Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute

By P. Harold Wallar, MD
LSU Alumnus

The Seventh-day Adventist church invests about one million dollars a year in its Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), located just 20 minutes from La Sierra University and staffed by five competent creation scientists: Dr. James Gibson, Dr. Raul Esperante, Dr. Timothy Standish, Dr. Benjamin Clausen and Dr. Ronnie Nalin. Surely these men of science and faith have been deeply concerned by LSU’s attempts to subvert biblical creation right in their backyard.

The GRI is supposed to be the combatant against forces attempting to undermine the church’s position on origins. But what does public record show are GRI’s activities to address the problems at LSU? So far, almost nothing.

It seems GRI is either not willing or is not being allowed to help resolve the LSU controversy. Why is the GRI silent when this topic is its specialty, when its voice is needed now more than ever? Is the GRI out of service? Are these scientists unable to support the Bible and the position of the church against LSU’s assault? Has the GRI lost its direction? Are they afraid? Are they unwilling? Or have these men been silenced from their superiors so they cannot perform their responsibilities? Is not one million dollars a year enough to enable the GRI to function in its chartered role?

Whatever the reason, their silence obviously begs many questions.

There is one positive. The GRI is planning a series of public lectures on creation for the 2010 General Conference session in Atlanta, called, “Reasons Seventh-day Adventists believe in a recent six-day Creation.” However, that is thousands of miles away from the mess they’re seemingly ignoring at home.

I encourage the scientists at GRI to speak up and get involved at this crucial time. The church needs creation warriors, unafraid to speak for truth. The church depends on you. Students and teachers depend on you. We all depend on you.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

99 thoughts on “Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute

  1. One of the characteristics of people who work in institutions is caution. It’s a matter of self-interest, and self-preservation. I long for a little more recklessness! This tame cautiousness is like…luke warm mineral water…disgusting to the point of vomit.




    0
    View Comment
  2. I think that Dr. Waller needs to give these scientists time to get it right.. He, himself, said that they are planning a program for GC. Let them do an excellent job, rather than jabs here and there. A doctor wouldn’t give one antibiotic pill here and there for an infection, would he? No, he would give a full 10 day course at one time. I am presuming that more of this approach is how GRI is planning on dealing with this matter. Their reputation for good science is on the line here too and to approach this any less than professionally would not be wisdom on their part. Patience for the time being and continuing to pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ at LSU is my advice to Dr. Waller, whom I imagine is very frustrated and somewhat embarassed when he sees what is going on at his school, but let the full 10 course in good time, do its job.

    Karen




    1
    View Comment
  3. Clocking in at 529 words of mostly a general nature, the article is grossly insufficient. However, the silence of the conference and union leaders is even more appalling. Is there no way to get this issue on the floor of the GC this summer? If evolution is indeed the preferred explanation of origins then only hypocrisy can keep the church going. The GC president could apologize and then they could vote to disband the General Conference. Then each member could choose for themselves where they want to go. We could all become Tibetan Buddhists. Ohm………

    But if creation is indeed the preferred explanation of origins, then any attack on this foundational doctrine should be considered as a direct attack on the church and should be met accordingly even to the point of removing union, division and GC leadership and closing institutions as a last resort. If this threat is not met, but is allowed to grow and spread, we will lose our reason for existence.

    Is there a more foundational doctrine? Remove this and they all topple. If the doctrine of creation is not true, then why kid ourselves. As Paul said, We are of all men most miserable.




    0
    View Comment
  4. Karen,

    You might be right, but considering this issue has been public knowledge for over a year now makes me wonder what’s going on.




    0
    View Comment
  5. The GRI’s position is well known. Their research is not going to change the minds of the LSU faculty who believe that the Bible is mythological and that science has the truth. The issue is not a scientific one so much as it is a spiritual and political one, and I’m sure that the GRI does not want to get involved in the politics. The politics has to do with how much academic freedom a sectarian university can permit without violating its raison d’etre. Accreditation is at stake, and the administration of the institution–and the church–has to figure out how much latitude to grant before it exceeds what the church can tolerate from doctrinal standpoint, or how much restriction can be permitted before it exceeds what the accrediting organization can tolerate from an academic standpoint.

    As for the matter of science, there is empirical science and historical science. The study of origins is not empirical science but historical science. The scientists would like to pretend that they are always doing empirical science, but relatively little of the study of origins deals with empirical science. Whenever one is studying the past rather than the present, one is doing historical science, which brings in various subjective elements and presuppositions in interpreting the evidence. The worldview one has will determine the interpretation of the data. If one assumes the principle of uniformitarianism, for example (cf. 2 Pet 3:4), as most evolutionary theory does, including radiometric dating methods, one necessarily arrives at long ages of time. Recent scientific evidence is beginning to challenge the principle of uniformitarianism, but meanwhile one must rely on faith in the biblical record to posit a short chronology. These are difficult issues for scientists. We, as a church, however, must ensure that only people of biblical faith be hired to teach in our schools, or we lose our reason for providing an Adventist education at great expense to the church and to our constituents personally. Ultimately, we believe that science will be found to support the biblical account, but that day has not come yet. Meanwhile, we need to walk by faith, not by sight. (See John 20:24-31; Heb 11:1,3,6.)




    0
    View Comment
  6. It’s the great writings of champions of faith on this website that makes me return and learn. Thanks Dr. Waller for your insightful questions. I wondered about GRI myself, but you took the questioning much further and deeper than I did.




    0
    View Comment
  7. @Edwin: “Accreditation is at stake,”

    Losing accreditation (or even a couple of institutions, if it came to that) is microscopic compared to the damage done by choosing the world’s recognition over the truth of God’s word. We are doomed as a people if we knowingly allow instructors to teach subjects that are antithetical to the foundational doctrines of our church in order to somehow save face in the public sphere. Going down to Egypt for help, how can we then call on God when problems come?




    0
    View Comment
  8. Amen Brother Brian!! To escape being eaten by lions, all you had to do was bow your knee to the Roman Gods. To escape losing our accreditation, all we had to do is to kowtow (conform) to Evolution.

    At the beginning of time, something forced protons together into molecules, even though their positive charges would repel each other, these opposing Forces increase tremendously as the protons come closer together (there are formulas for calculating these opposing forces). Evolutionists called it “The Strong Nuclear Force”. Creationists call it “God”.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Whatever the reason, their silence obviously begs many questions.

    Yes, it does. The teaching of evolution at La Sierra is not the issue. It is only a symptom of a much larger problem. This is why the silence. That it has been allowed for so long even with so much attention focused on it, reveals that many in leadership are in need of greater faith. They are not standing up for Bible truth. There is a line drawn in the sand and they have not responded in a positive manner by standing on God’s side. This is rebellion. Rebellion against Bible truth. Sin must be called sin before there will be any change forthcoming. It will do little good to dance around the problem.

    There is no need to go into other issues where counsel is being rejected and has been for many years. Suffice it to say that evolution is only one such issue. All have access to the Spirit of Prophecy that is so simple a child can understand what is being said. La Sierra has not protected the land that church members sacrificed to obtain. She cares not about the counsels we have regarding the need for land to protect from worldly influences and to provide other blessings to the teachers and students. They are too wise to accept counsel from God.

    La Sierra is not alone. Let the matter be understood to be much deeper than rebellion at one school. We pray that because of this situation, eyes of many will be opened to examine our own hearts to see if we be in the faith. Revival and reformation is coming. Let it begin with me. Let me desire to know what God wants, to study the light given in the Spirit of Prophecy, and then pray for grace to walk in that light. Rejection of the counsel in the Spirit of Prophecy leads to rejection of Bible truth. This is why there is a great silence among so many leaders. They are not walking in the light.




