certainly believe in the power of prayer but I wonder what might have become of thousands of fervent prayers without Sam's help?
Some devout Adventists may object to my enlisting an Infidel to aid in God's work. For my part I hope to see Sam and other Infidels whose lives bear testimony to the love of God, in heaven. Which son obeyed, the one who said NO but went and helped, or the one who said YES but didn't go and help?
I must say that I do not see how faith would be in conflict with, or negatively affected by, objective experimentation in any engineering, mathematical, or technological pursuits.
Let’s put it this way, as an engineer you should know that a) practically everything we see and/or know of is designed to function; or functions by design, and b) that you’ve done a great job at designing a polemical straw man.
“There may be less risk in your approach but there will also be less rewards.”
What “approach” are you talking about? What did I say about an approach? What did I ever write that would lead you to conclude that I would in any way either discourage or relegate “learning by experimentation” to a subordinate status? Why would learning by experimentation be threatening to anything that Adventists teach or believe?
If you haven’t met any STEM graduates from my alma mater I would suggest that you get out a little more. My understanding Jim is that the majority of Oakwood STEM majors are biology majors; so that may or may not account for you never having met anyone anywhere; but there may be other reasons, naturally.
Since you occasionally recommend SDA schools to prospective STEM majors and since this is along the lines of this discussion I’ll go ahead and remind you of things that you can verify or confirm yourself. Not that Oakwood has anything to prove, but Oakwood’s Chemistry Department either leads or is among the leaders of all Adventist institutions in North America in the areas of external funding, peer reviewed and published research, and numbers of graduates (and placements). The department chair informs that only the number of faculty (lacking one) prevents Oakwood from joining Andrews University as an ACS certified school; and that’s for one good reason—Oakwood is only recruiting SDA faculty, which needless to say, presents a challenge.
Oakwood consistently ranks in the top 20 schools in the nation that send black students to medical schools (roughly 90% of the Oakwood students going to medical and dental schools are biology majors). In 2011, Oakwood was among the top 10 in numbers of applicants, sharing the 10th ranking with Cornell, Emory, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, and the University of Texas at Austin. Oakwood recently had about 215 students majoring in biology. The school’s Biology Department has nine full-time faculty; with all having terminal degrees. Adjunct faculty includes two MDs (one MD/PhD).
Some of the institutions that have recently accepted Oakwood students for summer research include the Cleveland Clinic, Duke University, Emory University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins, Loma Linda, the Mayo Clinic, and the University of Cincinnati.
But then, I have alumni contemporaries who’ve distinguished themselves in their various STEM fields. As a matter of fact I know of one family of twelve (12) with four MD’s (two board certified ophthalmologists and two board certified anesthesiologists on the west coast) and two PhDs (in the east) who grew up with me in NY. (I’ll admit that most of the STEM majors I know of are in the medical field as opposed to engineering fields.)
So, just as Joe’s experiences in SDA institutions 50-60 years ago are not representative of what’s happening in the 21st century, I would submit that yours are perhaps limited by your social and professional circles.
I won’t speak for any faculty member or board member besides your truly Jim.
Your story is a good one Jim. I agree; faith without works is dead. There will be many surprises in heaven. I previously thought of myself as a moderate to liberal Adventist; but that was before my introduction to this particular site. Clearly I needed to ‘get out more.’ I suggest a similar eye opening would be in store for you, my friend.
As it happens I have "gotten-out" into the world of high-tech, far beyond the hallowed halls of Adventist institutions, to an extent that would probably surprise you. I have been paid good money for many years to go literally everywhere in the world, evaluating techonologies and also technical capabilities of companies and universities and key technical contributors. I have recruited and mentored world-class (as well as lesser-class) technical talent from muliple continents. I have deeply engaged with various industry consortia and occcasionally consulted on bleeding-edge governemnt projects. I have for decades had the privilege of rubbing shoulders with the best and brightest from around the world.
I have NOT worked on any university campus since my student days though I have visited many. My career has been in industry not in academia. What I gave you is an industry perspective rather than an academic perspective. I do have a fairly large network of contacts within the worldwide Aventist ecosphere, but that was not the basis for my comments.
I do not claim to be knowledgeable in all scientific and technical disciplines. My own expertise is in the physical sciences and in electronics technology, not in the medical sciences and related technology. I trust that you realize the degree to which electronics pervades consumer and industrial products. I have experience with and exposure to a vast array of electronics applications, from cameras and phones to computers and space stations. I have met and worked with technologists in many related fields. In my field I honestly do not recall encountering Oakwood graduates though I have encountered graduates from three other Adventist institutions more often than one might expect from their size.
I regularly see claims like yours from virtually every Adventist college and university in North America. Everyone brags about the quality of their faculties and the accomplishments of their graduates. Almost every Adventist school brags about their biology department and their admissions to Loma Linda. I hope they are right but it is not my mission to verify or endorse their claims. As a "booster" of your favorite Adventist institution I would expect no less from you, and in this regard you do not disappoint me 8-).
I must say that I do not see how faith would be in conflict with, or negatively affected by, objective experimentation in any engineering, mathematical, or technological pursuits.
How much experimentation have your done? How many experimental results have you studied? If things were really this simple there would be far less argument between you and Joe.
Since I started studying both the Bible and astronomy when I was five years old, I have to reach back a long ways to remember a time when I was not aware of conflicts between my faith and objective experimentaiton. Throughout my years in Adventist schools I heard many attempts by preachers and teacher to explain these "conflicts" that somehow escaped your attention. For my part most of the attempts simply did not mke sense.
I well remember when Adventist preachers confidently proclaimed that God would not permit men to reach the moon (with Bible and Ellen quotes to "prove" it). What would they have said and done if I had consulted for NASA back then?
Not that my faith never influenced my choices. Beyond the inevitable conflicts regarding working for Infidels (as opposed to Elder Bradford 😎 on Sabbath, I declined an invitation to work on Reagan's SDI (or Star Wars) program. I do know other Adventists that have designed weapons platforms but that was beyond my own ethical comfort zone. I solved mainframe computer problems at the facilities where nucelar submarines, military aircraft and electronic warfare systems were designed and built, but I never worked on the weapons systems themselves. One of my colleagues who was a Jehovah's Witness refused to even go to those sites.
If they did not sense the Sword of Damocles dangling above them, which might understandably impede their candor, you might be surprised how many stories those prized biologists at Oakwood could tell you about conflicts between faith and experiments. Or perhaps their faith views parts of the Bible a bit differently than does yours? Or perhaps they might have found answers to some questions that their peers in other Adventist institutions are still seeking? Ditto for any archaeologists or anthropologists or paleontologists that might be on your campus.
One problem with your prior assertion on this web site that no preacher or teacher who doubted the Genesis creation account (as you apparently view it) would be employed at your fine educational institution or indeed any Regional conference, is that any current or prospective employee of these organizations would be highly reluctant to discuss with you any conflicts they might see between (your ar their) faith and experimental observations. By leading with your presuppositions you a priori exclude certain modes of experimental observation. You will be one of the last to know what they really think.
A few years ago I attended a seminar where most of the presenters were from GRI with one or two from Adventist coleges and one from BRI. The GRI presenters freely acknowledged conflicts between their faith and experimental observations. One posited that some of these conflicts would never be explained. Only the BRI presenter had difficulty admitting to any problems. For him everything was clear (or so he claimed).
I must say that I do not see how faith would be in conflict with, or negatively affected by, objective experimentation in any engineering, mathematical, or technological pursuits.
You may not be aware of the historical affinity between the study of mathematics and the study of philosophy.
