Thanks Kirsten for the information. It is true that it is important to the discussion to recognize what science can address and what it can't.

There are a couple of things that I would like to clarify though and if it seems like nit-picking I'm sorry. I do think it is vital to be working off the same page and misunderstanding is so easy.

First, the theory of evolution (TofE) is often lumped into discussions around how life began, how the world began, and the age of the earth. While TofE compliments findings from other fields in these areas, evolution itself is separate. If you confuse TofE with geology, physics, and abiogenesis, you are going to be working at a disadvantage (and I say "you" not meaning you Kirsten but anyone.) By which I mean scientists are going to immediately peg you as someone who is ignorant about evolution and ignore you (at best).

Second, saying that "if a question can be proved by an experiment, it is science," is really misleading in a couple of ways. Science never proves anything. Evidence can accumulate to the point that scientists can say something is pretty sure but it is ALWAYS open to the possibility of changing - based again on evidence. So when someone critiques TofE by saying, "But scientists can't prove it," again, you are showing your ignorance and scientists will ignore you (at best).

The other problem with that statement is, it sounds like science is limited to findings from experiments. This is a pervasive but profoundly wrong belief about science which leads the another common but wrong critique of TofE. That you can't do experiments on something that happened so long ago and so scientists are just guessing anyway. This actually implies that evolution is not happening now too which is wrong.

Science is about providing natural explanations for the natural world. It uses the process of observation to do this. Experimentation is a wonderful way to refine the observations to reduce bias and alternative explanations, but it is simply one tool of science. One can make observations, develop hypotheses, test those hypotheses against more observations etc. all without designing a traditional experiment. If this idea was true what would I expect to see? Do I see it? How would I recognize it? If it were false what might I see? And so on. And then there are your peers always refining and critiquing your conclusions as well in an ongoing pursuit of what the evidence shows.

I know that you Kirsten are not necessarily making any of the arguments I was discussing above. You are just reporting here. I have heard them so often though and I think they are based on misunderstandings that need to be clarified so the discussion can continue.

Kirsten, thanks for this report. It's good to learn about what is happening at Adventist universities outside the US.

My question: How is this taught in both SDA academies and colleges? Does Intelligent Design (another pseudonym for Creationists) include biology, chemistry, physics, geology, earth sciences and others? What are the teachers allowed to teach, and what are verboten? Are there parameters that cannot be breached, just as in religious studies? IOW, are graduating students from these colleges fully educated, comparable to those of other colleges/universities?

Is it true that the difference between Creation studies and scientific studies are that the latter must be falsifiable, and are subject to attack by peers? To what what reputable scientific journals have Creationists contributed?

One can always apply the fleece test--wet or dry! Tom

Steve Hindes (2005) suggests a number of ways that science is different to religion. In science,

• nothing is beyond question
• there is no preset range of acceptable answers and unacceptable answers
• blind faith in science is appalling to scientists
• emotionalism is discouraged
• substantive debate of the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view is encouraged, invited, and given top priority at gatherings

It's pretty obvious that, in the debate over evolution and creationism, that creationists mostly demonstrate an unwillingness to subscribe to these principles.

Steve

Steve's five points may differentiate science from religion. Never-the-less the issue of origins is beyond testing with the classic scientific method. Moreover, science may be free of Steve's points but scientists are not. Tom

Thank you, Ms.Nixon, and thank you Spectrum for keeping us updated on what's happening around the globe, especially in Adventist circles.

This last week in Central Florida, where I live, there has been much discussion in the press and in public forums as to the new Florida Educational standards which require evolution to be taught in science classes. In these discussions proponents of creationism repeatedly use the argument that evolution is merely a theory. So, they reason, since it can't be proven both the theory of creation and the theory of evolution should be taught in the public schools. They seem totally hung up on the word theory and do not understand its meaning when used in scientific literature.

It have found the same hang up occurs when referring to some biblical stories as myths. Immediately the word myth is perceived as meaning falsehood and untrue. All attempts to explain the literary definition and usage of the word myth falls on deaf ears.

Donna Aren't they using the word theory in the sense of an hypothesis? (An assumption based upon certain observations)

The scientific method is to construct a test based upon those assumptions to demonstrate if the assumptions are validated by objective means. Neither evolution nor creation are subject to such experimental methods.

For example: Light has characteristics of both a wave and a particle. One teacher when asked how he solved the problem in the classroom. As a wag he said: "I teach it as a wave on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and as a particle on Tuesdays and Thursdays."

I guess that it would they are trying to establish in Florida.

Personally, I think students should be exposed to both in an objective fashion. The problem is that the creation theory demands worship--which impinges on separation of Church and State. Therefore, Creationists should make it a part of their worship at home and church. Unfortunately both sides would rather engage in polemics than in reason. Certainly, if one restricts creationism to the Genesis story they place themselves in unnecessary shackles. Intelligent design is an attempt to surmount the Genesis problem. A second problem is the dogma associated with both theories. "My way or the highway" of Cliff Goldstein is one example. I happen to agree with Cliff but don't believe his approach is particularly effective. Obviously there are evolutionists who are just as dogmatic. I was fortunate in having intelligent loving parents and open minded teachers so with table talk and structured lessons, I was able to formulate a working hypothesis with which I am comfortable-yet willing to learn more. Tom

Steve

I am impressed by your list of differences between science and religion by Steve Hindes.

Who is he? Where does he work? From what angle is he coming?

Sorry about these basic questions; however, as I've said before, I do not know how to reduce my ignorance without exposing it!

Second question: I would like to belong to a community of faith that tried to adhere to these same principles.

What do you think? Isn't this at least possible?

I might want to add some principles; however, I doubt that I would like to subtract any.

If I were to add any they would be in the range of respecting traditions and foster community. I don't see how these are necessarily hostile to science.

Thanks!

Dave

The last time I heard a speaker tell a group that evolution was "just a theory" I asked if he would please jump off the top of the building we were in... after all, gravity "is just a theory"

Try the "theory argument" with any real scientist and see how fast your credibility melts away- all you've done is prove you don't understand how science works.

Theory of gravity?

Tom
It is fascinating that the fallibility and humanity of scientists is so frequently touted as a reason for doubting the objectivity and veracity of a scientific view and the conclusions that represent the scientific view of origins. Mind you this is almost always selective so biologists are always suspect while chemists and physists are quite kosher unless they wander into the realms of cosmology. Do you apply the same criteria to a jury and similarly discount the whole of the legal system? Both are very similar and rely on peer review to arrive at a consensus view of "truth".

That consensus view unfortunately is that the earth and life theron has existed much longer that the period conceived by sumarian culture. Just as one could accept that most Jury verdicts approximate truth the current view of natural selection as an mechanism of speciation is probably true. We can play against the odds cling desperately to our belief that the earth is the centre of the universe or we can move forward into the copernican world and consider the meaning of the gospel in the largely secular world of the 21st century. That to me that is much more sanguine than fighting losing rearguard actions as we become increasingly irrelevant ad insular.