    1
    View Comment
  10. Richard Meyers wrote, “There is a line drawn in the sand and they have not responded in a positive manner by standing on God’s side. This is rebellion. Rebellion against Bible truth.”

    Funny that when Educate Truth draws a line in the sand and someone refuses to step across it it is labelled “rebellion against Bible truth”. We have reached the point where all church leaders are “spineless” and in “rebellion” unless they jump when Educate Truth says jump. This has now become the SDA version of “Simon says”.




    0
    View Comment
  11. I am a secondary science teacher of earth science, biology, chemistry and physics. I have been examining the evidence for Creation for almost 30 years. To me the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Biblical account of Creation. I am in good company. Sir Isaac Newton believed the universe and all life were created and did not happen by chance. Dean Kenyon co-author of the seminal work on evolutionism entitled “Biochemical Predestination”, upon critically examining his former position in support of evolution, and the evidence in support of Intelligent Design, now states: “It is absolutely impossible for complex informational systems and life to arise spontaneously from disorder” (I paraphrased his statement from my recollection!)

    Believers take heart, we are in good company!

    Ed Goodman,
    Science teacher
    Maine




    0
    View Comment
  12. I’d like, with the website owners permission, to recommend the following, all books written by Jonathan Sarfati:

    – Refuting Evolution
    – Refuting Evolution II
    – Refuting Compromise

    Especially the latter, which speaks directly to the foolhardy attempt to reconcile biblical Christianity with evolution, and decisively refutes it in quite comprehensive and devastating manner.

    I have no interest in the sale of these works other than the defense of our faith, which stands on very solid ground.

    Regards
    Denver




    0
    View Comment
  13. Ms. Dane says, “Richard Meyers wrote, “There is a line drawn in the sand and they have not responded in a positive manner by standing on God’s side. This is rebellion. Rebellion against Bible truth.”

    Funny that when Educate Truth draws a line in the sand and someone refuses to step across it it is labelled “rebellion against Bible truth”. We have reached the point where all church leaders are “spineless” and in “rebellion” unless they jump when Educate Truth says jump. This has now become the SDA version of “Simon says”.”

    Does Richard Myers run Educate Truth? I wasn’t aware that he was.

    The Bible says, “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty.” Judges 5:23

    God is the Biblically described Creator and as He is, God is worthy of our worship, glory, honor and power. (Rev. 4:11; Rev. 14:7; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 96:5 etc. etc.) This line Satan crossed when he tried to be God of whom now he is tempting the world to forgetfulness (Is. 14:14.) That Satan would have even temporary success among us who exist to call the world to “worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” is indeed nefarious and must be met positively (Rev. 14:6-7). To say nothing in such a crisis is treason. No doubt about that.

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  14. I think GRI is a disappointment, not just with regard to the LaSierra controversy but more generally. The denomination has never gotten a good return on its investment in GRI. One of the early directors, Richard Ritland, became a long-ages advocate. The current director seems deeply troubled by radiometric dating. For a variety of reasons, GRI has not developed into a dynamic apologetics ministry, like “Answers in Genesis” or even ICR, nor a strong research institution.

    GRI does some good things. I really like the internet news roundup: http://www.grisda.org/news/. It also hosts field trips, publishes the journal “Origins”, and publishes and emails a short quarterly newsletter (latest edition here: http://www.grisda.org/newsletter/21.pdf.) (I note that back issues of “Origins” don’t seem to be accessible through the website anymore, whereas in they were just a couple of years ago.)

    My impression is that science and apologetics are two very different enterprises, and that scientists tend to be poor at apologetics, which is more of an argumentative attorney-like function. My suggestion would be to split the research function from the apologetics functions. Let the current group continue to do research and publish “Origins,” but establish another ministry to do apologetics, field trips, teacher and pastor training, general reader publications, and the website. Let Jim Gibson continue to head up the research branch but recruit someone else to head up an apologetics ministry.




    0
    View Comment
  15. I think GRI is a disappointment, not just with regard to the LaSierra controversy but more generally.The denomination has never gotten a good return on its investment in GRI.One of the early directors, Richard Ritland, became a long-ages advocate.The current director seems deeply troubled by radiometric dating.For a variety of reasons, GRI has not developed into a dynamic apologetics ministry, like “Answers in Genesis” or even ICR, nor a strong research institution.GRI does some good things.I really like the internet news roundup: http://www.grisda.org/news/.It also hosts field trips, publishes the journal “Origins”, and publishes and emails a short quarterly newsletter (latest edition here:http://www.grisda.org/newsletter/21.pdf.)(I note that back issues of “Origins” don’t seem to be accessible through the website anymore, whereas in they were just a couple of years ago.)
    My impression is that science and apologetics are two very different enterprises, and that scientists tend to be poor at apologetics, which is more of an argumentative attorney-like function.My suggestion would be to split the research function from the apologetics functions.Let the current group continue to do research and publish “Origins,” but establish another ministry to do apologetics, field trips, teacher and pastor training, general reader publications, and the website.Let Jim Gibson continue to head up the research branch but recruit someone else to head up an apologetics ministry.  

    AMEN




    0
    View Comment
  16. Rich,

    Isn’t it fun to publicly humiliate and denigrate people who fail to believe “God is the Biblically described Creator and as He is, God is worthy of our worship, glory, honor and power. (Rev. 4:11; Rev. 14:7; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 96:5 etc. etc.)” Doesn’t it feel good to expose these people? Isn’t it fun to label them as traitors? You love this, admit it. It’s fun to Judge them. Fun to Find them guilty. Tell the whole world. You know how to quote the Bible and you are sin-free enough to not be accused of treason so you’re worthy of judging them aren’t you? Worthy is the Rich. Worthy is the Rich. Worthy is the Rich.

    Oh yeah, you forgot in you zeal that no one at LSU has reportedly denied that God is the Creator.




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Geanna Dane:

    Oh yeah, you forgot in you zeal that no one at LSU has reportedly denied that God is the Creator.

    Indeed! That is the standard line I’ve heard for many years at LSU – “We all believe in the Creator God here at LSU”. And, they do! They just don’t believe in the type of Creator God that the SDA Church is trying to promote as creating life on this planet during a literal creation week. They believe in a Creator God who used a very painful evolutionary mechanism to create life and its diversity over hundreds of millions of years with a process that required the suffering and death of billions of sentient creatures. We aren’t talking orange peals or some pin prick on the finger here. We are talking about the extreme suffering and pain of highly intelligent creatures as a key part of a deliberately chosen creative process.

    That picture of God is very different from the picture of God that the SDA Church, as an organization, is trying to promote as “fundamentally” true – a God who feels pain when even a little sparrow falls wounded to the ground and is working to eradicate the current order of this world where pain, suffering, and death reign supreme but were never intended in God’s ideal plan for us or for any of the intelligent creatures that share our suffering with us.

    The effort to maintain this perspective is not an effort to judge the morality of anyone who disagrees with us (at least this is not the case for me). It is, rather, an effort to maintain, as an organization, a view of God that we, or at least I, consider to be special and important to share with the world… a very hopeful view of God and of our own future with God.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  18. First, Geanna accused Educate Truth of saying something a fellow poster like herself said. Then she accused Educate Truth on this basis of drawing a line in the sand. To which I pointed out the fellow poster was nothing more than a fellow poster as far as I knew, and that Scripture has drawn that line. Whoever believes in Christ is called to make Him known, and not hide him. We are to come to the help of the Lord as the Levites did and not neglect to as did the citizens of Meroz.

