Should SDAs have a scientific theory of creation?

[Byfaithalone1]

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

Similarly, my belief in the Creator does not hinge on my belief in a literal 7-day creation week.

Avonia: This presents a challenge, as Laodicean suggests, because many Christians consider a literal interpretation of Genesis intrinsic to their belief in God.

What is the problem? Is the problem that the minority of people who believe in a literal creation week will discover that they were wrong? Or is the problem that the majority of people who believe in some aspect of evolution will discover that they were wrong? What is at stake here?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Similarly, my belief in the Creator does not hinge on my belief in a literal 7-day creation week.

Did this shift for you when you left Adventism? Or was it a space you already held?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Did this shift for you when you left Adventism? Or was it a space you already held?

I'm not sure if I can pinpoint the moment exactly. So many of my thought processes have evolved over time. Overall, my mindset began to rapidly shift when I began to realize my own propensity to be passionately wrong.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Overall, my mindset began to rapidly shift when I began to realize my own propensity to be passionately wrong.

Me too. And the story continues . . .

 

[solja247]

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

Theistic evolution to me is like saying; 'I am a Christian but Mohammad was prophet from God.' (You see how there is a paradox?)

Some Christians can only accept evolution, if they become atheist.

One of the important things to remember in the discussion is that evolution is very much a reality.

Alistair mcgrath said words to the effect: '100 years from now we may believe in something completely different, but at the moment evolution makes the most sense.'

And it does it make a lot of sense. I am not going to be a creationist who says, '[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] you are so wrong blah blah blah.' It does make sense.

So does creation. both sides have evidence.

Creationists often pretend evolution is only a theory but when pressed they will admit to micro evolution.

The word 'micro evolution' confuses a lot of people, like the word 'global warming'
Micro evolution is just as good as a virus in a computer.

Lets look at Beetle X and Beetle Y. Beetle X can fly. Beetle Y mutated so he can no longer fly.
Beetle X has the genetic information to fly. Beetle Y has lost it and wont be able to re-obtain it or evolve to get wings.

You see how it is more like de-evolution than 'micro evolution'?

If a salt water fish 'learns' , 'knows' etc. how to swim in fresh water is that micro evolution or adaptation?

such as radiometric dating which is based upon a lot of high level math.

Based on a hell lot of assumptions. X doesnt = Y.

Will the Adventist church ever have a scientific Creation theory?

You should rephrase that, will the Adventist church ever believe the evolution theory?

No it won't.

 

[Avonia]

Theistic evolution to me is like saying; 'I am a Christian but Mohammad was prophet from God.' (You see how there is a paradox?)

What makes you think Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God? And what does acknowledging that he was a prophet have to do with being a Christian?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Theistic evolution to me is like saying; 'I am a Christian but Mohammad was prophet from God.' (You see how there is a paradox?)

No I see a false analogy. There is no paradox because in both Christianity and theistic evolution there is a God who is the cause of creation.

Some Christians can only accept evolution, if they become atheist.

well of course because there are people like you who say you can't be a Christian and believe in theistic evolution. You don't even have a good reason but are certain you are right. People get tired of hearing that and once they know more about science they see the evidence. You I don't think have learned enough of the evidence yet so you don't see the reality. I was like that also. I remember reading the YEC books and stuff by Ken Ham. But it does not really work but it takes a while to see that when you have been raised that creation is the fact and that creation was of a completely formed world. For me it came when I was taking an Astronomy class at a community college. It was taught by this very bright Nigerian who for whatever reason was teaching Astronomy, his area of expertise and training was micro-fossils. Once you realize the vast amount of information in fossil beds from micro-fossils you have to re-evaluate things. In that area you see bacteria and pollen and they can be identified. It turns out that the oldest fossils are beds of cyanobacteria (blue green algae) Which we find without any pollen which today is pretty much present everywhere. Of course since then I have learned of far more problems that simply don't fit with the literal creation story, which by the way I see little evidence the story was meant to be taken literally anyway but that is another issue.