Tom wrote:
... the issue of origins is beyond testing with the classic scientific method. Moreover, science may be free of Steve's points but scientists are not.
The idea that origins is beyond testing with the classic scientific method is not really relevant and relies on a very narrow view of science to infer that nothing can be really known about the truth of how origin of life occurred. Scientists use a range of approaches in trying to work out how things happen. For example, one can identify what would be expected if a particular theory were to be true to see if present realities are consistent with that theory. The problem with creationism is that includes God as an explanation. Because of that, anything can be included in the theory by merely asserting that God did it. You want to "explain" the reason the earth looks much older than 10,000 years? Simple: God made it look that way even though it is only 10,000 years old. Why does it seem as though species have evolved. Well... God made it look as though that's what happened. In this way, all evidence in support of evolution can be "explained" away for the sake of a literalistic reading of the biblical text.
Next point... of course scientists are human. But the scientific method and its associated forms of reasoning reduce the likelihood that one individual's aberrations will affect the outcome of investigations.

Dave wrote:
If I were to add any they would be in the range of respecting traditions and foster community. I don't see how these are necessarily hostile to science.
Science does respect tradition (it builds on what is already known) and fosters community (science is based on rigorous peer review processes). These things do not differentiate science from religion in my view.

... as an aside, Ruben offers a report from creationist conversations in Spain in Cafe Hispano which may interest folks.

Yes, theory of gravity. As I said before, science does not say anything is proven. Science proceeds on hypotheses that are examined and refined. When things began to gel around certain hypotheses, when certain explanations are shown to be powerful, then it is called a theory. Theories can be disproven, i.e. the theory of phrenology, or they can become stronger over time until so much evidence exists supporting them that they would be considered fact in everyday language. Scientists continue to refer to extremely well-established theories as just that, theories but it has a very different connotation from everyday usage. Thus we have the theory of heliocentrism, the germ theory, the theory of relativity and so on. All of these are well-established - so much so that most people would call them fact - but scientists still call them theories. In the scientific community, TofE has reached this level but not yet in popular culture.

This is a good laugh:
Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Read the rest of the parody here:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

Tom Said,
"Donna Aren't they using the word theory in the sense of an hypothesis? (An assumption based upon certain observations)
The scientific method is to construct a test based upon those assumptions to demonstrate if the assumptions are validated by objective means. Neither evolution nor creation are subject to such experimental methods."...I concur.

Is it not a fact that we can conduct repeated experiments with reliable outcomes on how long it will take a falling object within earth's atmosphere to reach the earth?

Please show me your repeatable observations on origins by creation or evolution by the experimental method as observed with gravity!

It is this type of observable facts that allow the space shuttle to fly into space. The same cannot be said of our theory of origins.

Until you are able to repeatably demonstrate by observation your theory of origins then I suggest it is in the realm of "possibility" and not fact...at least in earth language.

Gravity is a theory that has been tested and proven correct.
Evolution and Creation are theories that have not been tested to the level of proof necessary to be called "facts".

There are times when saying "I don't know, I wasn't there" are powerful--note Gov. Huckabee's retort in a recent debate put him second in the Republican race.

We are not arguing the Genesis story. We are arguing origins.
Genesis is a story and evolution is a joke. Tom

Kirsten:

Your readers might find these two articles informative and interesting.
The first is an Interview with Michael Hanby in FAITH Magazine March-April 2007 (a Catholic publication) titled:

“The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Debate over Darwinism”

http://faith.org.uk/publications/Magazines/Mar07/Mar07TheChristianDoctri...

While I’m not “with” him on every nuance and point, it is an interesting way of framing the issues you have raised.
The article consists of his answers to these 4 questions:

1) What do you understand by the terms “Darwinism” or the “Darwinian worldview”? Why is a Christian “theological critique” of it essential at all?

2) What is the “Christian doctrine of creation”? How does it differ from “intelligent design” and “creationism”?

3) Does not a “theological critique” of Darwinism run the risk of reviving the stereotype of a science-religion conflict? Moreover, does it not confuse their distinct roles in understanding and explaining reality?

4) What are your views on Christoph Cardinal Schönborn’s New York Times article on the Catholic Church’s understanding of Darwinian evolution and the controversy generated by it? Do you think the Cardinal’s article makes theological sense?

4 quotes to give a flavor of his thinking…

“I should stress that my chief complaint is not with a specific tenet of Darwinian theory, as if it were the job of theology to provide an alternative biological explanation.”

xxxxxxx

“The doctrine of creation is not a theoretical alternative to Neo-Darwinian evolution or even big bang cosmology for the origins of life and the world precisely because the unique nature of the act in question prevents its ever coming to view.”

xxxxxxxx

“Much as Dawkins and Dennett are bad atheists, preserving in their own thought the metaphysics they reject, so creationists and ID proponents are bad theists, preserving in their thought the scientistic naturalism they reject.”

xxxxxxxx

“I remain suspicious of the so-called science-religion dialogue as currently composed for reasons that are probably clear – religion seems only to be granted partnership in this dialogue to the extent that it accepts in advance the marginal place allocated to it by secular, liberal society.”

The second article is by Andrew Ferguson at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and is a commentary on a debate between 4 conservatives: two arguing from a pro Darwinian perspective and two from an anti Darwinian position.

The article is titled:
“But Is It Good for the Conservatives? Darwinism and its discontents.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/611brh...

Here’s the final paragraph:

“Thus Gilder offered a concession by way of a compromise: "Darwinism may be true," he said, "but it's ultimately trivial." It is not a "fundamental explanation for creation or the universe." Evolution and natural selection may explain why organic life presents to us its marvelous exfoliation. Yet Darwinism leaves untouched the crucial mysteries--who we are, why we are here, how we are to behave toward one another, and how we should fix the alternative minimum tax. And these are questions, except the last one, that lie beyond the expertise of any panel at any think tank, even AEI.”

So, as I’m reading about this interesting topic, more and more I’m finding writers and thinkers coming to a similar idea that it doesn’t matter much how “true” Darwinism is, it is ultimately trivial. That is, NONE of life’s important questions are answered by it…

It’d be interesting to hear your take on these articles.

Deciding which of life's questions are important is a very subjective one and science has not claimed to settle such questions; they are not the scope of scientific studies, much to the disappointment of Creationists who wish to debate such completely disparate ideas. It's similar to asking a question of which is better: a tree or a car? One method that proposes to answer by accepting supernatural biological events while the biological scientist uses all the previous studies showing mammalian formation over millions of years, should not, and cannot debate what happens to the soul after death. Such questions are not even considered by the scientific study and are not the proper study for a biologist.

Creationists wish to wander into fields where angels fear to tread, preparing to take on dragons without proper armor. Their views belong in the pulpit not in the classroom.

Regarding theory of gravity > theory of evolution comments:

I quote from a pretty sharp woman:

On one of my web pages, I say "We don't understand evolution perfectly, but we understand it better than we understand gravity."

I got email one day (from some spineless person forging their identity as my partner!) saying "Anyone can validate the theory of gravity by dropping a stone, but there is no similar validation for the theory of evolution." [Pat writes: It is this type of observable facts that allow the space shuttle to fly into space. The same cannot be said of our theory of origins. Until you are able to repeatably demonstrate by observation your theory of origins then I suggest it is in the realm of "possibility" and not fact...at least in earth language.]