    Then I pointed out the line that God has drawn with regards to His creative authority based on Revelation 4:11 showing this line throughout Scripture.

    And every single point was ignored with nothing but, “toward the man” arguments. I stand by what my post said, that God, not anyone else is worthy and no one deserves His glory. (Revelation 4:11)

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  19. @Geanna Dane:

    Even Sean would not label those at LSU at traitors! Or would he?

    No, I would not. I think the professors at LSU are mistaken in their views on origins. I also think they are mistaken in their willingness to take money from the SDA Church while directly countering the stated fundamental goals and ideals of the Church. I think that this is a form of stealing from the time and money of the Church. However, I don’t think that the LSU professors or leadership consciously recognize this concept. I think that they think that they are truly being upright and honest and are doing the best they can with what they think they know. I think that they are being sincere…

    Therefore I do not think it right to label them as “traitors”.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  20. Geanna says, “Rich,

    Isn’t it fun to publicly humiliate and denigrate people who fail to believe “God is the Biblically described Creator and as He is, God is worthy of our worship, glory, honor and power. (Rev. 4:11; Rev. 14:7; Ex. 20:11; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 96:5 etc. etc.)”

    What? I reject the implication that uplifting the Biblical Creator humiliates and denigrates people because that ennobles them. To say we crawled out of slime and fought our way tooth and claw (once we got those) to manhood, is instead humiliating and denigrating.

    Doesn’t it feel good to expose these people?

    Feel how about doing what to which people? What are some actual facts here? I was speaking that everyone, including myself, who come not to the help of the Lord in crisis by refusing to take sides are traitors. This allows God to be the judge. No names or places were mentioned. I cannot say that sincere people who believe and have believed in the cause of evolution will not be saved.

    Principally speaking, those who realize there is a crisis over truth, know what is right and refuse to publicly take sides and/or be dishonest about what they believe are traitors to Christ and His cause.

    The Bible says, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Matt. 10:32-34

    Who those people are who, I cannot fully say because God knows how which people understand or have had sufficient opportunity to. William Miller is an example.

    Isn’t it fun to label them as traitors? You love this, admit it.

    But with your discernment, Rich, why would God need to do the judging or sentencing?

    These two sentences are self-refuting in nature. In the first there is an accusation and command to repent of an imaginary action and motive, both labeling and having “fun to label them as traitors” neither of which are substantiated but are in fact human judgements and in the second is a sarcastic attack against supposed human judgment, the very type of judgment made in the first sentence.

    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  21. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

    Good verse. And this is exactly what EducateTruth has become. We’ve been instructed to promote the everlasting gospel, which apparently has become distorted to publicly attack and humiliate fellow church members and church leaders and use bible verses to pierce their sides..




    0
    View Comment
  22. I am very grateful for GRI, which has been a tremendous blessing in my life. Over the decades I have enjoyed many conversations with various staff members and I have always enjoyed receiving and reading their publications, from which I have drawn inspiration to maintain my faith in the Biblical account of origins. Furthermore, I have often incorporated information from their publications for teaching biology classes. I hope that the church–and church members–will continue to support GRI. It grieves me to see so much criticism here, criticism which, in my opinion, is unjustified.




    0
    View Comment
  23. My kudos, also, Eddie.

    Why are we directing our sites against GRI? Why not rather encourage and pray for GRI, and if God impresses us with the need to write about what we view as a shortcoming, to write directly to GRI? Few readers of Educate Truth (whether in sympathy with Educate Truth or not) would disagree that there are issues that at times must be met publicly. However, I don’t see cause to publicly disparage GRI. GRI, probably as never before, needs our support and not our knee jerk tongue lashings for the very fact that we are in the crisis we are in right now. I cannot even begin to imagine, especially in this hour, that it is the work of God to disparage the financial means received by GRI. Honestly, I doubt that was the intent of the comments, but I think it is the effect.




    0
    View Comment
  24. It grieves me to see so much criticism here, criticism which, in my opinion, is unjustified.

    I encourage church members to continue their support of GRI also, but I don’t think the criticism is unjustified. It wouldn’t surprise me if a few of the GRI scientists felt the same way. I wouldn’t doubt that some would like to speak up but have been effectively gagged by politics within the church. I know that is the case in other places such as Loma Linda.




    0
    View Comment
  25. @Geanna Dane:

    1. The fact that there is such a seminar actually appears to validate the stand of Educate Truth.

    2. Do you really believe the influence of Educate Truth has somehow not been felt by the organizers of the upcoming seminar? Do you think Educate Truth will not be discussed by those in attendance? Would the seminar be even happening without David Assherick and Educate Truth?

    3. Are you on the committee that chose the speakers so that you are an authority on why the various speakers were chosen and why others were not selected? Without this information you are merely spouting vacuous or perhaps specious speculation. I did not notice any LaSierra professors on the list of speakers–do you believe this was not intentional? You didn’t mention this in your post. That is really the key omission.

    Incidentally, I didn’t notice your name on the list of speakers, either. I am certain this must just have been an oversight on the part of the seminar planners or perhaps you were invited and turned it down. And I searched in vain for my own name on the list. It’s not there either. Just maybe you and I were not invited because we are not regarded as either authorities or spokesmen on creation and evolution. We can afford to be humble in our postings, we are not internationally known and respected titans of wisdom. Educate Truth started without either you or me. And frankly, though you have been bashing the sponsors of the site, without them you wouldn’t even have a platform in which to spout your drivel.




    0
    View Comment
  26. MY ANSWERS

    Do you really believe the influence of Educate Truth has somehow not been felt by the organizers of the upcoming seminar? NO. I’M SURE IT HAS BEEN FELT AND I’M SURE THEY DID NOT USE EDUCATE TRUTH TO PROMOTE IT BECAUSE EDUCATE TRUTH IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE CHURCH. WHY ARE EDUCATETRUTH STAFF NOT INVITED TO SPEAK?

    Do you think Educate Truth will not be discussed by those in attendance? NO. I’M QUITE CERTAIN IT WILL BE DISCUSSED.

    Would the seminar be even happening without David Assherick and Educate Truth? YES.

    Are you on the committee that chose the speakers so that you are an authority on why the various speakers were chosen and why others were not selected? NO.

    Without this information you are merely spouting vacuous or perhaps specious speculation. I SAID LOOK AT WHO IS AND IS NOT INVITED. TELL ME, WHAT EXACTLY DID I SPECULATE ON? YOU GOT ME!

    I did not notice any LaSierra professors on the list of speakers–do you believe this was not intentional? NO.

    You didn’t mention this in your post. WHAT’S “THIS”? YOU MENTIONED MULTIPLE ITEMS. I CHOSE NOT TO SPECULATE. YOU CAN IF YOU WISH.

    That is really the key omission. I’M GLAD YOU RECOGNIZE THIS.

    Just maybe you and I were not invited because we are not regarded as either authorities or spokesmen on creation and evolution. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TRYING TO CONVINCE ME OF SOMETHING?

    Though you have been bashing the sponsors of the site, without them you wouldn’t even have a platform in which to spout your drivel. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA TO ME. GET RID OF THIS SITE AND I’LL GLADLY SPOUT DRIVEL ELSEWHERE. GLADLY.




    0
    View Comment
  27. It seems to me that the scientific staff of the Geoscience Research Institute needs (GRI) our understanding, sympathy, and forbearance, not condemnation. They have been given a difficult, if not impossible, task by the leadership of Adventist Church who now gives them about $1 million a year. GRI scientists currently face the same problem that previously confronted scientists supported by the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) beginning in the 1950s.

