Creationism for Wisconsin

Adventists reaffirm view of creation
Posted on Fri, Nov. 05, 2004
Adventists reaffirm view of creation
By Richard N. Ostling
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Seventh-day Adventist Church authorities have reaffirmed the faith's insistence that fidelity to the Bible requires belief in "a literal, recent, six-day creation," no matter what conventional science says.

Recent means that life on Earth began over the relatively short time period suggested by a strictly literal reading of the Bible, "probably 7,000 to 10,000 years," though some Adventists think the planet itself could be billions of years old, explains Angel Rodriguez, director of the church's Biblical Research Institute.

And six days means just that -- "literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week," the Adventist decree says.

The church's statement came last month, after three years of special conferences on the issue of creation. It was approved at a meeting of the Adventists' 293-member Executive Committee at the Silver Spring, Md., headquarters of the church. The faith has 13.6 million members internationally and 936,000 in the United States.

The church's Geoscience Research Institute -- which develops materials to support Genesis literalism -- inaugurated the conferences, but no particular event sparked it, Rodriguez said. Rather, church leaders are aware that increasing numbers of Adventists worldwide face questions at colleges and "need to know how we deal with these complex issues." The statement is meant to stand as a definitive directive.

It follows decades of debate over Darwin's evolution theory in American churches and schools -- and certainly won't be the last word.

Skeptics and liberals see Genesis as outright myth, while many religionists meld the Bible's account with Darwinism. The creationist movement, launched by Adventists and others in the 1960s, champions the "young earth" timescale. Other critics of Darwin consider creationism an implausible distraction scientifically, and pursue evidence for an "intelligent design" in nature that implies a divine cause.

The Adventist church's very name proclaims its strict observance of Saturday as the Sabbath, which is fused with a literalism on creation. That, in turn, "interlocks with other doctrines" -- as the new statement puts it -- creating the foundation for Adventist belief.

Editor Bonnie Dwyer of Spectrum, an independent Adventist magazine, calls it a doctrinal domino theory that hinges on creationism.

Why is this one belief so particularly strong for Adventists?

The answer stems from the faith's special belief that founder Ellen G. White was a modern prophet who correctly interpreted the Bible. White (1827-1915) was a native of Maine and prolific writer who reported some 2,000 divinely given visions and dreams.

In one, White wrote in 1864, she was "carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week."

Ronald L. Numbers, a University of Wisconsin science historian who was raised Adventist, notes that even in the 19th century, White's position was at odds with prevailing science.

Early in the 1800s, experts had agreed upon a vast age for the Earth and for life forms found in fossils, later reinforced by techniques like radiometric dating. In Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," published five years before White's writing, the hugely ancient earth allowed time for natural selection.

Evolutionary theory shocked many conservative Christians, but they had little trouble accommodating an old earth with biblical faith. In 1909, both the Vatican and the "Scofield Reference Bible," hugely influential among fundamentalists and evangelicals, said Genesis is literal history -- but without requiring a young earth or 24-hour days.

Today, there are few young earth creationists among the 1,800 evangelical scientists in the American Scientific Affiliation, a nondenominational group that believes in God as creator and "the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible."

ASA President Martin Price reasons that God revealed himself both through the Bible and "through the creation which he made. Correctly understood, these can't be in conflict." So, if science has solid evidence against 10,000 years or six days, such interpretations of Genesis need reconsideration, he suggests.

But the Adventists are not alone. Besides independent creationist ministries, the 403,000-member Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church believes that "the creation happened in the course of six consecutive days of normal length." The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod defends a strictly literal reading of Genesis history.

Yet at Adventist colleges, according to a 1994 survey of 121 science teachers, only 43 percent agreed with the church's view that "God created live organisms during six days less than 10,000 years ago."

Nonetheless, the new policy states that the church expects "all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the Church's position on origins."

Rodriguez says teachers might harbor private questions but "still support the church in the classroom." Adventism "is not beginning a witch hunt," he adds, and lets teachers decide on their own whether they're comfortable with church policy.

Seventh-day Adventist Church authorities have reaffirmed the faith's insistence that fidelity to the Bible requires belief in "a literal, recent, six-day creation," no matter what conventional science says.

Recent means that life on Earth began over the relatively short time period suggested by a strictly literal reading of the Bible, "probably 7,000 to 10,000 years," though some Adventists think the planet itself could be billions of years old, explains Angel Rodriguez, director of the church's Biblical Research Institute.

And six days means just that -- "literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week," the Adventist decree says.

The church's statement came last month, after three years of special conferences on the issue of creation. It was approved at a meeting of the Adventists' 293-member Executive Committee at the Silver Spring, Md., headquarters of the church. The faith has 13.6 million members internationally and 936,000 in the United States.