This is confusing the observed phenomenon of gravity with the theory of what draws the two masses together. It is true that anyone can witness the phenomenon of gravity, but that it takes time and/or specialized equipment to witness the phenomenon (or "fact") of evolution. For example, observing the change in gene frequencies over time is observing evolution. These and other observations have been done often enough that science no longer disputes the phenomenon of evolution, only the explanation of how and why it occurs (that is, its theory.)

The claim that scientists have made more progress on the theory of evolution than on the theory of gravity I took from Elliott Sober. He is frequently called on as an expert witness in court cases about teaching evolution or creationism / "intelligent design" in schools. . .

http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/web/gravity.html

Pat, I noticed that you didn't provide any sources for your thinking there. Here's a really good listing of dozens of verifying observations of evolutionary theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
__

"As evolutionary biologists have pointed out, any of the experiments designed to test Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection since it was first proposed could have proven the hypothesis wrong. None of those tests did. So evolution is "just a theory" the same way that the theory of plate tectonics and the germ theory of disease are just theories. And gravity."

http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
__

This just came through on the school listserv and I thought that y'all might like to get a snap shot of some "cutting edge" thinking on creation (and the related implications for the environment). By my pal, Whitney Bauman Ph.D., GTU.

God:Creation::Culture:Nature: Challenging the Logic of Domination in Creatio Ex Nihilo"

This lecture argues that the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) sets up a support system for a "logic of domination" toward human and earth others. Conceptually inspired by the work of theologian Catherine Keller and feminist philosopher of the environment
Val Plumwood, this lecture argues that the concept of creation out of nothing materializes in the world throughout different periods in the history of the Christian West: From the emergence of the concept of ex nihilo creation in the 3rd century CE and Christianity's adoption by Constantine, to the "logic of discovery" in the writings of Christopher Columbus and John Locke's understanding of the mind as tabula rasa and
private property, and finally to the metaphorical connections between ex nihilo and the concept of terra nullius (empty lands), which was used to take over Aboriginal lands in Australia.

Dr. Bauman argues that the foundationalism found in ex nihilo has supported a colonizing epistemology and that post-foundationalist thinking (such as found in Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour) can help to re-construct Christian understanding of creation that recognizes human and earth others. In dialogue with emergence theory, Gayatri Spivak's notion of "planetarity," and Anne Primavesi's concept of "gift," he offers a constructive reworking of creatio continua (continuing creation) that is postfoundational and post-colonial. From this perspective, theology and the natural sciences become less about metaphysics and more about ethics and politics, and epistemology becomes dialogical, opening us onto the continuous process of planetary becoming.

Oh yeah! I can hardly wait until Tuesday night.

You Google those proper names and you, dear readers, will be on the road to some fun ideas, yes, far beyond the reasoning that because more people can test gravity (more casually) than natural selection, it is a stronger theory.

OK Bob I'll bite :)

It beats chanting over and over, "TofE is not about the origins of life," to a deaf audience until I give up and wander away to sob quietly in the corner.

I read the first article you cited and barely understood any of it. Maybe that says more about me than about the author but it went about 20 "isms" past my limit of comprehension. Maybe you could distill what you got from it and we could go from there.

I did sense that he was criticizing TofE for trying to be a philosophical replacement for the role he thought theology should play. I would agree that if TofE was being used in that way then it shouldn't be. I guess part of the argument would be who gets to define TofE? Nowadays anyone feels free to argue that it says this and that with all sorts of applications that make evolutionary biologists hold their heads in pain.

The second article was much more accessible. I thought that Derbyshire was exactly right at the beginning. Applying Darwinism (I hate that term because it means so many different things) to conservativism or any other ism for that matter is really stretching it. But then they had to go and do just that. TofE is a scientific theory - a point that can also be applied to the first article. It is descriptive not normative. It simply says what is, not what should be. People have used the concept behind it for all sorts of nefarious purposes, just like people have used religion to justify all sorts of stuff. Discussing the moral implications of TofE is like discussing the moral implications of germ theory to me. It is an interesting exercise but it has nothing to do with the strength of the theory for explaining a natural process. Does it answer any of life's pressing questions? Of course not. It is not a religion or a philosophy or a set of ethical principles. It may directly challenge some beliefs of certain religions but that is an unintentional byproduct.

I think scientists would be thrilled to have lay people consider TofE ultimately trivial. It is not they who insist on debating the philosophical implications over and over. TofE not only challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis though, it challenges the traditional Christian narrative of how sin came into the world and thus atonement theology. This particular theory, with its huge wealth of evidence, would have quietly taken its place among the great unifying theories of science if not for the fact that it challenges some of our deeply cherished beliefs. It has become a firewall for many Christians, a symbol of things chipping away at a belief, till anything goes.

Hello all,

I didn't read all the comments, and don't want to pretend like I have. But I do want to ask a couple questions that now seem to puzzle me.

First of all, how many people here think that science gives us far more information than Genesis as to the origins of the world? More importantly, how many believe that our TofE actually makes Genesis irrelevant, as far as being literal?

My next question is more of a comment. I understand that there is naturally going to be an extreme level of faith put into science, because of our urge to be rational and in control. I use the word faith, because that is what it is. I too am proudly a stout skeptic who prefers to question all until I am proven wrong. Unfortunately, in our society, and for most of the history of the world, faith and reason have been in conflict. This is unreasonable, and I'll tell you why. Science has been touted as the tool of human reason throughout history. There have been many times in the history of scientific discovery, in which science has proved something beyond doubt, and years later, discovered it was wrong. TofE is not certain even today (there are gaps in the fossil record), and to put all faith into something that one day we may understand to be wrong, is to quit looking. I have the same argument for some aspects of our interpretation of the Bible.

If you would allow me, I'd like to ask a new question. How important is Genesis to our faith, and why? I believe this question is much more meaning full and interesting than debating (in a very unscientific way) whether or not TofE is correct.

Alex Asks, "Pat, I noticed that you didn't provide any sources for your thinking there."

Fowler&Kuebler-"The Evolution Controversy"-A Survey of Competing Theories, Baker Academic, 2007. pp.79,80,128-132.

The Transition from "facts"-hypothesis-theory-"law of science"

We presntly refer to the "law of gravity" but not the "law of evolutionary origins" because the later has not reached the same degree of verifiability.

Kirsten,

It is "my belief" that about 6K-10000 yrs. ago God created the human male and female. It is also "my belief" that neither a theory of an "old earth" nor "young earth" neccesarily violates scriptural integrity and Gen.1:1,2.

I believe "absolute TofE by naturalistic causes" does as Beth correctly said, "challenge the traditional Christian narrative of how sin came into the world and thus atonement theology." Naturalism also limits God's being able to enter into space and time by supernatural means which may have the effect of altering man's understanding of empirical evidence.

God's salvation covenant began in Gen.3:15. TofE undermines the continuity of scripture in describing that salvation history by our Creator Redeemer and Sustainer.

Regards

Kirsten,
Yes. Cosmology matters and evolution offers us one fundamentally opposed to our own.

It seems to me that people like Richard Dawkins are doing their best to prove that irrationality, emotion and all those items Steve listed are available and present throughout humanity regardless of ones view on origins.

There are plenty of rational people and polemists to go around. No need to slander religion when fundamentalist/ doctrinare Darwinians can disappoint us as well as any narrow creationist.