    Back then, if one wished to be supported with CTR funds for any length of time, one was required to come up with arguments and data that supported the view that tobacco smoking did not cause lung cancer. The intellectually honest CTR-supported scientists, like the GRI staff now, soon realized that, at some point, they would have to face the overwhelming weight of the evidence that smoking really does cause lung cancer and other serious health problems. These individuals who valued their integrity sought to get the CTR to admit what the rest of the scientific community not beholden to the powerful tobacco industry had rapidly determined. But the CTR had some scientists who would sell their souls for a salary, medical benefits, and a pension and they kept the fiction going for many years until it was revealed what they were really doing.

    Current GRI scientists continue to be charged with the increasingly impossible task of maintaining the fiction that there is good scientific evidence that life on this planet is only six to ten thousand years old and that there has been a geologically recent world wide flood. I imagine those currently employed by the GRI who value their scientific and personal integrity are very frustrated We should all offer them our sympathy and support. How do you communicate to the leadership of the church, let alone the ordinary church member, that the Adventist Church has spent literally tens of millions of dollars of tithe and offering money over several decades to support a scientifically bankrupt view of earth history?

    Perhaps one way is to get the GRI out of the apologetics business. The GRI was originally created to do honest research and not apologetics. The majority of the early GRI scientific staff were scientists who were dedicated to the well-being of the church but they were also intellectually honest. They quickly became aware that the evidence did not support classical Adventist theology about the age of life on planet earth. Regretfully, during the administration of Robert Pearson as GC President, they were replaced with those whose focus was on apologetics not science. David Read said it well on this thread: “science and apologetics are two very different enterprises.” His suggestion for the GRI is to “. . . split the research function from the apologetics functions.” Allow the newly organized Faith and Science Counsel to try to keep up the fiction of that Young Life Creationism can be supported by the weight of the scientific evidence. It appears that this is what is going to happen at the upcoming General Conference. Perhaps GRI can get back to what it was suppose to be do when it was created—good science without regard to what a misdirected theology dictates. But I wonder if the current leadership of the church wants good science when it conflicts with a fundamentalist theology?




    0
    View Comment
  28. Dr. Wallar, I agree with you completely. The GRI should be giving their seminars to our [edit] church members here in the Pacific Union Conference, at least to start with.

    Most of the worldwide SDA Church believes in God’s Word, as it is written. It is mainly here in California that we think we gotta “correct” God and tell Him where He got it wrong!




    0
    View Comment
  29. Ervin,

    Perhaps it is Lucifer we should have sympathy for. His original finding was that God’s law was not fair…that it could not possibly be kept. Considering the numbers of sinners on this planet, it appears he was right. In fact, considering the scientific evidence (according to you), it cannot possibly indicate that God was fair with us in His portrayal of Creation. Indeed, we should all have some sympathy with Lucifer, for he could only have been honest with himself and others when describing God’s law and God’s Word. He should never have been trying to defend something that was not supportable in fact, correct? [edit]

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  30. “Current GRI scientists continue to be charged with the increasingly impossible task of maintaining the fiction that there is good scientific evidence that life on this planet is only six to ten thousand years old and that there has been a geologically recent world wide flood.” Erv Taylor

    If the ID is correct here we have the head of Adventists Today alleging that the Creation story of Genesis is fiction. I heard an interesting observation which I believe fits Erv and other doubters who profess Adventism — It isn’t that liberals are ignorant it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.




    0
    View Comment
  31. At the beginning of time, something forced protons together into molecules, even though their positive charges would repel each other, these opposing Forces increase tremendously as the protons come closer together (there are formulas for calculating these opposing forces). Evolutionists called it “The Strong Nuclear Force”. Creationists call it “God”.  (Quote)

    Standard Model?

    I am amazed by this statement.

    The strong nuclear force is the one you see released during a fusion reaction. Are you saying that “God” is being released? We may have a few more levels to go – before we get to the “God” level.

    Strings anyone?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  32. @Ervin Taylor:
    The intellectually honest CTR-supported scientists, like the GRI staff now, soon realized that, at some point, they would have to face the overwhelming weight of the evidence that smoking really does cause lung cancer and other serious health problems. These individuals who valued their integrity sought to get the CTR to admit what the rest of the scientific community not beholden to the powerful tobacco industry had rapidly determined. But the CTR had some scientists who would sell their souls for a salary, medical benefits, and a pension and they kept the fiction going for many years until it was revealed what they were really doing.

    Erv Taylor may be trying to give us the false hope that diehard atheist evolutionist ties the myths of evolutioism – will one day be forced “by the facts” to admit that rocks and gas do not ‘make babies’ hatching little single celled organisms all day long. What if our evolutionist friends were enticed by the facts – to admit that they are not able to turn single celled lifeforms into higher complex multicelled life forms?

    How wonderful that the world should last long enough so that the volume of evolutionists who are “getting a clue” and figuring out that they have been duped and that the fraudulent-rich history of evolutionism is fraudulent “for a reason” – became the majority?

    Well – of course that will happen at the 2nd coming “anyway” but Taylor seems to argue that it could happen on its own.

    Wouldn’t that be great!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  33. Edwin says, May 7:

    “Ultimately, we believe that science will be found to support the biblical account, but that day has not come yet. Meanwhile, we need to walk by faith, not by sight. (See John 20:24-31; Heb 11:1,3,6.)”
    ************
    Sorry to disagree with you Edwin, but that day HAS come! I have no idea what the GRI is doing at present but all anybody has to do is to go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and ask to be subscribed to their “Acts and Facts” magazine. It’s free and written by top-notch scientists who whole heartedly support the creation story in the Bible–and produce the evidence to support it. They don’t accept the Sabbath but otherwise are solid creation scientists and make no apologies for it. They put us to shame!!!

    Ervin Taylor says , May 17:

    “It seems to me that the scientific staff of the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) needs our understanding, sympathy, and forbearance, not condemnation. They have been given a difficult, if not impossible, task by the leadership of Adventist Church who now gives them about $1 million a year. GRI scientists currently face the same problem that previously confronted scientists supported by the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) beginning in the 1950s.”
    ***************
    I don’t mean to be critical of the GRI but this things has been going on for decades now and it appears to me that something should have been heard from them years ago! It also seems to me (and forgive me if I’m wrong) that an awful lot of responsible people have been “asleep at the wheel” for a mighty long time and this has allowed this heresy to grow from a “baby” to a full-sized “monster!” And what could have, and should have, been met with Christ-like firmness many years ago is now going to take tremendous action (and likely many more lost souls) to root out and eradicate this deeply rooted “cancer” in our church–even if it is possible to do so(which is questionable.)

    Even today, after this thing has been more or less exposed for what it really is for almost a year now, I see very little response from either the leaders or the GRI. I hope they are all planning on a real defense of our most important fundamental belief at the upcoming GC but, forgive me, I just don’t hold out a lot of hope for it!

    Think about this: After all, if the creation account “goes down” it will take down our whole church with it.I may be wrong, but to me,it is THE major “corner stone” for everything we as a people believe and preach. If we can’t believe God here we can’t believe Him anywhere–and we are left in the river of life in a boat with holes in it and fast filling up (with nothing to bail it out with)and without a motor, oars, or even a couple of sticks to help us navigate the rough waters of life. I sincerely hope and pray that I am wrong!




    0
    View Comment
  34. GRI has been doing a lot. However, they are primarily a RESEARCH organization, not a teaching or preaching organization. The exist primarily to educated teachers and pastors. They do not have direction from the GC to deal directly with SDA members. They have done some great research, but few people know about it because GRI is not very large–perhaps 10 people–compared to ICR and AiG who have double to quadruple the number of people. And the focus of ICR and AiG is the general public.