Hypatia of Alexandria, regarded as one of the greatest woman mathematicians and philosophers in recorded history, as well as the leading mathematician and philosopher of her time and place, was tortured, mutilated and lynched by a mob of Christians ca AD 415.
1600 years later the Christians may have forgotten but the mathematicians and philosophers have not.
Not to mention the historical affinity between mathematics and physics. It is only in the past several centuries that methematics and physics and philosophy have been regarded as separate disciplines.
Newton believed that "the wondrous disposition of the Sun, the planets and the comets, can only be the work of an all-powerful and intelligent Being" and that without ongoing divine intervention the motions of the heavenly bodies would become chaotic. (Adventists would also applaud Newton's espousal of the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation in his commentary on Revelation, though not in his prophetic application of the principle.)
Laplace demonstrated that the solar system was actually in a condition of dynamic stability and asserted that continual divine intervention was not only unnecessary but contrary to the laws of nature. He ridiculed Newton's belief "that God has made his machine so badly that unless he affects it by some extraordinary means, the watch will very soon cease to go".
Democritus, a Greek philosopher/mathematician/physicist is regarded as the father of the idea of atoms. He is also heralded/vilified as the first to put forth the idea that matter could evolve without need of aid or intervention from any god or gods.
Mathematics is indeed a hazardous pursuit for men and women of faith.
The list of people on the frontiers of mathematics, medicine, astronomy and other sciences who were persecuted, tortured and even killed by religious purists through history after publishing their observations and findings is long. One irony of this history is that often these people were not refuting their faith in God but merely using evidence and observations to question claims about the extent to which Divine action could be credited for specific events. Another irony is that today we look back on their contributions to their sciences and forget that many of them were deeply religious and sometimes it was their faith in God that led them into the explorations leading to their discoveries!
I appreciate your attempts at even-handed criticism
I am only reporting and explaining (with a somewhat satirical smile) what I have observed regarding a near-total communications failure.
Actually I think that one-on-one I would enjoy the company of either of you gentlemen immensely. I am just not sure I would care to be in the same room with both of you simultanously 8-).
Upon further reflection I think there is one minor domain of discourse where Stephen and Joe may be conversant. So allow me try to report some observations and my own conclusions.
Between writing here and eating my breakfast, I have watched some expisodes from the Fox broadcast of today's American Religion evangelistic campaign, live from London. The most compelling episode of this mini-drama was the duel of national anthems. The Colonial lass offered a credible rendition of Francis Scott Key's peom set to The Anacreontic Song. But she was no match for the British lass and God Save the Queen. Not only did the Brit have an oustanding (as opposed to merely a good) set of pipes. The greater disadvantage is the setting of Key's peom to music.
I consider the The Anacreontic Song to be Britain's final revenge for the folly of the War of 1812. One of my own ancestors was capatured by the British in the very last firefight (Brown's sortie) of the very last military engagement fought on what is now Canadian soil, two centuries ago last month. The history of the siege of Fort Erie is a microcosm of the entire war. It would be as comic as any Keystone Cops episode except for the number of real casualties.
What fools we mortals be.
Looks like maybe God saved the Queen and the Lions 8-)?
There are others here who understand C14 (and the many, many other) methods of dating specimens/fossils than either of us. One thing is clear to anyone who will carefully look, there are enormous quantities of specimens that appear to be more than 10,000 years old, and many of the specimens appear to be hundreds or thousands of times that old.
All the methods of estimating age are inventions of humans, and there are complexities that introduce uncertainties into these age estimates. It IS a fact that the age estimates have been made. It IS a fact that there is some variability in the estimates. But the tangible physical reality is that the specimens themselves exist.
I agree that creation and evolution are explanations of how the physical specimens came into existence. Which of these explanations ultimately has more credibility depends of what kinds of specimens are found and what we are able to find out about them. But, being able to "explain" things does not mean that the explanation is valid. It is easy enough to say that the universal explanation is "God did it" or "Nature did it."
Validity is not the same thing as popularity. Just because "most geologists" or "most scientists" or "most biologists" believe something does not make it true. Despite your repeated accusations, Stephen, that I accept consensus as gospel, I do not. Progress in advancing knowledge very often involves something quite original and unexpected.
So there is no sense in which I am arguing that special creation COULD NOT be what happened. But if creation happened as recently as you indicate, you have "a whole lot of 'splaining to do."
If all the tangible physical evidence that exists that seems to be more than 10,000 years old really isn't, what is your explaination for that?
Well, one could say, "I don't know and I don't care." Or, "God works in mysterious ways." Or, "Creation happened, but earlier than we thought." Or "Creation happened, but not exactly as we thought." Or, "God designed and created nature and nature developed however it did." Or, "I don't know, for sure." Or, "I do not and cannot know for sure, but I am willing to freely consider all available evidence and opinions."
Given due consideration to physical evidence, measures of specimens, interpretations of evidence, conjecture about evidence and opinion, it seems quite clear that the overpowering conclusion must be that life has been on earth earth much longer than 10,000 years.
If I were to decide in advance of considering the evidence to NOT consider any possibility that life existed on earth more than 10,000 years ago, I would have to ignore most of the evidence or find some way of explaining it away.
I am fine with holding evidence gently and explanations of evidence tentatively. Things often are not as they seem. But sometimes there is too much evidence to reasonably ignore. There is too much evidence that life on earth is very, very old to insist that it MUST be very, very young. Remember, please, that my bias began inside the 6000 year box. I was only able to move beyond that box on the basis of overwhelming evidence (not scientific consensus or confirmation bias).
Even if one chooses to believe that God did it all, there is no reason at all to claim that one knows for sure exactly how or why or when. Our concepts of God are surely not that accurate or comprehensive.
Stephen and Joe. One thing for certain which we agree, we are a priviledged species. How long has the human species, and the Earth we live on been in existence?? We are a reality. What difference does it make if we are 6000 years old, or 6 million, or even 6 billion years since origin???? Why should we quarrel "endlessly" when its so obvious the "faith" versus "science" factors relative to origin, are a "WORLD" apart, to those who insist on one while ignoring the other. You will never agree or convince the other of your fixed position. The important question is who or what is responsibile for our being here???? And again, some say GOD created us, and another will say "NATURE" is responsibile for our origin. Again, no consensus. Yet the quarrellers continue. i personally agree with Stephen, that GOD created all life forms, but He did it perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago. The logic being the evidence that the Earth presents to us. However in life forms, there is evidence that the smallest particle has yet to be discovered; The knowledge of the HELIX and the secrets of DNA is of the past 20 years, but it displays some of the attributes of history of life forms, yet it's intricacies, and mind boggeling complexities of synergetic actions in almost infinite numbers of species and types, indicates to me an infinite intelligence is responsible for origins of life forms. i find it impossible to accept that a non entity, without intelligence of infinte magnitude, called "NATURE", through quadrillions of eternities {HUH????} has any chance of creating any thing. Non life can't produce life, ever!!!!!!!!!
“So there is no sense in which I am arguing that special creation COULD NOT be what happened. But if creation happened as recently as you indicate, you have "a whole lot of 'splaining to do."
I have not given any indication as to “recently,” as the word or the concept of recently doesn’t appear in the Genesis account.
“Given due consideration to physical evidence, measures of specimens, interpretations of evidence, conjecture about evidence and opinion, it seems quite clear that the overpowering conclusion must be that life has been on earth earth much longer than 10,000 years.”
This is a circular argument Joe, because the same can be said about most of those other miracles in the Bible. So we’re again back to square one. Your faith is in “the physical evidence, measures of specimens, interpretations of evidence, conjecture about evidence and opinion;” which add up to an “overpowering conclusion,” whatever that means. Although I reject that this is factual, I respect your faith Joe; and you.
