As promised I have read through all the Geo Science …

Comment on Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute by D.C.Hill.

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

D.C.Hill Also Commented

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
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

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
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

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

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
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