    GRI is seriously undermanned! And I think their focus needs to be changed by the GC to deal directly with church members and others. There needs to be traveling, qualified geology lecturers who do nothing but visit churches all across the world, explaining what the Bible has to say about Creation and how science is interpreted within that worldview. This would greatly reduce the confusion that exists today.




    0
    View Comment
  35. I think it was David Read who suggested some time ago here that the church should develop an apologetic/evangelistic wing of GRI, leaving the current research base intact. I think this has been a contributing factor to the current crisis – no strong apologetic/evangelistic creationist wing of the church (similar to ICR and AIG etc) educating our membership on the issues.




    0
    View Comment
  36. Very true ICR and AIG are miles ahead of us in most every area. We should be at the front of this Creation vs Evolution Issue, not debating if the Bible is true or not.




    0
    View Comment
  37. GRI does exactly what is being suggested. They travel all across the world visiting churches and explaining what the Bible has to say about creation and how science is interpreted within that worldview. Just because they haven’t visited your church, perhaps, does not mean they don’t visit others!




    0
    View Comment
  38. GRI does exactly what is being suggested. They travel all across the world visiting churches and explaining what the Bible has to say about creation and how science is interpreted within that worldview. Just because they haven’t visited your church, perhaps, does not mean they don’t visit others!  (Quote)

    Sorry,
    26 years in the church. A worker in 6 conferences in 3 unions. Seminary grad. First I heard of that!




    0
    View Comment
  39. @David: If you call the strong nuclear force “god” it would only be fair to give that name to electromagnetism, gravity and the weak nuclear force, too. But, whichever naming scheme you choose, this seems a bit pantheistic.

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  40. @BobRyan:

    The strong nuclear force is the one you see released during a fusion reaction.

    …No no no – ouch! The strong nuclear force is *not* “released” during a fusion reaction (or at any other time) – this quote is a clear demonstration of a significant lack of physical knowledge (to put it in friendly terms).

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Mark Houston:

    …No no no – ouch! The strong nuclear force is *not* “released” during a fusion reaction (or at any other time) – this quote is a clear demonstration of a significant lack of physical knowledge (to put it in friendly terms).

    Energy is “released” during the fusion reaction and the strong nuclear force is involved with how much energy is released. D-T fusion reaction is very highly exothermic, making it a powerful energy source. Perhaps this is what Bob Ryan was trying to say…

    For further information on this topic see:

    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/nuclear-fusion/requirements-for-fusion.html

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  42. The fundamental question of this thread, if I get it correctly, is in regards to the size of the bang we get for our GRI buck. Let’s be charitable: a million $ divided between the afforementioned staff, possibly some ancilliary help, plus facility costs and there isn’t a whole lot of cash to do anything spectacular. Let’s campaign for 2 million $, and leadership that knows something about marketing and promotion. Scientists can be quite stuffy and oh so conservative! Get in someone with imagination, marketing skill and hair on fire zeal. How about training some terrific Creation Evangelists? Lets get on with it!




    0
    View Comment
  43. Readers may be interested to know that the Australasian Division’s RECORD, July 17, carried a news item by Mark Kellner in which Ted Wilson was given his academic title of Doctor but Benjamin Clausen was given no academic title. Clausen was simply tagged MISTER or was untitled. It says it all, doesn’t it? We wouldn’t want the church members to think Clausen was a knowledgable man, would we? Far better to portray him as a lone crackpot defying the vote at the GC session.
    Further, the idea of having a bipolar or disparate approach to the creation debate seems absurd. Why would we want to throw millions of dollars at a research institution that consistantly denies a short creation model and at the same time spend more millions for an ongoing campaign to promote a short model?
    If I was a scientist at the GRI I would be looking for another job. Church administration will find some pretext to axe those who do not voice the party line. Administrators will use the line “change for change sake,” or the accussations of “non-cooperation” or “unsuitability” or something similar.
    Ted Wilson’s father and his predecessor brought theological schism in the 1970s and 1980s because they were not theologians but insisted on retreating to untenable church traditions. Memories are short. We never learn from history, do we? Church administrators want us to move forward. They don’t want to be judged by the mistakes of the past. Instead, they want the chance to do it all over again. It seems to me that Ted Wilson, who is not a scientist, is now about to cause schism once more by silencing the GRI and find solace in tradition.
    Where are the theologians who can inform the discussion about the literary genre of Genesis 1-11? They are, no doubt, trembling in their offices with an OUT FOR LUNCH sign hanging on their doors.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Benjamin Clausen was given no academic title. Clausen was simply tagged MISTER or was untitled. It says it all, doesn’t it? We wouldn’t want the church members to think Clausen was a knowledgable man, would we? Far better to portray him as a lone crackpot defying the vote at the GC session.

    This treatment of a scientist is much too typical of what we see at this website. Have you ever met the guy or, better yet, actually spoken to him? Have you ever asked him what his personal position is on origins? Have you asked him why he seems content to work for Geoscience? Have you ever asked him to distinguish between his personal position and what he believes science has to say about origins?

    I am concerned about a website that encourages public character assassination of others based on a lot of assumptions and very little information. It’s shameful and reflects poorly on Adventism and Christianity in general.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Milton, I’m no fan of GRI, but it is quite a stretch to say that it “consistently denies a short age model.” It does no such thing. The most that can be said is that GRI is currently unwilling to criticize radiometric dating methods. They just shrug their shoulders and say, “we don’t see anything obviously wrong with it.”

    As to your contention that they should look for another job now that Ted Wilson is GC president, you’re forgetting that Wilson has already been on the board of GRI for several years and has said he cherishes that board membership and has no intention of resigning his seat now that he is GC president. Presumably, Wilson already knows what is going on at GRI. I mean, I would hope he knows, as long as he has been on the board! Why would he now suddenly decide that he needs to clean house?

    My fear for Ted Wilson is just the opposite. I fear he may see the current state of affairs at GRI as fine and normal, whereas I think it needs considerable improvement.




    0
    View Comment
  46. Propaganda is propaganda……

    We see LSU certainly knows how to play the game. And we can’t be so sure that Wilson and others will simply follow the same pattern. Each side holding its supporters without any concession nor meaningful “reformation” to follow.

    We will see a year from now if Wilson means business, or, just blowing smoke to patronize the conservatives.

    In the end, I suggest La Sierra will simply eventually drift off into the world and nothing can really be done to stop it. And this is just another step in the final loss of many of our institutions before the end of time.

    How many years can the church embrace the world without the world eventually taking over the church? Not many more I would think.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  47. The conversations on this website are a parallel to the discussions going on in many fundamental christian groups.

    It seems that much of the conversation centers on teaching of biological evolution, where evolution takes the heat for apparent inconsistencies between biblical interpretation and findings in the biological sciences that do not support a young earth view.

    If the findings of biology are at odds with church dogma then other branches of science that support the old earth viewpoint are also suspect of heresy and should also be included in the review of appropriate dogmatic consistency.

    Specifically I submit;

    Geology: The prevailing view of geology is that the earth is 4.3 billion years old and defines many specific geologic structures that are far older than the young earth perspective.

    Paleontology: Built upon the findings of geology, geologic strata seem to contain fossil evidence of specific animals and plants that have been extinct for millions of years. These fossils occupy specific animal types unique to this range of sediment.

    Astronomy: A huge amount of new information in the last 50 years have pushed back the estimate of the age of the viewable universe and has provided examples of stellar processes that are both wondrous as well as troubling for adherence to a young earth view.