My faith is clearly in something different. I’ve come to an “overwhelming conclusion,” based on what I believe is “overwhelming evidence.” It may be essentially ignorant, unverifiable superstition as far as you’re concerned Joe; but our faith doesn’t cramp your style, as yours doesn’t cramp ours—unless you insist. I hope and pray that you don’t reject the idea of Jesus’ death on your behalf because it conflicts with faith/confidence in physical evidence, measures, interpretations, conjecture, etc.
"…unless you insist."
Ah! Unless I insist? And now you are backing off the "recent" notion, but that is cool, as far as I'm concerned. I thought that was what you defending. It is the attempt to defend an untenable age of earth (as insisted on by the SDA president to the SDA science teachers) that seems so ridiculous to me.
As far as creation being "miraculous," well it is pretty amazing and miraculous however we got here. I agree with Earl on that. Maybe not on everything, but on enough that we do not end up in an unending disagreement.
So what I am saying until I am "blue in the face" is that we should all be free to consider all the available evidence using the best we can muster in the way of scientific methods, imagination, skepticism, and faith. Our conclusions can be whatever they are.
Ah Joe! You crack me up bro’! My dear friend, you may search high and low on this site and you will never find me ever asserting “recent;” so why then would you say that “[I’m] now backing off the "recent" notion”?
The answer may well be that you’re having difficulty with the concept of agnosticism. I don’t know how old the world is or precisely how young it is; neither do you, nor does anyone else. The fact is that when I first heard of possible or proposed changes to FB6 (or whatever it is) I wrote on this site that I had no problem with it as was then composed.
Your insistence that a few thousand years for life on earth is “untenable” is dogmatic; but you’ve convinced me that as long as you believe what you believe, it isn’t dogmatic, in your personal opinion.
I owe you this much, my concern and emphasis is now, and has always been, the “six days” that have evening and morning, and in which God is quoted to have claimed to have "created."
The texts I have previously cited above are those upon which I admittedly rely. “The best we can muster in the way of scientific methods, imagination, skepticism, and faith” sounds great…but for those devilish details.
Stephen,
I agree with you that the Creation FB should have been left as it was. It was a very careful statement that said neither more nor less than the Bible itself says on this topic. The revisions cause at least as many problems as they solve. Neither the literalists nor the liberals will be satisfied, while those of us caught in between will have to try to figure-out all over again what kind of Adventists we really are if indeed we still are.
One little question for those who insist on the most literal interpretation possible of Genesis 1. For Day 1 which came first, evening or morning? If there was absolutely no light before Day 1, then it would seem that morning came before evening if it was truly a day like every other day since. Yet Genesis clearly says that evening came first and then morning. Either Genesis is wrong or Day 1 was NOT a day like every day other since. Now the SDA church wants go on record that it was some kind of 24-hour day like every other. On what evening did this day begin? If you read Genesis very literally and exclusively this day was either half the length of every other day since, or perhaps a lot longer. It is very hard to show from Genesis 1 that the first week was approximately 168 hours, as opposed to 156 hours or perhaps a lot longer, if you isnsit that light was created on Day 1.
And if water did not exist before Day 1 then things get even messier. It is clear in Genesis 1 that the Abyss existed before Day 1 and that the surface of the Abyss was covered with water. What was underneath those waters Genesis 1 does not say but if you look at the flood story you can find some very good clues. During the flood as described in Genesis God UN-did what He had done on days 3 and 2 (and arguably Days 5 and 6 (one boat excepted).
No problem for me – I thought this one through a long time ago 8-). Things became clearer for me when I determined to try to let Genesis speak for itself without dragging-in everything I had read and heard in Sabbath School and Church School. I submit that a careful and unbiased reading of Genesis 1 shows that God did NOT create light on Day One any more than He created water or even earth during the first three days. All of these already existed long before. What he did was manipulate them to form a home for us. Where the argument gets more difficult for me is explaining the creation of living things that we can see. Here I do not yet have good answers and may not find them in this life.
And if there was a perfect created order outside The Garden, populated with all the gentle, playful, loving animals that Adam had recently named, why confine the First Couple to The Garden? Why create Eden at all? And why banish them from the place where human sin originated to an outside world where sin had not penetrated? Why inflict on a perfect world outside the Garden the sins of Adam and Eve committed in what appears to have been a location separated from that greater created order?
We know and understand so little! Why are we so dogmatic about what we think we know?
Ironically, a careful reading of Genesis 2 suggests that the Garden was a sanctuary from a less hospitable world beyond, possibly already a realm of Satan and corrupted by evil. Sin was not allowed to persist within the Garden. That is why Adam and Eve were banished to a world of thorns and thistles and human irrigation beyond its gates.
The Garden was watered by God. The rivers flowing out of Eden did not water the surrounding region because there was no man to water (ie irrigate) the soil. Readers familiar with the ecology of the Middle East would understand this readily. I explained this passage to my SS class by comparing what one sees West of the Cascades where God waters the ground for much of the year, with the East side where there are rivers with plenty of water, but man must irrigate in order to grow most crops.
"Your insistence that a few thousand years for life on earth is 'untenable' is dogmatic"
I'm curious, Stephen… At what point does an assertion become dogma? And what is the point of calling one dogmatic when he makes the pretty obvious point that YLC is unprovable? Would you be less inclined to call it dogma if Joe had said that YLC is scientifically untenable? Don't you think that's what he meant? Isn't it reasonable, at some point in time, without being dogmatic, to say that the accumulated weight of evidence against a factual theory renders it untenable?
That doesn't make it wrong from a faith perspective. After all, as A.W. Tozer observed: "The life of Christ is bookended by two impossibilities. He entered the world through a door marked 'No Entry'; and He left through a door marked 'No Exit.'" The fact that these profound truths are untenable doesn't make them wrong. And if someone told me they were untenable, I wouldn't accuse them of dogmatism. I would smile and say, "Of course you're right. What's your point?"
“Would you be less inclined to call it dogma if Joe had said that YLC is scientifically untenable?”
The answer to this is “most definitely yes!” I would certainly be much “less inclined to call it dogma if Joe had [been saying all along] that YLC is scientifically untenable.”
I’d imagine you work hard for a living Nathan and are therefore understandably late to some of these more protracted conversations, but this has long been my point. This is why I mentioned those other Biblical miracles which were likewise “scientifically untenable.” There’s no logical/rational difference between one scientifically untenable event and another scientifically untenable event. (You really would benefit from reading what Joe and I have been saying to each other over a few different threads; as I have emphasized that Jesus' conception/birth and resurrection are both just as scientifically untenable.)
“Don't you think that's what he meant?”
You don’t have to answer me with this question Nathan, but ask yourself honestly, do you think that “scientifically untenable” is as dogmatic as declaring something (that is scientifically untenable) as “false”? Personally I don’t think that it’s close. My objection has been to Joe’s insistence that YLC/YEC is simply not true. “Scientifically untenable” may indeed be euphemistic, but it is obviously not nearly as dogmatic.
(Besides, I’d think that you’d generally prefer that we go by what someone actually wrote than by what we think they may have meant.)
Dear Brother Stephen, at last we are on pretty much the same page. Neither of us knows precisely what the age of the earth and life on it is.
Sometimes it is very difficult to admit that we do not know what we do not know (but think we know, even if we cannot know).
So what has this discussion been about? Have we really been disagreeing all this time about nothing?
My contention has been that we can check the available evidence and clearly see that some relics of life on earth that paleontologists and others have found, show that life has been around for a very long time. Without knowing EXACTLY how long, we can pretty well establish that some of the specimens are older than others, and we are able to make reasonable guesses (unless we impose on science unreasonable limits–such as the "recent" criterion that the SDA pres wishes to require of SDA science teachers). It seemed to me, Stephen, that you were supporting his view, but I'm pleased to learn that you are not.
