Let's be honest and admit that this revision represents mainstream Adventism and that dissenters are the "lunatic fringe".  Even if that means claiming that everyone outside the asylum is crazy save for Geraty and La Sierra...

Or, show me who stands with them within Adventist academia both theological and scientific in support of "theistic evolution" or stop pretending that you are more than marginal liberal agitators of a minority group in a conservative church.
Posted by: Jack (not verified) | 30 June 2010 at 10:51

Keith,
You used to write with a very unbiased perspective. This GC, however, since you work for Spectrum you've now thrown aside your neutral and fair stances, and have become a part of the "daily kos of Adventism". I loved "Seeking a Sanctuary" since it was presented in a fair manner. I wish you could write for Spectrum, in the same way you wrote that book. The church needs an unbiased news source. The Review & ANN are both spokespersons for the church, while Spectrum makes itself the critic. Where's the middle?

To austudent: you write (above) "Keith,You used to write with a very unbiased perspective. This GC, however, since you work for Spectrum you've now thrown aside your neutral and fair stances".

You have an inference: 'work for Spectrum' => 'thrown aside neutrality'.

Why do you conclude that because Keith is blogging for Spectrum that he works for Spectrum? And worse, that somehow working for Spectrum infers bias.

Here are the facts. Keith had his expenses paid by Spectrum to cover the GC session. He is not on Spectrum's payroll. But, more importantly, Spectrum has not dictated in any way what Keith should write. We expect him to give his perspective - in an OpEd sense - and I have no doubt that is what you are getting. No hidden agenda.

But you are suggesting otherwise. You have no data to support your claim because there is none. And you are impugning Keith's character by this insinuation.

I've said several times on this site and at AToday that GRI's witness is muted. I was being too generous. GRI is deeply compromised, as it has been at various times throughout its history, starting with the time it was under Richard Ritland, who was a long-ager.

That Ben Clausen would stand up in an open GC session and say that it is impossible to affirm our beliefs in a scientifically rigorous manner because "there are no available models" is a window into the lukewarm ineffectiveness of GRI. It is their job to come up with a model; it doesn't have to be perfect, and of course it will be subject to revision. Anyone who thinks that mainstream science has an integrated model of earth history with no holes or problems is wretchedly ignorant.

It is no mystery why Adventist lay people turn to "Answers in Genesis" and the Insitute for Creation Research for their origins apologetics. And this will continue as long as GRI wanders in the wilderness, leaderless and with half its staff playing for the other team.

Time and time again, Adventist scholars have failed to provide a scientifically rigorous model that would affirm a six-day, recent creation. It simply cannot be demonstrated scientifically. This should not be overlooked.

That it cannot be demonstrated in a scientific manner does not in any way negate or even remotely compromise the church's belief in creation as it is stated. It simply invites us to deal with what is and what is not.

This is not a statement of politics, but a statement of facts, with which delegates at this General Conference Session appear unequipped to contend, as one would expect given that very few of them have formal scientific training worthy of our Adventist institutions.

Jared wrote:

"This is not a statement of politics, but a statement of facts."

Au contraire: this is politics working beautifully, the way it is supposed to.

As to facts: these cannot be facts but only accepted faith statements by the officials of the church. Facts demand observable events and demonstrations. This is patently impossible on the Bible stories.

"Faith" cannot be substituted for "facts." Correct terminology and definition should be mandated for reporting on such events.

This is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings: they determine how the Constitution can be applied to certain events. They do not rule on the events which have already occurred, but only on their legality or illegality. Neither the G.C. nor Supreme Court can change past events. They remain and are only described by interpretation. Both have the power to declare something either legal and true or illegal and not applicable.

Jared, you're setting the bar too high. The mainstream story of earth history can't be "demonstrated" any more than can the biblical story of earth history.

No one expects that we should be able to "demonstrate" in a scientifically rigorous way that the earth was created in six days, just a few thousand years ago. That is a religious belief based upon the Bible.

The goal is interpret the available evidence in a way consistent with that belief, and that goal is well within reach, despite the failure of imagination of the Ben Clausens within the church.

There is nothing that is Biblically Supernatural that can be affirmed by science. If a belief is going to be based on science then we might as well just close the SDA shop and give up trying to be Christian. I don't think creation will ever be affirmed by science, not completely, anymore than can evolution. It must be affirmed by the faith that comes from a living relationship with the Creator. The One who died and was resurrected, another event that cannot be proved by science. In fact I have yet to hear of the theory of the Resurrection.

Elaine, you seem to have missed my intent (or I misread you).

My statement was that a recent, six-day creation cannot be substantiated scientifically. This is what Clausen stated, and the fact I refer to.

Jared, this is the statement that I must have misunderstood:

"This is not a statement of politics, but a statement of facts, with which delegates at this General Conference Session appear unequipped to contend."

People wonder why I hang out in sites like Spectrum and AdventistReview.

It is because the slow-motion train wreck is so fascinating to watch.

It is amusing that Teddy's dad totally messed up the situation presented by Des Ford, and now - within days of being elected - the son is totally messing up the situation presented by LSU. I can't wait to see what other foolishness comes along.

The SDA church will survive - after all the JW, LDS, Christian Scientists, and other groups with irrational beliefs survive - but like them it will not appeal to anyone who cares more about truth than enjoying a comfortable role-playing game.

The SDA church is already loosing its youth and its appeal to educated people. Unless this decision is simply left to die a quiet death, it will speed up that loss.

/Bevin

but science CAN ...."demonstrate" in a scientifically rigorous way that the earth was NOT created in six days, just a few thousand years ago."...

just go to Hawaii....

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

the increasing age of the islands as one travels NW from the Big island is proven by three independent methods:

1) the increasing weathering and therefore "softness" of the rock, indicating increasing age as one travels to islands toward the NW. There are areas of the Big Island which are so hard, (young, hard lava) that there is little to no fauna....while the multi million year older Island of Kauai is the "garden Isle"...overrun with fauna...due to the soft rock which has formed volcanic soil due to the longer period of weathering;

and
2) the time-distance-rate of tectonic plate movement calculation which can be seen in the above web articles graphs and is proven by precise GPS measurements.

and
3) radio dating...which interweaves and correlates its increasing ages in similar fashion to the above two methods.

and it all adds up to an obvious scientific proof that a 6000, even 20,000 yrs age for the earth is DISPROVED by many convergent methods of science.

one can reject or ignore the above evidence, and instead accept what superstitious, uneducated, scientifically ignorant ancient story tellers thought about their environment, their family history, and the stories they had heard and recounted to their own kids around the campfire until they finally got written down.

or one can accept the new evidence, and understand that revelation is "progressive"....and knowledge increases....

and even if one wants to maintain the belief in a 6x24 hr creation only 6kyo, one should be thankful that there are infidel geologists out there who know where to look for oil to power our modern civilization a bit longer...until either Jesus or solar or fusion power finally materialize.

>>> That Ben Clausen would stand up in an open GC session and say that it is impossible to affirm our beliefs in a scientifically rigorous manner because "there are no available models" is a window into the lukewarm ineffectiveness of GRI. It is their job to come up with a model; it doesn't have to be perfect, and of course it will be subject to revision. Anyone who thinks that mainstream science has an integrated model of earth history with no holes or problems is wretchedly ignorant.

He is right. There are NO scientifically reputable hypothesis that explains how recent creation of life can match up with the fossil evidence. None that come even close. Every proposal is contradicted by the evidence.

Mainstream science matches it almost perfectly. There are no significant contradictions. Gaps, yes. Contradictions, no.

/Bevin

John, we've been over all this before, in excruciating detail, on another thread. The Hawaiian Islands demonstrate that the plates have been slowing down, such that the big island has been fixed over the hot spot for thousands of years, whereas the islands that tail away to the northwest were over the hot spot for briefer periods, and hence are much smaller. The configuration of the archipelago is exactly what I would expect from a catastrophic plate techtonics model in which the rate of plate movement was faster in the past and has slowed down. It doesn't suggest long ages unless long ages are assumed at the outset, as they are in conventional analysis.

Radiometric dating is useless, as the Hawaiian volcanoes themselves have many historically dated lava flows that give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands of years or even millions of years:

http://www.icr.org/article/436/.

You are a slave to conventional assumptions and interpretations, and insist that we all must be as well.

SDAs seem doomed to think they can have both their science and their belief in a six day creation. They continue to reassure themselves that this is the case - that science does support a six day creation if you only ignore those pesky, silly "evolutionists" - and they ignore the messengers who keep trying to tell them differently. Good for Ben Clausen but he isn't telling them what they want to hear and so it will fall on deaf ears.

The denomination will eventually have to make a choice, science or YEC because it can't continue the delusion that they support each other much longer.

For you evolutionist, can you tell me why belief in evolution is so important? Was evolution important in the discovery of antibiotics? Was evolution important in mans quest to set man on the moon? Has there ever been a practical scientific breakthrough based on the theory of evolution? If a doctor was treating you who had never heard of the theory of evolution would he/she not be able to treat your illness as well?

Bevin you talk of a slow train wreck. Where is it? Where are we losing our youth over the creation issue? I graduated from Academy in the mid '70's and many of my fellow graduates are no longer in the church. (But one of them is the president of one of our universities) Not a one of them are absent because of the issue of Creation vs evolution. They are not there because they never had a relationship with the Creator.

Beth, origins are just a tiny sliver of science. From my understanding (but hey I'm just a Bible believing ignorant bee keeper) weather a person believes in Creation or evolution really makes very little difference in most scientific pursuits. My son is applying for med school. His belief in origins has no bearing on his ability to be a MD.

" it can't continue the delusion that they support each other much longer."

Not with the higher level of education in the first world countries. Could that possibly be one of the reasons that the membership is hardly growing, and the attrition rate is higher in those parts of the world?

Let's be honest and admit that this revision represents mainstream Adventism and that dissenters are the "lunatic fringe". Even if that means claiming that everyone outside the asylum is crazy save for Geraty and La Sierra...

Or, show me who stands with them within Adventist academia both theological and scientific in support of "theistic evolution" or stop pretending that you are more than marginal liberal agitators of a minority group in a conservative church.
Posted by: Jack (not verified) | 30 June 2010 at 10:51
==================================================
How true.

How "instructive" that the "fringe" you are speaking of - have typically been referring to the main stream Adventist church as "the fringe" - but when the matter comes to a vote - it is the mainstream church voting by the 1000's in favor of creation and a much smaller group of a couple dozen voting "nay".

(And that is being generous since it is not clear that all those voting "nay" would either be in favor of evolution nor even whether they would be in favor of allowing evolutionism as a big tent circus dweller.
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

" it can't continue the delusion that they support each other much longer."

Not with the higher level of education in the first world countries. Could that possibly be one of the reasons that the membership is hardly growing, and the attrition rate is higher in those parts of the world?

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 30 June 2010 at 10:23
=============================================

I would certainly like to think that the countries with the higher adoption rate for evolutionism would be harder to reach with the Gospel Three Angel's message.

Turns out.. "The Creator is also our Savior". So if you are simply trying to point out that link - I think you could easily make the case.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

I need to measure the diameter of one hair. I have a yardstick and with the yardstick I measure that the hair is 1/16th of an inch or 0.0625. However some scientists claim that a human hair is less than 0.01 inch. I have now proven that the scientists are wrong. Or maybe I used the wrong measurement tool for the device.

Same thing is true for that Creationist argument for Hawaii. It doesn't disprove long time periods; it only shows that Creationists don't understand radiometric dating.

There are things that the SDA church does that no church was never asked by God in scripture to do. It does them endlessly and automatically, the way the rest of us breathe. One of those things is to define and redefine its doctrine, not, it seems, because it has receieved "new light" or has benefitted from "present truth" but because it cannot allow its members to think through the finer points on their own and arrive at the conclusions where it wants them to arrive. As the definitions get tighter, less discernment is required of the members--happy news for some of them. But not only is less discernment required, less freedom of thought is granted, and it is not only those who disagree with the definitions who come to be excluded but those who disagree with the limitation of freedom as well.

..."the islands that "tail away" to the northwest were over the hot spot for briefer periods, and hence are much smaller"...David

the simple evidence as presented at the above web site shows a different explanation.

the islands that "tail away" are smaller because they have been subjected to longer periods of erosion and weathering.
some of the coral atolls toward Midway have weathered down to waterline and the remaining evidence is coral..a life form....which also can be dated to millions of years ago...
by a different dating method.

and if you choose to believe ICR's "science experts", I'm sure you are aware that they believe the Bible is the only source of all truth, not science.

from their web pages...beliefs

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal,

....free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological. end quote.

of course...the Bible is also "free" of many non canonical books!!! which disagree at times with the "canon" chosen by human beings...that's how it was made "inerrant"....except for a few inconsistencies, like Kings and Chronicles. and
a few more:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.htm...

the anomalies of K/AR dating are known, and adjusted for.

here is the best explanation from a Christian-who is also a Scientist

http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/wiens.html

scroll down to page 5 for the argon explanation:

and I bet he knows more than all of us put together about this:

More about the author: Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. He spent two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (La Jolla, CA) where he studied isotopes of helium, neon, argon, and nitrogen in terrestrial rocks. He worked seven years in the Geological and Planetary Sciences Division at Caltech, where he continued the study of meteorites and worked for NASA on the feasibility of a space mission to return solar wind samples to Earth for study. Dr. Wiens wrote the first edition of this paper while in Pasadena. In 1997 he joined the Space and Atmospheric Sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has been in charge of building and flying the payload for the solar-wind mission, as well as developing new instruments for other space missions. He has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

This is the next step in a process that has been going since at least 2004, cheered on by Wilson, Goldstein, Koranteng-Pipim, GYC, EducateTruth, et al. It is now a matter of time before the witch-hunts will begin in earnest. Adventist scientists are not welcome, unless they check their science at the door: the Bible (i.e., a literal reading of the Bible) is the supreme authority.

