It is interesting that even 30 years ago the liberals …

Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by David Read.

It is interesting that even 30 years ago the liberals were carefully scheming to preserve ambiguity in the language, so that they could hide behind “anfractuosities of language”, as Clifford Goldstein so felicitously put it.

Putting Fritz Guy and Larry Geraty in charge of drafting a fundamental belief on creation is like having John Dillinger draft the laws against bank robbery.

David Read Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
“. . . or do not believe that the Bible says anything definitive regarding emprical reality whatsoever – that the Bible is only useful when it comes to giving moral meaning to our lives, but says nothing about how to interpret physical reality or empirical truth.”

This is not even a Christian view, much less an Adventist view. People who hold this view should not be allowed to become members, or should be disfellowshipped if they already are.


A little-known history about Belief 6
My problem with trying to tighten up a credal statement is that (1) it isn’t necessary, and (2) it won’t work.

It isn’t necessary because everyone knows that Adventists believe in a recent creation in six literal days. There’s never been any “wiggle room” on this point, and if there were, numerous statements from Ellen White have made it perfectly clear where we stand. You can only get to some sort of theistic evolutionary position by utterly rejecting the view of Scripture that all Adventist doctrines are based upon–rejecting the entire biblical word view that Adventism arose out of–and utterly rejecting the prophetic authority of Ellen White. This isn’t a close question at all. People who claim that theistic evolution is compatible with Adventism are either insane or are acting in bad faith. Clifford Goldstein is right about this and the way he expressed himself is appropriate.

It won’t work because the situation at LaSierra got the way it is despite the fact that the Adventist position on a recent creation in six literal 24-hour days is clear beyond cavil to any sane, honest, rational individual. Do you really think the Seventh-day Darwinians are going to accept and respect a new, tightened up credal statement when they reject the biblical wordview that Adventism is founded upon and reject the prophetic authority of Ellen White? Who has more authority, the Bible and Ellen White, or some creed writing committee? Ask yourself whether, if you rejected the church’s foundational view of Scripture and its founding prophet, you’d have any compunction or hesitation in also rejecting a credal statement cooked up by a bunch of church bureaucrats?

It isn’t necessary and it won’t work. The bad faith of those who want to accept church money while tearing down church doctrines is manifest, and those in positions of authority need to act.


A little-known history about Belief 6
Warren is right that using the word “evolution” without more context will often cause alot of confusion. Because anyone’s model of earth history, whether Darwinist or creationist, or anything in between, will include alot of evolution.

To describe the idea that all on earth life descended from one or few “simple” organisms, I use the term “Darwinism.” Leonard Brand uses the term “mega-evolution.” The Answers in Genesis ministry likes to use the phrase, “from goo to you via the zoo.” Some use the term “macro-evolution”, some use the term “evolutionism.”

All these terms are used because participants in the conversation understand that anyone’s model of earth history must include a great deal of evolution, and you can’t simply say, “I don’t believe in ‘evolution'” and expect to be taken seriously. Conversely, when a creationist says, “I believe in evolution” he has to immediately make clear that he is speaking of “micro-evolution” or diversification, modification and speciation within the Genesis kinds or baramin, and that he does not accept the Darwinian/Lyellian origins model.

A further complication arises because the term “evolution” evokes not just the concept of organic change over time, but also current theories as to the mechanism of such change. Currently, the term “evolution” evokes the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which proposes natural selection of random, undirected DNA copying errors. But I personally do not believe that this mechanism can explain either the speed or the extent of the rapid post-Flood micro-evolutionary changes that most creationist models incorporate.

So tossing around the term “evoluton” without immediate and extensive definition and context is certain to cause misunderstandings.


Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.


The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?


The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.


The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.


La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.