Should SDAs have a scientific theory of creation?

I understand there are a few Adventists here and there working on an alternative response. You might monitor the perennial discussions about evolution hosted on the Spectrum Magazine blog. I can't vouch for the intellectual quality of these efforts but it's one site of an ongoing discussion within Adventism.

One thing I'm hearing in the OP is the desire to preserve the concept of "a loving God." That could also stand in for "a personal God." In your experience, do these concepts only flow from a creationist worldview?

Perhaps it might also be helpful to say what we mean when we say "creationist."

Larger questions that I have been asking myself are less scientific and more philosophical. Divine benevolence is one recurring topic. So are questions about Personhood. And the benefits and threats of holding both personal and impersonal conceptions.

Don't want to swing you too far afield though. Again, searching Spectrum might point you in new directions. Or might help you recap what you've already found. Don't know.

You might also check out the Geoscience Research Institute site. The GRI is an official Adventist institute.

Laodicean, I wonder if there's something of a conflation here of the materialistic theories around data describing changes over long periods of time, and the data themselves.

With the recent controversies in Adventist higher ed, I found myself more deeply concerned about how we treated our scientists than about their current course curricula or pedagogy. If we make Adventist education a hostile environment for scientists to study science, and engage their disciplines' theories, literatures, and assumptions; if we demand a priori that they draw certain conclusions about the data they investigate -- as Paulsen's recent statements have; and if we invest a lot of energy in vetting their research for conformity to our doctrines or dogma, we harm them, their students, and our systems. Because it's no longer knowledge-making. It's a justifying endeavor.

I think it is worthy for Adventist scholars to engage any disciplinary question, not as "Adventists" but as questers. The search to learn leads where it may. I do not believe in privileging our tradition for its own sake; nor am I a great fan of denominational apologetic; if a concept is sound and meant to last it will. If it is weak and prone to falling away, we should let it go. If expansion is needed, we'll discover it; if reinterpretation is necessary; we'll discover that too. That's been my experience.

So, yes, it is valuable for any scientist who is also Adventist to engage any scientific question, natural data included. It would also be helpful for Adventism to get over its traditional suspicion of philosophy and encourage deep and critical exploration of the common themes in that field. Theology itself is a philosophical enterprise but, in a lot of ways, ours has been cut off from the wider branch and it impoverishes our contributions to the wider community. It's true that many philosophy departments in state schools are hard places to advance theist positions -- but this is in part because theists have backed away and backed away, and now have no ground there to stand on. If we want to contribute to the whole, then we have a lot of catching up to do. I suppose that is another question to ask: are our comprehensive efforts designed to massage our current ideas in-place, or are we willing to pick up our tent if called to do so? Doctrinally we have done so several times.

As an example, Rich Rice's open theism made some big waves in the wider community of theologists and philosophers 30 years ago -- and has some implications for the unfolding of nature and time, and for the theological objections to seeing changes in natural data. But our own publishers chose not to reprint his work on that subject because the church wasn't ready for it or willing to receive the questions it raised; it has fallen to people outside the church to recognize the value of the idea and support its development, challenging it, expanding it, and refining it. There are alternative models to open theism in and outside Adventism, just as there are a million ways to interpret natural bio, chemical, geological, palentological, and cultural data -- but without an atmosphere that supports genuine dialogue and eschews the inquisition, knowledge-making doesn't happen on a grand scale. In my experience it happens with incredible resistance.

These are some of the issues that would have to be raised if there were to be an organized and credible scholarly effort in any domain, study of natural data included. We can't be served more tea if our cup is already full.

AzA said:

I suppose that is another question to ask: are our comprehensive efforts designed to massage our current ideas in-place, or are we willing to pick up our tent if called to do so? Doctrinally we have done so several times.

Click to expand...

This was ambiguous.
I meant to say that we have both tried to justify our current assumptions and we have also moved our tents. So I know we have the capacity to do either.

Laodicean said:

So do you think that it would be a useful, even life-changing thing for SDAs to put forward a scientific theory of creation?

Click to expand...

If we wish to honor those pursing science in our academic institutions, we will teach science - period. Not from any world view or perspective that demands we work backwards to explain the evidence. Science does not need our "help." That's why we have the fruits of science all around us - including the capacity to have this conversation at a distance.

If the creation/evolution question determines whether somebody embraces or rejects God, it's not about science, it's about relationship.

What would a SDA scientific theory really consist of given that science suggests that some things would take longer than a day to come into being.... if we try to prove the biblical narrative then it is not a scientific theory I don't think....

Laodicean said:

Should we be able to supply satisfactory answers that do not undermine their view of a personal and loving God, or is it even important that they maintain such a positive view of God?

Click to expand...

Laodicean said:

Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say that if creation/evolution determines whether we believe in God or not, that it would not be because of the science, but because of one's relationship to God.

Click to expand...