What practical steps can/should we take collectively and individually in response to this? Is it better to ignore it or to act on it? I think that scientists have been too quiet, and need to speak up on their own behalf and on behalf of their church-employed colleagues. Actions need to accompany the words. What might be some appropriate actions? A tithe-funded pro-science educational/advocacy organization for the church? Endowed chairs of theology for advancing theology that is compatible with science? Other ideas?

SDAs seem doomed to think they can have both their science and their belief in a six day creation. They continue to reassure themselves that this is the case - that science does support a six day creation if you only ignore those pesky, silly "evolutionists" - and they ignore the messengers who keep trying to tell them differently. Good for Ben Clausen but he isn't telling them what they want to hear and so it will fall on deaf ears.

The denomination will eventually have to make a choice, science or YEC because it can't continue the delusion that they support each other much longer.

Posted by: Beth | 30 June 2010 at 9:44
================================================
BobRyan replies:

Why is this concept so difficult for our evolutionist friends?

1. "Science" is not going to come up with a video of God making the world in 6 days NOR of "birds coming from reptiles". Those two opposing by-faith-alone religious world views will just have to gather support from the data as they find it. But in the mean time they will both affirm the validity of their doctrines even without the data.

And so nothing has changed there.

2. It is more than a little "reasonable" to expect a pro-Bible creation-accepting teaching institution to provide "scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation" because "Science is not God". Science is a work in progress by definition. The limits of our science at any point in time is always bounded by the limits of man's understanding.

So a "Scientifically rigorous" presentation of the DNA molecule by Francis Crick is "valid" even before he discovers the first gene or mRNA or observes translation in the Ribosome or we figure out how to pop the lid on the chaperonin TRiC. Thus "Scientifically rigorous" does not imply a specific level of understanding - it just means that we show what we know from science, but never do we argue "as soon as our level of science knows what God knows - then we can believe God" NOR do we claim "as soon as we know what God knows - then we will have a scientifically rigorous presentation to offer".

And sadly - that is where many theistic evolutionists "get stuck".

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Rich Hannon,
The bias is found in the name SPECTRUM which is at best "The Nation" of Adventism with its openly liberal agenda.
That an Adventist historian would write for such a magazine reflects poorly on his judgement and independence.

I'll be straightforward...

As a Christian, I believe, and affirm, the literal, and Biblical, account of six days for creation, with a seventh day for rest. Can it be proved through scientific methods that rely on facts alone, and no faith? No. However, I believe God's Word is true, and while I may not be able to prove things in a scientific matter, my faith in God affirms my belief.

Satan is working overtime to discredit God. The Sabbath, marriage, and the Biblical account of creation, three important truths introduced in the opening of the Bible. Take one, or more, and discredit them, and you begin to cast doubt on other Biblical truths.

While I firmly stand with the church position, also the Biblical position, I believe we must also use Christ-like love in dealing with LaSierra. Deal with the issue in a Christian manner, and solve the problem while upholding the dignity of the individuals involved. The Union is responsible for LaSierra, so they should deal with the issue immediately. If indeed professors are teaching evolution as a fact, and not a theory to be understood, AND they do not have full confidence and faith in the Biblical account of creation, they should be asked to either rethink their position, not teach the class dealing with creation / evolution, or at worst-case, find a new school to teach in. If the professors at any of our schools are teaching contrary to the Bible, the three remedies previously stated are the kindest, and most effective, way of dealing with the issue.

Some on Spectrum, and Adventist Today also, think you are conservative, fundamentalist, or completely off your rocker if you stand for the literal account of creation. I am none of those three. I am a man who trusts God's Word, even when I cannot prove everything to my satisfaction, or others. Of all the things others could call me, Biblical is what I covet most.

A 6 day literal creation is an interpretation of the Bible. We do not stone people, we do not cut off our hands or pluck out our eyes. We have found ways of interpreting these to reflect our understanding of the character of God. If we force members to adhere to a human statement, or interpretation of God's word, we are not living the gospel. Isn't the Bible good enough? Do we need to rewrite fundamental belief 6, which is a human interpretation of God's word, as the final statement?

Ellen White was against fundamental beliefs because these then become our "Bible" rather than the word of God. I side with Sister White on this account. Are we going to ask scientist to choose human interpretation over serving God with integrity in their professions?

This is not just about La Sierra - why do you think that "Creation Yes" has few if any active bona fides scientists to talk at the series of lectures at the GC out of thousands of Adventist scientists respected in their fields? It is quite a telling revelation about the move to put human interpretation above the Bible, or alternatively a reflection of the current hostile climate for Adventist scientists.

Evolution is not in conflict with the Bible. At present it does not agree with an interpretation of a 6 day literal creation. However, writing that we believe in a 6 day literal creation will not change the continued progress of science. If 30 years ago we had written a statement that said we do not believe in dinosaurs - they are lies of science. (this, by the way, is what I was taught in Adventist schools). How would we reconcile that fundamental belief today - since we now believe dinosaurs actually did exist?

Despite our current interpretations, science will move on - clearer understanding of the evolutionary process continues to emerge. We have nothing to fear - this is God's territory. God is big enough to handle the question of “how does this all fit together?” or “How do we reconcile the reality of our scientific observations with the story of creation?” If you are fearful that the evolutionists are going to ruin the church – recognize this is not your Church this is God’s church – God is in charge. When God is in charge there is no need to fear – when we are afraid – we tend to react and sometimes behave badly.

As Graham Maxwell used to say, when we didn't understand or were confused by apparent contradictions in scripture, - read on. We have nothing to lose by continuing the dialogue between Faith and Science, but we have much to lose if we try to set human interpretation above scripture ... The most precious of which is committed scientists that are eager to contribute to the church and understand their creator as Adventist Christian scientists. Let us not forget, we are all part of God’s family.

....less than a week in.....and let the purge begin....
Changing and rewording a fundamental belief, will not change what is...

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such." -J. N. Loughborough

Who, then, is truly guilty of apostasy, LSU or those carrying the torches to the witch-burning?

Politics? No, it appears to be a calculated plan by Ted to abide by current procedural rules during the rewording of the section often used by those that Cliff labeled the "SDA left" in an article he wrote almost 5 years ago. The claim that FB #6 was written intentionally in a vague or ambiguous way in order to allow for a variety of interpretations has been used by many that I have dialogued with on SDA forums since the multi-year meetings in Denver.

Ambiguous? No problem. Change the wording to leave them without a defense, then clean house. I would be shocked if Ted has not had discussions with church attorneys about proper legal procedures to follow when preparing to deal with tenured heretical professors and even administrators.

And "witch hunt"? Ellen claimed that those accepting scientific conclusions about the age of the earth which conflict with Biblical history are practicing the "worst infidelity". Should the church actively weed out the worst infidels if they are in positions to influence and/or teach SDA young people? Church management would appear to be complicit and/or incompetent if they did NOT aggressively seek out and remove them, IMO.

What all this seems to portend is that SDA higher "education" is coming to an end. Whatever schools remain, will be "Bible Schools" and if you're interested in a field that has anything to do with science you simply go to a school that teaches science. But don't expect the young SDAs science buffs to come out the other end to be sitting beside you in an SDA church service. It's those in transition now, that must bear the brunt of this. Where do you go in the middle of your career when the rules change .... . And, for the rest of us, where do you go when your church becomes unreasonable? The answer to the last question, is written all over SDA official statements of belief, as they become the terms of membership.

What we have here, folks, is the evolution of a church. As one group is forced out the door, another is coming to rule. That's called, SURVIVAL OF THE POLITICALLY FITTEST.

The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed .... -J. N. Loughborough

Daniel

Here is a quote from J. N. Loughborough's book Great Second Advent Movement where he quotes Ellen's "testimony" during the debate of chutch name selection in 1860 (Testimonies, vol 1, pages 288 & 289), then makes a "forever" statement:

"No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession, and expresses our faith, and marks us as a peculiar people. . . .

"The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord's quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God's law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ellen)

The effect of the testimony was to settle forever this question in the minds of the believers. Loughborough

"I don't think creation will ever be affirmed by science, not completely, anymore than can evolution. It must be affirmed by the faith that comes from a living relationship with the Creator." Richard Sherwin.

Well said Richard. Those who worship science, Darwinian Adventists, need to think through their commitment -- is it to God or to fallible man? Wilson's proposal is a sound one and the obvious agreement by so many delegates show that many SDAS are unwilling to sacrifice eternal life for the pottage of alleged scientific thinking.
Maranatha.

Again I ask those who believe that earth and it's inhabitants evolved over 100's of millions of years. Why is this so important? What practical breakthroughs have come about from the belief in evolution?

Sirje why is the belief in Creation going to end SDA higher education? What will in benefit a doctor to believe that man evolved? What will it benefit a nurse to believe that the earth is millions of years old?

Why is this belief in evolution so important to scientists? I can tell you why belief in evolution is so important to a SDA Christian, it's because without Creation the whole of the Biblical account of Salvation falls. But I have yet to hear why it's so important that the church adopt evolution.

>>> Again I ask those who believe that earth and it's inhabitants evolved over 100's of millions of years. Why is this so important? What practical breakthroughs have come about from the belief in evolution?

We develop instruments and formulas.

We use those instruments and formulas to fly space craft through the rings of Saturn, to sequence DNA, to plum the depths of the ocean, to build atomic bombs and computers

The instruments and the formula are proven to work

We apply them to studying Earth's history

We discover that the Earth looks very old, and looks like it has had life on it for millions of years. We discover lots of things about the last 20,000 years of human life - including how oral histories and books have come about

The Creationists tell us life started only 6000 years because God made it then, and God made a Flood, and...

If this is so, the ONLY conclusion is God MADE IT LOOK OLD.
ie: God is a liar.

Creationists believe God tells lies.

Evolutionists believe God tells the truth.

/Bevin

So Bevin you are telling me that without the belief in evolution our spacecraft could not have flown to Saturn? You are telling me that without belief in evolution we could not sequence DNA? You are telling me that this thing this computer under my fingers is the result of someone believing in evolution?

So because I believe that Christ is God and told the truth I'm in fact calling Him a liar. But if I believe Christ lied then I believe God did not lie. Got it.

>>>>Why is this belief in evolution so important to scientists? I can tell you why belief in evolution is so important to a SDA Christian, it's because without Creation the whole of the Biblical account of Salvation falls. But I have yet to hear why it's so important that the church adopt evolution.

Posted by: Richard Sherwin (not verified) | 01 July 2010 at 7:36
-------
It is not important of the church to adopt evolution. It IS, however, important that the church adopt a view of creation which harmonizes the reading of scripture with the witness of the earth itself.

One of the most clever of "mind control" tactics is that of the "forced choice". What I perceive in your comments... and those of many others on this blog on both sides of the arguments... is that you are a victim of this very tactic.

A "forced choice" is one in which the only alternatives are closely defined so that one must make a choice only between those overtly defined... even though there are other choices available.

What has happened in the last several years is that this "forced choice" list of alternatives has been narrowed to only two... that of a magical six day creation and that of long ages of naturalistic evolution.

These are NOT the only choices available.

I... and many others in the SDA church... are in fact Long Chronology CREATIONISTS. It is a sad fact that the term creationist has been restricted to only those who believe it all happened in only six days. I do not accept that restriction. One can believe in creation by the one and only Creator God... which then preserves all that we know about the plan of salvation without accepting the interpretation of Genesis one that limits it to being diary entries for "six earth-days in the life of God".

>>> So Bevin you are telling me that without the belief in evolution our spacecraft could not have flown to Saturn?

Since you can't understand simple concepts and simple language, I am not surprised you believe in Creation. In your case you don't believe God to be a liar, you simply can't do the analysis.

We built the instruments and formula believing in a God that tells the truth and who maintains consistent natural law.

We test those instruments and formula by doing extremely difficult things with them such as spacecraft to Saturn.

We find they work.

We use the instruments to investigate the history of life on Earth. They tell us life has been here a long time.

Believing in an honest God leads directly to life having been on Earth a long time, and to discovering that the Bible is not a science textbook.

/Bevin

>>>>>The instruments and the formula are proven to work

We apply them to studying Earth's history

We discover that the Earth looks very old, and looks like it has had life on it for millions of years. We discover lots of things about the last 20,000 years of human life - including how oral histories and books have come about

The Creationists tell us life started only 6000 years because God made it then, and God made a Flood, and...

If this is so, the ONLY conclusion is God MADE IT LOOK OLD.
ie: God is a liar.

Creationists require God to be a liar.

Evolutionists have a God that tells the truth.

/Bevin

Posted by: bevin | 01 July 2010 at 7:53
----------------
Thank you for your comments, Bevin. I agree. But please see my comments above on the problems with "forced choices" for I think you also have fallen into this "trap".

The problem is one of definitions... which have been foisted upon us by both "creationists" and "evolutionists". Definitions which claim that "creationists" are ONLY those who believe in the 6 days/6000 years formulas, and "evolutionists" are ONLY those who believe in godless mindless operations of natural forces as the origins of all that we see in nature.

In fact... There are Theistic evolutionists who believe in a God who originated and who continued to guide the development of His original creation.

There are also Creationists who believe that the things we see in nature are a true and accurate witness of history/chronology of God's creative acts. These are sometimes called Gradual Creationists, or Progressive Creationists, or simply Long Chronology Creationists.