    Radiometric Analysis: Another science that supports the geologic old earth view by providing time indexes of geologic strata and dating structures far older than the official church viewpoint.

    Genetics: Genetic analysis has been touted to show the direct ancestry of living animals and plants. Specifically to the matter at hand, genetic comparison between members of the living great ape family and humans indicating a close ancestry among living members.

    Conclusion: The biological sciences are not alone in the questioning a young earth viewpoint. Like many other scientific disciplines, it forms a theoretical matrix with all of the natural sciences along with physics and mathematics. This matrix alone and in total do not support a 6 day creation and are taught as such in LSU and all secular and non secular universities.

    If one of the sciences, in this case, the theory of biological evolution, is heretical, teaching something other than a perspective that supports official church teachings, then other branches of science that do not confirm a young earth creation are equally suspect and should be equally condemned as heresy.

    Respectfully submitted ……. D.C. Hill




    0
    View Comment
  48. To be clear, I don’t think any “Creationist” will take the position that the universe is not millions or more years in age. The great “War in Heaven” happened prior to the creation of our Earth – how long before, we cannot know. EGW talks about beings who occupy other worlds in the universe.

    God has existed for eternity past, just as He will exist for eternity future. (Those who accept the gift of Jesus will also live for eternity future.) In God’s past, was there ever a time when He had not created anything and then started? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that question but it certainly leaves open the reasonability that some worlds are millions of years old. The extreme vastness of the universe is beyond human comprehension. I believe that to be a testimony to the incomprehensible power, intelligence, and presence of our Creator. For our “science” to comprehend anything about Him is foolishness.

    But think of it. My mind tries to grasp the significance of us puny humans here on this world. We are like a speck of dust in the universe. But the Creator (Jesus) came here and laid down his life for us. But not only that, he did it for each and every one of us as if there were not another for whom He would need to die. That puts a high value on each of us. Can you imagine His anguish when so many deny Him for Who He really is?

    Give your heart to Jesus. He cannot save you unles you do. (I am speaking to myself as well.)




    0
    View Comment
  49. Mr. Hill submits that geology, paleontology, astronomy, radiometric analysis and genetics “do not support a young earth view.” He could have added a large number of other scientific disciplines to his list.

    He notes that “The biological sciences are not alone in the questioning a young earth viewpoint. Like many other scientific disciplines, [the biological sciences] form a theoretical matrix with all of the natural sciences along with physics and mathematics. This matrix alone and in total do not support a 6 day creation . . . [If] the theory of biological evolution is heretical, teaching something other than a perspective that supports official church teachings, then other branches of science that do not confirm a young earth creation are equally suspect and should be equally condemned as heresy.”

    Mr. Hill exhibits an excellent grasp of the problem facing young earth and young life creationists.

    His logic is impeccable.

    I wonder if others that post regularly on this web site get the point. I suspect not.




    0
    View Comment
  50. Thank you Mr. Taylor for your kind words of support.

    The SDA adherence to intellectual honesty has always impressed me as has the kindness and courtesy of the SDA adherents I have had the pleasure to know. May I add sadly that such courtesy has not been extended to me from my own fundamental branch of Christian brotherhood when I would question the ever increasing adherence to church dogma and rigid conformity.

    As one who has been conflicted by my own branch of the fundamentalist tree, I have come to question the dangerous direction that a legalistic view of biblical infallibility takes us.

    So many enterprises are involved now in “proving” the literal interpretation of Genesis. Unfortunately their proofs are, to be generous, unfortunate misunderstandings, misquotations and misinformation that seek to gloss over major discrepancies with a frightening lack of moral and intellectual currency.

    It would be better for all branches of Christian fundamental thought to give up this pointless fight between dogma and science and accept that at least two different world views exist, one of heaven and one of earth and to truly believe that God is master of both.

    Respectfully submitted ……. D.C.Hill




    0
    View Comment
  51. Does science teach that when someone dies, they are dead and forever gone? If not, what happens – scientifically, I mean?

    Questioned respectfully.




    0
    View Comment
  52. I must totally disagree with DC Hill; Let me say from the outset that yes, we should be polite to each other; but have you looked at the ledger and seen how many times creationists have been despised, and mocked at? Admittedly there are those that are crude, but the facts are in favour of Christians for politeness than for atheists and such like. It seems that Hill’s studies are not current. See this:

    Geology: all he says is the ‘prevailing view!’ Of course the prevailing view of the evolutionists! Geology more strongly supports creation and a young earth. The evidences are too numerous: Grand Canyon and water formation, coal seams, fossils without any missing links, etc., etc.

    Palaeontology: This point is no argument since it is inaccurate. Types of fossils have been found all over the strata. Also, lab experiments have shown that strata specificity are according to the size, density, and weight of the objects. Just try it yourself in a jug of water with an assortment of objects and see how they settle after vigorous shaking. Also the very fact that he mentions complete forms are in our favour. You mean to say that after millions of years of evolving there are no missing links in abundance? Take the lowest level, the pre-Cambrian, ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Check out what is seen and known from that earliest strata!

    Astronomy: Studies have also shown the troublesome assertion of an old universe in view of today’s findings in the galaxies, light magnitudes, red shift, blue shift, etc. However, this is not a problem for us creationists of the SDA persuasion. We do not date the universe as young as the earth. We do not say that they were created the same time. However, Astronomy does show that our ideas of how old are just guestimates!

    Radiometric Dating: shows more clearly a young earth rather than an older one, especially when one considers the age factor and the accrued chronological factor. This factor is well screwed and has been shown to be inaccurate, especially the constancy of the isotopes decay, and original deposits, etc.

    Genetics: this one is more laughable. Genetics shows no connection or inter-relatedness between different life forms. In fact genetics show that cars, bikes, and trucks all are similar since they have a similar format! Humans then interject that one came from the other!!

    Conclusion: Science is just the existence of knowledge; how this knowledge is interpret is all according to one’s worldview. Good sense shows that you cannot get something out of nothing; nor can an inorganic, lifeless mass produce a living creature. Life only begets life. Yet there are those that seem to turn things up sided down and say that all things are related. Good sense tells us that that is impossible; everything today disproves it, yet some force the issue. Is not this what our governments are doing when they makes laws directly against the Bible and ask us, yea, mandate us to accept these laws on the pain of penalty?

    I like this one: True science and the Bible do not disagree.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Erv Taylor wrote: Mr. Hill submits that geology, paleontology, astronomy, radiometric analysis and genetics “do not support a young earth view.” He could have added a large number of other scientific disciplines to his list.

    Dr. Taylor,
    You have here missed the point. It is geologists, not Geology who do not support a young earth view; biologists, not Biology; astronomers not Astronomy; radiometric analysts, not Radiometric Analysis; and geneticists, not Genetics.

    Data missing from most scientist’s calculations in these disciplines is called inspiration, leading to vastly different results in appreciating the value of miracles and God’s ability to work above the natural. e.g. creating bread and fish on the spot to feet thousands of people, which if taken to “the lab” would return, using incomplete data, a much different analysis than the truth.

    The supernatural by definition is above the natural.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  54. Mr. Henderson;
    I am familiar with the prevailing views of science as well as the prevailing views of creationists since for many years I was firmly in the creationist camp.

    Please be assured that I am not one to attack a fellow Christian’s faith. You have a perfect right to believe what makes you comfortable.

    Thinking long and hard about the two world views it is clear to me that no amount of data or analysis will convince a person entrenched in his or her world view that they have misjudged the subject. It is a condition of human nature that keeps us in our comfort zone and rejects anything that causes conflict. This is never truer than when strongly held religious convictions are in play.