So, Jim, just "thinking outside the box," I wonder if God and His colleagues might have been (be) a superhuman tribe that had already developed a remarkable technological advantage over other humans. Perhaps they decided to create a special tribe of perfect humans "in their own image," and set aside a special place for them–the Garden of Eden.
After the "fall," we are told something about the Adam-and-Eve descendants marrying "the daughters of men." LDS adherents make a big deal about this. I seems that they accept that people existed in many places other than in the immediate vacinity of Eden/the middle east.
Or could the garden be a metaphor for Africa? The evidence appears to indicate that modern humans emerged from Africa about 60,000 years ago–spreading out across Europe and Asia, and getting all the way to Australia by about 50,000 years before the present.
As far as can be told from the available evidence, Neanderthals and Cro Magnon were around and were remarkably brainy. Increasingly, the evidence suggests that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovan humans. Not that any of this is fully understood.
The idea that Jesus was was an attempt to reconcile God and human would have been demonstrated nicely by showing that the tribe of God and the Adam/Eve tribe were reproductively compatible–with AI (or something) insemination of Mary resulting and a viable and extraordinary offspring.
As with so many things, we humans are not awfully good at understanding things fully.
All this is, of course, entirely speculative. I hope it is not too offensive to those who firmly hold other views. Please understand that this is not a view I actually hold. It is just something that has crossed my mind many times.
Joe, we’re not on the same page. Your “contention” is what I don’t buy.
A “very long time” [ago] is the opposite of “recently,” and if we can’t know, which is what I contend, then we can’t know; and therefore don’t know.
What I’ve been saying until I’m blue in the face is that “reasonable guesses,” “best available evidence,” conjecture, etc., isn’t reality. Reality is reality; and if we can’t know and don’t know—both of which apply—then insistence on it is faith-based.
Generally, we place our faith in different sources, and aren’t in the same book on this; much less the same page.
That said, I love and respect you. With the exception of these issues, I’d think we probably agree on most things.
Stephen, whether we are on the same page or in different books, we are living on the same planet at the same time. There is some sense in which whatever ultimate reality is, it is the same for both of us regardless of what we may believe about it.
I cannot accept the notion that we cannot know anything about what is ultimately true. I do think we probably cannot know everything about any aspect of ultimate reality.
However, within that (vast) range, there are quantitative differences in knowledge and understanding and the veracity of information. I favor considering information on its merits without deciding to know in advance what it certainly means. My guesses about what certain information may mean do exist in relationship to other guesses (by others or me) about other matters.
For me, what seems to be, is pretty open to revision when other evidence comes along. When enormous amounts of evidence that seems consistent and credible builds up, it can, and does, eclipse further consideration of some other possibilities. Lots of evidence that life is ancient eclipses the guess that the origins of life on earth is very recent.
But, for those who KNOW (read, "think they know") life on earth is very recent, the only way they can continue to KNOW that is by willfully ignoring the abundant information that indicates the opposite. Information is not considered on its merits–as is required by science.
So, I do not mind if you are skeptical of C14 or any other method of estimating age. Let's all be quite skeptical. But let us not draw lines that limit what reality can be. Another way of saying what I have so often said: "Don't put God in a box."
Do people really believe that The Bible writers considered areas that were beyond the boundaries of "the known world" of the time?
I’ll give you this much, you give new meaning to the concept of insistence.
Joe, just review your own pronouncements within the past few posts concerning the unknowable.
“Sometimes it is very difficult to admit that we do not know what we do not know (but think we know, even if we cannot know).”
I happen to fully agree with this. I’m suggesting that this applies to you as well as it does everyone else.
“I cannot accept the notion that we cannot know anything about what is ultimately true. I do think we probably cannot know everything about any aspect of ultimate reality.”
No one has actually suggested “that we cannot know anything about what is ultimately true.” We just cannot know anything about what we cannot know; and the age of the earth is one of those things.
Stephen, Is the earth more than a day old? We could both agree that it is, even if someone could bizarrely claim that we could not "prove" it. 100 years? 1000 years? We can agree that life on earth has been around for this long and longer. So if we can know, or at least be very, very confident that the earth is a thousand or two years old, why not 10,000 or 100,000, or more, if that is what appears to be true on the basis of tangible evidence? Is our only evidence to be The Bible? Is that really what you want to teach young people? That evidence is not evidence if you don't agree with it? That is a serious perversion of scientific methods, and teaching such a bizarre way of "reasonong" to young people is a travesty at best.
There is nothing more to say that I have not said already in many ways, and there is no way that you will quit this pointless arguing. Your mind is made up and tightly closed. My mind is open to consideration of all evidence on its merits. Our difficulty is that you seem willing to accept only evidence that has no merit at all and not even consider anything else. I guess I have learned about all I can about how your mind works. What an utter waste of time this has been.
This is a great example of what is called a Reductionist Fallacy. The fallacy in this case is leaping from the assertion that we cannot know everything about how old something is to asserting that we cannot know anything about how old it is.
I am in full agreement with your statement—your statement—that “Sometimes it is very difficult to admit that we do not know what we do not know (but think we know, even if we cannot know).” That wasn’t my statement Joe. However “[my] mind works,” it didn’t come from my mind; but it is true. Although when we extend this to the age of the earth, somehow that’s different?
We can know what we can know. We cannot know what we cannot know. That’s what I’m saying; and it’s true. (Yeah it’s obviously frustrating, but it’s true.)
We can know that the world is at least as old as human history. We cannot know how long it had actually/approximately existed prior to human history Joe.
If that is a "reductionist fallacy" Jim; please explain how it is a fallacy. (And in so doing, kindly only refute the argument(s) that I have made as opposed to those I have not made.)
This is humorous because I have said, and reiterated ad infinitum, that I am agnostic about the age of the earth.
I think that agnosticism is very frustrating to true believers from time to time
The only real ad infinitum here is devotion to debate about pet topics without regard to the subject of the blog discussion. How many souls must perish because people are devoting themselves to endless strutting of their opinions instead of ministering God's redeeming and transforming love?
William,
You are at least half right. But I can tell you that not many youg people I know, even those who were raised Adventists and still involved with the church, would agree with Ted Wilson regarding the age of the earth. Most of them say they don't know or they don't care. Ditto for many of their parents (and even teachers and pastors). I am taliking about people who woship on Sabbath and believe God created the world.
But the people running the show veiw the age of the earth as a make-or-break issue for the survival of the church. If nothing else there is a huge disconnect between the leaders and the ordinary members at least in my part of the world. It is not just people on this web site who are making a big argument over this. So far these leaders have failed to make a convincing case for their viewpoint with the very young people who are the future of our church.
Jim,
The age of the earth is not an issue to the youth I know, both those in the church and those who have left it. But the ad nauseum discussions about what doesn't matter is a significant issue to them. It is driving them out of the church because they are on every topic but what builds working faith in a challenging world. Such debates are hyped-up hypocrisy focused on what a person thinks they know about God instead of their actual experience with God. What our youth are seeking and what they are leaving the church to find elsewhere is real relationships with the powerful God that adults talk about finding and following but have never found. Our youth know where faith does not exist and they are leaving to escape the empty hole.
I agree that the age of the earth is not an issue for most young people that I know. I think I said that in my previous comment.
Ditto for many of the Adventist adults that I know.
Unfortunately it seems to be an issue for some higher-ups in the SDA church. It is also an issue for former Adventists who basically do not believe in Jesus or the Bible and wish to use this argument to attack those of us who still do.