This type of Creationist... of which I am one... do NOT make God out to be a liar. Instead, we accept as equally valid both the witness of the earth itself as well as the written scriptures and we find ways to harmonize them by asking questions of the text and finding interpretations which does not fly in the face of our reason and the evidence of our senses.

I'm afraid that Dr. Geraty is misremembering what actually happened at the Faith and Science Conferences. I attended the third and final conference in Colorado, and it is simply not true that the gathered scholars and scientists voted down the statement on literal creation. On the contrary, it was clear that the majority of attendees did support such a position.

Here is the relevant history. GC leadership at the time had decided not to have a final vote of any kind by the larger body. It seems this decision was driven in good part by the non-representative nature of the gathering. The Conferences were significantly skewed towards North American delegates, with a large representation from institutions considered more liberal. This was, in my view, to allow for meaningful dialogue between truly contrasting views within the church. But such a group could not vote a representative statement for the larger church.

Still, many of us there felt that even given the liberal skewing of the group, that a statement on literal creation could still pass, albeit with not as great a majority if the representation had more fairly represented the larger church. Our viewpoint was vindicated when in the closing session, Elder Neal Wilson, father of the current president, during a comment period, asked for a show of support (I cannot remember whether it was raised hands or standing) for a literal view of creation. This was responded to by a clear majority of the gathering of full delegates. This then gave the mandate to the drafting committee who formulated the Affirmation of Creation document that was then voted by the GC fall counsel session, and then was re-affirmed yesterday by the GC Business session.

Richard,
I'm not asking that the church "adopt" evolution. What I want is for the church to grow up and understand that you can't place God's creative power under a microscope; to combine man's puny grasp of infinite power in a science lab or even in a book made of paper and ink. These are human attempts to understand God. How is that working for us? "Faith is made of none affect" by declarations like what's coming out of yet another session of frightened people trying to hang on to beliefs by declarations of authority.

"The church" uses imagery when it wants to, but objects when it infringes on it's pet doctrines - fine; but to be fair, all "the church" can honestly say is GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT - period. It's total ignorance, (not to mention, it being totally illogical), to suggest that the "days" of creation are just like the 24 hour days we have today - this, without a sun, or earth's rotation around a sun. Whatever the "days" of creation referred to, they did not describe a 24 hour day around a non-existent sun.

Yes a doctor can still be a doctor while believing in 6 LITERAL days of creation along with a 24 hour day without a sun, but I would question his ability to reason from medical evidence what my physical problems might be.

This whole debate makes me sad.

Do we believe God or not? It was He Himself who said He made the earth in 6 days, resting on the 7th. He said He said He made everything in it. " ... 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ..."

If we insist on saying that the earth's evidence shows that this is untrue, we call God a liar. If we call God a liar, then we have no hope.

The bottom line is here, at God's writing in stone. Believe what He says - or not since we do have free choice. However, if any kind of evolution is forced on the SDA church, it will cease to be a church with a foundation rooted in scripture. We can not as a people say Genesis is allegory [or whatever] without throwing out the entire set of commandments.

Not to mention doing violence to our name.

In my limited understanding, I think I comprehend why Gordon Bietz wanted the resolution in two parts. On the one hand, we Adventists support a Creator God. On the other hand, we don't wish to brandish the two marks of the beast--on the "hand" and on the "head"--coercion and deception.

In the recent "Ricardo Graham" thread, David Read corroborated my concerns: "Earlier I suggested a major problem with your [David's] stance to be one of implementation: 1) how to effectively uncover the Darwinian miscreants and 2) how to prove their heresy. My studied belief is that both can be accomplished only by turning the 28 fundamentals into a creedal statement on which professors must sign off, and by forming "review" committees to bring the accused forward to determine orthodoxy."

"Chris," David wrote, "that sounds like a reasonable plan."

To me, on the contrary, it sounds beastly.

This does not imply I don't "believe." As I wrote in Searching for a God to Love, "Naturalistic evolutionists claim they don't have enough faith to believe in God. For me, I can't comprehend believing in evolutionary odds that are so improbable--I don't have enough of that type of faith. Annie Dillard observes in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, 'This view requires that a monstrous world running on chance and death, careening blindly from nowhere to nowhere, somehow produced wonderful us.'"

However, other considerations intrude. As Harold Kushner questions, "What religion worthy of its name would base itself on the hope that people would be too intimidated to find out how the world really works?"

All sides of this debate can hold honorable motives. I want most of all to be a follower of Jesus. What I want least of all is to be coercive and deceptive for "the truth" to the point that Jesus sadly says, "I never knew you."

Richard,
Your question is valid but also somewhat misguided I think. What I hear is you asking is, "Why would someone choose to *believe* evolution versus literal creationism?" It sounds like you see them both as philosophies and one can pick and choose which one makes the most sense.

That may be how theology or philosophy works (although people aren't even that rational generally with those topics either) but it isn't how science works. If I am a scientist, I can't just reject the germ theory because my religion insists illness is caused by evil spirits. A scientist has to go where the evidence leads. The process isn't always smooth and perfect of course but still, the scientific method allows us to reduce some of our human biases and learn things about the world that religion has been, quite frankly, unable to do.

The reason scientists almost unanimously see evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life is because it fits the evidence. If other explanations also fit the evidence, then there would be competing theories but so far, nothing has even come close to the success of the explanation of common descent with modification.

If a student wants a career in the field of biology, he or she really has to understand evolution. A student must know enough about it to be able to do research through that prism because that simply is the field. That doesn't mean the student has to accept every part - especially since some parts are just not settled yet. It also doesn't mean a student must give up Christianity although certain types of Christianity would be hard to practice without a lot of compartmentalizing. Doctors don't have to have much to do with it at all unless they plan on doing research in certain areas. Doctors aren't scientists and if they want to be, they need extra training.

If you really want to understand practical applications of TofE, some reading on the work in genetics would be helpful. That is where most of the practical stuff is happening right now. But scientists aren't using it just for practical application, they are using it to understand what happened because they are simply curious.

>>>> Elder Neal Wilson, father of the current president, during a comment period, asked for a show of support (I cannot remember whether it was raised hands or standing) for a literal view of creation. This was responded to by a clear majority of the gathering of full delegates. This then gave the mandate to the drafting committee who formulated the Affirmation of Creation document that was then voted by the GC fall counsel session, and then was re-affirmed yesterday by the GC Business session.

Posted by: Nicholas Miller (not verified) | 01 July 2010 at 8:46
----------------
Please refresh your memory by re-reading the published reports of that closing question and the statement later issued.

It very clearly exhibits another manipulative "mind control" tactic. That of changing definitions in "mid-stream". The question asked of the assembled delegates was very clearly whether they believed that God created all that is.... which is all that the term "literal creation" means if stripped of its short chronology coloration. There was NO question put to the group as a whole as to whether they accepted the 6/6000 formulation. Yet in the published report itself, the switch from a question as to WHO created all that is to one that focused on the chronology of creation was plainly revealed.

My wife said to me this morning, "Dear, why do you let this bother you so much? Hardly anyone in our church is aware of the details of your concern and many wouldn't know how to access this information even if they were interested."

As the voice of common sense and reason in my house, she's probably right. The average member doesn't even open up their quarterlies each week. I know this because as their teacher I ask them and this is what they acknowledge. If I tell them something as teacher/elder, they for the most part agree and go their way.

Thinking outside of the box for most is uncomfortable. Then why should we even ask questions about the creation week. Just accept it, they say.

Come to think of it, will this affect my and their salvation? This is just like the 1844 controversy. Whether I understand it or not, believe it or not, will it change in any way my personal relationship with God?

I think what really bothers me is the implied effort to control how I think by carefully rewriting our fundamental beliefs so that there is no leeway for being open-minded about any other possibilities? But again. I have to realize that most of my fellow brothers and sisters are not well educated and this type of lockstep thinking is perfectly acceptable - actually quite reasuring because too much thinking wearies the soul.

So, for as long as the average member isn't affected personally by these changes and isn't made to feel uncomfortable, traditional Adventist thinking and worship will continue ad infinitum. Even though Ted visited our church twice, he didn't make an impact on most of our members, some of whom (as of this week) are still asking "We have a new President?"

What matters here is not what direction the church is going but the complacency and apathy that most of our membership has about serious theological concerns. This forum and others like it represent a minscule proportion of our membership. The majority wants to keep the status quo and will vote to keep it that way.

Maybe Shakespeare was right?

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing." — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5,

And we are the idiots.

Richard Sherwin

You ask: "Why is this so important? What practical breakthroughs have come about from the belief in evolution?"

This is not the right question to ask to get to the differences in viewpoint between those who appreciate and are open to scholarship and learning and those who would look for miraculous explanations.

As you can obviously appreciate we live in the 21st century in a world dominated by natural explanations whether we like it or not. Doctors and nurses within the Adventist health care system practice evidence based medicine consistent with this rational naturalistic world whether they accept divine literal creation of a young 6000 year old universe or believe in naturalistic explanations for the origin of the species that are consistent with modern science. The difference is that one group believes that God is the explanation of what they do not know. They long for a simpler world where it was all revealed and there was no reason to doubt. A past where it was easier to be certain and was free of modernity.

The alternative is to believes in a God that exists not as an ever decreasing explanation for what we do not know but in what we do know. Perhaps we can see Him in the Goodness and Grace that is in the world through the community and fellowship of the body of Christ. This is a world of hope that realistically embraces the naturalistic world we live in but brings an ethic and a politic that is informed by the message of grace and hope that is the incarnate God.

As a scientist I accept that the process of science is based on honestly seeking to explain as much as possible based on nothing more than natural cause. That is precisely the premise of modern medicine with its attendant successes. To pretend that we take the bible literally in all its parts but nonetheless imagine we can truly embrace science is to live a life of cognitive dissonance that can only be more comfortable as we retreat into ignorance, reject new knowledge and understanding, and deprecate scholarship and open enquiry.

This is what we have begun to witness in Adventism today. A retreat to the past with its attendant hostility to modernity and naturalistic explanations. Unfortunately we want it all. We crave the archaic views of causation but do not want to be deprived of the benefits of the modern world that is driven by the naturalist explanations of science. Unfortunately it is a Faustian deal. Once we allow for naturalistic explanations we cannot dictate what it can explain and where it will end. We can only seek to know God in the magesteria of faith and spirituality that lives beyond the natural world and interacts with it only through the life and faith of believers.

Kerbyco and Paul U Cameron

Well spoken.

"in science we are attempting to think God's thoughts after Him"
J Kepler

Thomas

Billie is correct - there is a range of beliefs, somewhat along the following range

1. God made the rock and the life 6000 years ago
2. God made the rock and the life a few tens of thousands of years ago
3. God made the rock millions of years ago and the life a few tens of thousands of years ago

4. God made the rock and the life millions of years ago, and has been guiding/manipulating/tweaking it since
5. God made the rock and the life millions of years ago, and has been been letting do whatever it does since
6. There is no God

Only the first three require a Liar God.

The only way to believe any of the first three is to not understand the evidence - usually by (a) not studying it, (b) claiming scientists are dishonest, and (c) believing a whole bunch of hooey put out by AIG and other charlatans.

Ted Wilson and most of the delegates to the GC fall into these groups, and rely on their ignorance to maintain their feeling of certainty.

SDA evolutionists are usually of the (4) group

/Bevin

Chris Blake,
If a gradual creation is so monstrous, then so is all of nature even today. Survival is what it's been about. Frogs eat insects and they, in turn, get eaten. Man, is also shown to be a predator, even with God's blessing, as Jesus told the fishermen disciples to "throw in their nets". The beauty of nature we admire today as God's creation, runs on predation; and we have linked the term to the horrors of sin and the death that sin produces.

I would submit that physical death is part and parcel of creation; and even necessary for the entire process to work. Maybe all of God's creation, from its inception, is based on Christ's work on the cross - ONE DIES SO ANOTHER MIGHT LIVE. Maybe that is the whole point of creation to teach us humble acknowledgment of our place in the chain of life. Adam's sin initiated the death of that humility, whereby man took charge of his own destiny and rewrote God's plan, making it into a matter of of man's own achievement under the delusion that he is important enough to be able to vindicate God by his misapplied vision and his behavior.

Reading all these arguments I am reminded of this slogan:

"Ignorance is infinite;
but knowledge is finite."

It is in the first group that wishes to place God in a box and are certain of his actions.

The second group realize that there are many things to be discovered and many more we humans can never know.

Hey, I'm just gonna throw this out there, knowing that probably nobody will answer, but...

How many creationists posting here have actually read "Origin of the Species"?

What foolishness and nonsense.
Another damage control measure addressing symptoms.
ROOT CAUSES????????

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no.... PRIEST.... to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

"The ministers must be CONVERTED before they can strengthen their brethren. They should not preach themselves, but Christ and His righteousness. A REFORMATION is needed among the people, but it should first begin its purifying work with the ministers. 1 T 469

Dean Waterman said "Satan is working overtime to discredit God. The Sabbath, marriage, and the Biblical account of creation, three important truths introduced in the opening of the Bible. Take one, or more, and discredit them, and you begin to cast doubt on other Biblical truths."

Dean are you and other's afraid that investigation might prove such issue's wrong? Truth should withstand any and all investigation. Isn't that why God allowed, maybe even planned, "the great controversy." How else could Gods creatures ever grasp the issues in the struggle of life and death. At some point in eternity in order to clarify those issues the investigation-demonstration had to be allowed to happen. We find ourselves in the middle of the greatest opportunity there ever will be to understand those issues. And God knows what he is doing and has made us these promises 29:11-14 (New International Version)

11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity. [a] I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile."

and in
Jeremiah 9:23-24 (New International Version)

23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,

24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he UNDERSTANDS AND KNOWS ME
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD

Question is do WE trust HIM enough to SEEK HIM with all our heart?