    The world of science is another matter. With science the data trumps dogma. As a result of this mandate long held beliefs in science must yield, sometimes reluctantly, to new findings. Understandably this causes immediate conflict with an unchanging strongly held religious world view.

    Mr. Henderson I have heard the arguments you stated in your response many times before. I have reviewed these and many other arguments for a young earth and have found them lacking. Many of the arguments presented are either incorrect, misquotations or out and out fabrications. The lack of argument credibility and the persistence of discounted claims that are still being used are knowingly presenting falsehoods and present a troubling mindset that does all Christianity much harm.

    Rather than address each of your statements item by item may I offer a web site that addresses many if not all of the young earth claims. That web site is http://www.answersincreation.org/.

    If what I have written causes dismay or anger I sincerely apologize.

    Please allow me to close with a quote from Billy Graham’s book Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74.

    “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

    Respectfully submitted ……. D.C.Hill




    0
    View Comment
  55. D.C.Hill: Thinking long and hard about the two world views it is clear to me that no amount of data or analysis will convince a person entrenched in his or her world view that they have misjudged the subject. It is a condition of human nature that keeps us in our comfort zone and rejects anything that causes conflict. This is never truer than when strongly held religious convictions are in play.

    The world of science is another matter. With science the data trumps dogma.

    You are right in both statements above – but you are wrong if you think that by-faith-alone-evolutionism is not in that first paragraph above – ignoring data and promoting decades long frauds and hoaxes to bolster its doctrines on origins.

    Atheist evolutionists themselves give us a hint as to the religious nature of the way evolutionism is being promoted these days.

    Collin Patterson – Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history – said:

    Patterson – quotes Gillespie’s arguing that Christians
    “‘…holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'”

    Patterson countered, “That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: ‘Yes it has…we know it has taken place.'”

    “…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…

    “…,strong>Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”

    In that quote we have an unnusually frank and honest atheist evolutionist lamenting the religious nature of the argument they are making.

    How “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.

    Which is why so many “TE’s and friends” here find it necessary to ignore that level of objective summation.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. D.C.Hill: Thank you Mr. Taylor for your kind words of support.

    The SDA adherence to intellectual honesty has always impressed me as has the kindness and courtesy of the SDA adherents I have had the pleasure to know. May I add sadly that such courtesy has not been extended to me from my own fundamental branch of Christian brotherhood when I would question the ever increasing adherence to church dogma and rigid conformity.

    I would argue that Erv, Kent, and Phillip have a strong line of agreement in their arguments and I think you will find all of them supporting your efforts here D.C. Hill.

    Seventh-day Adventists believe in a literal 7 day week, less than 10,000 years ago in which all complext forms of life came to be —

    Surely you can agree that such a belief does not fit the requirements for evolutionism as it is classically taught.

    Coming to that level of understanding is a big part of what we are trying to get out into public view.

    Moses was not a follower of Darwin – by any stretch of the imagination.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  57. milton hook: Ted Wilson’s father and his predecessor brought theological schism in the 1970s and 1980s because they were not theologians but insisted on retreating to untenable church traditions. Memories are short. We never learn from history, do we? Church administrators want us to move forward. They don’t want to be judged by the mistakes of the past. Instead, they want the chance to do it all over again. It seems to me that Ted Wilson, who is not a scientist, is now about to cause schism once more by silencing the GRI and find solace in tradition.

    You speak as if you totally forgot why the GRI was brought into existence.

    You speak as if you had no clue that the creation science movement in general attributes the very start of that movement to SDAs.

    The wrong-headed thinking of some of our brethren goes “so far” as to even deny any intelligence at all demonstrated by God in the things that He makes!

    How sad.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  58. It seems GRI is either not willing or is not being allowed to help resolve the LSU controversy. Why is the GRI silent when this topic is its specialty, when its voice is needed now more than ever? Is the GRI out of service? Are these scientists unable to support the Bible and the position of the church against LSU’s assault? Has the GRI lost its direction? Are they afraid? Are they unwilling? Or have these men been silenced from their superiors so they cannot perform their responsibilities? Is not one million dollars a year enough to enable the GRI to function in its chartered role?

    That is a good question.

    In the “Yes Creation!” event at the GC session a number of GRI speakers were very enthusiastic in their support of young life and a recent creation – while just a few others were muted if not resigned to defeat. That split within the group may account for some of the lack luster weigh-in… but it could be more along the lines that it is “not polite” for one institution/organization within the church to say anything negative about another one.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  59. The crisis in the SDA church today is due in large measure to the neglect of apologetics. It has been assumed that denominational scientists would undertake this task, but they are not suited to it.

    I am going to do apologetics full time for the rest of my career. It is essentially a forensic endeavor and I have the training and inclination to do it.




    0
    View Comment
  60. David Read: The crisis in the SDA church today is due in large measure to the neglect of apologetics. It has been assumed that denominational scientists would undertake this task, but they are not suited to it. I am going to do apologetics full time for the rest of my career. It is essentially a forensic endeavor and I have the training and inclination to do it.

    If I recall correctly you are a lawyer. Why are you suggesting that denominational scientists are porly suited for apologetics and that you are better trained for it? Regardless of how you answer I say praise God for someone like you who is willing to give up such a lucritive career (law) for pursuing apologetics. You must be truly inspired. Are you planning to teach at LSU? I dont understand why Dr. Pitman won’t do this as well and maybe teach at La Sierra University. If only he had the courage give up his medical income and do like you.




    0
    View Comment
  61. D.C.Hill: Rather than address each of your statements item by item may I offer a web site that addresses many if not all of the young earth claims. That web site is http://www.answersincreation.org/.

    I cannot believe you would suggest we visit Answers in Creation. THis is the Devils own website! THis might as well be La Sierra’s website or Geoscience Research’s website because it promotes old earth theology, which is the antithesis of Adventist theology. Shame on these people! And I had no ideal that Billy Graham supports this ministry. If he believes in an old earth then he is not really believe in the Bible and he is nothing but a big fat LIAR!!! How can these people claim to be Christian?

    If there is anyone at La Sierra or Geoscience Research that believes in an earth older than about 6,000 years, they must be fired IMMEDIATELY!!! We must cleanse our church of such infidelity and never let them back in again.




    0
    View Comment
  62. THis is the kind of rubbish we get from Answers in Creation:

    ===========

    “Many people look up to Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of our time. What was his position on creation science? Here’s a quote:

    I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.“1

    He had it right…the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.”

    ===========

    What kind of nonsensical rubbish is this???!!!




    0
    View Comment
  63. A posting by one Martha Ray states that “. . . . I had no ideal that Billy Graham supports this ministry. If he believes in an old earth then he is not really believe in the Bible and he is nothing but a big fat LIAR!!! How can these people claim to be Christian? If there is anyone at La Sierra or Geoscience Research [Institute] that believes in an earth older than about 6,000 years, they must be fired IMMEDIATELY!!! We must cleanse our church of such infidelity and never let them back in again.”

    I can not believe that any reasonable individual—even someone posting on the EducateTruth site—can be as insensitive and misguided as that represented by the words of a “Martha Ray.” Might she (or he?) be an extremist provocateur, using a pseudonym to discredit the position that this site is espousing.

    I would very much like to quote Ms. Ray as an example of the intellectual irresponsibility of those who support the EducateTruth agenda. But, to be fair, those running this web site must be given an opportunity to distance themselves from these kinds of rants. I sure they do not want to be seen as supporting such views.




    0
    View Comment
  64. Ervin Taylor: I can not believe that any reasonable individual—even someone posting on the EducateTruth site—can be as insensitive and misguided as that represented by the words of a “Martha Ray.” Might she (or he?) be an extremist provocateur, using a pseudonym to discredit the position that this site is espousing.