Which brings me to an interesting question. Do those of us who do not identify with either extreme in this tug-of-war between intransigent opposing points of view, simply ignore the question, or do we try to engage and interject some balance and sanity into the discussion?
If Paul had not surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, God would have found some other way to spread the gospel to Europe. He was the first in Macedonia and Greece, but by the time he finally got to Rome the gospel was already there.
One benefit to all of us from his imprisonment was that he was forced to dictate a lot of letters, some of which now form a major part of our New Testament. Ditto for John with his letters from Patmos, including the book of Revelation.
Doing things for Jesus is good. Some of us have had a teaching ministry to small groups for many years, and others have affirmed the blessing. Many times my classes have asked me to write-down the things I have been teaching. I am a didactic teacher. Without someone asking questions I do not know what to write or talk about. So who knows whether my writing down answers to some of the questions on this web site will be for good or for evil or both?
On the other hand, there are preachers who prefer to speak or write as mostly a one-way street and not engage in give-and-take. Their teaching style wastes less time than mine. But I reach people they do not reach, who need to talk-through a concept to grasp it.
We are not all wired the same way. Different strokes for different folks 8-).
What our youth are seeking and what they are leaving the church to find elsewhere is real relationships with the powerful God that adults talk about finding and following but have never found. Our youth know where faith does not exist and they are leaving to escape the empty hole.
How very, very true.
OK gentlemen, on a somewhat ligher note . . .
Madison Bumgarner did something tonight that had not been done in the lifetime of any player in this series. Who was the last pitcher to win 3 games in a single World Series (3 complete games in fact, which is 1/2 game more than Bumgarner pitched)?
If you know the answer to this one then dig even deeper for the one and only series where two pitchers for opposing teams each won 3 games.
It would be ‘cheating’ to look this up, and I’ve been watching a DVR recording of an NBA game; so I’ll take a blind stab at this question. I seem to recall Bob Gibson winning three games in the ’67 World Series. I know that he pitched a complete game in the seventh game in Boston.
I couldn’t even venture a guess at the second question. How’s that for discernment?!
Gibson did won 3 against the Red Sox in 1967 so your memory seems to be in working order. Mickey Lolich won 3 complete games for the Tigers in the 1968 World Series. Gibson won 2 and lost his 3rd start to Lolich in Game 7. I watched most of that series (Sabbath excepted).
Tonight I heard the commentators blabbering about how Bumgarner did something almost unheard-of. But these sportscasters are all younger than I.
My memory is still pretty good but I searched Google to double-check it. There I found the trivia item from the first World Series in 1903. In a best-of-9 series each team had a 3 game winner. I do not remember watching any of those games 8-). And I also found that Bumgarner is actually the fourth to win 3 with at least one win in relief.
But how can I tell whether the results I found using Google are actually correct? I cannot prove any of this to you. I also remember sitting near the left field rail with some friends when Gates Brown hit the game winners in both ends of a double header. Even though you can find this online I cannot prove to you that it happened, much less that I was there to see it.
Nor can I prove when or where I was born. I do have a certificate attesting to my live birth embossed with the seal of the state where I am told I was born. But like Obama and Hawaii, some "birther" could claim this was all a forgery and I was born somewhere else 8-).
Nor have I any personal recollection of the event. My mother has told me her version of events several times. On my last birthday she told me the story again. My (since departed) father claimed he could not remember anything about that night. I think in their dotage my mother's memory was better than my father's but hers is definitely not what it was. Maybe they were both mistaken?
My earliest memories go back to around the time I turned two years old. My mother claims that I cannot remember back that far but I am certain that I can. I claim that my memory is better than hers.
I cannot prove to you how old I am. That does not prevent me from having a well-informed opinion on the question, based upon the best available evidence. But if God were to tell me that he/she/they created me yesterday, complete with a head full of memories, including Denny McClain winning 31 games in the 1968 regular season and then losing twice to Gibson in the Series, which I remember watching, then I would be mighty confused.
Like all of those Obama "birthers" I personally know, there is no end of problems that arise when you deny normally credible sources of evidence because of your presuppositions.
I warned you that my memory was not perfect 8-(.
So I did a bit more digging. Randy Johnson won 3 games for the Diamondbacks in the 2001 World Series. He started 2 games and relieved in Game 7. So correct that Bumgarner factoid also. Bumgarner pitched 5 innings in relief. As I recall Randy Johnson pitched 1 or 2. I watched that series too.
Yeah, I remember now (that you’ve mentioned it); and should have remembered that Lolich won three games in the ’68 Series.
I do admit that I did not recall him pitching three complete games however. As a Yankees fan originally, I rooted for the American League in the World Series and All Star games back then. Gibson had been so overpowering in Game One with those 17K’s, and was practically unhittable in that Year of the Pitcher with that 1.12 ERA, that the Game Seven win by Detroit (in St. Louis) was one of the biggest upsets in history; up to that time at least.
Had the Cards won that Series they would have been considered one of the all time great teams; a mini dynasty. Even though the Giants have now won 3 chips in 5 seasons, as the Cardinals would then have done, I’m not sure they have multiple Hall of Famers. Then again, I sure don’t keep up with baseball anymore like I did as a kid; so what do I know?
Your point about oral history (or whatever) is interesting, I suppose; but doesn’t impact my agnosticism on the earth age subject. Frankly, the “best available” evidence sounds like something you’d hear a politician say on one of the Sunday morning talk shows—qualifying qualifiers which effectively cancel each other.
Or, let’s put it this way Jim, some evidence is better than other evidence. A memory of something is not even comparable to ‘something’ that no one remembers.
So is human history nothing more than human memories, possibly preserved by writing? Or is it the history of the actions of humans discovered by whatever means are avialable?
My point about things that nobody remembers is that writing was invented for this purpose. By finding and reading old books from university libraries (scanned by Google and others) I can learn things about the past (or more precisely what the authors wrote about the past) that would otherwise have long since faded from human memory.
I have found that one oral tradition passed-down through our family to my own generation, actually appeared in a book in 1877 before my grand-parents were born. I have also found from reading even earlier documents, that this particular oral tradition was in fact wrong, even though it appears in an old book. And I think I know where and how the story got twisted-up. I have confirmed some family oral traditions and I have refuted others.
I have had similar experiences when studying religious traditions. When they are confirmed by the best available evidence I do not hesistate to defend them. When they are refuted by the best available evidence I refuse to defend them.
So what kinds of evidence should we accept? Neither you nor I remember the first World Series in 1903. I doubt we could find anyone alive who does. So we depend on papers and online publications for this information.
What about things that happened before the invention of writing? And even ancient writings such as the Iliad and the Odyssey? Or for that matter the Bible? We can simply dis-believe them or we can believe everything we read or we can look for other sources to corroborate or refute what they say. Archaeological excavations around ancient Troy (Troas in the NT) have indeed confirmed the Trojan War. Archaeology has also confirmed or corrborated a lot of the Bible all the way back to before Abraham (a major gap being no evidence for the Exodus other than from quacks).
A lot of other things in those books we would classify as supernatural phenomena that have not and likely never will be verified by archaeology. These we attribute to some mixture of poetic license and exaggeration and imagination and divine revelations.
Our knowledge of ancient history has been vastly increased by all the digging that has happened. Adventists like to tout archaeology as "proof" for the veracity of the Bible, until archaeologists dig-up things that pre-date Bible times by thousands of years. We cannot have it both ways. Either archaeology provides useful evidence or it does not. We cannot simply flip a coin or cherry-pick our favorite archaeologists or ancient sites.