While Charles himself was apparently unable to endorse eugenics outright (his father, daughter and himself all suffered congenital defects), Darwins theory on social relations and the view that humanity coddled the weak is the antecedent to some of the worst, and largest, injustices ever wrecked on this earth.

Surely many persons believing in evolution have done their best to move beyond Darwins social analysis and offer a theory of their own- a post-Darwinian evolution. Yet Darwin understood well the implications of his view and was perhaps more honest than his heirs are today.

Fundamentally Christianity is about relationships- between creator and creation- and we're guided by the view that our world is disordered and that relationships between ourselves and our world need to be righted.

Our cosmology is therefore inherently eschatological. The trajectory of our movement since its inception has been pointed towards the final restoration of the broken relationship between creator and creation.

I say all of this because Genesis is not incidental to our faith but rather is as central as Christ, the second coming and the new covenant. We can't talk about origins as if that conversation is unrelated to the whole project of our faith.

Our creation account is linked to our view of Christian hospitality (towards the earth and each other) and provides a stark contrast to the inhospitable relationships (towards the earth and each other) offered by Darwin.

Alex,
Love the report from your campus. I'll share what mine is up to when I have more time but yeah we're having lectures here on this as well that take us through a different path.

Kirsten

I think we might want to go easy on the idea that "for most of the history of the world, faith and reason have been in conflict."

This is one of those popular impressions that solid historical research disconfirms. Here are just three examples:

1. Newton wrote extensive commentaries on the Book of Revelation that have since been surpassed by better Biblical scholarship.

2. Charles Darwin rests in peace in Westminster Abbey, one of the most honored Christian places to be buried in England even to this day. The idea that most Christian leaders in England at his time rejected Darwin's ideas is not accurate.

3. Many have long wondered why the empirical sciencs first emerged in Europe when it had been so backward for so long as compared to Asia. One standard answer is that the Greek idea of the logos and the Hebrew idea of the universe as God's creation converged to make it plausible to view the world as orderly and patterned instead of governed by the capricious whims of innumerable uncaring dieties.

Alfred North Whitehead's "Science and the Modern World" is one of the earlier reviews of all this. Ronald Numbers has made superb contributions in recent years in many different publications.

Thanks!

Dave

Gravity or gravitational force is a natural phenomenon. Though invisible, the effect of gravity is observable. Theories about gravity and gravitation have been tested and generally accepted.

From Wikipedia:

"Gravitation" is a general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this attraction.

Briefly, the TofE and gravity (as a phenomenon) aren't equivalent. I agree with Beth's remarks, as well as the reference cited by Alex on this topic.

My comment about the GRI and the conferences it conducts, this time at UAP for our elementary and secondary school teachers. I just learned, because of this report, that GRI has now a branch office headed by an institute associate in Argentina; it's a first outside North America (Loma Linda).

What's the value/use of GRI conferences? To make sure science teaching in all Adventist schools are kept in line with official doctrine? If so, can there be any genuine dialogue that takes place? If our aim is conformity, then we're just talking among ourselves.

Are well qualified academicians in our own schools not invited to participate as presentors together with GRI and BRI staff? Do we not include and engage in conversation Adventist scholars/scientists outside of our system, who are not denominationally employed? Why not?

I believe that young people in our schools will be better served, if thru the GC Education dept, Loma Linda U and the GRI were to join forces in promoting better science teaching. The same is true with Andrews U and the BRI in regards to religious education and other disciplines. The Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies is another General Conference supported/governed institution. Some very well qualified members of the faculty reside there. Why not invite them to participate alongside colleagues from the GRI and BRI, Loma Linda and Andrews, when conducting these conferences? At least within the AIIAS geographical area of responsiblity. (In the two-thirds world?)

Going back a day or two, when the argument was about the analogy of Theory and Fact.

In the days of Galileo and Newton Gravitation was a hypothesis. They developed it into a testable theory. They put their theory to a rational test. The test proved their theory and hense their hypothesis. Their tests have been
replicated time and again. Apples still fall from trees!

Space junk still falls back to earth. Thus, Gravitation is no longer a theory, it is a fact!

Even Spectrum is a gravitation center for a full array or spectrum of human beings with an itch. Tom

Joselito,

You asked "Are well qualified academicians in our own schools not invited to participate as presentors together with GRI and BRI staff?"

I actually stated in the article that GRI conducted the conference in conjunction with the UAP. I also attended the conference and listened to many excellently qualified professors from the UAP, among other places address topics of genetics, biology, geology, among other things.

I would also like to see more integration between the two schools of thought, and hope to in the future. The professors and the scientists from GRI however are extremely qualified and extremely knowledgeable.

As far as your implication that groups such as GRI are doing some type of world wide adventist educational "conformity" control, I would disagree.

At one point during the conference, one of the GRI staff presented some information over the tracks left by the movements of glaciers in different parts of the world. Although I don't remember exactly what was being said, he made the comment that some scientists have dated the existence of a certain glacier zone to 10,000 years old. During the question and answer section a man from the audience that had apparently been offended by the comment accusingly questioned the scientist over the matter.

GRI is not culpable of seeking conformity. I instead believe that individuals choose for themselves what they will believe, and find it there duty to convince others. In this case it fell on the side of religion, but that is not to say that there aren't many laymen and professionals in the sciences that set out to do the same.

Kirsten

Hi Beth:

Would bet we are not really far apart in our thinking at all; just coming from different directions…

There is a recurring theme in all these discussions of evolution and creation as relates to God. I assume none of us are talking about those who do not believe in God. So we have lots of Christians who fall roughly into a category of believing some version of Theistic evolution. That is, evolution however science wants to describe the process and mechanisms, with a God involved somehow. But interestingly, the fact of God’s involvement does not equate, in their minds, with “creation.” They don’t want to be called a “creationist” -- probably because that term is conflated with 6 day literalism as well as being associated with simple minds who “reject” science.

Creationists are ridiculed and dismissed because they read Genesis “literally” -- yet all too often those who say they accept Genesis “non-literally” never really are able to articulate what exactly it is in Genesis that they accept. So, I’d like to know if Christian creationists and Christians evolutionists can agree on certain things as being sustained by Genesis. That might be a fun exercise. For me that list might include the fact of God and His involvement in our being here. But this goes beyond mere causation and extends into realms of meaning and purpose and morality and interrelatedness somehow. So the fact of God’s involvement makes it “good” somehow. Now, I think one can believe those things apart from a 6 literal day creation… Is that what you take from Genesis?

Creationists are often mocked with silly cliches like “the bible is not a science text” -- which few creationists actually assert. (some do, yes) So the inference of such a statement is that there is simply no overlap between science and belief in God. At least any overlap is beyond our scientific detection. So the theistic evolutionist (is there general agreement that this term is valid by those here who hold to the TofE??) acts as if they have taken the high ground be keeping the realms of science and religion separate; comfortable they have done respect to both realms. The implicit suggestion then is that these realms do not inform each other. And maybe, can’t inform each other. That is, one can’t “measure” science with religion, and likewise can’t “measure” religion with science…

Yet look how well this works out in practice. Here’s what you said about the TofE -- this seems like an explicit acceptance of the TofE’s limitation and proper role:

“Does it answer any of life's pressing questions? Of course not. It is not a religion or a philosophy or a set of ethical principles.”