Alistair mcgrath said words to the effect: '100 years from now we may believe in something completely different, but at the moment evolution makes the most sense.'

And it does it make a lot of sense. I am not going to be a creationist who says, '[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] you are so wrong blah blah blah.' It does make sense.

So does creation. both sides have evidence.

This is where many people change tactics. the evidence of creation is that we have complex life and life forms and earth cycles. None of those things goes against theistic evolution at all.

The word 'micro evolution' confuses a lot of people, like the word 'global warming'
Micro evolution is just as good as a virus in a computer.

Lets look at Beetle X and Beetle Y. Beetle X can fly. Beetle Y mutated so he can no longer fly.
Beetle X has the genetic information to fly. Beetle Y has lost it and wont be able to re-obtain it or evolve to get wings.

You see how it is more like de-evolution than 'micro evolution'?

Yes most mutations are de-evolution but not all, that is why we have drug resistant bacteria. That is why we have the famous Finches of the Galapagos islands where the changes result in specialized beaks which correspond to the various particular food sources. Natural selection encourages a mutation that is beneficial to be more successful for the organism and thus reproduce with it's particular change.

If a salt water fish 'learns' , 'knows' etc. how to swim in fresh water is that micro evolution or adaptation?

Learning to live in a different hypertonic or hypotonic environment is not really even close to accurate.

Based on a hell lot of assumptions. X doesnt = Y.

Most of that is math and not really assumptions at all. Math tends to not work on assumptions very well.

You should rephrase that, will the Adventist church ever believe the evolution theory?

No it won't.

Here you are probably right. since the Adventist church is so heavily invested in Ellen White it will probably always revert to her understanding of things.

 

[solja247]

No I see a false analogy. There is no paradox because in both Christianity and theistic evolution there is a God who is the cause of creation.

It would appear that probability and time created the world to be like it is, not God.

well of course because there are people like you who say you can't be a Christian and believe in theistic evolution. You don't even have a good reason but are certain you are right. People get tired of hearing that and once they know more about science they see the evidence. You I don't think have learned enough of the evidence yet so you don't see the reality. I was like that also. I remember reading the YEC books and stuff by Ken Ham. But it does not really work but it takes a while to see that when you have been raised that creation is the fact and that creation was of a completely formed world. For me it came when I was taking an Astronomy class at a community college. It was taught by this very bright Nigerian who for whatever reason was teaching Astronomy, his area of expertise and training was micro-fossils. Once you realize the vast amount of information in fossil beds from micro-fossils you have to re-evaluate things. In that area you see bacteria and pollen and they can be identified. It turns out that the oldest fossils are beds of cyanobacteria (blue green algae) Which we find without any pollen which today is pretty much present everywhere. Of course since then I have learned of far more problems that simply don't fit with the literal creation story, which by the way I see little evidence the story was meant to be taken literally anyway but that is another issue.

Unfortunately some creationists write so simple that their books are pseudo-science.

The fossil record shows that species and organisms have not evolved over time, but rather stayed very much the same.

What did trilobites evolve from?

This is where many people change tactics. the evidence of creation is that we have complex life and life forms and earth cycles. None of those things goes against theistic evolution at all.

I'll name a few more.

We havent ever found a missing link.
We havent found life on another planet.
We havent seen humans evolve physically. In the thousands of years humans have been able to record and write we havent changed. You are just like David from the Bible, He lived thousands of years ago, yet no evolution has taken place. (Its more like de-evolution)

Yes most mutations are de-evolution but not all, that is why we have drug resistant bacteria.

Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved.

Learning to live in a different hypertonic or hypotonic environment is not really even close to accurate.

Some evolutionists I have debated with believe that is evolution. I was just wondering if you believed in similar.

Most of that is math and not really assumptions at all. Math tends to not work on assumptions very well.

Assumptions as follows.

That it hasnt been contaminated.
That decay rates have always been the same.
That it actually tells us how old the Earth is.


