Quote:

---

Science is certainly a process where-by each generation checks, rechecks, and improves the models of its predecessors.

---

Maybe....?

Yes, I have taken classes by H. W. Clark's son Ervil, and attended lectures by H. W. himself when his son was absent.

Perhaps this discussion could be focused a little by recognizing that there are two distinct creation/science debates in progress.

1. The debate over what should be taught in public school science classes currently features natural evolutionists, who argue that the universe and everything in it came about by random, unguided natural processes, versus people of faith who argue that the universe and living forms on earth cannot be explained without intelligent design -- whether that be God or some other outside intelligence. The Creationists who work in this arena, such as Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial), do not argue that everything was created in six days a few thousands years ago. Instead they concentrate on what they believe really matters -- that the scientific evidence demands a designer or creator. There are several huge advantages to this approach: all people of faith can agree and join in the debate, it removes the easy opportunities for atheistic scientists to "win" the argument by "disproving" a short chronology, it allows creationists to go on the offensive by presenting evidence of "intelligent design," and it is not based on the authority of the Bible or any specific religion. These creationists avoid any discussion of a six-day creation week a few thousand years ago because such arguments undermine all these points.

2. Meanwhile, in the Adventist church, where everyone believes that God is the creator, an entirely different discussion is taking place. The majority of Adventists support the 6-day/6000 year chronology, while many Adventist scientists argue that the physical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that life has existed and evolved on earth for much longer periods of time, probably millions of years. While the implications of this arguement are huge, the argument itself is over much smaller issues than the argument over what should be taught in public school science classes.

I have not read a recent, credible, Adventist book that uses science to support a short chronology, but "Origins--Linking Science and Scripture," by Ariel Roth (Review and Herald, 1998) is probably good. For the best and latest from that perspective you can subscribe to "Geoscience Reports", Geoscience Research Institute, 11060 Campus Street, Loma Linda, CA 92350 ($3 for 3 issues annually) or subscribe online at their very informative website: www.grisda.org. To learn about the evidence and arguments for a long chronology from the perspective of some Adventist scientists, the book, Creationism Reconsidered (Association of Adventist Forums, P.O. Box 619047, Roseville, CA 95661-9047) is indispensible. And, of course, Spectrum magazine regularly includes articles in support of a long chronology.

Excellent post, Gerry, thanks.

What are your thoughts on Roger Morneau comments on evolution?
http://english.sdaglobal.org/testimony/supnatr.htm

Quote:

---

the debate over what should be taught in public school science classes currently features natural evolutionists, who argue that the universe and everything in it came about by random, unguided natural processes, versus people of faith who argue that the universe and living forms on earth cannot be explained without intelligent design

---

There is a middle ground between these two. It is possible to have natural processes that produce what we see around us, and still have a God who is interested in the universe in general, and the complex life forms in it in particular.

In this approach one does not find oneself forced to argue "God must exist because I can't see how ... would happen without His involvement" which is what the long age ID people are doing.

They may be right - that God really did have to do some very unlikely things to get to where we are. They may be wrong - the universe God made might have got here just by the laws God built into it.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. What matters is we have an extremely powerful God who cares about us.

/Bevin

[Robert, cool it. Your comments contribute nothing to a civil conversation. Disagree with the post is you will. But, act in a civil manner--GM.]

Post deleted by Gregory Matthews

[NOTE: I have actually deleted two posts--.]

You may be right about there being a third position on what should be taught in public school science classes, and I suppose a fourth, but I doubt those additional two positions are really distinct from the first two.

The first position says there is no God and EVERYTHING can be explained by random process, the second position says, SOME things cannot be explained without a designer.

Of course there may be a third group of people who say some things can't be explained right now, but I still don't believe there is a designer. I suspect this describes everyone in the first group, since no one claims to have an explanation for everything.

And then there is your proposed fourth group who say even if everything can be explained by natural process, I still believe there is a God. I suspect the main difference between this group and the second group is that these people do not expect that their reasons for believing in God will be determinative for everyone. That is, they find the evidence for God to be stronger than the evidence for no God. They may believe in God because they find the whole human experience--love, justice, forgiveness, etc.--makes no sense to them without a creator. So in a sense, they are Intelligent Design people, but they are not disturbed if Stephen Jay Gould presents naturalistic explanations for the human immune system, blood clotting, and other arguments that Behe claims as proof of a designer.

But I still see only two real positions. Those who are satisfied with god-free explanations for everything, and those who are not.

My reason for bringing this up, was only to contrast this discussion with the contemporary Adventist discussion, where everyone believe in a creator God, but some see creation happening in one week a few thousand years ago while others say it happened gradually over millions of years.

It seems to me that the majority of Adventists, including some people who have commented on this thread, are eager to pursue a late 19th century to early 20th century discussion -- a discussion which has long ago been settled. This was the discussion about whether animals evolve over time, even producing new species. The most conservative Christian scientists and theologians have conceded that such change is real and ongoing. I notice that on the Geoscience Research Institute site -- whose authors are paid by the church to find scientific support for a recent creation -- there is a statement that Noah's ark probably contained no more than about 350 different kinds of animals, with a total census of less than 1000 individual animals. All of todays land animals, they say, evolved from those representatives of the various families of animals. To read more on this subject click on Frequently Asked Questions at www.grisda.org.

Greg,

If I were a moderator this junk wouldn't be under "Bible and Theology" or "What Seventh-day Adventists Believe" - unless they were using Scripture to try to prove evolution....

Robert