But then in the very next paragraph it seems obvious that you take what seems to me a 180 degree turn and allow the TofE that very right TO speak to those very questions you have just said it does not!

“TofE not only challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis though, it challenges the traditional Christian narrative of how sin came into the world and thus atonement theology. This particular theory, with its huge wealth of evidence, would have quietly taken its place among the great unifying theories of science if not for the fact that it challenges some of our deeply cherished beliefs.”

So here you have the TofE unable to answer the great questions, while at the same time you insist that the TofE offers a profound challenge to the traditional Genesis narrative?? This provides you a dilemma: how can something incapable of answering the great questions be asked to answer or challenge the great questions?

So Beth, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems a creationist is not allowed the same maneuver in the other direction; that is, he is disallowed his challenges to science on the basis of his religion. For example, it is very logical, it seems to me, for a creationist to see that there simply is no way to extract any morality from the TofE; it is essentially a theory of selfish purposelessness. But most Theistic Evolutionists don’t accept that thinking… These are some of the dynamics that the articles I linked were talking about I think.

Not that I am incredibly sympathetic to my creationist brothers like Cliff G for example who see that there really truly are consequences to allowing a rigid formulation of the TofE (by that I mean one which is purely mechanistic and purposeless -- which really is how many many scientists describe the process) to “inform” his religion. And I can see how it’s very hard for a creationist to understand on what basis the Evolution believer rejects the moral consequences that seem (to the creationist) to follow from the TofE…

At the same time Beth, I am also very sympathetic to the Christian who also wants to be able to incorporate the science of TofE into his paradigm. But I do find it interesting that these Christians need to import religious themes into their TofE paradigms in order to “soften” the ugly implications of TofE. (eg meaninglessness, purposelessness, and so on…)

And so I’ve actually found the most respectable and honest attempt to bridge these worlds -- which every Christian is obviously trying to do in his own way -- is the paradigm of Intelligent Design. (Intelligent design as used by the originators of the term; not as exemplified by the Kansas school board for example…)

Thanks,
Bob

Kirsten,

The following observation based on a survey of Americans in the USA, which may also be true in Argentina, might be of interest to you:

"... a close reading of survey data shows that while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs...

"In the last century, the most persistent and sharpest clash between religion and science in the United States has centered on the issue of evolution. Indeed, while virtually all scientists agree that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years, public opinion polling over the last few decades has shown that between 40% and 50% of Americans consistently reject the very idea of natural evolution, largely on the grounds that it conflicts with biblical accounts of creation."

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=275

- Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes (December 18, 2007) By Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research, Pew Research Center; David Masci, Senior Research Fellow; and Gregory Smith, Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

My own view of GRI is similar to that of an advocacy group. The outcome of conferences it conducts is by and large predictable. I doubt the opinions of participants will change. The energies of highly qualified GRI staff, IMV, would better be engaged in dealing with other issues - such as improving science teaching and research - alongside colleagues in the academic departments of either our Adventist universities or outside.

Further, have we not become, in the words of my mission college mentor, Gottfried Oosterwal, an intra-church mission organization? That is, we send missionaries from one Adventist institution (GRI staff) to preach in another Adventist institution (UAP and elementary/secondary school teachers in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay). Might it not be better for the gospel's sake if highly qualified Christian Adventists scientists and scholars were to go out in the world so they can serve alongside secular, unchurched colleagues instead?

There is nothing surprising in the finding that nearly 50% of Americans reject evolution because it conflicts with biblical accounts of creation. Well, Duh! Why shoud there be any agreement? If one goes to the Bible for all his knowledge about the world, he will be severely limited.

Why do Chrstians reject all other accounts of origins from other cultures and claim that only the Bible has the correct one? Western Christianity accepted this story as being the only true one for some 1800 years, and only until the enlightenment were its statements challenged, and then with great risk. These stories were compiled by the Hebrew people and few know of how they were edited, redacted, and finally became written for the first time no earlier than 1000 B.C.; and that there are two different stories of creation, the earliest, in the second chapter of Genesis, is quite different from the first chapter. Yet, because the activites of each day is specfifically spelled out, it is greeted as more authentic. However, the Enuma Elish, composed at least a 1000 years earlier than the first chapter of Genesis, has exactly the same sequence of events of each day of a 7-day week. Coincidence? There is also nothing about the "Fall of Man" to be found in the Genesis story, nor is there any mention of sinless existence in Eden, nor is the serpent identified in the story as the devil (he is just a tgalking snake). All these familiar elements are actually the creation of ancient interpreters.

No one was an observer at Creation and just as in all cultures, stories are constructed on their origins to give them significance and esteem that is crucial to their tribe, and
Why is the Hebrew account in Genesis 1 considered the only, true one, and is held to be sacred when it is obviously a copy of the Babylonian one and written during that captivity? All similar stories attempt to explain their origins and it appears that the only reason Christians claim the Hebrews' story is true one and all the others are false. Few Hebrews accept this story literally, but use it metaphorically. The Christians have one-upped them an made it their own just as they have claimed this book to be the Christian Bible and have taken the Old Testament and reinterpreted it much to the shame of the Jews to which we should credit, rather than attempting to rearrange their scriptures to fit our premises.

How many who no longer believe that Joshua made the sun stand still (implying that the sun moves around the earth) yet still believe in the literality of the creation story? Do Christians reject scientific studies and findings in any other field to the extent of evolution? Do they not acknowledge the mutations of organisms? What does this have to do with one's belief about God? He has been described in so many various ways that he has been created by all the writers of the Bible with strong contradictions.
Who to believe but our own reasoning ability?

Elaine:

Since my questions don’t threaten or offend you, might I ask a few of you?? Be as specific as you like to give me some direction as to your overall worldviews and conclusions…

One gets the sense that something very dramatic would happen -- and for the good -- if simple minded Christians would just see and accept evolution; what is it?

Let’s say that by some miracle, or water additive, suddenly nobody reads Genesis literally, and all accept evolution as taught currently; what changes?

How do you envision me (or, say, Clifford Goldstein) changing if suddenly I (or he) just accept every single evolutionary concept that is agreed upon? (realizing “evolutionists” enjoy some profound disputes among themselves…)

Next, I wonder if you have a “creation doctrine”, see the importance of having one if he is a believer, and if not, why not?

If the bible (eg Genesis) is not to be read as science, not to be read as history, but merely read as the earnest attempts of ancients to discern and ascribe meaning to what they observed and felt, can you share with us what it is exactly that they were trying to share that we all might have agreed was worthwhile?

If there is general agreement that meaning is not derived from pure science alone, why should it be any kind of surprise at all that minds will prefer the stories which confer meaning over the science which doesn’t??

I guess basically I’m wondering, from your perspective, why does this conversation even matter??

Whose Reason is the one to be trusted? Paul's--"I want you to know brothers that the Gospel I preach is not something that I made up" or Nietsche's "God is dead?" Or James Watson's, "the secret of life is chemistry," or John's "In the beginning was the word." Seems to me the secret of life is, well what do you know, words! DNA words; billions and billions of them with no realistic scientific explanation I've come across. So my reasonable vote goes for John.

Thanks Bob for your reply. You are getting at exactly the kinds of points I wish could be discussed more.