Keerbyco Said and said it well "God is in charge. When God is in charge there is no need to fear – when we are afraid – we tend to react and sometimes behave badly."

Fear paralyzes our WILL, makes us emotional unstable, robs us of health and joy, stunts our growth, generates hostilty toward others and causes division and leads to the control of others.

This too is clearly shown in Genesis. Adam and eve walked and talked with God in the garden until Satan spread his lies about God and "they became afraid" and they began to flee. As God pursued them they thought he was going to hurt them when all he wanted to do was to heal them of their fear. That is waht sin does it seperates us from God.

Here is quote that helps to clarify that.

(Re Romans 3:24-26). "A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the
Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906)." {6BC 1074.2}

Qwaheri. God is in charge.

Jay

My problem is that the church has created an unfortunate choice. Accept the scientific method or be and SDA. A scientist does not "belive" in evolution or in creation, she accepts the scientific method; which I do.

When a scientist says that there are no scientific models to explain creation as it exists in the bible, it is because there are none, and none are possible at this time. Scientists always leave their minds open to new methods, tehnologies and explainations as long as they are compatible with the scientific method.

We have all seen it said, in Adventist Review articles, in blogs and comments that if a person cannot reconcile a literal six day creation with the evidence of science, then that person does not belong in the church. If that is the way the church wants it, we have no choice but to leave, which many of us have done. Happy now?

pcress: How many creationists posting here have actually read "Origin of the Species"?

That's in Genesis, right?

I am mystified by Nick's comment. He begins by suggesting that Larry misreported what was passed at the International Faith and Science Conference, and by the time Nick finishes his comment, he confirms Larry's report that Ted Wilson misrepresented what was officially decided. Two published articles contradict Nick's memories.

Adventist News Network reports:

Several presenters expressed their passionate interest for the conference to bring more specificity to the doctrine of Creation, or, as some put it, affirming "more clearly" the historic Adventist understanding of the Genesis narrative of creation. This notion has led some to recommend to the church leadership to reevaluate the wording of the church's fundamental belief number 6.

The issue was debated and was reflected in the conference's report, entitled "Affirmation of Creation." However, in a view of one participant, "by adding more specificity to our doctrines, we may be talking more and more to ourselves," said Dr. Alden Thompson, a theology professor from Walla Walla College in Washington state. "That's one fear I have."

"My impression of the conference was that it brought together a lot of different opinions and I think that the discussion was enlightening," said Dr. Lawrence Turner, a theology professor from Newbold College in England. He also felt that "while some wanted the conference to bring us to some kind of closure, and therefore that's the last we were going to hear of it, but I think it would be better if we saw the conference as a context, kind of the foundation that we can use for understanding one another in the future."

Despite what Nick may report about what he remembers, this written report for Spectrum by Kim Osborn done right after the International Faith and Science Conference reports a different conclusion.

When the question was put to incorporate the affirmation into the fundamental belief, "Only a few hands could be seen raised in support, the overwhelming majority voting against its amendment."

In addition, official church reporting on the International Faith and Science Conference undercuts Nick's ideologically driven attempt to characterize the conference as not ideologically representative.

Again, according to the ANN report:

The Denver conference saw a wide spectrum of scholars representing several scholarly establishments of the church, including the Geoscience Research Institute, Biblical Research Institute, as well as Loma Linda University and Andrews University. The group also included a spectrum of the church's international leadership, theologians and researchers representing the Adventist worldwide faith community.

It is clear that yesterday's action at the GC Session was in direct opposition to the voted will of the International Faith and Science Conference. It contradicts Ted's official use of it, and Nick's apologetic memory of it.

Just the facts, ma'am. That Nick would get so much wrong based on actual reports from the conference and that he would suggest that an unofficial response to an ad hoc comment by an attendee contradicts Larry's report, and that this "ad hoc standing or hand raising action about a literal creation" would have judicatory basis at the General Conference raises some serious questions.

We have all seen it said, in Adventist Review articles, in blogs and comments that if a person cannot reconcile a literal six day creation with the evidence of science, then that person does not belong in the church. If that is the way the church wants it, we have no choice but to leave, which many of us have done. Happy now?
Posted by: Carlitas | 01 July 2010 at 4:07

I decided in 2001/2002 not to put any more effort into trying to persuade people that SDA'ism was worth while, or to put any more money into the SDA organization - a Clifford Goldstein article was the final straw.

It had the really beneficial effect that my teenage girls were freed up to find a denomination that made more sense to them - or to stop going attending one altogether. They have all done great without the intellectual shackles of an SDA affiliation.

In fact, practically none of the SDA kids of similar age stayed in the SDA church. I can not name one who did.

But you still have a chance - there is no reason to believe your local congregation or conference will enforce the GC's stupidity.

/Bevin

Well, what such a determinedly ignorant church does is really not my business, although its lack of regard for basic integrity continues to amaze me.

But as to the usefulness of evolutionary theory, it Dobzhansky was almost right when he said that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution (actually, there are functional relations that would make sense with or without evolutionary theory, but make more sense with). Trying to actually explain this importance of theory, rather than dealing with causally unconnected facts (the whim of God?), is not, however, generally easy, especially to those highly inclined toward denial.

So I won't try. I'll just mention an example of a cellular organelle whose understanding is continually facilitated by knowledge of its evolutionary history, the mitochondrion. That it even has a small genome almost certainly is due to the fact that it once was an independently-living bacterium that was engulfed by a proto-eukaryotic cell in what is called an "endosymbiotic" event, and took up residence in that cell and its descendants.

It's a problematic little organelle, in that its genes mutate rather easily due to oxidative stress, and worse, it lacks the extensive DNA repair mechanisms found in the nucleus. Also, in vertebrates its genome undergoes no recombination during sexual reproduction, meaning that mutations can accumulate over generations. Indeed, it's a good example of the sort of thing that no designer would make, while the endosymbiotic event and extensive evolution thereafter (notably, most of its genes transferred to the nucleus over a vast period of time) fits the evidence very well.

We get a lot of "common designer" from creationists, if hardly consistently, since in their indefinite "microevolution" the evidence points to common ancestry, and in the equally indefinite "macroevolution" it's all "common design," despite the similarity of all of such evidence. Yet even the genomes of the nucleus and of the mitochondrian in the same animal lack a "common design," in that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) retains bacterial DNA (bDNA) motifs. You might say, well, that isn't common ancestry either, and you'd be right, the mitochondrian evolved from endosymbiosis (an extreme horizontal transfer of DNA) of a bacterium.

So no, the mitochondrion does not make sense in the light of creation/design, and a great deal of sense in the light of evolution. A number of pathologies involve the mitochondrion, and many of these go back to its evolutionary origins.

Glen Davidson

Continuing from my last post:

Interestingly, one problem caused by mitochondria is that in response to stress mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) can be released, and our immune response to that mtDNA is like our immune response to bDNA (bacterial DNA). An abstract:

Mitochondrial Dna Is Released By Shock and Activates Neutrophils Via P38 Map Kinase [redacted by Spectrum Editors]

Source

The mitochondrion is especially important to understand via evolutionary theory, but seriously, all biological research is facilitated by knowing relationships, from understanding animal tests, to recognizing how aerobic respiration works (the proton pump method of producing ATP appears to stem from pH control across membranes in bacteria).

There is nothing at all in design/creation that could guide research or help us to understand biology. And there is little in biology that isn't understood more fully when evolutionary theory is utilized.

Glen Davidson

"There is nothing at all in design/creation that could guide research or help us to understand biology. And there is little in biology that isn't understood more fully when evolutionary theory is utilized."

If you mean that we came from monkeys and it is required that we accept that theory in order to understand biology I find that is not supportable.

Worshiping science instead of the Eternal God is not consistent with Scripture.

YF

Evolution is a model, out of which a common ancestry between humans and apes, and humans to any other living creature know to science is a conclusion. The model is useful for biological research as Mr Davidson has shown. The conclusion of shared ancestry between human and ape has a more limited useful range than the base model itself.

"If you mean that we came from monkeys and it is required that we accept that theory in order to understand biology I find that is not supportable."

This shows such abysmal ignorance that it is not worthy of a reply.

This indicates that there are some subjects which the novice and unintiated would do better with silence and observe the rule:

"Keep silent and people will not know you don't know; open your mouth and it reveals a fool."

In reading all the posts since this morning I can see why I still believe the Bible, I've just not studied mans science enough to disbelieve the Bible. I don't have the intellectual capability to understand that the Creator didn't really mean it when He said that in the beginning man was created male and female. I realize now that I've not researched enough to realize that the 6 days of creation were really 6 indefinite periods of time of in which God was "tweaking" (as Bevin said) His creation until after millions of years of trial and error, death and clawing our way to the top He finally said "whew it's finally perfect, now for a rest". I guess I need to enroll at LSU so that I too might be enlightened as to the real truth of the origins, or maybe I'll just go back to quietly reading a fictionalized account of it in Gods Word, the Bible.

>>> maybe I'll just go back to quietly reading a fictionalized account of it in Gods Word, the Bible.

Or you could also do some more research into both the origin of the Bible and into the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

Once you understand that (a) the Bible is demonstrably the product of a long and involved process, not simply a stenographer writing down God's dictation, and (b) that the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence behind it, then you might start making sensible statements about both...

/Bevin

Richard Sherwin. Bille said A "forced choice" is one in which the only alternatives are closely defined so that one must make a choice only between those overtly defined... even though there are other choices available."

To express this even more Clearly it goes like this "Forced obedience leads to the character of a rebel" Do you not understand the concept of FREEDOM? "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

People who are limited to only one veiw, one awareness, of anything have no CHOICE. If God wants to eliminate "rebellion" in the universe his creatures have to be aware of the alternatives to excercise free choice. Thus "sin must be allowed to run its course until it is exposed." Sin is lack of trust in God that seperates us and results in the "sickness of SIN & Fear.

Heres is a quote that explains the cure.

Re Romans 3:24-26). "A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906)." {6BC 1074.2}

Every thing that happened in the existence of Christ was a revelation of the Character of God that in itself heals our confused minds. The search is a part of the process.

Truth seekers stand on the horizon looking outward and upward whereas truth protectors stand on the brink of the abyss looking downward in fear and trembling. Some stand round the base of the mountain(ie Sinai)in fear of being shot through with an arrow or stoned while others come boldly before the throne of grace so they can be helped in their time of need Hebrew 4:16.
Fear paralyzes the mind, robs us of health joy, makes us emotionally unstable, stops our growth and investigation. Fear is based on ignorance. knowledge is power to overcome fear. Life is an expereince and a journey. The joy is in the journey. Let the journey go on without the neurotic fear produced by ignorance. Question all and learn from the quest.

God has commioned his people to SEEK HIM with ALL our hearts-BRAINS.

The JOY is in the journey. Have a JOYFUL search. God has assured us that HE is the author and finisher of our faith.

The cchritain life is one of GROWTH.

QWAHERI/Shalom/PEACE brother

Jay

I was replying to a comment by Jack but it seems to have been deleted. Why?

He is right to note that reports from Spectrum are hardly unbiased and that neither are dissenting attendees at the FSC who failed to persuade their colleagues.

The record from the FSC is on the Adventist.org website under statements and it harmonises with Nick Miller as does the response by the executive committee and the vote taken by the GC in session this week.

Bille makes a good point here

"The problem is one of definitions... which have been foisted upon us by both "creationists" and "evolutionists". Definitions which claim that "creationists" are ONLY those who believe in the 6 days/6000 years formulas, and "evolutionists" are ONLY those who believe in godless mindless operations of natural forces as the origins of all that we see in nature."

And here is still another way of looking at it (It'swonderful to have so many Choices isn't it, so many differenet ways of acheiening that arrival at "truth)

"Words, no matter whether they are vocalized and made into sounds or remain unspoken as thoughts, cast an almost hypnotic spell upon you. You easily lose yourself in them, become hypnotized into implicitly believing that when you have attached a word to something, you know what it is. The fact is: You don't know what it is. You have only covered up the mystery with a label. Everything, a bird, a tree, even a simple stone, and certainly a human being, is ultimately unknowable."

I won't tell who the quote is from because some "truth protectors" would be turned off by the messenger instead of getting the message.

As wonderful as "language" is it still comes up short in conveying the same idea from one mind to another.

Perhaps that is why God had to resort to a "DEMONSTRATION" the demonstration of the "WORD" as in Jesus.

...the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence behind it, then you might start making sensible statements"...

for the time being...why not postpone understanding the theory of evolution...
too complicated...lots of unknowns still...to controversial.
and for many, its too big a giant step away from cherished beliefs. Just take little steps to understand how science works, and then return to the ancient texts and see how the two might be correlated....if the "faith based" one can be redefined....while the science based one seems well documented.

just start looking at the overwhelming evidence of the EXTREME age of the earth and.. THE NATURAL PROCESSES of

...'HOW THE EARTH WAS MADE"....

http://www.hulu.com/search?query=how+the+earth+was+made&st=1

there are a dozen or so hour programs linked above that one can study online with a good internet connection.

for example....creation is still going on!!! the earth is creating more land at the Big Island of Hawaii all the time....as well as creating a NEW ISLAND under the sea...Loihi...while the other islands to the NW are slowly eroding down to the ocean level.

while Mt Everest is still rising!!!!

Yellowstone still boils way down beneath the surface, and evidence of its past cyclical explosive power and "travel" from the Columbia River valley to the NW corner of Wyoming is worrisome today.