I do happen to believe the Bible is inspired, perhaps not exactly the same way you do given your claim that the Bible contains no false information. I have no similar confidence in the Iliad and the Odyssey nor I suspect do you. I would even agree that the Bible contains no false information if I apply a stricter filter to what constitutes information as opposed to feelings and experiences and parables and symbolism. From these latter much information can be obtained but only by careful (and subjective) filtering and post-processing.
Still I do not apologize for comparing the information in the Bible with other sources of information when they are available. As Ronald Reagan liked to say "Trust but verify".
I only follow baseball in the fall and I only follow basketball and hockey in the spring. The seasons are far too long and I have other things to pay attention to.
One last piece of trivia for you. Gibson was a very good hitter for a pitcher. Not nearly as good as the Babe who was yanked from the mound so he could bat every day.
But in 1968 there was a pitcher whose bat also made him a very good pinch-hitter on his off days. His batting average was almost .100 higher than the league's batting champion and he had the highest ratio of home runs to at-bats of any player (not just pitcher) with at least as many at-bats. He was not just a one-year wonder. In 1965 he hit two homers in the same game. In 1966 he hit a grand slam.
Gibson was a much better pitcher.
Again, I haven’t looked this up Jim, but I recall Tony Cloninger of the Braves doing something like this (two homers).
Other good hitting pitchers of that era included Don Drysdale and Earl Wilson. As an A.L. fan, I seem to remember that Chisox rotation of Gary Peters, Juan Pizarro, and Joel Horlen as being good hitters; or at least one of them. Jim Kaat was a good hitter too; as well as the great Warren Spahn.
The 1960s were clearly my baseball decade.
I agree that we cannot, and shouldn’t try, to have it both ways with regard to corroborating and conflicting archeological evidence. The dating methods however are simply not sufficiently reliable so as to be probative. This is especially so beyond certain timeframes. No one even disputes this; yet they are used and cited as practically irrefutable—since they’re considered the “best available evidence.” Confirmation bias is a two-edged sword Jim.
Earl Wilson hit 7 homers in one season for Boston and in another for Detroit. He hit 35 career homers. Pretty good power for a pitcher.
Your memory of the 60s is pretty good.
Pardon the interruption and please allow me to contribute to this geezer seamhead discussion:
On July 20, 1965 my SdA Pastor Dad and I were in Yankee stadium when Mel Sottlemyre hit an inside the park grand slam home run against the Boston Red Sox.
My "formative years" were spent in New Jersey as a PK and my Dad took my brothers and me to Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium to see Juan Marichal pitch, and even the old Polo grounds to see the New York Mets. Plus the Phillies
Before moving to NJ we were in California at La Sierra, Tracy, and Sacramento.
At Tracy, we went to Candlestick Park where I learned what 0 for 4 meant listening to the car radio on the way home.
For approximately 25 years during and after college, I played very competitive fast pitch softball including against Pan Am competition.
One team I played on faced Eddie Feigner in an "exhibition" game in Feigner's later years. Still have the program.
(For Mr. Noel, we vistited th FFT studio in NYC and met William Fagal, too. I think my Dad and Mr. Fagal may have took some seminary classes together.)
Still a seamhead after all these years.
Again, pardon the interruption and hope scrolling was worth your time.
We can know that the world is at least as old as human history.
Stephen,
How old do you think is human history? And how do you define human history?
What has been written down (over 5,000 years)? Oral traditions? What archaeologists have uncovered (over 12,000 years in the Middle East)? Would you admit human fossils found by paleo-anthropologists (I will let you and Joe argue about this one)?
Jim,
Are you trying to instigate something? I’d think that human history dates back at least to as long ago as oral history and traditions do, don’t you? Am I right about the 1967 Series?
Not trying to start something – only trying to get some idea what you meant with your comment.
For me human history extends back into archaeology. The earliest human fixed settlements, perhaps the earliest human burials and the earliest human artisans. But I suppose you could call that the history of human culture. This history can be crammed into a few 10s of thosuands of years but I see no way to cram it into 6 to 10 thousand years. Of course I have some frinds and relatives who would disagree with my conclusion.
If you believe in Noah's Flood as a global catastrophe that wiped-out all traces of previous human culture everywhere in the world, then you would need to date the flood before that time. If you believe in Noah's Flood as a major inundation somewhere in the Middle East, you could place it before the relatively continuous progression of settlements uncoverd by archaeologists in whatever region you think was inundated. Then you could probably cram your definition of post-flood human history into less than 10,000 years.
None of the foregoing has anything to do with arguments about biological "evolution" because it all involves anatomically modern humans. It merely has to do with the history of the development of human culture.
Before any of the above there is much evidence of hominid hunter-gatherers making tools and huddling around camp fires. How far back that goes becomes an argument about the geological column and radio-isotope dating methods. And an arugment about whether all of those fossil skeletons should be regarded as humans.
If you only go back to the origins of writing then Joe's hypothesis about the Bible being a collection of early writings and capturing some oral traditions makes some sense. For my part I do not rule-out those components in the Bible but I also think it includes things revealed by God that transcend human history.
Genesis describes four rivers flowing out of the Garden in different directions which would imply it was in high country (at or near the top of the mountains). There is indeed a region in the Himalayas from which four great rivers of Asia emanate. There is also a highland region in East Central Africa where mutiple great rivers arise and flow in different directions.
Genesis describes the Garden and its surroundings in terms of the ecosystem and geography of the Middle East. Based upon this description some Jewish commentators place the Garden at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates.
Trying to locate the Garden on a post-flood map if you believe that the flood totally rearranged earth's surface, makes no sense. Whether or not the author of Genesis realized this I do not know.
Or possibly the author did not believe the flood significantly altered the landscape. The mountains of Ararat are not far removed from the headwaters of the Tigirs and Euphrates. In other words the ark landed in the same general region (near Armenia) where it launched (near Kurdistan). It floated for hundreds but not htosuands of miles.
Taking both the geographic description of the Garden literally, and the description of the flood as a global geological catastrophe, is problematic.
Mos commentators agree that the "sons of God" was a reference to the tribe of Seth, and the "daughters of men" a reference to the tribe of Cain.
I know some people who make great work of studying the Nephilim. There are some ancient texts that suggest the Nephilim survived the flood and were the ancestors of the giants in the land of Canaan (Anakim). This would only make sense if the Nephilim had supernatural powers (demons or descendants of demons) or if the flood did not cover the entire globe and the land of the Nephilim was spared.
I think one can make more sens of this if one adopts the concept of progressive revelation. Much later in the OT we learn that demons were fallen agels cast out from heaven with Lucifer. Throughout much of the OT God is portrayed as being in control of everything both good and bad.
So if God was on the side of the "good guys" then there had to be some kind of explanation for the all to frequent successes of the "bad guys". The Nephilim and the Anakim are two of the early Bible appellations for the "bad guys" who were best avoided. When the 12 spies stirred-up fear the Anakim they were suggesting that Yahweh might not be strong enough to overthrow the demons.
May I venture that most young people leave the Church because they don't see it making a significant tangible impact on the way people in the church live their lives. To the extent that it does – healthy lifestyle, community, good values – they see those as rational – sometimes non-rational – choices that are not necessarily dependent on religion for their sustenance. Marrying later, and having kids later, also means more time to comfortably settle into a non-religious lifestyle. I would ask those on the Adventist Left the following: Other than the apparent sense of community and belonging that it provides, how would you tell your children/grandchildren that the church makes a difference in the way you live your life?