The church's Geoscience Research Institute -- which develops materials to support Genesis literalism -- inaugurated the conferences, but no particular event sparked it, Rodriguez said. Rather, church leaders are aware that increasing numbers of Adventists worldwide face questions at colleges and "need to know how we deal with these complex issues." The statement is meant to stand as a definitive directive.

It follows decades of debate over Darwin's evolution theory in American churches and schools -- and certainly won't be the last word.

Skeptics and liberals see Genesis as outright myth, while many religionists meld the Bible's account with Darwinism. The creationist movement, launched by Adventists and others in the 1960s, champions the "young earth" timescale. Other critics of Darwin consider creationism an implausible distraction scientifically, and pursue evidence for an "intelligent design" in nature that implies a divine cause.

The Adventist church's very name proclaims its strict observance of Saturday as the Sabbath, which is fused with a literalism on creation. That, in turn, "interlocks with other doctrines" -- as the new statement puts it -- creating the foundation for Adventist belief.

Editor Bonnie Dwyer of Spectrum, an independent Adventist magazine, calls it a doctrinal domino theory that hinges on creationism.

Why is this one belief so particularly strong for Adventists?

The answer stems from the faith's special belief that founder Ellen G. White was a modern prophet who correctly interpreted the Bible. White (1827-1915) was a native of Maine and prolific writer who reported some 2,000 divinely given visions and dreams.

In one, White wrote in 1864, she was "carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week."

Ronald L. Numbers, a University of Wisconsin science historian who was raised Adventist, notes that even in the 19th century, White's position was at odds with prevailing science.

Early in the 1800s, experts had agreed upon a vast age for the Earth and for life forms found in fossils, later reinforced by techniques like radiometric dating. In Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," published five years before White's writing, the hugely ancient earth allowed time for natural selection.

Evolutionary theory shocked many conservative Christians, but they had little trouble accommodating an old earth with biblical faith. In 1909, both the Vatican and the "Scofield Reference Bible," hugely influential among fundamentalists and evangelicals, said Genesis is literal history -- but without requiring a young earth or 24-hour days.

Today, there are few young earth creationists among the 1,800 evangelical scientists in the American Scientific Affiliation, a nondenominational group that believes in God as creator and "the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible."

ASA President Martin Price reasons that God revealed himself both through the Bible and "through the creation which he made. Correctly understood, these can't be in conflict." So, if science has solid evidence against 10,000 years or six days, such interpretations of Genesis need reconsideration, he suggests.

But the Adventists are not alone. Besides independent creationist ministries, the 403,000-member Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church believes that "the creation happened in the course of six consecutive days of normal length." The 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod defends a strictly literal reading of Genesis history.

Yet at Adventist colleges, according to a 1994 survey of 121 science teachers, only 43 percent agreed with the church's view that "God created live organisms during six days less than 10,000 years ago."

Nonetheless, the new policy states that the church expects "all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the Church's position on origins."

Rodriguez says teachers might harbor private questions but "still support the church in the classroom." Adventism "is not beginning a witch hunt," he adds, and lets teachers decide on their own whether they're comfortable with church policy.
---------------------------------------
ON THE NET:

Geoscience Research Institute: www.grisda.org

ASA creation page: www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html

BBB, Ive met some of the people behind the geosciences Institute. They are trapped by WHites "visit" to the Cambrian and how she saw the world created . Their doctrinal link to their science is quite a joke. So Id rather not even comment

The national center for science educatuion is primarily a n organization that provides resources to teachers who are getting bombarded by an increasingly "organizationally" sophisticated Creation SCience group.
Their web site is

http://www.ncseweb.org

The Dover Pa teaching of the "alternative theory" is gonna be challenged by many organizations that include instructors of geology and biology as well as the professional corps of these scientists 9practicing in med, industry, etc)
.

Why is it necessary for geologists and biologists to waste valuable time even debating issues like this.

It seems to me that unless something is deemed to be valid science (accepted by the scientific community), then it shouldn't be admitted to science classes, as simple as that. Is there something about the definition of what goes into a science class that requires debate? Nobody wants to teach english in math class. Nobody debates the merits of musical theory in chemistry class, so why is it so hard to agree that science (and only science) should be taught in science class?

My point with this argument isn't to preach to the choir, but to understand why a single stance can't be defined which ends these debates and saves the time of the experts who must defend science class from dilution.

To me, the issue doesn't seem to be debatable given the definition of science and the scientific methodology (and what everyone expects from science classes).

Is there some ambiguity here which I'm missing?

Unfortuately, Rosborne, even though it doesn't seem debatable to you and I (and many others), it's debatable enough to the rest of the country that creationism is indeed being taught in schools.

Say it and they will dumb.

Why are you so against Creationist teaching? Could it be that you're afraid they're right?