What I find interesting is that diamonds, they are a closed system. Yet when tested carbon -14 was found? Since as far back we can date with carbon dating is about 100, 000 yrs the Earth can at max be that age.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I wrote:

No I see a false analogy. There is no paradox because in both Christianity and theistic evolution there is a God who is the cause of creation.
​

Soljia answered:
"It would appear that probability and time created the world to be like it is, not God. "

Wow I wonder why we insert the theistic part in "theistic evolution". I guess we are just really stupid, good thing the creationists are out there to tell us what we think!

Soljia wrote:
"Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved."

Ok clearly you have never taken a microbiology class or had any medical training. Well I don't have time to teach you but I would suggest that if you are debating science related things this includes your false ideas about Carbon 14 dating that you learn something about the topics. Just to help you out a little the drug resistant bacteria are drug resistant in the Petri dish it has nothing to do with the body's antibodies not recognizing the bacteria.

I put the link to the article and picture above but just out of curiosity I want to see if I can put the picture here:

 

[solja247]

sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.

I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)

 

[StormyOne]

sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.

I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)

we've all been 18 once... and most of us at various times throughout our lives probably have felt as you do i.e. we know more than others... as my mother use to often tell me, "there is enough you don't know to make two more worlds...."

Continue to live and learn... and enjoy it...

 

[Avonia]

sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.

I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)

Your stance on this demonstrates an awareness that many of us didn't have at 18. Well done. You are teachable! It's one of the greatest compliments.

We are all with you in terms of just starting the path of learning. Age helps a bit. Teachability makes a much greater difference than age.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Your stance on this demonstrates an awareness that many of us didn't have at 18. Well done. You are teachable! It's one of the greatest compliments.

We are all with you in terms of just starting the path of learning. Age helps a bit. Teachability makes a much greater difference than age.

Sadly, I didn't develop this awareness util I was well into my 30s (and I am only now begining to explore it fully). Souljah is light years ahead of me.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.

I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)

Ah yes I remember those days...not to well anymore but I remember when I thought I had the answers, it was also in the High school time frame. College will quickly knock that out of you as it did for many of the rest of us. Yet even after college I was in the YEC camp. That time in the Astronomy class was a few years later when I was thinking of getting a Biology minor for use as a potential teaching career.

Today some of the best thinkers in Intelligent Design are also believers in evolution. One good book I think is "Signature in the cell", which I have not read but have heard the author speak on. These guys in general no longer try to discredit the idea of evolution but when you get down to the cellular level changes, natural selection no longer applies. So we know the changes occur the question still remains as to why the changes occur especially now on the molecular level. I am not trying to say God is causing the changes but the changes seem to be somehow programmed. Like everything else with such amazing advances in science it becomes ever more specialized. And we have to acknowledge the abilities and research these numerous specialties.

What the church cannot do is ignore the science. That unfortunately is what they are trying to do right now. That is what Educatetruth.com is all about. It actually is related to my latest blog post.

 

[Laodicean]

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.

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.

Shabbat Shalom, AzA! Isn't it nice that God gave us this day to become centered again in Him; to remember that He is our Creator and our Recreator? And along with that privilege also comes time to converse with you

Thanks for the inside information. I need to break out of my orbit and pay more attention to what's going on in the church family. Do you happen to know where Andrews University (my alma mater) stands on this? I used to read a bit of Spectrum back in the '90s, and a bit of Adventist Today, but got preoccupied and stopped following them. I see they are online, so will have to catch up.

I really like this gem of yours: People who fear the loss of freedoms should be extra cautious about withdrawing them from others. How true! On the level of a family unit, however, that can be a more difficult stance to maintain when you feel that someone else's freedom is threatening to undermine the faith that you have been trying to instill into your children. Do you let such a one (or ones) have access to the minds of your children, in the name of freedom, or banish them from your world in hopes of keeping your children safe from their insinuations of doubts? I imagine that is somewhat the way our church organization feels about allowing free reign to new ideas that are not accepted by the majority?

Hmmm....this subject would make an interesting thread, I think, but let me get back to the topic on hand for now.

 

[Avonia]

Do you let such a one (or ones) have access to the minds of your children, in the name of freedom, or banish them from your world in hopes of keeping your children safe from their insinuations of doubts?