"Enlightened," non-judgmental baby boomer parents, grandparents, pastors, and educators are also making it much easier for young people to guiltlessly drift from the habits and values necessary to sustainable religious life in faith community. After all, if God is going to save everyone in the long run (How could an all-powerful, loving God who wills that all should be saved not accomplish His purposes?), does the life of religion really matter all the much? And much as we would like to see the Church serve an important role in our kids and grandkids lives, the last thing we want our values and priorities to be is a source of guilt. A belief system that has jettisoned guilt and shame isn't going to attract many adherents, regardless of whether the belief system is secular or religious.
As culture and politics moves toward secular totalitarianism and collectivism, I think young people will increasingly see that church is a vital, subsidiary institution for the preservation of values and freedom which make a tremendous difference. Until then, the main thing we "oldsters" can do is pray that God's Spirit will fill our lives with a passion for acts of love, mercy and service that we freely and humbly witness to be the fruits of Christ in our lives rather than any naturally inherent generous impulses or sentiments.
Nathan,
Excellent observations. It sounds like you've been reading books from the Barna Group like "Unchristian?" and "You Lost Me" along with making your own observations.
In the last year I've seen church leaders becoming alarmed by documentation of just how many of our youth are leaving the church. According to the Barna Group, the SDA Church is losing youth at the fastest rate of all denominations in North America. While alarm may trigger action, change will face major obstacles. The first I see is the willingness of church leaders to expand their concepts of what it means to "do church" to include many things they may have never considered so faith will become more meaningful to our youth. The second is the willingness of the silver-haired pew-warmers to expand their concepts on the same topic. Change is far more likely with the first than the second. That is why I think the solution in many cases is going to be planting new congregations and letting many of the older ones die from old age.
Even trees have lifecycles and in time sprouts take their place while the old ones fall-down and rot. So why shouldn't we expect church congregations to have lifecycles, too?
Interesting! I didn't know about the Barna conclusions. But it makes sense. The modern mindset on which the Church was built (provable, objective, propositional truth) is collapsing. Our kids and grandkids see that the propositions are both dubious and impotent. The truths and packaging that grew the Church in the West for a hundred years are no longer capable of taking root and growing in the lives of Western SDA young people. Is this because of toxic culture or is it because of the meassage? The answer is probably yes to both.
But I disagree with your suggestion, William, that the obstacles are conceptual. The obstacles are problems of the heart and will – not the mind. What gets the heart gets the mind. Practicing Passion: Youth and the Quest for a Passionate Church, by Kenda Creasy Dean, is a good place to begin the search for deep and profound insight about what is going wrong. So is Leonard Sweet's So Beautiful: Divine Design for Life and the Church. But of course now we're treading on dangerous ground – The Emergent Church. Quick, get me the Red Books.
"The One" movement made a promising beginning. But from my limited vantage point, it has been unable to move beyond lots of talking and lots of conceptual truth – albeit refreshingly Christ-focused. It talks a good game. But it is largely driven and sustained by church paid employees, and is in danger of preoccupation with ideology rather than leading out in what it means to follow "The One." It looks and sounds beautiful. But I don't see much evidence that it has been infused with the breath of life. Propositional truth dies hard in Adventism. And we don't much trust a Spirit that is not tamed and contained within institutions and rationally defensible doctrines. In that regard, the Adventist Left and Right are very similar.
The answers, in my opinion, do not lie in changing the attitudes and behaviors of church leaders or other church members. We will find answers and see a difference in the lives of those around us when we step out of the pew to engage in faithful service in Christ's name, trusting that in obedience to the promptings of God's Spirit, we will be led to see and experience deeper, and often more painful, truths than can possibly be seen from the vantage point of propositions.
Whether or not young people will immediately follow I cannot say. Christ did not enjoy a robust following during His life on earth. But the seeds that He sowed…. Oh my goodness! And after all, isn't that our job – to sow seeds? If so, then why are we so concerned about harvesting and storing?
Nathan,
Please do not draw a hard line between concepts on the one hand and heart and mind on the other because they often get confused and used as interchangeable descriptors. What I was talking about was how specific traditional practices in worship services have become a huge turn-off to the young while to the seniors it is the definition of worship where any variation is intolerable.
I agree with you about The One Project. From what I've seen of it, the effort looks like just annother variation on the age-old pursuit of knowledge about God instead of knowledge of God that comes from a relationship with Him.
It is significant to this AT reader that the ramrod behind this summit in Nebraska is a young woman who has participated in worldwide Adventism at a family level. True, there are among us "missionaries' kids" who fall off the deep end, psychologically and more prominently, socially. Some move into deep, dark waters spiritually. But the immersion in something that transcends North American churchgoing nonethless does affect us deeply.
I applaud those who are spearheading this summit; it was a similar group, about this age, that launched the SDA Church in the wake of the Great Disappointment we commemorate this week.
The youth of today have available with their fingertips (GOOGLE) information on every possible subject under the sun, instantly, and free. Ask the question and the answers are instantly displayed on the monitor. Contrast that with the seemingly endless supply of "red books" written by an old grey haired woman of the 19th century, contrasted to the "INTERNET" of today, (no disrespect intended) and other denominational literature, not free, and endlessly searching. The internet has had a similar impact as the Wittenberg press, in it's day. The youth have electronic media screaming and streaming at them 24/7. Every conceivable subject matter instantly available. Good and bad, love and evil.
All youth have a curiosity about everything. Todays youth are better educated than in the past. They are bombarded by the celebrity beautifulpeople, who dominate even the daily news stations. They see other youth having fun free of family and church, overseeing their experimental influences and desires of freely self expression. The church cannot possiblycompete with such an alluring spectacle. This is the reason churches are slowly seeing fewer college age youth as active members. As the eldest members die off, the churches will be active on the real estate market. We as concerned parents, friends, and concerned, can have confidence that if they've lovingly shared Jesus Christ in the home with the children, it will have prepared them to have in their memory bank, the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and will have an influence on how much risk they will tolerate. But "church", as we know it, will never be as in the past. The current and increasing growth in churching in the USA, as well as globally, will be in the mega churches with charismatic ministers sharing Christ, but presented in an enjoyable dramatic style thats makes each participant feel involved, and feel good. They are having fun in worship, and they sure open their wallets in appreciation.
"A belief system that has jettisoned guilt and shame isn't going to attract many adherents, regardless of whether the belief system is secular or religious."
How many on the *left* will agree with that proposition? Rock music and Sabbath entertainment are hardly a formula for success. Why is there so much fuss about oldsters being "in the way"? Why not show a bit of respect to one's elders? I realize that is passé but it's still good advice.
GYC, IMO, is an excellent venue for young people who are committed.
Maranatha
So it is a choice between GYC and the highway?
GYC is funded by people my age and older to provide a "haven in the past" for our youth.
I am NOT anti-GYC for those whom it reaches (and I do know young people that it reaches). I do wonder what percentage of our youth it actually reaches and ministers to? It would be close to zero where I live now but it has many devotees in the Midwest where I used to live.
for young people who are committed
This is a code for saying that those who do not agree with your approach and your values can be conveniently written-off as "not committed". Basically they can be duly noted and discarded.
So if 70% of our youth are leaving then at most 30% are "committed"? If you had three children would you be willing to simply say good-bye to two of them?
The number of stereotypes in your description are breathtaking in their inaccuracy.
The only youth I know who think the "oldsters are in the way" are reflecting the attitude they get from the oldsters. I don't see them wanting to bring in rock music and Sabbath entertainment. Rather, they are honestly seeking to build a working faith in God that functions in their world and they aren't finding it in the spiritually dead traditionalism of the "oldsters."
The feedback I'm getting from youth who attended GYC is that it is fun the first time or two, but they're getting turned-off because it essentially is a barely warmed-over version of the same dead religion that has been destroying their faith all along.