"There are other theories, but not scientific theories"

How can you say Evolution is a scientific theory? It's preached like the Bible. Why do so many people spend so much time trying to prove Evolution? No one has tried so hard to prove any other scientific theories. Why should anyone try so hard to prove Evolution? Is it because people don't want to believe in any supreme being or creator? After all if we remove the Creator we remove any accountability towards such a being. This means we can live however we want.

In short, I would like to know why you are so hostile towards people like me who not only think debate on the issue is valid but also believe in Creationism as you call it.

Anyway

visk. No one has been trying to prove evolution. All the discoveries have provided us with evidence and facts that need a theory to explain. Evolution seems to be the only one that is testable and rigorous.
You dont" believe" in evolution its not based upon a series of myths like creation, its been shown by the overwhelming amount of evidence thats come about from research from so many other fields.All the evidence focuses on the fact that "Darwin got it right"

Trust me, There is no fear of losing ground to a Creationist mentality, its just that Creationists are so set on having their myths taught as science that it gets in the way of good education. Kids have enough problems with reading and math, and ,we dont wish to continue celebrating mushy thinking by officially sanctioning the religious dogma of a few.You are free to "believe " as yoiu wish, just dont try to insert your beliefs as valid science in my kids curriculum, cuz Creation "science" has nothing to back itself up except the Bible. Its an explanation that. starts with a testimony and then tries to justify its existence by only looking for evidence that supports itself.
If you look at the history of evolutionary evidence, there were vast gaps in the fossil record that have been fairly well filled by expeditions all over the world. These expeditions werent out to "prove " anything, they were just trying to expand the number of fossils from a single geological unit. DNA evidence came as a hit and miss series of discoveries, most of which were less than 20 years old, and theyve revised the entireevolutionary linneages of entire orders of animals
T
The Creation vote that prevailed recently in Dover Pa was brought about by one man who organized his fundamentalist Church to start a campaign of threatening phone calls and social ostracizing of those "not of the same mind". School board members were challenged by these clowns to defend whether they were "saved by the blood of Jesus". That has nothing to do with science curriculum, its just a form of intimidation and thuggery dressed in clerical robes.
The schol board members were actually in fear for their safety , so they capitulated and half the board resigned in fear and protest. The community , on the other hand, is for teaching evolution as fact (which it is) , and without the Craetionist overtones. However, it looks like this is going to court in order to get resolved.

So that , should, sort of,answer your question Rosborne, as to why we even get involved. If you dig down in many of these cases, the Creationists are not beneath using personal threats and intimidation to make their shaky points. Dont think that the Creation side is confident about their stand. They are being slowly rendered irrelevant as new discoveries are made each day. They are riding the wave of official sanction by the president , who is a believer in Creationism and is using the Christian connection to his benefit. Its a real shame .

Perhaps creationists would be taken more seriously if they were open to presenting the creation myths of other cultures and not just the Christian version. I have no serious objection to a class which included Hindu, Native American, Greek, Norse, Roman, and Celtic beliefs, to name just a few.

But it doesn't belong in a science class unless it has some science in it.

There you go, Grayfan... I was going to ask Visk to describe his/her Creationist belief. Let's get it out in the open.

I think the world rides on the back of a huge sea turtle, unfortunately I cannot get that theory (err posit) considered by my local school board for inclusion into the science curriculum.

Part of the problem, or solution, is that biblical inerrant took it as a mission to get on local school boards after the rise of the religious right in the 80's.

Maybe that is an avatar of the solution? Perhaps, it is time for realists, those that are driven by rational thought instead of religious superstition, to become involved in local school boards?


Rap

and a greaat deal of backbone is involved

theory=A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
so yeah all science is theory, creationism however is just an interesting story.

Believe it or not, creationism is widely accepted. Does that make it a valid theory? Even if you believed creationism is widely accepted you would still be against it. If it met all the requirements of a "valid" theory (which it does) you would still not accept it.

As for the "repeatedly tested" theory of evolution, has anyone managed to watch evolution taking place and prove that it is evolution? No one has ever made a process of biological evolution work in the lab.

Anyway

Bacteria have evolved resistance in the lab.

The hereditary qualities of various species have been altered by selective breeding.

Now, lets hear you make a prediction based on creationist "theory".

Religion is more widely believed than science. But science is the only one of the two based on physical evidence.

hey, yeah! celtic religion believes that the world is suspended above a caldron perched on the back of a salmon... does that count? afterall, as we know that the salmon truly exists, the science pre-req is met. ;8 > )-

maybe one of the pro-creationist folks could explain to me why they are so insistent on having their religious ideas taught in the same class as science. i mean, the country is already awash with hundreds of thousands of outlets for their religious views.

those places are called churches.

Because the choir has already been converted. What they really want to do is preach to the unconverted children.

Science classes in elementary school are the perfect places to begin your indoctrination. Not only do they get in front of young children, but they also get a "benefit by association" of being in a science class.

It's like being allowed to sell snake-oil at a pharmaceutical convention.