If learning about evolution undermines a person's relationship with God, the problem is with the relationship - or lack thereof. There is a difference between a changing concept of God and a changing sense of God.

What our young people sometimes reject when they enter the sciences is not God, but a concept of God. If we don't help them grow their concept of God as they grow, we force a choice that need not be.

Laodicean said:

AzA, I read the Openness of God a few years ago, and found it quite thought provoking and stimulating. I liked Rice's approach to the subject of freewill and how that affects the way God relates to His created beings. If I had any disagreements with Rice's position, I can't remember them now. I'd probably need to read him again. Has this been discussed on this forum? I would be interested in following a thread on that subject, if you have the name of that thread.

Click to expand...

Hey sis -- I'm actually comparatively new here, and so don't know if the book itself has been discussed. We have discussed broader issues around freewill and sovereignty since I've been here, though. They flow into other topics so often come up indirectly.

Laodicean said:

I didn't realize there was a problem for scientists within our educational institutions. Where can that information be found? On Spectrum? I'd appreciate any pointers you can give in that direction.

Click to expand...

As Dr. Wiseby notes in this letter, there were accusations made against the science faculty of La Sierra during the late spring of 2009. Interest groups of all types sprang up to press the issue, Spectrum and AToday magazines both hosted some discussions about it, and the controversy paused with a statement by President Paulsen. The issue even made it into a couple of higher ed magazines over summer because it highlights our denominational approach to intellectual inquiry and academic freedom -- and that's an issue that nonAdventist scholars are sensitive to. I will put it out there that the church does not have a robust official policy in favor of academic freedom. It does instead have an institutional conservation policy that confuses the status quo and/or majority view with our clearest picture of reality. Some of my former professors understand why many of their students are choosing not to submit to that. I do see some hope in the fact that the La Sierra administration supported its professors much more than my alma mater does or than the international church administration does.

This is my puppy in the ring in part because I have been training as a scholar for the last 12 years and in part because so much of Adventist eschatology centers on the question of respect for freedoms. From my perspective, people who fear the loss of freedoms should be extra cautious about withdrawing them from others. But that is not what we're discussing here, or what you'd prefer to discuss -- I know, so I won't go on. I do feel it's an important part of our context, though. Whatever we teach, and whatever ideas our specialists generate in the course of their work, they will get disseminated or dismissed in the Adventist higher ed system, in Adventist publishing houses and papers. The broader question of how we seek and share knowledge in our church affects the utility of our knowledge search.

Laodicean said:

Is there a felt need for good answers to the questions being asked by some of our youth? Or are we simply sending them to mainstream science for their answers? Are we abdicating our responsibility to think for ourselves by doing so?

Click to expand...

Two passages from Education that I grew to love (after being required to memorize them!) are the following. I love them because of the ideal they point to:In my experience of Adventist education, I'm not sure this ideal is well realized. I often see a false choice: keeping the kids in an alternative world of information, an intellectual pro-dogma ghetto if you will, OR sending them into the secular wild to be overrun by faith-sapping scholars.

I don't think that's a real choice at all. It's a defense mechanism. One that, as we both know, doesn't really work. What happens when you educate people in the lines that White proposed above is that you release them to learn, not just from authorized sources like White, but also from those that you don't control and can't vet. Education is one of the highest freedoms. If you release someone to go study nature or learn through Spirit, you are setting yourself up to produce an untamed mind. Nature can be channeled but not controlled by men for long, and Spirit can't be controlled by any one.

I personally value engagement: with those who are already having the conversations that we're interested in or concerned about and those who are already building various models. Contributing to the existing thought stream instead of setting up a private reservoir.

You've obviously spent a number of years reading in this particular subject, so you probably already know that the last time Adventists contributed in a serious way to the discourse of evolution/creation, we fueled Young-Earth Creationism and 20th C fundamentalism by arguing that the Flood was what corrupted the geo-record and could explain away long-age timelines. To the best of my knowledge, that is our most significant contribution up to this point: advancing and strengthening YEC. George Price was our man on this. As Ellen White's treatments of the Flood and geology show, it was and remains a highly defensive contribution.

Do you think our denomination is now ready to contribute to this subject in a non-defensive way? I haven't gotten that sense from the institution, though individual scientists continue to do their individual work. If we can't be anything but defensive en masse, though, I think we'd be better served taking a few more decades to cool off.

Laodicean said:

I don't think that you answered my question directly, but by your thoughtful response, am I correct to conclude that you are on the fence? That if someone on the street were to ask you whether evolution or creation was correct, that you would say, "I don't know"?

Click to expand...

I might first ask them about their definitions of each and ask them why they thought they were in conflict. And I'd hope to engage them in conversation about that.

At the level I function at, where I live and meet people at, descriptions and theories of evolution try to describe processes and changes. The aim is plausibility and coherence given the evidence and given what is now a teeming field of complementary disciplines in science, technology, and social technology.