This reminds me of something I read on a website about cults - here's a blurb:

"Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true. " (from howcultswork.com)

 

[Laodicean]

Ahh, more food for thought, AzA. And, yes, I like those quotes from EGW on true education. Quite a high standard to meet.

George McCready Price, unfortunately, imo, took a YEC position, which is more difficult to validate. I wish we had had better answers at the time my son read his book and rejected it. It seems, at the time, that that was the only position SDAs had to offer. We needed better answers.

You asked:

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.

lol. I hope we don't have even a "few more decades" to cool off!

And I don't know, anyway, if our denomination is equipped to contribute to the subject if our scientists are going down the path of toeing the line of mainstream science. It will only cause conflict between the theologians and the scientists because mainstream science is not in harmony with SDA beliefs. What I don't get is why we have allowed others to tell us how the data should be interpreted, as if the only way the data can be understood is one way and no other way.

And what happened to being the head and not the tail? To work our way up closer to the head would mean bringing fresh perspectives and alternatives to the scientific data, not embracing unquestioningly the interpretations of the data currently in vogue. Is it the mockery that intimidates us from striking out on fresh ideas in relation to the data? Or is it the the posturing of superiority and authoritarianism that afflicts the mainstream, that holds us back?

I wish I knew.

 

[Laodicean]

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.

Oh, not to worry about the length of your post, AzA. When the content promotes so much mental stimulation, then "long" becomes "short." It would be interesting to learn more about what a holistic worldview looks like. Care to elaborate?

Meanwhile, back to the subject at hand. Am I correct to understand that, for you, the bottom line is that there is no problem with creation and macroevolution being in the same lifeboat? That their partnership cannot be blamed for having made the mother ship sink? That the problem lies elsewhere, and so, surely, now, the lifeboat won't capsize?

 

[StormyOne]

This reminds me of something I read on a website about cults - here's a blurb:

"Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true. " (from howcultswork.com)

yeah.... interesting indeed.... I have taught my kids to question everything, even what I tell them.... makes for some interesting discussions....

 

[Laodicean]

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.
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.

'

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.

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...

Interesting ideas, Solja247. And allow me to play with some of your ideas here. I'd hazard a guess that it is only this earth that suffers under the law of entropy. The rest of the universe remains perfect.

Or take DNA. I bet that is a language, not some haphazrd chance arrangement of nucleotides. Can this be demonstrated?

And I bet that, likewise, the entire material universe has a language in the form of ....superstrings? (maybe). Can that be demonstrated?

Read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Just for an understanding of raw science minus philosophy. It is fascinating, makes you think, and if you are willing to think outside of the box, some of that information can be viewed in new ways.

I hope when you start your science courses, that you will keep an open mind, question everything that comes your way, and turn a piece of datum around and around and view it from every angle. Are there other ways to understand this piece of information? Question all premises. No matter how logical and reasoned the body of work is, if it is built on an incorrect premise, the conclusion will be wrong.

Don't be afraid to challenge ideas. And most of all, remember that ridicule is the lowest form of argument, so don't be intimidated by mockery and insults. Hold your ground if you think something makes sense to you but is contrary to mainstream interpretation.

And, eventually, you will need to ask: Is there only one way that the data can be understood? Surprise, surprise...actually, yes. In the world of science, yes. Gravity is one such example. Think of Sudoku. There is only one correct position for each number. Place an item in an incorrect box and the entire puzzle goes off course. If two or more items can feasibly go into one square, then you have to withhold judgment until you are sure that no other item can go into that box but one. Unfortunately, evolutionists have rushed to put an item into a box, even when there are still other possibilities open for what goes into that box. And the entire puzzle falls aparts. That is sloppy science. And we should not buy it.

Hey, one day maybe you will be a scientist who wins a Nobel prize for a real scientific discovery. I'm rooting for you.

Oh, and one more thing, carbon 14 has a half life of only about 5,730 years. And it is used for dating only organic matter. You can't tell the age of the earth using carbon 14. Okay?