The San Andreas fault means that Loma Linda could one day be a suburb of San Francisco...if things don't get shaken out first.

there is so much that science can tell us about our earth and its history that Moses and his biographers just didn't know.....

and scientific knowledge is often USEFUL not only to understand the past, but also to predict the future...
such as geologic knowledge of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway tells drillers the most likely places to go for oil.....while the "story" of Noah's flood does not.

a prediction from the map linked above? they will soon be announcing a huge reservoir of oil...miles deep beneath the Dakotas.....in what used to be a shallow sea a verrrrry long time ago.

proposed action? buy Wells Fargo stock...as all the soon to be rich farmers there are quite conservative with their $$ and will put it into the local bank!!!

Atlanta 2010 has lead me to reread two volumes: "Christ the Controversalist", by John R. W. Stott which I commented on in another thread and "The Lessons of History" by Will and Ariel Durant.

The cogent portion or Durants' work is found on pages 89 and 90. The Durants are commenting on Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) in which he divides history into four separate civilizations. Two of which the Durants believe survive. 1. A centripetal period in which a unifying culture emerges into a unique, coherent, and artistic form, 2. followed by a period of centrifugal disorganization in which creed and culture decompose in division and criticism and ends in a chaos of individualism, skepticism, and artistic aberrations.

It is obvious that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is well into the centrifugal phase ever since Glacier View. The appointment of Ted Wilson is a frantic attempt to reverse that trend.

The Durants conclude that civilizations begins, flourishes, declines, and disappears--or lingers on as a stagnant pool.

As prepared as Ted Wilson may be for the historic role of President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists--he is unlikely to succeed in stemning the tide of humanism challenging his Presidency and the very foundation of his Church.

The problem is his father drew the line in the sand in the wrong place. Scholars merely ignored the line and moved the debate to entirely new untested territory. As one character in the History of the World Part One says: "The Rest is History".

Some day someone will write the story: From James White to Ted Wilson in 165 piteful painful years. Tom

Jay God gives us freedom to believe however we wish, as does the church. If a person wants to believe in evolution no one is forcing them otherwise.

Bevin yes, I understand what you are saying. If I would just study more I would believe as you do. I know there is a lot of evidence for evolution, I also know that this evidence is mans interpretation of God's creation.

Evolution, Theistic or otherwise is contrary to the Biblical account of Creation. The Bible says we were created perfect in the image of God. Evolution says we evolved from a lower life form by trial and error. The Bible says we were perfect but we used our freedom of choice to fall. Evolution says we evolved through killing and loss and so were never perfect, without the fall there is not the need for a savior.

Evolution says the earth was created over a period of millions of years. The Bible says that we will live in a new earth. Will this new earth take millions of years? Just asking.

Anyone who thinks that science and the Bible are mutually exclusive is delusional. It's like saying that you can either drive a Buick or have long hair, but not both.

If your interpretation of the Bible excludes what can plainly be seen, do you cover your eyes or go back to look for a clearer truth in the Bible? It would seem that many Adventists would prefer to cover their eyes, and even go so far to say that anyone who goes back to the Bible for a better understanding is not really and Adventist.

Well, I guess I'm a bad Adventist then. I think God made the universe; I think He made the laws that govern the motion of planets, the growth of plants, and the funny noise that balloons make when you let the air out. I can't imagine that God would deliberately build a world in six days a few thousand years ago and make it appear to have been developed over millions or billions of years. Would He "write" laws that demand an old universe, but write a story that demands a young one?

God wrote the laws of nature, and a man wrote Genesis. Moses, guided by God to reveal His grace, wrote about what he understood of the beginning...for a group of uneducated nomadic ex-slaves with no understanding of DNA or geologic processes. There is so much in the Bible that is easily "falsifiable" when applied literally, but when read in the understanding that prophets and poets reveal God and not quantum physics, THERE IS NO CONFLICT!

When you reduce Genesis to a biology textbook, you miss the incredible grace that is revealed. If you decide before you start reading Genesis that you already know what it reveals about God, you will never learn anything about God that you weren't taught in kindergarten. Isn't there the remotest of possibilities that in the mid-nineteenth century God decided mankind had corrupted Genesis enough and it was time for a new revelation? That He showed Darwin a new understanding of life so that we might all return to His holy Word for new light?

There are creationists on this forum that will say I worship science. I say, on the contrary, I worship a God of Truth, and you are worshiping a book.

Alex Belisle (not verified) | 01 July 2010 at 1:05 SAID

"Come to think of it, will this affect my and their salvation? This is just like the 1844 controversy. Whether I understand it or not, believe it or not, will it change in any way my personal relationship with God?

Alex if it were only our salvation involved here it would NOT matter but there is more involved here and the maturing of our Character is a part of the process. Some of us understand that for heaven to ever exist as that place of harmony and peace that we so desire that ALL who come there must be safe to live with. Now how does that happen, that change in our character. Well Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 3:18 "that it is by beholding that we become changed." Here it is in his words,

"And we, who with UNVEILED FACES (unconfused minds) all reflect the Glory (character) of the lord, are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing GLORY, which comes from the lord, who is the spirit."

This then means that we become like that which we worship and admire. This is a law of human behaviuor. It is happening even if we are not aware of it. So developing a knowledge of God as he realy is becomes important because it is the healing of our problem of sin. Here is a quote that explains that process

(Re Romans 3:24-26). "A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906)." {6BC 1074.2} EG white

God said HE would write his law which is his very character on our hearts or actually our brain. But we must be always having a clearer picture of him.

So our picture of God including all the peripheral's effect this process.

Blessings

Jay
jyrasco@yahoo.com

Pcress how do you know we have a correct understanding of the laws of nature as put in place by God? Do we understand the law that lets beings travel at the speed of thought? Do we have an understanding of the laws that allow dead people who are burned into nothing to be once again made whole or the law that allows a man to walk on water? Do we even understand how a bee knows to do a dance to let her fellow workers know the location of a nectar source? There is so much we have no idea about and yet we think scientist can know the origins of man. I cannot place that much faith in man.

To suggest that God used Darwin to lead us to truth is, well, interesting. At that time period there arose another person who many recognize as being a messenger from God who upheld the Bible and in fact called out evolution and said theistic evolution was the worse form of infidelity.

Science can tell us a lot about Creation. Science is wonderful, it has enriched our lives and and caused our life spans to expand like never before in modern history. God gave us science and without it the spreading of His word would be much more difficult. But we cannot allow science to make God into a week God who creates by trial and error, or who can't protect his words down through the ages.

>>> Pcress how do you know we have a correct understanding of the laws of nature as put in place by God?

Science does not claim to have a correct understanding.

Science is developing formula and instruments that allow fairly accurate prediction of 'what will happen if'. They work - as shown by being able to type on this computer.

Those formula, so successful in areas where they can be checked, show that Gen 1 should not be interpreted literally.

The only way that you can preserve your sense of 'of course Gen 1 is literal' is to ignore the fact this requires these otherwise accurate formula and measurements to be wrong when applied to rock and fossils.

God tells the truth, the universe tells the truth, the Bible tells the truth - it is YOUR SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING of the Bible which is at fault.

YOUR SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING requires God to be the biggest liar ever.

/Bevin

ps: You only have to read one of MANY FAVORABLE commentaries on EGW to realize she changed her mind repeatedly as the evidence came in - something you are unwilling to do

Evolution says the earth was created over a period of millions of years. The Bible says that we will live in a new earth. Will this new earth take millions of years? Just asking.
Posted by: Richard Sherwin (not verified) | 01 July 2010 at 10:37
-------
My belief in the Easter Bunny was always, at best tenuous. It just didn't pass the rationality test, even for a pre-schooler.

My belief in Santa Claus came to a climatic end, according to my mother, when I questioned the use of scotch tape, sequestering the beard of the department store Santa Claus.

When the Hubble Telescope documents the new earth, evidence-based, I may become a believer.

Kenneth James.

Bevin who developed these formula and instruments you put your faith in? Hmmm.....could it be sinful man?

You know don't you that I will never accept the evidence put forth by man over the evidence of my faith in the Biblical God? People talk about how God influenced Moses to write the story of creation in words that uneducated former slaves could understand. But then why do other Biblical writers, and even Christ affirm creation? The creation of Genesis is not just isolated to Genesis and Exodus but confirmed through out the Bible.

We know that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Gods love is shown for is the the Biblical creation, not so with evolution that took 100's of millions of years of death, extinction, murder and mutant beings as slowly but surely man pulled himself up to.....the image of God? To reject a literal creation means rejection of the rest of the Bible as well. Man evolving over millions of years is in direct contradiction to Gods love and justice. It's in direct contradiction to the plan of salvation. It's in direct contradiction to a new earth.

With so much Biblical evidence against evolution, theistic or otherwise, I have to believe that evolution is a false view of creation thought up by man and Satan. There is too much at stake for evolution to be believed. Evolution taken to it's logical conclusion rejects not only the Biblical view of Creation but the Creator Himself, Jesus. The same Jesus who loved us so much that He created us perfect, but then gave us the freedom to reject Him and damn ourselves to eternal death. But because of His love He had a plan in place to restore us to our pre-fall condition by His death. I reject evolution because it is contrary to the Love of the Creator.

I thought the "six literal 24 hour periods" rhetoric leading up to Presidential election was merely stumping. Now I'm sincerely afraid.
He is drawing the church into a debate borrowed from the Southern Baptist's in the 70's. This seems to be an issue of identity crisis. We are not evangelicals. We have no need to prove our beliefs on scientific grounds. Scientific findings and Genesis are not in disagreement. Persisting in this assumption will only lead to the kind of situation that the Baptist church suffered from the 60s to the late 70s.

Richard: You know who orally transmitted, wrote down, copied, translated, and developed ways of understanding the Bible, don't you. The same sinful men that developed formulas and instruments.

You have faith, but you have no basis. No experiment. Nothing outside your own personal flawed opinions.

The whole point of science is to develop something that can be compared against God's reality, to verify we are understanding it right.

Not against our personal prejudices and preferences.

/Bevin

Those same sinful men were inspired by the Creator to write down what they did. And our God is a powerful God, He had the power to ensure that His Word was protected though the thousands of years since those words were written.

My basis for faith is the love of the Creator and His word. His love is evidence of a literal Creation. His dying on the cross is evidence of a literal fall. His words are evidence of a six day creation. His saving grace is evidence of a perfectly made man. My basis for faith is the evidence I see of the Creator while hiking the Appalachian Trail or watching my bees as they collect the nectar that allows me to make a living. My evidence is not science based, though I love science, it's faith based, based on the evidence given to us by the Creator. There is much evidence of Creation, but it cannot be "proved" by human science. I put my faith in Christ, not the evidence as interpreted by the science of fallen man and Satan. My faith is in the evidence of the Creator, not the created.

I thought the "six literal 24 hour periods" rhetoric leading up to Presidential election was merely stumping. Now I'm sincerely afraid.
He is drawing the church into a debate borrowed from the Southern Baptist's in the 70's. This seems to be an issue of identity crisis. We are not evangelicals. We have no need to prove our beliefs on scientific grounds. Scientific findings and Genesis are not in disagreement. Persisting in this assumption will only lead to the kind of situation that the Baptist church suffered from the 60s to the late 70s.

Posted by: Ed G (not verified) | 01 July 2010 at 10:10
=======================================================

Much ado about nothing I think. There is no more danger in finding evidence in nature for a young-life recent Creation than there is danger in finding evidence in the field of Medicine that not-smoking, eating a plant based diet, getting exercise, fresh air etc is actually good for your health.

This is not the hard part of the debate.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Has anyone else noticed how paradoxical the church has been in its endeavor to "prove" a 7-day Creation, supporting and funding the GRI whose mandate is to prove this doctrine by scientific evidence? Attempting, by endorisng the GRI to inform the church that science (correctly interpreted ) does prove the church's position?

The SDA church has a long relationship with academic knowledge in archeaology or history when it supports its position, but then dismisses such knowledge as worthless if it does not support the church's postiion. If science is a legitimate tool supporting a 5-day creation or anything else, surely, it must be heard when it does not.

When a GRI spokesperson said "we have no working 'short creation [scientific] model and shouldn't expect one," does that mean that a vote for a faith position cannot be translated into actuality in the classroom and shouldn't expect to do so? If the GRI cannot come up with a 'short creation' model, exactly what model do we expect our scientists and academics to present? Will we ask our science teachers to affirm and teach creation and then, having done so, continue on the basis of an evolutionary model of science in the absence of anything else--a "model" that GRI cannot produce? Is this what is expected of SDA science teachers? This is a perfect Catch-22.

>>Evolution taken to it's logical conclusion rejects not only the Biblical view of Creation but the Creator Himself, Jesus.
Posted by: Richard Sherwin

Rigorous science prohibits taking a theory of speciation and applying it to a theory of biogenesis. Clearly everything you learned about evolution is from creationists. Had you taken the time to learn about evolution from someone who actually understands the scientific process, you would realize that an atheistic conclusion is unscientific.

Evolution does not reject "the" Biblical view. It simply rejects YOUR Biblical view. (Obviously I don't mean to imply that you alone believe that the world was created in 144 hours--many people believe that.) Are you so arrogant as to think that you have the inside track on interpreting a 3500 year old text, and anyone who understands it differently must be an atheist?

Got news for you: I'm not an atheist. I firmly believe that all life on earth, now and ever, came from God. I firmly believe that Jesus chose before the creation of the world to atone for my sins. I firmly believe that this world will end and Jesus will come to take His children home. And I firmly believe that species change over time. I firmly believe that random mutations in DNA can lead to either beneficial or harmful changes in the structure of an organism, and I firmly believe that a large number of mutations over a long period of time would produce EXACTLY the pattern of fossils that we find in the earth. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and I am an evolutionist.