I'm fine with the term theistic evolutionist (TE) and I think you are right that many who call themselves that want to distance themselves from the self-labeled creationists. I don't think I am speaking out of turn when I say that many TEs are deeply embarrassed and appalled at the tactics used by creationists to further "their cause." It goes well beyond just thinking they are silly for believing a young earth/7 day model. Creationists have become renowned for lying, (the NOVA special on the Dover trial shows just one fascinating example), quote mining, manipulating information, marketing ideas directly to the public to avoid peer review and calling it science, and basically just running roughshod over the principles that scientists hold dear. And then turning around and accusing evolutionists of doing what they are doing. It is absolutely shameful and has made it more difficult for believers that also value science. So yes, the reluctance is based almost entirely on the way creationists are perceived as immoral. Rather ironic. Note I am not saying all creationists behave this way, just so many that even mentioning the term causes outbursts in the scientific community.

Regarding the value of Genesis. I can only speak for myself here but I do agree that I am a creationist in so far as I believe God created the universe and life. And I do believe that God's involvement makes it good somehow.

But I also have to say that this is an area I struggle in because it is very hard for me to reconcile the traditional Christian view of God as all-loving and all powerful with the way creation has happened. Good and evil seem so entwined, so inseparable. By evil I mean destruction and suffering in part. Volcanoes erupted scorching living things and giving rise to fertile new soil for new life. Always, the pattern of life and death, pain and joy, suffering and bliss, good and evil. Now I am not much on Eastern religions but I have some sympathy here for that ying/yang concept. It seems pretty clear in the world's history that there has never been a time when the two were apart. And so calling creation good seems like only half the story to me. Maybe the intertwining is good in some way but still very unsatisfactory compared to the promise of the Kingdom of God.

Now as to the separate areas of science and religion. I do find it rather uncomplicated personally. IMO, if it is regarding the natural world, then science takes precedence. You pointed out where I said that TofE cannot answer life's great questions but also said that TofE challenges some of Christianity's beliefs. I'll try and explain further.

Traditional Christianity makes the claim that it is human action that brought pain, suffering and death into the world. It was not part of the design to begin with. There is a part of that claim that is testable in the natural world. Was there death, pain and suffering before humans appeared? The observable fossil record says undoubtedly yes. Actually this claim could be totally separated from TofE and still stand on its own. Geology says there is a clear record of death before humans. So in this case, because theology is making a claim that can be answered in part by science, science has every right to counter that claim (and I believe trump it.)

Of course this raises troubling theological questions. There are some people who seem to just shrug and say, "Well science and Christianity have their own place and they just compliment each other nicely if we understand them correctly." Maybe I'm being too harsh here but I don't think these people have really followed the implications of TofE out very far. If you think science hasn't really challenged belief in the last 100 years or so then you aren't paying attention. And it's not because scientists like Dawkins are attacking belief directly. It's because actual scientific findings are contradicting traditional belief forcing one to chose several courses of action.

Some just throw up their hands and say, "Well what does science know, it's always changing anyway," and then never look too closely at the evidence. Some choose to view the dissonance as a faith-testing exercise and cling to their theological beliefs thus labeling any science that contradicts those beliefs as almost demonic. Some decide to view the TofE as just another theological choice that they reject because they don't like the implications, sort of like rejecting another Protestant denomination because of its view of the state of the dead. And some just pretend that there really is no dissonance.

You mentioned the purposelessness of TofE. You are absolutely right that many scientists insist that that is an important component - though not because they hate God or anything, but because that is the most likely explanation for what we see when we look at the process of evolution. As a believer, honestly I don't know how to go with that. I like Nic's protest of the absentee father. God sort of got the ball rolling and then was relegated to the sidelines. I don't like that one bit either and it really does fly in the face of the Christian concept of an involved personal God.

On the other hand - and here is where science goes and messes with things again - evolution doesn't paint a very pretty picture of an interfering God either. This would have to be a God who created over and over and over, letting species after species die out. Human-like creatures would be created only to go extinct, getting closer and closer to humans as we know them today. And creatures would have been designed purposefully for the intent of causing harm and suffering to other creatures. There was no way T-Rex was a vegetarian living with Adam and Eve placidly in the Garden of Eden no matter how much Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis tries to pretend otherwise.

And then there is the very question of design. Scientists say that when living things are examined, their design more often reflects something that has been cobbled together rather than something designed perfectly from scratch. Take the human male for example. If one were starting from scratch, would one place the prostrate around the urethra pretty much insuring trouble as the man ages? Why not design sperm that live at body temperature (like birds) so the testes can be internal and protected from harm? Why design a back that has difficulty walking upright? And why give men nipples? I'm sure I could come up with some female design flaws too. Noone can deny that living things are a marvel. But there are so many questions that arise when one tests the hypothesis of a designer.

I realize I have raised many more questions than answers but that is where I find myself lately. It is simply not an option for me to reject TofE because I don't like the implications. I understand much more deeply now how scientists might lose their faith. And yet, belief gives me so many good things that I cannot imagine facing life (or death) without it. I am still drawn over and over to the Christian God.

Gerhard,
Amazing how all those words came from Tabula Rosa isn't it. Try entering information onto an "unformatted" disc sometime.
Who "formatted" our brains to receive information? Chance? Fat Chance!!

Bob, I will try to honestly answer your questions (if I have answers) or just honestly say that "I don't know," which is what agnosticism admits: not knowing. Is there shame in that admission? Why should there be? You and I have many areas of life in which we know little, and I could certainly have my own list. I cannot be persuaded on those that I cannot understand with my limited reasoning powers and freely admit that not knowing does not cause me any angst.

If Christians all suddenly accepted the theory of evolution, who knows whether that would impact the religious world? Many already do accept it, and has it had deleterious affect? It seems no different from those Christians who accept other doctrines, that are rejected by their fellow believers. Unless an individual feels threatened by what his fellow Christians believe, it should cause him no harm. However, if someone only accepts those who believe as he does, that is his personal problem--he should learn to deal with it.

As for reading the Genesis story of Creation, I accept (without any evidence) that man is created in the image of God. That cannot be proved, and often it's difficult to believe when one looks around at man's inhumanity to man. But, living by that premise, I accept every other human as my equal: no better, no worse. As to whether there was once a "perfect Adam" and we have "fallen" that is a theory that doesn't hold water in my reasoning ability, so I prefer to believe that the men who wrote this story, explained life as they observed and live it, and gave this explanation of a happier, "Golden Era" of the Garden. Sounds good, so that's their story, but I don't buy it simply because they believed it, just as many ancient beliefs are now dicarded. Being old doesn't make it necessarily any more truthful, or literal. It is "true" in the sense that it depicts "their reality" but it's not my reality.
It is a myth, in the correct definition: a legend or story developed in a preliteral society depicting supernatural beings and events and a primitive view of the world; such as the Oepidal myth, the myth of Horatio Alger, the myth of Sissyphus, and others. Whether they were literal makes no difference; they tell the story and stories are repeated for reasons that we tell our children about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and such. Children, who are the preliterate among us, love the same stories repeated over and over, just as did the ancient people when there was no writing or reading needed.