Are you saying that annual religious pep-rallies are not a substitute for real caring people in their local church?
Not at all! What is the result of these "pep rallies?" Do they encourage people to discover the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit so they can go out and actually do things for God that grow the Kingdom of God? Or, do they just keep feeding people more of the same old spiritual pablum and traditionalism that has rendered the church impotent in North America? The feedback I'm hearing from GYC is that it is essentially a repackaging of the same old things that are driving our youth away.
I think the biggest single thing that people my age can do for our youth and young adults is to befriend them. If you live near a (secular or Adventist) college or university campus, go out of your way to befriend young people. It is amazing how much even a good home-cooked meal will do for the morale of your typical student or single young professional (a growing number of the latter as more young people defer marriage into their 30s).
If your church wants minister to these young people start a hospitality ministry where you have plenty of good nourishing food. And feed them at 11 O-Clock in the morning so they can sleep-in. And be prepared for this to disrupt your traditonal Divine Worship and Sabbath School schedule. If it is not worth disrupting your Sabbath routine for this purpose, then you were not meant to minister to these people.
A nearby much large church had a great and growing group of young adults (singles and couples). One of their unending frustrations was that whatever they were doing in the church on Sabbath morning had to be scheduled around and not interfere with the "main" programs for the adults and their children. We demonstrate our priorities by what we do and how we do it.
Rather than trying to impose your world on young peole, try to understand and appreciate theirs. (Don't think you can go to their world – you are way too old and slow.)
Being an Adventist (or even a Christian) on a secular campus and in the early stages of a career can be very lonely. Perhaps I am more sensitive to this because I well remember what it was like when I was young in a secular university town (Ann Arbor MI) and then as a single professional in Fairfield County CT (a "professional" bedroom of New York City), not to mention my business trips to many other places. I still remember fondly the Adventists in many places who reached-out to me rather than simply ignoring me because I didn't look and act like them or simply because I was a "transient".
One of the things I love about my own local church is that many of us are more into cross-generational and cross-cultural relationships – not just hanging-out with our peers in age or culture or socio-economic status.
"Everyone is entitled to their own STUPID opinions".
A silverback bull gorilla, "When I want your opinion, I will beat it out of you."
Either one of these approaches can expect negative outcomes, yet we struggle with both.
OBSERVATION: It will be very, VERY difficult to appeal to a person on spiritual grounds (young or older) who has and continues to be fed a diet of music, entertainment, social media that raises the banner high for that which is of the earth; anti purity, service, or self control. When the core of what “feeds” us (by our own choices) feeds the carnal nature we are STUPID to THINK we will be SPIRITUALLY inclined.
When we graduated from school (you pick the level) and still today, WHAT was done or what are we doing to INFORM our youth how to study God's Word, to find true Biblical answers to the questions of life? Rules have been offered when principles are needed.
Honest, thoughtful study of God's Word that provides answers to our questions will prompt us to service, involvement and solution finding. Drafting off the silverbacks of the church will leave us empty and worshipers by habit or Sabbath morning sleepers by habit. How many movies did we watch late night during the week so we feel the need for sleep? Our lives are the results of our choices!
If the ONLY time we could be with our LOVE was Sabbath morning at church we would over look a myriad of things that don't appeal to us. We would be there to see our LOVE. Remember the ONE Who is LOVE invited to worship with LIKE believers on Sabbath. The solution is up to us. Talking about religion and knowing God are two quite different things.
How about a 10 day fast from movies, music, and FB and a 10 day feast on the Desire of All Ages? Then let's revisit this discussion.
In 9th grade our (woman) Bible teacher's #1 objective was to help us understand the unconditional love of God and assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ.
In 10th grade our (man) Bible teacher's #1 objective was to teach us how to study the Bible for ourselves.
This was in the 1960s and these two teachers were unfortunately the rare exception in their time. I was richly blessed by both of them but I cannot say the same for most of my other Bible classes from grade school through college.
OBSERVATION: It will be very, VERY difficult to appeal to a person on spiritual grounds (young or older) who has and continues to be fed a diet of music, entertainment, social media that raises the banner high for that which is of the earth; anti purity, service, or self control. When the core of what “feeds” us (by our own choices) feeds the carnal nature we are STUPID to THINK we will be SPIRITUALLY inclined.
A challenge, yes. But not insurmountable. The challenge is not drawing them out of that life but us learning how to minister God's redeeming love to them. I've found the spiritual emptiness in such people is a fantastic opportunity to share God's love, yet we often overlook that because we are focused far more on the problem than the curing power of God.
If you want to read a success story of 100% of these youth being faithful consider this story. Copy and paste into your broswer. Current Adventist Review Article:
http://www.adventistreview.org/141530-18
That took me to their opening page but not the article. I wonder if you need to be a subscriber to view the story.
In todays world the youth have a totally different environment than early 20th century. They are bombarded with secular news and happenings 24/7. The church attempts to shield them from the world they live in. It can't be done. The do's, the don'ts, the taboo's, tend to urge the young to find out what the church doesn't want them to know. Many young people entering their teens generally have a curiosity about life, and a rebellious streak. Never before have youth been exposed to information as todays youth, by electronic devices they all have in their possession. "How are you going to keep them down on the farm, after they've seen Paree". The church, in appealing to their intellect, hasn't changed methods. By directing their attention to the past 150 years history of SDA, for instruction in how to live, how to dress; what to eat; how to say no to the world;, what entertainment is appropriate; what to read (the red books); take instruction in lifestyle from a teacher, now dead for 100 years; etc etc, won't cut it anymore. The church would be wise to listen to younger people to learn how to reach todays youth, what psychology motivates them. Teach them of love. Find a way to lead them to Jesus Christ, and Him sacrificing Himself for each of them personally. Teach them to seek the Holy Spirit asa friend, as a wise companion, who will always constantly be with them, and will indicate the decisions in life that have utmost importance, and will sound a signal when its time to stop, and evaluate, the best decision they can make, when challenged. Talk to the youth, truly listen to what they have to say. There are no two alike, treat them as individuals, don't lump them together. Don't approach them with a frown, expressing dismay at their actions. Encourage them to open their shells and seek counsel when troubled. God isn't going to clobber them with guilt and shame, and neither should we. There are always some who march to a different drummer, we can't reach, but most will respond to a loving approach. Challenge them to learn all they can about nature, created bodies, Earthly and Cosmic, and thefantastic synergy of their various body parts, physical, mental,and spiritual. Aid them in creating a love for life, of adventure, of morality of self, and all living creatures. Inspire them to seek knowledge understanding, and wisdom, and to thine own self, be true.
Trying to resolve what is, that is, that there are going to forever be Seventh-day Adventists who are deeply, enduringly, irresistably attracted to their family, friends, and history within the Seveth-day Adventist church who believe the total universe was created about 6,000 years ago to look exactly like it does today. And there are going to forever be Seventh-day Adventists who are equally deeply, enduringly, irresistably attracted to their family, friends, and their own personal history within the Seventh-day Adventist church who believe what we see is described most completely, accurately, and compellingly by the full range of Earch sciences.
And thus the question is not how to unify belife with regard to scripture and scientific observations, but only with regard to how the community of faith that is the Seventh-day Adventist church is to treat each other since both ways of understanding the earth are clearly welcomed within Seventh-day Adventist congregations around the glob.
This question feels much more engaging, especially to young peope, than the endless struggle to find common ground with respect to the Earth instead of with respect to each other as God's creatures all.
If the SdA church sponsored a non-rentention summit is there a venue big enough and would the "suits" sit in the pew/chairs and listen?
Why should the pew-warming "suits" be invited? They're the problem.