You may think that to be utter insanity, and if YOUR interpretation of Genesis was the only POSSIBLE interpretation of Genesis, then I'd agree, a belief in both creation and evolution is insane. But YOUR interpretation is not the only possible understanding. There are other interpretations that are absolutely faithful to Genesis which also incorporate an understanding of the physical data that we see: geological strata, fossils, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, and speciation.

God is great, greater than you or me, greater than a book, greater than a church, greater than 28 doctrines decided by a representative democracy. God speaks to each of us in different ways, and I resent a group of 2400 people getting up one morning and deciding that I'm not a good Adventist anymore, though it is the church that has changed and not me. Most Adventists believe in a 144-hour creation, so it is accurate to describe YEC as a commonly held Adventist belief. It is not accurate to say that the 7% of Adventists who interpret Genesis differently than you are not really Adventists. We are. We will not demand that you accept an old earth interpretation of Genesis; I think it's fair and just that you not demand that we accept a young earth interpretation.

Hey, I'm just gonna throw this out there, knowing that probably nobody will answer, but...

How many creationists posting here have actually read "Origin of the Species"?
___________________________________________________________
I have. It's right on the shelf about 10 feet from the keyboard I am currently typing on. But be aware that "The Origin Of Species" is a very "dated" book, having been published in 1859. Furthermore, modern creationists accept all the hard data in the book, which only support microevolution. The great extrapolation - macroevolution - is promoted with very little data to back it up.

I'm not a scientist, nor a theologian. I come to the discussion as a young, committed Adventist, educated 19 years in Adventist institutions. To be perfectly honest, I have not sorted through all the evidence for myself, and I have not come up with a conclusive stance about what I believe regarding creation. But to me, the issue of a literal 6 day creation is not the most crucial. The greater issue for me, is whether or not my denomination supports my personal quest for truth, and is it big enough to allow me to be an active part of my Adventist community, if my prayerful pursuit for truth leads me to a place that is not identical to the statements that the church has made? Does making a narrow, singular statement send the world a message of confidence or exclusivity? I believe that there is room at the foot of the cross for all of us, despite our differences in language, culture, gender, and past experiences. Will there continue to be room for all of us in the Adventist church?

Dear Cheri,

You are spot on! The real question is, whether the SDA church is going to become a dogmatic sect that purges itself of all those who dare to think for themselves, or if it can admit that the truth is greater than the church and that the church can have no monopoly on truth.

If the former, then real truth-seekers will have little choice than to join the Unitarian-Universalists and the Quakers.

What do you mean, "Even Dan Jackson, newly elected president of the North American Division, who raised hopes in a press conference two days ago of a more tolerant approach to La Sierra University"????

Raised hopes?; There is no hiope while those who persist to hold unprovable views about the earths origins. Its about time we raised hopes and stepped up and call evolutionsists out. We have good arguments for believeing what we belive as creationsist and so lets hold talks.

>>> The great extrapolation - macroevolution - is promoted with very little data to back it up.

Simply false.

Get hold of and read "Your Inner Fish", Shubin.

Also get hold of an read any decent book on modern geology.

The fossil AND anatomical evidence for the evolution of species is not based on "very little data". It is based on overwhelming amounts of data from multiple disciplines.

Heck - recent life creations can't even clearly define macro-evolution, or define exactly where the 'uncrossable line' between the DNA of two organisms is.

/Bevin

Do we want a big tent church? That seems to be the direction many on here advocate but where will it end? Are we to allow members to hold and teach any belief they wish? Should our church take a stand on anything? I think we have to strike a balance between the Amish and the Unitarians. Not an easy thing to do, it's much easier to be Amish or Unitarian than to be in the middle.

>>Evolution taken to it's logical conclusion rejects not only the Biblical view of Creation but the Creator Himself, Jesus.
Posted by: Richard Sherwin

Rigorous science prohibits taking a theory of speciation and applying it to a theory of biogenesis. Clearly everything you learned about evolution is from creationists. Had you taken the time to learn about evolution from someone who actually understands the scientific process, you would realize that an atheistic conclusion is unscientific.

Posted by: pcress (not verified) | 02 July 2010 at 1:18
=====================================================
BobRyan said:

3SG 90-91 does not agree with your wild claim.

Darwin did not agree with your wild claim as he confessed that his own views on evolution drove him to reject "totally" the Christian faith.

Richard Dawkins, Provine, Meyers all stated the same on video taped interviews.

You seem to be standing in a field by yourself on that one.
-------------------------------------------
pcress said:

Evolution does not reject "the" Biblical view. It simply rejects YOUR Biblical view.
=================================================
BobRyan replies:
The world church of Seventh-day Adventists just took a vote and overwhelmingly voted in favor of the affirmation of creation claiming it is the Bible position and that the Bible cannot be bent to the usages of evolutionism.

So as it turns out - your scorched-Bible solution in favor of evolutionism is in fact merely "YOUR" Biblical model. (At least if you are speaking in the context of members of the Adventist church).

Why is it that these not-so-subtle details are getting missed by our evolutionist friends - time after time?

Why do you choose to draw attention to the very aspect where your own argument is weak?
-------------------------------------------
pcress

(Obviously I don't mean to imply that you alone believe that the world was created in 144 hours--many people believe that.) Are you so arrogant as to think that you have the inside track on interpreting a 3500 year old text, and anyone who understands it differently must be an atheist?

===============================================

BobRyan replies:

Turn out Seventh-day Adventist doctrine has long been based on the theory that "we can read the Bible and know what it says" regarding the virgin birth, the Seventh-day Sabbath, the fall of man, the resurrection of Christ, the 2nd Coming, the state of the dead.

Evolutionists seem to "wake up" suddenly when it comes to the subject of evolutionism vs belief in the Bible and say "hey! You mean you think you know what the Bible says??? How odd!! How surprising!! How arrogant".

May I suggest that Evolutionists need to get a little closer to the subject of the Bible and doctrine and how it is that we actually claim to have correct doctrine on ANY Bible subject before tossing the entire system out the window.

Again - just addressing the glaringly obvious point here.
------------------------------------

pcress said:

Got news for you: I'm not an atheist. I firmly believe that all life on earth, now and ever, came from God. I firmly believe that Jesus chose before the creation of the world to atone for my sins. I firmly believe that this world will end and Jesus will come to take His children home. And I firmly believe that species change over time. I firmly believe that random mutations in DNA can lead to either beneficial or harmful changes in the structure of an organism, and I firmly believe that a large number of mutations over a long period of time would produce EXACTLY the pattern of fossils that we find in the earth.
==================================
BobRyan said:

Your "Belief" in evolutionism - noted.

As Collin Patterson complained about the religious devotion of his own fellow evolutionists "they treat evolution as if it were revealed truth".

But the "Science" fact is that NO coding genes are observed in actual science to be added to existing eukaryote genomes resulting in new genomes.

No not one.

The other fact that is not as surprising as you seem to imagine -- is that you are given the vanilla, dime-a-dozen Theistic Evolutionist claim that you prefer to marry the Bible to atheist concepts of origins as found in evolutionism.

We hear this all the time from our non-SDA theistic evolutionist friends. Nothing new there.

Take a look at 3SG 90-91, and see that the story you are telling has been around for a long time.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

pcress:

I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and I am an evolutionist.

Posted by: pcress (not verified) | 02 July 2010 at 1:18
===================================================
BobRyan said:

Hint: that is not the way Darwin stated his theory.

That is not the way Richard Dawkins defines evolution.

And these guys claim to know something about evolution as it turns out.

---------------------------------
pcress said:

God is great, greater than you or me, greater than a book, greater than a church, greater than 28 doctrines decided by a representative democracy. God speaks to each of us in different ways,
Posted by: pcress (not verified) | 02 July 2010 at 1:18
===================================================

BobRyan said:

I want to congratulate you on being honest to the point of admitting that theistic evolution requires a change to our 28 Fundamental Beliefs for anyone determined to believe in evolutionism instead of Adventist doctrine.

I bevieve that point is going to become more and more obvious over time.

-------------------------------------------------
pcress said:

and I resent a group of 2400 people getting up one morning and deciding that I'm not a good Adventist anymore, though it is the church that has changed and not me. Most Adventists believe in a 144-hour creation, so it is accurate to describe YEC as a commonly held Adventist belief. It is not accurate to say that the 7% of Adventists who interpret Genesis differently than you are not really Adventists.

Posted by: pcress (not verified) | 02 July 2010 at 1:18
======================================================

How self-conflicted of your own argument to insist that Bible creation is just "YOUR" interpretation and then turning around and admitting that in fact the tiny minority trying to eisegete their beliefs in evolutionism into the Bible is in fact "just you" and a few of your best friends.

Surely you see the flaw in that line of argument.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

This is why I stay away from General Conference Sessions.

I believe what i believe and I am happy in that belief. Anyone who knows anything about life, knows that it is too complex to sit in Georgia in some sort of dome no less, and vote on what or what not to believe.

What ever happened to individuality?

I had a great time in my garden this morning and voted belief in a God to complex to put into words or silly statements by delegates that I had no voice in choosing.

Perhaps there is a way out. I don't think the church is any where near ready or willing to change the theological doctrine of a literal six day creation and I think, the way things are going right now, it is likely to become more conservative, not less.

However, it is also committed to higher education and scholarship and generally is not interested in turning its universities into bible colleges (we'll see if that continues.)

Given these values, it seems to me that the church could continue to affirm its belief in a YEC/YLC but, at the same time, acknowledge that science does not currently have a model to support this. This can be blamed on science being incomplete and our understanding faulty but it at least accepts the reality that currently, science does not support YEC/YLC. Which is true. It doesn't.

Anyway, a statement like the following might work:

"We believe that God created the world in six literal days as described in Genesis. We recognize that science is a very successful tool for understanding our natural world but we also understand it is limited. Our current understanding of the age of the earth and the diversity of species may not be our later understanding of such. We fully expect that eventually science will support a YEC/YLC. However, we must work within the models that currently fit what we know, with the understanding that these models are not the final word. Those students training to be scientists must have a full and complete picture of the models scientists are using along with a thorough grounding in our theological reasoning for holding to a YEC/YLC view."

The scientists might not like the theology and the rest of the church might not like the science but at least SDAs wouldn't be holding out the ridiculous idea that there is a scientific model for YEC/YLC currently, and the ridiculous idea that evolution is a fatally flawed scientific model. It might be theologically flawed, especially compared to traditional SDA theology, but it is the only scientific model for biology right now.

Also get hold of an read any decent book on modern geology.
______________________________________________________________
Thank you for the suggestion, Bevin, but there are quite a number of them on the shelf a few feet from where I type, and I have read them.

Those students training to be scientists must have a full and complete picture of the models scientists are using along with a thorough grounding in our theological reasoning for holding to a YEC/YLC view."
___________________________________________________________
Dear Beth,

Although we disagree on the weight of evidence for creation and evolution, I am glad to affirm your proposal above. However, along with creationism, a working knowledge of evolution has been presented in Adventist college science classes for decades, and very few people object to this. I certainly don't.

A pertinent article read this morning from the July/Aug. issue of Biblical Archaeology by Ronald S. Hendel,Prof. of Hebrew Studies at U.C. Berkeley:

"The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know" (Pascal).
Pascal draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience (Gould?) Pascal regarded the authority of the church to be meaningless in such matters.

"Spinoza, in the same year of Pascal's statement, wrote that the Bible can be the subject of systematic rational inquiry.

The writer of this BA article is addressing the problems in the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), the main organization for Biblical scholarship in North America. But in recent years it has changed its position on the relationship between faith and reason. So instead of a distinguished academic organization, we now have fundamentalist groups like the Society of Pentecostal Studies and the Adventist Society for Religious Studies as our intimate partners.

What's wrong with bringing insuch groups? Well, some of them proselytize at the SBL meetings. One group invited some Jewish scholars to their session, asked them if they observed the Sabbath, and handed them materials intended to convert them. Recently, the SBL has featured explicit condemnations of the ordinary methods of critical scholarly inquiry, extolling instead the religious authority of religious faith.

The SBL has revised its mision statement, removing the phrase "critical investigation." Now the mission statement is simply to "foster biblical scholarship. So critical inquiry--that is to say, reason--has been deliberately deleted as a criterion for the SBL. The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers now count among the kinds of Biblical scholarship that the society seeks to foster."

The writer closes by saying "I don't
want to belong to a professional society where people want to convert me, and where they hint in their book reviews that I'm going to hell. As a scholar of the humanities--and a Jew--I do not feel at home in such a place."

I, too, do not care to belong to a church that would condemn me to hell for refusing to use reasoning and rely on ancient texts for their definitions.

"All the powers in the world can by their authority no more persuade people of a point of fact than they can change it. Facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts. Faith resides in the heart."

pcress said:

Got news for you: I'm not an atheist. I firmly believe that all life on earth, now and ever, came from God. I firmly believe that Jesus chose before the creation of the world to atone for my sins. I firmly believe that this world will end and Jesus will come to take His children home. And I firmly believe that species change over time. I firmly believe that random mutations in DNA can lead to either beneficial or harmful changes in the structure of an organism, and I firmly believe that a large number of mutations over a long period of time would produce EXACTLY the pattern of fossils that we find in the earth.
_________________________________________________________
Dear pcress,

I'm glad you are not an atheist, and I'm glad Jesus is your Savior. I don't doubt any of this. But be aware that the human mind is quite capable of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time, and many people, including many evolutionists, would suggest that you are doing this very thing. By the way, creationists heartily affirm all your scientific statements listed above except the last one. All modern creation scientists accept random mutations, natural selection, and speciation. But they do not believe that these processes account for the fossil record or the higher taxa.