To limit our knowledge to that of preliterate people is to constrain any ability to grow and develop our powers of reasoning. It was the desire for knowledge and insatiable curiosity that was illustrated by Eve's desire for the fruit. That, to me, is the meaning of the story: explaining how humans, created in the image of God, were, inevitably, desirous of having more knowledge. How could they ever have learned without that? That means being God-like in the finest praise, doesn't it? Otherwise, we humans would be robots, and evidently God chose to make us free, and in doing so, created a dilemma: we could choose our fate.

Any more questions? These, are of course, only my poor mind trying to make sense out of what, ordinarily, makes no sense at all. Too many contradictions and impossibilities to consider that many actually happened.

As for Cliff or you doing a 180 degree turn on belief of Creation? It would only matter to Cliff, who has long trounced on those who do not agree with him as fellow SDAs. As for you, join the group of many SDAs who do not accept a literal Creation. We are very tolerant.

Kirsten's comment needs repeating: "The Bible is one of these world views." However, it is only one view. Christians accepted it as the literal description for most of Christian history. The increase in knowledge (predicted in Scripture) eventually led to loss of credibility in the Genesis account.

In October 1977 the staff of Geoscience Research Institute came to Southwestern in Keene to put on a seminar blitz at the college. Two dozen events were scheduled over a five day period. That Friday evening in Keene, the GRI staff was left to their own so I invited the five of them over for a home cooked meal. Heidi, my wife, decided to make a fruit soup as one of the dinner offerings. Harold Coffin remarked over and over how this soup brought back rich childhood memories for him.

While cordial and engaging dialogue on a myriad of subjects flowed throughout the evening meal and afterwards, it was apparent there were cracks in the group’s façade of scientific unanimity. Sabbath afternoon I had an intimate dialogue with one of them. He let his guard down a bit, leveling with me about some of the geological problems that weren’t being forthrightly addressed in their public presentations. We became fast friends or “kindred spirits” as he put it.

A year later, I attended seminary at Andrews and promptly renewed acquaintances with the staff of GRI resident to Berrien Springs. Opportunities for more one on one extended dialogs transpired over the months and a fuller, more realistic view of things geologic and Biblical opened to me. For instance, I learned that deep sea deposits of biologic sediments pointed to vast periods of time, hundreds of thousands of years at the least, presenting problems for a short chronology. Or that Pleistocene glaciations brought similar difficulties to a flood model of short duration (more recently, the Vostok ice cores from Antarctica reportedly extend the climatic record across some 420,000 years).

Ronald Numbers gave a talk at Andrews that reviewed Adventist struggles with geology and evolutionary biology that included GRI though the mid 1970’s. This became a full length article featured in the January 1979 issue of Spectrum (Vol. IX, No. 4, pages 17-30) entitled, “’Sciences of Satanic Origin’ Adventist Attitudes Toward Evolutionary Biology and Geology.” A more up to date survey of the GRI was covered by Numbers on pages 290-298 of his excellent work, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Knopf, 1992).

In the ensuing years since, I have remained interested in things geological. One of my favorite experiences is to fly across the landscape of the upper northwest towards Seattle. Occasionally the flight pattern will be slightly below Montana’s Flathead Lake where, from 35,000 ft, one can easily see gigantic ripple bars that have been traced to the catastrophic emptying of Glacial Lake Missoula. The wall of water spilled out over eastern Washington, carving out Grand Coulee and what is now called, the “channeled scablands.” The colossal gouging can even be detected in photographs taken by Landsat remote sensing satellites.

The 60,000 orbital images of Mars gathered from Viking spacecraft stunned scientists when they revealed extensive networks of channels and valleys in the Martian landscape easily dwarfing our own Grand Canyon. In the 1982 book The Channels of Mars, Victor R. Baker utilized the Lake Missoula flood terrain as an analog to understand the mind boggling devastation seen in the orbital imagery of Mars. More recently, Rover spacecraft have traveled the surface of Mars, in part to further confirm the Martian flood hypothesis.

Missing from the creationist’s arsenal justifying a short chronology is a fair accounting of terrestrial evidence representative of flood topography. In the channeled scablands of Washington we see what happened when a body of water about half the volume of Lake Michigan suddenly emptied across the landscape. Invoking a disastrous worldwide flood suggests catastrophic, hydrologic devastation on a massive scale that would be hard to miss virtually anywhere. Wouldn’t that rival what we readily see on the surface of Mars?

I am grateful for past dialogs with the GRI staff, not for what they said publicly but rather for their more candid assessments expressed privately. Those revelations, while initially troubling, precipitated my spiritual and intellectual growth in ways I hadn’t anticipated. I cannot thank them enough.

Bruce

Bruce, this confirms what others have observed: the church members are not being addressed truthfully. There is apparently a feeling that the "children" must be protected from the scientific and accurate findings. Attempting to bolster the church's official position of a 6-day literal creation, they have chosen to ignore the very obvious and well-publicized information now readily available. George McReady Price would be twirling in his grave!

I need to ask a question - why do we assume that the "death" promised Adam and Eve upon their disobedience is the biological death all living things experience? Even for the literalist, there seems to be a problem when Adam and Eve didn't die "the day they did eat". The only consequence for eating the apple was that they lost their childish innocence.

Again, for the literalist, don't natural biological processes require death at least on the cellular level? Did these processes change instantaneously when Adam ate the apple? Did the pristine creation not operate by the same laws of biology we study today? I realize that the metabolic process of catabolism can hardly be compared to the death of an individual, or can't it? What is it that causes us to age and eventually die if not the breaking down of the balance between the positive and negative biological processes? Did God not create this process and didn't it include death on some level? If so, why is death on that basic cellular level acceptable to a literal reading of Genesis?

Another question - did babies not take nine months to develop into maturity before sin entered the scene? In that process of development, don't cells die?

Did sin produce bacteria which feeds off dead tissue? Did the leaves not fall in the garden; and what was supposed to happen to all the waste produced by these living creatures? What would have controlled the insect population which has a much faster rate of population growth?

If we marvel at how nature is wonderfully intertwined and functions with precision aren't we accepting death as part of the picture? Evidently size isn't a factor in what is important to God. Compared to the enormous size of the universe, life on earth isn't even a drop in the bucket, yet we trust that God cares for us. That being taken for granted, why wouldn't God care about life on the small scale? Death is death; and death is a natural process in a world we credit as having been created by a loving God.

When the odds against life existing on this earth are calculated by science, only then is the true miracle of human existence evident. When we realize that the earth and the life on it should never have been possible by the laws of science (entropy); and that most of the universe exists to give this earth the equilibrium needed for it to exist, the miracle is magnified even more.

Maybe the man of faith isn't the one that dismisses "God's book of nature" in preference to the perceived "Book of God's Word"; but rather the man who respects them both and has faith that they are both sourced by a God who loves His creation.

The Bible makes it clear that a Christian should not fear the death of the body. This seems to say that what died in the garden the day Adam and Eve ate the apple was something that only Christ was able to revive in us.

Is faith the belief of the unbelievable?

Hi Elaine,

Thanks for the positive feedback. Much as fanatical Muslims reject and rail against modernity so have efforts of certain SDA administrators over the recent decades kept the laity in the Dark Ages, so to speak, on matters such as these. It could have been different.

Ron Numbers outlined some of the progress and ultimate regression within GRI in the two sources cited above. Another heartrending insider view of GRI for the period from a former staff member is to be found in the August 1984 issue of Spectrum (Vol. 15, No.2 pages 23-31).