Creationist theories and stories try to describe origins, natures, and relationships. The aim is to point to non-material realities and identify where/how they intersect or have intersected with material realities: where we started, where we are, where we might go. There is tremendous variation within both kinds of classes of idea.

Evolution as a process theory is also distinct from materialism, a philosophy that assumes matter is all that's Real. I don't hold materialist premises; I don't hold dualist premises either as many creationists do. My premises are holist. I also distinguish process theories from speculations about meaning, cause, or trajectory.

At present, if and when I have cause to engage the debate, I don't engage it at content level. I went through a couple of phases where the content was more important to me but I'm not there at present. This doesn't mean I'm not invested in the implications of our debating; I am. I care a great deal about the people involved and how they relate to each other.

And I'm sorry this post was so long (edit: I split it apart again). Hopefully, though, it gives you a bit more info about me.

I believe Bible believing Christians should believe in creation ergo all Adventists etc. I am starting science this year. And have dont a bit of research with creation vs evolution debate.

Some things we cant answer and some things evolutionists cant answer.

Can we give them answers that make sense, that conform to the laws of nature, and that will still allow God to remain within their worldview?

Click to expand...

Yes. For an example. the age of the Earth at max has to be about 100,000 yrs old. Carbon -14 has been found in all three geological eras. 100,000 years is way to young for all the process of evolution to occur.

Well, after a number of years of delving into the world of science, myself, I am convinced that what seem like insurmountable problems for creation theory can be resolved and hammered out into a respectable and scientifc creationist worldview. Geological column? Worldwide flood? Age of the earth? Similarities between chimps and humans?

Click to expand...

'

There are some great creation books addressing this...(Warning some if not most creation books are seriously pseudo-science) One Book with helped me understand better was Thousands not Billions. Its a great book.

That happened to my son. He studied his way out of the church and is now an atheist. He quotes a lot of evolutionary literature as evidence that the universe self assembled, and that, therefore, there is no need for a god.

Click to expand...

I am not saying your son thought it out, but I was going to be an atheist as well. These are the three scientific reasons why I did not become an atheist:

Abiogenesis Life has never been created from non life (without supernatural help) If you want to believe in evolution fair enough, but so many Scientists are theistic evolutionsts. AS they understand the impossibility of life being created from non-life. No matter the temperature, the time, the elements present.

Information. Information is not randomly created. Java script wasnt created by a monkey with a type writer but intelligent people. So is the script of life - DNA. DNA is unimaginably complex. DNA did not evolve but was created. Created by a being.

Lastly the law of entropy. For something to go to disorder there must of been a time in the universe when everything was perfect. That it had a beginning and after that beginning disorder began. Something had to start the big bang...

solja247 said:

Some things we cant answer and some things evolutionists cant answer.

Click to expand...

Which is why there is a middle position which is called Theistic Evolution. One of the important things to remember in the discussion is that evolution is very much a reality. The principles of natural selection are well established. Creationists often pretend evolution is only a theory but when pressed they will admit to micro evolution. But that of course is also evolution. The second important fact to consider is that there is a lot of ancillary science that is involved. such as radiometric dating which is based upon a lot of high level math. When the creationists start down the YEC path they discredit those sciences as well. As we all should know science has been the most successful human endeavors and when you act as if it is just a bunch of nonsense you make yourself look foolish.

Will the Adventist church ever have a scientific Creation theory? No it won't, even within the area of evolutionary theory it is constantly changing, Today's evolutionary theory is very different from what Darwin thought. Science always progresses and so should religion.

RC_NewProtestants said:

Which is why there is a middle position which is called Theistic Evolution.

Click to expand...

A majority of mainline Protestants "agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth." (Pew Forum, 2008)

What's interesting about this survey is that 77% of Jews also agree with this explanation. 80% of Hindus. And 81% of Buddhists.

I would guess that we will see the percentage in mainline Protestantism go up significantly in the next decade or two.

This presents a challenge, as Laodicean suggests, because many Christians consider a literal interpretation of Genesis intrinsic to their belief in God. This is even more true in Adventism because of the perceived connection between Sabbath and the creation story.

It's my sense that our greatest work is examining our corporate concept of God. As long as our theology in any way hinges on this issue, we are in a precarious position. Although relieving the symptom doesn't address the more systemic issue - which is that it could make a difference to begin with. To my point about relationship.

I know my friends exist, because I have a relationship with them. Nothing about a creation/evolution debate impedes my knowledge of this.

.

some ideas die a very hard death.... it is interesting to observe the mental gymnastics some engage in rather than believe the evidence before them... I remember asking someone once how dinosaurs came to be, and they replied that we don't know that dinosaurs actually existed, "people" could just be arranging the bones to make it look like dinosaurs....

My belief in The Creator is not shaken if I choose not to believe in a literal 7 day creation week....