Do we want a big tent church? That seems to be the direction many on here advocate but where will it end? Are we to allow members to hold and teach any belief they wish? Should our church take a stand on anything? I think we have to strike a balance between the Amish and the Unitarians. Not an easy thing to do, it's much easier to be Amish or Unitarian than to be in the middle.
_________________________________________________________
Dear Richard,

Isn't it interesting. Neither the Amish nor the Unitarians are grace centered. The Amish are focused on rules and have no assurance of salvation, while the Unitarians explicitly reject Jesus Christ and usually reject any form of life after death. Free grace is found in the balanced position between these two extremes. Sadly, unless people are led by the Holy Spirit, they opt for the extremes. As Martin Luther observed, human nature is very much like a drunken peasant riding on a donkey. It either falls to the right or to the left. However, the purveyors of evolution should be aware that they are selling free grace and righteousness by faith down the river.

Jim Roberts Said and it is true

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no.... PRIEST.... to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

"The ministers must be CONVERTED before they can strengthen their brethren. They should not preach themselves, but Christ and His righteousness. A REFORMATION is needed among the people, but it should first begin its purifying work with the ministers. 1 T 469"

We are told very clearly that the way to do this is in John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Then Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians how it works.Corinthians 3:18 (New International Version)
18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect[a] the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

It is "by beholding that we are changed"

(Re Romans 3:24-26). "A Divine Remedy for Sin.--The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression and the restoration of spiritual health. It is the Heaven-ordained means by which the righteousness of Christ may be not only upon us but in our hearts and characters (Letter 406, 1906)." {6BC 1074.2}

3 "And this is eternal life? It is knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth. I have finished the work you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, give glory to me in heaven where your throne is. Give me the glory I had with you before the world began.

WE can have a knowlege of God even though we can never have all his knowledge. It is ONLY by knowing God as revealed in the life of Jesus that we can be healed/saved.

Force, coercion and control can never bring us to revival and reformation that results in TRUE GODLINESS.

desire of ages.
Page 22
attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His GOODNESS. --------------------------

The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2.

WE adventist have criticized the RCC for doing exactly what our leaDERSHIP WAnts to do. DEACTIVATE our frontal CORTEX and do our thinking for us. IT WILL NOT produce the desired results.

Blessings to all

Jay

Glenn Davidson and Elaine. I think "your friend" had his frontal cortex in neutral and his Limbic system in high gear when he made that disclosure. Likey he won't understand that either.

Sad!

The SDA church will survive - after all the JW, LDS, Christian Scientists, and other groups with irrational beliefs survive - but like them it will not appeal to anyone who cares more about truth than enjoying a comfortable role-playing game.
_______________________________________________________
Bevin, it is ironic that you compare the Sda Church to these non-Christian cults because not one of them believes in a literal, six day creation. The only institution of higher learning among them is Brigham Young University, and it is totally committed to theistic evolution - which fits nicely with the Mormon idea that God is an evolved man. However, it doesn't fit with the Christian gospel of free frace and forensic justification. Nor does it fit with other concepts that are important to Adventism, such as the Sabbath, the great controversy theodicy, and a God of love.

Richard Sherwin said

"You know don't you that I will never accept the evidence put forth by man over the evidence of my faith in the Biblical God?

Richard could it be that it is YOR PERCEPTION is what is in question here not the Bible per se.

As Bevin Points our E G white was a progressive thinker who indeed changed her veiwpoint over the years. Change is what is known as "REPENTANCE" Never is a very very long time.

The Christian life is about Growth. Do you really thin k that one million yeaaers into eternaity that you will still beleive actaull y the very same that you do right now?

The Joy of Knowing God is in the journey. I hope you will find the journey MORE pleasant. God is the Author and FINISHER of our faith. Trust him to complete the work in us

Blessings in HIM

Jay

After reading all these comments I have decided to give my heart to the Lord.........thanks for showing me such wonderful ways of communicating with man-kind, I NOW know that my leaders know what is best because GOD is finally NOW leading for once in our church. In the beginning GOD created NOW means something to me because through chronO-logical deduction the Wilson family was actually there to document these life changing Amazing Facts.

Richard sherwin said "Jay God gives us freedom to believe however we wish, as does the church. If a person wants to believe in evolution no one is forcing them otherwise."

Richard the difference is that the conservatives in the church want those who imbrace any concept of Evolution or scientiific knowledge to leave the church while God not only allows them the freedom but still invites US into his kingdom.

Are you not enjoying the journey? When one has that trust in God the journey becomes excitng and filled with JOY. Jesus said I will QUICKEN you, I WILL MAKE you ALIVE!

WOW what a way to live.JOY to you.

JAy

Bob said:
"However, along with creationism, a working knowledge of evolution has been presented in Adventist college science classes for decades, and very few people object to this."

I just don't think this is true - probably because you and I have a very different idea of what working knowledge means ;)

In order to teach students the models that biologists and geologists are using, there has to be an actual and complete presentation of the evidence. I don't know what LSU is actually doing but just look at the hoopla resulting from them even possibly holding out evolution as the best scientific model.

I think most YEC think that evolution is a fatally flawed model and thus see any attempt to teach the evidence for it as incomplete because it has to be fatally flawed in their minds. They believe there has to be scientific evidence against it and that there has to be a valid scientific model that counters it because evolution can't. be. right. Therefore, it must be taught in a way so that students understand how fatally flawed it is, even though basically the entire scientific community doesn't agree. Teaching it as the robust, helpful, important scientific model that it is is just not ok.

Ed G Said "We have no need to prove our beliefs on scientific grounds. Scientific findings and Genesis are not in disagreement. Persisting in this assumption will only lead to the kind of situation that the Baptist church suffered from the 60s to the late 70s."

ED "life is a journey that ALL must take no matter how rough the road. The journey is an experience that TAKES us beyond where we are. It is the Journey that brings us into higher levels of life. Things that are in the METAPHYSICAL arena will become known but there will always be more to know. Other wise life could get VVEERRRRY boring.

The thing we don't have to do is HATE each other in the process.

Blessings

Jay

Dear Beth,

By working knowledge, I mean understanding reasons for a belief in evolution. Evidence for evolution needs to be seriously considered: students should be exposed to evidence for so-called transitional forms in the fossil record like archaeopteryx, other so-called feathered dinosaurs, therapsid reptiles, the australopithecines, etc. Genetic evidence also needs to be considered. In short, students need a good understanding of evolutionary theory.

However, there is a difference between teaching the pros and cons of both positions and teaching dogmatic Darwinism. No, I'll go on record - I don't think evolution is fatally flawed. In fact, there is data that the evolutionary model explains well. But the model also contains serious weaknesses that you are choosing to ignore. Calling it a "robust, helpful, important scientific model" is more propaganda than fact.

The creation model also has weaknesses, and these should not be papered over. But it also has strengths that you are likewise choosing to ignore. Your earlier post suggested teaching both models, which I applauded. But it seems that in your last post, you are retreating to the one model approach again, which is unfortunate.

As Bevin Points our E G white was a progressive thinker who indeed changed her veiwpoint over the years. Change is what is known as "REPENTANCE" Never is a very very long time.
_____________________________________________________
Dear Jay,

Yes, Ellen White did change her viewpoints over the years. But her changes were always in a more grace-centered, more evangelical direction. Acceptance of evolution is a huge move in the opposite direction. The very fact that proponents of this move seem attracted to the Unitarian Church demonstrates how anti-grace and anti-evangelical it really is. I cannot imagine Ellen White or anyone else who is excited about the gospel of free grace supporting it.

Jay you are so wrong in saying that the church is against any sort of scientific knowledge. Our church has been on the cutting edge of science since the time of Mrs. White, and it is yet today. The church has benefited immensely from science. Our church has always embraced science, thus our members live longer and better. But our church is against those teaching of science as truth those ideas that are incompatible with the Bible. Especially those ideas that the Christian faith is based on.

And yes I am greatly enjoying the journey on my way to eternal life. Life with the Creator who made man perfect is a great joy. I don't think I'd enjoy life as much if I thought I was created over time by trial and error. That would mean God was not perfect.

There are a lot of our beliefs that there is some Biblical room for discussion, like the use of jewelry or alcohol, or how the Sabbath is to be kept. But I don't see any wiggle room, in either the old or new testament, for the rejection of a literal Creation week. The whole Bible and Christ supports a literal creation week in which man was made perfect at the beginning.

Jay my mistake, you said the conservatives in the church are against scientific knowledge, not the church. But since our church has been primarily run by conservatives I still don't think you are correct.

>>> Our church has been on the cutting edge of science since the time of Mrs. White, and it is yet today. The church has benefited immensely from science. Our church has always embraced science, thus our members live longer and better.

This is why the SDA church has rules against playing cards. There is a lot of science showing that using Aces of Clubs and Jacks of Diamonds shortens your life, but using a red 14 and a blue 11 Rook card doesn't.

This is why the SDA church has rules against drinking tea, but it is okay to eat tons of butter on your white bread.

This is why the SDA church has rules against going to the movies but it is okay to have a large in-home theater.

This is why the SDA church has rules against playing competitive sports but it is okay to be grossly over weight and not exercise.

This is why the SDA church has rules against wearing wedding rings but it is okay to drive fast and not wear your seat belt.

Because there is so much science backing the rules...

/Bevin

>>> The creation model also has weaknesses, and these should not be papered over. But it also has strengths that you are likewise choosing to ignore.

Oh - give ONE scientific strength of the 'life was created 10,000 years ago and there was a planet-wide flood 4000 years ago" theory

/Bevin

And so it begins, and no doubt, it shall end badly.

This is why the SDA church has rules against drinking tea, but it is okay to eat tons of butter on your white bread.

This is why the SDA church has rules against going to the movies but it is okay to have a large in-home theater.

This is why the SDA church has rules against playing competitive sports but it is okay to be grossly over weight and not exercise.

This is why the SDA church has rules against wearing wedding rings but it is okay to drive fast and not wear your seat belt.
___________________________________________________________
The SDA Church does not have "rules" against any of these things. Nor does it say the other things are OK. True Seventh-day Adventist Christianity, as God intended it to be, is all about love, grace, and forgiveness, along with a call to love God in response and to show that love in our actions, by seeking to obey God's commandments. What is the third angel's message (true Seventh-day Adventism about? "Justification by faith is the third angel's message in verity." Has the SDA Church fallen far short of this ideal? Of course it has. But anyone can become a grace centered, Christ-centered Christian simply by responding whole-heartedly to the good news about Jesus Christ.

"The SDA Church does not have "rules" against any of these things."

What reason would they have had Starbucks close if they didn't have rules against coffee drinking? Did they have a problem with the restaurants that sell coffe, or just Starbucks?

Bevin you won't get any argument from me about those things. It's part of our Adventist/Pharisee culture to make up those little silly rules. They are really quite funny. (Now boys and girls, no wading above the knees on the Sabbath, and no bike riding either) BTW least you think otherwise I'm not a conservative, never have been. I really don't like the liberal/conservative labels but sometimes they do convey certain thoughts. I stated I'm not conservative because it seems that many on here think belief in a literal 6 day creation is a conservative cause. I don't see it that way at all. I think Christ would have been called liberal but He supported the Biblical creation. I think we should all strive to live the life that Christ did and believe as He did and as He taught. He should be our ultimate example.

That said Bevin I'm still trying to figure out the connection you made between my statement of science and your reply about the SDA rules. As amusing as it was I just don't see the connection.

Bob,
No my earlier suggestion was to teach YEC/YLC as a theological belief and evolution as a scientific model for the diversity of life, in light of the fact that there are no better scientific models at this time.

I know you think YLC is a viable scientific model. We just have to disagree on that. As for saying it is propaganda to call evolution a robust, helpful, important model, the most prestigious professional organization of scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, had this to say about it:

"The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines."

I think I was understating compared to the scientists themselves who are actually using it.

Oh - give ONE scientific strength of the 'life was created 10,000 years ago and there was a planet-wide flood 4000 years ago" theory
__________________________________________________
Dear Bevin,

The dates are your own. I don't know anyone who believes that the Flood occurred 4,000 years ago. Even Ussher didn't believe that. However, you have been given a plethora of strengths. A host of geological phenomena are best explained by a flood catastrophe: wind gaps, water gaps, polystrate trees, paraconformities, the Arizona petrified forest, cyclothems, water laid formations that are uniform over hundreds of thousands of square miles, etc. Ice age phenomena are better explained by the flood than by the Milankovitch cycle, as computer modeling indicates that the latter was too weak to establish permanent snow cover even over the Hudson Bay region in northern Canada.

However, I'm not going to have another round of debate with you because you prefer name calling and insults to serious dialogue. This only indicates that your mind is closed, and that you have already decided in favor of a secular humanist interpretation of natural history. What is more, you do not make good sense when you lump creationists with the Mormons and the Christian Scientists, as both of these groups stand right beside you in promoting evolution, and they are vehemently opposed to the gospel of free grace.

I really don't believe your problem is a lack of evidence. In fact, I believe your issues go way deeper than debating creation and evolution. Deep down, I sense a lot of anger in you, and apologetics cannot deal with that. Only the Holy Spirit can help you with your anger and fill you with the power of Christ's love.

Dear Beth,

The National Academy of Sciences is about 90% atheist, which is a much higher percentage than is found among scientists generally. So it is to be expected that they would make such claims. But their claims mean nothing unless they can demonstrate that they are valid, which in my opinion, they have not done. I guess I'm not impressed with the claims of so-called authorities ubless their claims make good sense.