Ed Lugenbeal wrote of what could have been in the article, “The Conservative Restoration at Geoscience.” One telling observation borne of the pain of experience Lugenbeal made was, “Many progressives felt that once their conservative brethren (scientists, administrators or educators) saw the data they would take the only course open to reasonable men and reevaluate their traditional positions. This assumption was naïve.”

Elaborating, he explained how this came about:

“Conservatives and progressives pursued different strategies in the search for harmony between Genesis and geology. Progressives were willing to accept the weight of contemporary scientific evidence and change their theology in order to achieve harmony. They were willing to keep open multiple theological hypotheses and live with uncertainty…

“Conservatives were willing to achieve harmony only by trying to revolutionize contemporary science. They steadfastly refused to compromise what seemed to them ‘fundamental’ theological positions whose alteration undermined the essence of Adventism. Included in these fundamental positions were the age of the earth, the literal creation week, and the universal Flood. The real differences at the Geoscience Research Institute were theological, not scientific. The theological differences came down to disagreement concerning what aspects of Adventist religious ideology were negotiable. If the two sides had ever reached theological agreement, the so called scientific differences would have vanished.”

(pages 24-25)

The top down clamping of progressive efforts torpedoed for a generation enlightenment and understanding on the ascendancy. However, the extensive denominational purges of much of the church’s intelligencia and human capital late last century insured a regressive outcome. Maybe a newer generation, without having to reinvent the wheel, can yet make the difference.

Sirje, I applaud your questions. Your mentioning the Adam and Eve dilemma reminded me of something I read in Rabbi Harold S. Kushner’s work, The Lord is My Shepherd (Anchor Books, 2003). On pages 167-168 he writes:

“Go back and reread chapter three of Genesis, the puzzling story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Note that before Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit they are described as ‘naked but feeling no shame’ (Genesis 2:25). But the very first thing that happens after they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is that they realize they are naked, feel embarrassed by it, and try to hide from God’s sight. Why are they ashamed when there is literally no one else in the world to see them? My understanding of the story is that acquiring a knowledge of good and evil marks their transition from childhood to adolescence. Isn’t that the difference between a child and a teenager, that a child can only be obedient or disobedient to parents and teachers, but a teenager has to make his or her own moral decisions about right and wrong a thousand times a day? I see Adam and Eve after they eat the forbidden fruit as adolescents, brand-new to the world of knowing right and wrong, new to the challenge of making moral choices, insecure about their body image, uncomfortable at the prospect of being judged, risking being told that they had done wrong and would be punished…

“Remember, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. But after they ate the fruit and acquired a knowledge of good and evil, their attitude toward sexuality changed. It was no longer a simple matter of being guided by nature and instinct, as it is for other animals. It took on a frantic dimension, a quest for intimacy and closeness, a reprieve from loneliness, a reassurance of being desired. (Sounds very adolescent to me.)”

I can see the rabbi’s point. Maybe the death to be feared and yet pushed through was life change whereby one dies to one aspect of self and is reborn anew. That can certainly feel like a death. In that way, they did die, although not physically.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

Bruce

Thanks, Sirje, you ask such insightful and provocative questions. My late pathologist-husband used to wonder about such similar problems as portrayed so very sparsely in Genesis.

Also, thanks to you Bruce for your further explanation of the inside tactics between the GRI and administration. Sounds something like a return to the 19th century, doesn't it? Guess that's what Cliff Goldstein and his fellow-travelers would like to see.

"And then there is the very question of design. Scientists say that when living things are examined, their design more often reflects something that has been cobbled together rather than something designed perfectly from scratch."
Posted by: Beth (not verified) | 15 February 2008 at 9:53

There's so much in your posts I agree with that my response in regards to "design" may not express genuine disagreement. You've given this subject much careful thought and I appreciate your honesty.

Male and female breasts/nipples? Prostate and testes? Isn't it amazing that sex differentiation is goal directed - under neurohormonal control from the beginning of conception? Who can say where really is the best functional location for each part? Form follows function, we're told. Usually but not always. My sense is, whether or not there was a perfect designer who started everything from scratch, a good structure especially for living organisms should have lots of room for normal variations and future modifications in light of possible malfunction (sin?)

I'm reminded of Paul Brand and Philip Yancey's "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made" book. Good design is more than science; it's also like art or beauty which is in the eyes of the beholder.

Isaiah 45(The Message)

9-10"Does clay talk back to the potter:
'What are you doing? What clumsy fingers!'
Would a sperm say to a father,
'Who gave you permission to use me to make a baby?'
Or a fetus to a mother,
'Why have you cooped me up in this belly?'"

Joselito, Stephen Jay Gould has argued that flexibility gives a big boost to survival. Not perfect adaptation to the present environment but the ability to reasonably adapt to a wider environment. I think he would have agreed with what you are saying about room for variations. Although he would not have seen it as evidence for a creator. It's true that perhaps even something "perfectly designed" may not look like it for a specific function because it also has the flexibility built in.

We certainly have a lot to learn about why structures are the way they are. Personally I find the evolutionary view very exciting and dynamic - that things are in a state of flux and change. It is fascinating to me to see how similar bones can form a bat wing, a human arm and hand, and a whale flipper. It is amazing to see in the fossil record how jaw bones moved to become the inner ear bones in mammals.

It is spiritually meaningful to me to know that I am related to every living thing - that I am a part of the web of life. I used to cringe when I was with my kids in SS and they would be told how God made the beautiful flowers for us to enjoy. The dominion view creates a separation that robs us of the sense of connection I think.

One can look at design as a scientist and ask "Why is this the way it is?" This leads to many more questions and a lifetime of inquiry. One can also look at design and say, "It is that way because that is how God did it and who are we to question?" which, while perhaps theologically satisfying, tends to kill the inquiry. I like to follow the scientist view while always recognizing that this is how God did it. Or at least our best understanding of how God did it at the time. I don't understand why God did it this way and I don't always like the impressions it gives of God but it opens a huge and beautiful world of understanding.

Looking at human anatomy, biology and physiology, it is not so easy to always discern an "Intelligent Design." Joselito has mentioned only some, there are many more that should be apparent to anyone, especially the health professional. Parts of the body seem inherently destined for breakdown and problems which stem directly from that design.

Beth, looks like our posts overlapped!

Your excellent comments brings to mind the absolute ecological dependence between humans, animals and plants. I live in central California where the almonds and other fruits are just beginning to bloom. The huge and unknown loss of bees is a very real problem because for almonds, especially, no bees equals no almonds: the trees are totally dependent on bees for their pollination. All the other foods from this county, which is world's largest food producer, is dependent to some extent on the bee population and natural environment which cannot be controlled. In addition to the necessity of bees, there is water for irrigation. While much of the rest of the country depends on rain, this part of the U.S. also does, but the rain and snow season in winter must be sufficient to fill our lakes and reservoirs to last during the year-round growing season. Fortunately, this year we have reached the normal amount, but in other years, we have been not so fortunate.

Every growing thing depends on air and water which is supplied by Nature. The weather is another most important factor over which there is little control, although we may, in the future, exert more. Man is only part of God's creation and we should respect it by our stewardship.