    Well we have seen that before that is for sure – and I think Spectrum entertained “bicycletruth” on the big left tent for that every purpose for a while.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  65. Martha Kay: “Many people look up to Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of our time. What was his position on creation science? Here’s a quote:
    “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.“1
    He had it right…the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.”
    ===========
    What kind of nonsensical rubbish is this???!!!

    Agreed – that is quite that rubbish.

    I would be sad indeed to hear that Billy Graham went to such extremes in denying both the bible and science.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  66. I do not see a “Martha Ray” except as quoted by Erv – but it appears to be a spin off of “Martha Kay” in true Spectrum “bicycletruth” fashion if Erv has those quotes right —




    0
    View Comment
  67. To me, what is remarkable is not the high profile Sunday-keeping Christians, like Graham, who are willing to compromise on Genesis, but rather the many Sunday-keepers who uphold the truth and reliability of Scripture “from the very first verse.”. By contrast, we who have much more at stake have not defended Scripture as effectively.




    0
    View Comment
  68. Thanks to everyone for their heartfelt comments. Thank you also for pointing me to the Geoscience Research Institute.

    Before I comment further I would like to review the body of work in the journal “Origins” to get a feel for how this SDA research group approaches the subject.

    So far, working backwards from volume number 63 I am only on volume 60. Even with this admitted minor reading of the site literature, and pursuing the voluminous footnotes, I am impressed with the scholarship and the frank nature of the articles. I am beginning to understand some of the highly charged comments toward this research group in the above posts.

    With respects ……. D.C.Hill




    0
    View Comment
  69. How heart rending to realize that many posters to this web site are unable to believe that it is possible to be a Bible-believing Christian and not subscribe to the fundamentalist notion of Biblical verbal in-nerrancy. SDA church has never endorsed verbal inspiration and to do so would be directly contrary to EGW statement that the “only words in Bible which God dictated are the 10 Commandments”. This statement is found in the preface to early editions of “Great Contoversy”.
    (Google book search “Preface, Great Controversy, 1888” should bring it up for any inquiring mind.)




    0
    View Comment
  70. I hope that “Martha Kay” has not gone away mad. We need her/him to post again so we all know that she/he actually exists. But perhaps the individual who suggested that “Martha” is really “Ron Stone, MD” in drag came too close to the truth.




    0
    View Comment
  71. Ervin Taylor: I hope that “Martha Kay” has not gone away mad. We need her/him to post again so we all know that she/he actually exists. But perhaps the individual who suggested that “Martha” is really “Ron Stone, MD” in drag came too close to the truth.

    Dr. Taylor, Do you mean that Dr. Stone is a “drag queen” and speaks against the “gay agenda” because he’s a “closet” gay and has “homo-selfhatred” or whatever they call it? Does anyone have any information on this matter?




    0
    View Comment
  72. Martha Kay: THis is the kind of rubbish we get from Answers in Creation:===========“Many people look up to Billy Graham, the greatest evangelist of our time. What was his position on creation science? Here’s a quote:“… of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference …“1He had it right…the focus should be on Jesus, and the salvation message, not on creation science.”===========What kind of nonsensical rubbish is this???!!!

    Don’t know about Erv’s “Martha Ray” – but that post by Martha Kay above – has substance. It would be horrible indeed for Christians to be so befuddled on the point of Bible interpretation so as to imagine that Moses was proclaiming Darwinism.

    Total nonsense.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  73. D.C.Hill: Thanks to everyone for their heartfelt comments. Thank you also for pointing me to the Geoscience Research Institute.

    Here is a GRI link I really like –

    http://www.grisda.org/2009/12/affirmation-of-creation/

    Where you will find this statement –

    Our world is full of evidence of thoughtful and intentional design, from the beauty we see in the brightly colored flowers and birds to the complexity of the cell and the very structure of the universe itself. Evidence of design is seen even in our capacity to appreciate the beauty, and our ability to examine the creation and thoughtfully contemplate its meaning. Inevitably, we are led to wonder how the design came about and what it means for our own existence.

    The attribute of Design and the fact that it shows that God is “intelligent” cannot be ignored when observing nature.

    Of course I also like this GRI link as well –

    http://grisda.net/subGi/about/statements-on-creation/

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  74. From Spiritual Gifts, v. 3, p 82, 83

    Greater wonders than have yet been seen will be witnessed by those upon the earth a short period previous to the coming of Christ. “And I will show wonders in the heavens above, and signs in the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapour of smoke.” “And there were voices and thunders and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, for the plague thereof was exceeding great.” {3SG 82.1}
    Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, p. 82.2 (EGW)
    The bowels of the earth were the Lord’s arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}
    Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, p. 82.3 (EGW)
    In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn 83like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}
    Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, p. 83.1 (EGW)
    The saints are preserved in the earth in the midst of these dreadful commotions, as Noah was preserved in the ark at the time of the flood. Christ appears in his glory, and calls forth the righteous dead. The living saints are changed, and, with the resurrected dead, are borne away from the earth by angels to meet their Lord in the air. The earth is left like a desolate wilderness.

    {End Quote}

    Jesus is coming. Time to get ready. We know the wolves are among us. Just focus on a relationship with Jesus and proclaim His final message upon the Earth. It’s the only way!

    Happy Sabbath, everyone.




    0
    View Comment
  75. Here is an interesting historic perspective –

    http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article.php?id=37

    Although the founders of modern science generally saw nature as an expression of God’s wisdom, modern science has tended to separate God from the study of nature. By excluding any consideration of divine activity and focusing exclusively on the relationship between matter and energy, science has become increasingly secular. It is now considered inappropriate to mention God in explaining events in the cosmos. This is a change in the philosophy of science since the days when Ellen White stated that science and the Bible should be in harmony. The present refusal of scientists to acknowledge God means that modern science is no longer friendly toward the biblical record of divine activity in nature.

    The God of nature – has been “divorced from the work of His own hands” by atheist evolutionists whose primary doctrine is “there is no god”.

    That is why distinctively atheist approaches to evolionism – are so bitterly opposed to I.D. science that is allowed to “follow the data where it leads” without the mandate of having to pander to atheist notions about their “being no god”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. As promised I have read through all the Geo Science Institute’s publication Origins. It has taken me far longer than I anticipated.

    I made the mistake of reading the publication starting with the newest working my way backward to the oldest. I would recommend that should anyone in this blog wish to recreate my efforts they start with the oldest article.

    From my humble review, my thought is that the Geo Science Institute is sincerely attempting to reconcile an inerrant biblical worldview with other scholarship. As stated previously I have always been impressed with the educational background and honesty of SDA members I have known.

    After reading these publications and working my way through the footnotes I was struck by the difference in style and content of earliest articles as compared to the more recent articles. The earlier articles were adamant in defense of the young earth view and the great flood of Noah while the more recent articles were more reserved.

    As you well know after 2008 there are no further publications in Origins.

    Had I read the publication from the oldest to the most recent it would have been apparent to me that the good people of GSI have honestly tested the creationist/biblical literalist arguments against the best science of the day. From the articles a conciliatory tone emerges the last couple of years of publication perhaps indicative of the personal journey of discovery of the GSI staff and researchers.

    This will be my last post to this blog. To be honest, I was shopping for another denomination, one that I could honestly embrace the teachings and grow spiritually. After these two months of research my conclusion is that SDA is not for me. Please, No insult is intended to anyone in the SDA faith nor to the wonderful SDA people I know.

    May God bless everyone and best of luck in each of your personal journey and growth.

    DC Hill




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.