We must simply agree to disagree. However, I do appreciate your friendly dialogue and your kind spirit. You are very Christ-like in your demeanor, and that is more important than our points of disagreement.

Have a happy Sabbath!

Oooh.... it takes a long time to read down this far. Well done!

pcress said:

God is great, greater than you or me, greater than a book, greater than a church, greater than 28 doctrines decided by a representative democracy. God speaks to each of us in different ways, and I resent a group of 2400 people getting up one morning and deciding that I'm not a good Adventist anymore.

Speaking as one of the 2400 I heartily agree.

Steve

Rom 8:28

What reason would they have had Starbucks close if they didn't have rules against coffee drinking? Did they have a problem with the restaurants that sell coffe, or just Starbucks?
___________________________________________________________
All this talk about rules is so legalistic. As a Christian, I don't feel bound by any rules. I'm not into a rules approach. I'm into a relational approach - having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This does call for a well-ordered lifestyle, but that is not the same as following rules. Because caffeine keeps me awake and makes me feel drugged, I prefer not to use it. That decision has nothing to do with a rule, but I choose to abide by it because it is good for me. And yes, I do believe that trying to care for my health has a spiritual component to it. However, my wife drinks coffee because the caffeine helps her migraine headaches, and her doctor told her she should use it for that purpose. I fully support her decision.

Furthermore, I gladly ride bikes on Sabbath and get into water over my knees on the day. I love an active, fun, happy Sabbath. I was never brought up with such restrictions, and they are totally foreign to my concept of Sabbath and who I am as a Christian. And I detect nothing in Adventism as I have experienced it that imposes such rules on me. Really, Elaine, my experience as a grace centered, evangelical Adventist is extremely liberating. It's not restrictive at all! I guess that's why I often issue friendly challenges to your posts. I find that they compromise the free grace of Jesus Christ and lead away from the joy and happiness that Christ can give people.

Bob, I drink coffee for the same reason you do not. It keeps me awake! Though yes I'm an addict I do drink it more on the nights I work til dawn moving bees.

Speaking of liberating, there is nothing more liberating than following the 10 commandment. Everyone of those 10 liberates us from something, maybe even jail. They are a guideline for a happy life of freedom.

Bob, I drink coffee for the same reason you do not. It keeps me awake! Though yes I'm an addict I do drink it more on the nights I work til dawn moving bees.

Speaking of liberating, there is nothing more liberating than following the 10 commandment. Everyone of those 10 liberates us from something, maybe even jail. They are a guideline for a happy life of freedom.

Thank you Bob and a happy Sabbath to you too. I know you are a pastor but if you have a congregation as well then your flock is lucky to have you. I always figure anyone who can be gracious over the internet when discussing tough issues is probably even more so in real life.

Bob, I drink coffee for the same reason you do not. It keeps me awake! Though yes I'm an addict I do drink it more on the nights I work til dawn moving bees.

Speaking of liberating, there is nothing more liberating than following the 10 commandment. Everyone of those 10 liberates us from something, maybe even jail. They are a guideline for a happy life of freedom.
______________________________________________________
Well put Richard. The only time God gives us a commandment is when a particular activity can hurt us. He never makes up rules for the sake of rules. The Protestant reformers used to talk about the third use of the law, and they were so right. The ten commandments show us the joyful, happy way to live as Christians.

And as far as coffee is concerned, we are all different, which is why a rules approach doesn't make sense. I have a friend who drives a city bus, and she has to use coffee to stay awake. Lives depend on it.

I always figure anyone who can be gracious over the internet when discussing tough issues is probably even more so in real life.
______________________________________________________________
Thanks Beth. With God's help, I try to be kind. Sometimes it's hard - both on the internet and in real life. And could I be wrong about some of my views? Of course I could. I have much to learn and much to unlearn. But I also believe in being honest and in standing for conviction. I detect these qualities in you also.

Much ado about nothing I think. There is no more danger in finding evidence in nature for a young-life recent Creation than there is danger in finding evidence in the field of Medicine that not-smoking, eating a plant based diet, getting exercise, fresh air etc is actually good for your health.
This is not the hard part of the debate.
in Christ,
Bob
______________________________________________________________

This strikes me as a bit glib. You cannot tell the substantial difference between appealing to science for the ground of religious belief(s) and appealing to science as support for health/nutritional lifestyle?

I wonder what the early church communities who produced the Gospels thought about other creation stories of their day. I can only see the evidence of what is left for the ages ... the account of God caring for all creation including those we may disagree with or who help us see logs in our eyes or who are left feeling left out and unloved by our actions and attitudes.

..."I gladly ride bikes on Sabbath and get into water over my knees on the day"...

question:
if one can can "liberate" oneself from the un-fun-da-mental rules of EGW, either by ignoring or reinterpreting them, in such simple matters, would it not seem all the more important to consider reinterpreting others of the ancient rules and explanations given by Moses (or his biographers) specifically for Moses tribe members?

we no longer stone to death our back talking sons

we no longer stone to death folks using cooking, heating, or refrigeration equipment on the wrong day of the week...

we no longer send our women out of camp for "thaaaat" week each month

most guys shave their beards and have their hair cut

we no longer dig individual holes in the desert to bury our waste

we no longer kill birds and use their blood to cure mold

we DO mix two types of fabrics in our shorts..cotton AND lycra

why do some still believe that the sun can be stopped in its (falsely believed) rotation of the earth?

and why should it be "stopped" in its tracks?
to help one tribe of nomads kill more of their neighbors?
at the command of our "loving God"???

at least a preacher riding his bike and maybe dog paddling across the pond or jumping waves at the ocean on Sabbath is a good first step in liberating us from some of the excesses many of us were inculcated with.

Doesn't this whole process remind us of the kindergarten class that took a vote to decide whether the pet gerbil was a boy or a girl? When attacked on the facts always talk faster and louder.
-Alan

I have a huge throbbing pain at my core. This week marks a turning point in my relationship to my church. I was schooled by this church in the 80s. The church was grappling with very difficult questions, questions about origins, fallibility, and the nature of inspiration. My professors were taking these questions very seriously. I was optimistic about my church. I loved my church. But as I experienced congregational life I found that these questions were threatening and dangerous to the foundations of others. My professors were investigated for asking these questions. I have held hope for this church, but I believe the discussion has been shut down inside the church. The questions ARE dangerous if they destroy foundation of belief. I am grateful that the value of my sabbath is not built on a need for a literal 6 day creation and the value I find in inspired writings account for the imperfections of humans and the human language. I have come to realize that I nearly completely reject adventist fundamentalism. I am waiting again for an Adventist community of believers who are looking for present truth and are willing to entertain the hard questions and move forward. I'm not going to find it in this church frozen in time. Where do I go from here?

David,

You will find a faith community - Adventist or other - where your spirit can flourish and find rest.

A prof of mine who struggles with his beliefs put it this way: when he cannot find a way to believe something, he puts his faith in a community that does, and says somehow God must be in this personal "frontier of faith". It allows him to be honest with himself and others, and yet affiliated to the community with integrity. And I am sure it is not always easy with people's reactions towards someone in such a position, yet we know we are where we belong when we find we can love, and are loved, despite all that we may or may not be in terms of others' expectations.

We are not alone.

..."I gladly ride bikes on Sabbath and get into water over my knees on the day"...

question:
if one can can "liberate" oneself from the un-fun-da-mental rules of EGW
__________________________________________________________
John, there's nothing in Ellen White's writings about such silly rules.

would it not seem all the more important to consider reinterpreting others of the ancient rules and explanations given by Moses (or his biographers) specifically for Moses tribe members?

we no longer stone to death our back talking sons

we no longer stone to death folks using cooking, heating, or refrigeration equipment on the wrong day of the week...

we no longer send our women out of camp for "thaaaat" week each month

most guys shave their beards and have their hair cut

we no longer dig individual holes in the desert to bury our waste

we no longer kill birds and use their blood to cure mold

we DO mix two types of fabrics in our shorts..cotton AND lycra
___________________________________________________________
Dear John,

This reinterpretation has already occurred. It was prophecied by Jeremiah about 600 BC. and reached its fulfillment in the first century A.D. It is called "The New Covenant."

However, burying human waste sounds like a very sanitary thing to do of you don't have sewers. And there in nothing in the Law of Moses about birds' blood curing mold. Mold was a symbol of sin, and the birds were a sacrifice that made atonement. See Lev 14:53.

I am created in the Image of God, and I came from family of apes.

Devout SDA's as witch-hunters. Classic.

"yet we know we are where we belong when we find we can love, and are loved,"

Oh how I wish that were true. This whole affair demonstrates how intolerant and un-loving the Adventist church has become. Having rejected Present Truth, it is now bound up in dead formalizm. How much longer before the witch hunt extends to members? How is it possible for honest truth loving members to stay?

I also wonder how much of this is influenced by third world deligates? Maybe the NAD should split from the GC.

"Our church has been on the cutting edge of science since the time of Mrs. White, and it is yet today."

I think this web site and the recent action at the GC belies this statement. Over, and over again the church rejects science. That seems to be the whole point of this action by the GC, to soundly reject one of the fundamental laws of nature.

Given the above discussion re: tea and coffee,it is interesting to note that recent medical evidence shows that tea and coffee drinkers are MORE healthy. Will the church accept the scientific evidence? I can't imagine that it will.

Re: comments about third angels message.

How ironic that the Adventist church is called to worship God as the creator, and they are in the process of developing a "Fundamental Belief" for the explicit purpose of denying that God continues to create!

. . . . . . I just can't get my mind around that.

..."I gladly ride bikes on Sabbath and get into water over my knees on the (sabbath) day"...Pastor Bob Helm

question:
if one can can "liberate" oneself from the un-fun-da-mental rules of EGW....John Alfke
__________________________________________________________
John, there's nothing in Ellen White's writings about such silly rules.
Posted by: SDA Pastor Bob Helm

I wonder why the EGWhite Estate continues to allow her writings to be researched...there is so much there to
scare people away from Adventism and Christianity to say nothing of sanity!!!!

quoting Selected Mess...part 3, page 258:

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

(sorry, I can't get the search link to work)

Quote:

..." Pleasure seeking, ball playing, swimming, was not a necessity, but a sinful neglect of the sacred day sanctified by Jehovah"...

so swimming IS a sinful neglect, Bob....(ggg)
just as my sainted mother impressed on me.

now that you have been presented with the inspired truth, are you going to chance your sinful ways? I'm surprised that none of your congregation has chided you about this perfidious neglect.

or have you grown PAST a lot of what Sister White said....(groan past)

or are you still looking for "tall, majestic people living without sin" (or oxygen) on some nearby planet?

and with your scientific knowledge have you given up her belief in underground coal fires being the cause of volcanoes and earth quakes?

and Orion being the hole in the sky thru which the New Jerusalem will "descend"...in about 1,600 years....if it starts now and moves at the speed of light or dark.

Why do literal six-day creation believers, six or ten thousand years ago, NOT STOP AND JUST THINK for just five minutes what this picture really would mean? It would mean that all the nasty animals which kill other animals (Eg., venomous snakes and crocodiles) were designed and created on one of those six days OR were designed and created outside that creation week (before or after) by a designer, or else they must believe in evolution of "evil" life before or after that creation week after Adam and Eve sinned, - or after Lucifer sinned in heaven.

Why not evolution of life AFTER LUCIFER SINNED being considered as an option, and before the garden of Eden was planted on earth by God in the midst of Lucifer's messy non-God approved creating/evolutionary work?. After all the greatest event of the origin of sin was by far the sinning/rebellion of Lucifer in heaven which of its very nature was way above the significance of Adam and Eve on a small planet. He was the highest angel in heaven and next to God. Sin in heaven where God dwells is much more significant and far reaching than sin on a tiny planet in one galaxy. The most conservative of Christians say "sin" caused crocodiles and such things to EVOLVE from sin, not to be designed by God, as I understand it.Thus the most conservative literal creationists believe in evolution of wicked forms of life. When is the only question. Literal creationists believe that it was not God who designed crocodiles and venomous snakes etc., and that they either evolved from sin, or were designed by a wicked designer (Lucifer). If not designed by Lucifer then they evolved somehow, sometime. And a HELL of a lot of change took place from God's perfect design.

Interpretation of "facts" is critical. First, we don't know most of the relevant facts, and those that we do "know" may not really say what we currently think they do because there are other facts that we don't know. Just because something is "mainstream" or corrently accepted "science" doesn't mean it is correct. Just look at the anthropomorphic climate change debate. We need to continue to have a real debate, and that debate will always be primarily among those who are not so locked-in to their position that they don't think there is any need for debate. And that does not just apply to those who are Biblical literalists - it is just as untenable for those who question the literal (faith based) interpretation but instead buy into mainstream dogma, scientific or otherwise.

The Bible story of creation and the expulsion of the pair from the garden is so sparse that many have "filled in" and attempted to explain things not described as the result of sin.

Why is it so difficult to recognize that ancient writers wrote only what they were capable of understanding about their lives when they wrote, plus no one but Adam and Eve were there to know what happened.

Attributing to sin more than the Bible declares is adding to the Bible, and attempting to describe all those changes cannot be validated by any one. Fundamentalists make no attempt to explain, but merely accept as written; scientists have always tried to both understand and explain the world. We should never disparage their work, because without them we would still be living in a world where disease was caused by sin of parents or child, where women were unclean a week of each month, and much more. Is that where we want to return? Do you go to the Bible to diagnose and treat your disease or to a science-trained medical practitioner?

What a paradox! Most all of us seek the latest medical advice for serious medical conditions, but want to hamper SDA professors to teach science solely from the Bible!

Just noting that Nick Miller has still not responded to the news evidence presented that contradicted his comment.