@Ron: I am happy to see the entire faculty of …

Comment on SAU Faculty Statement on Creation (2004) by Tesha.

I am happy to see the entire faculty of SAU’s religion department supporting the doctrine of six literal, consecutive, 24-hours days of creation. I would like to encourage the biology department as well as the other science departments of SAU to also make this stand, if they have not done so already.
The Gospel Workers statement that Ron quoted does not explicitly delineate what it is that Ellen White thought was error in religious or philosophical fields. However, the following statements would indicate that she places the Bible as an authority over science, to direct the interpretation of the evidences revealed in science.
“Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God’s Word is to be tested by the teachings of “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20). The Creator and His works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.”–GC 522
“To many, scientific research has become a curse. God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in discoveries in science and art; but even the greatest minds, if not guided by the Word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation.”–GC 522
“He who has a knowledge of God and His word has a settled faith in the divinity of the Holy Scriptures. He does not test the Bible by man’s ideas of science. He brings these ideas to the test of the unerring standard. He knows that God’s word is truth, and truth can never contradict itself; whatever in the teaching of so-called science contradicts the truth of God’s revelation is mere human guesswork.”–8T 325
The scientific method of testing the physical and mathematical evidences is limited when it comes to origins, because no one is able to directly observe the past. Both evolution and creation are therefore in the realm of philosophy and religion, rather than empirical science. Both creationists and evolutionists start with a premise of origins, and interpret the empirical data according to their starting point.
My starting point is the Bible, because I believe that the Bible records the account of only eye-witness to the origins of the universe and the earth. That eye-witness is God, who told the Bible writers what He had done when He created all things.
As to what Ellen White believed about the long-age earth theory, please read this passage:
“The infidel supposition that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.
“Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves from difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position; for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them.” 1SP 86-87.

Recent Comments by Tesha

PUC responds
I was an adult student too, but some of your fellow students are indeed children in thinking (they simply take in information, rather than analyzing it as you and I do).

LSU responds to Michigan Conference

I came to this university from a country where being an Adventist is like being a part of a mad sect and I will always be thankful to God that He miraculously brought me here. My decision to come to LSU has been one of the most blessed experiences that I’ve ever had in my life! Here I can truly sense love, support of people who are passionate about God, and learn more about Adventism. You guys have no idea how many fragile in faith people you are impacting with your bitter comments and criticism toward the university that I am proud being a part of.  

I am so glad that you found Jesus at LSU! That is the result we want to see from all of our Adventist colleges and universities. President Wisbey, thank-you for praying with this young man and encouraging him.

I agree with you, Ivan, that some of those posting on this site have posted some very bitter statements. That is not reflective of Christ’s character, and I agree that it is very sad! I hope that those bitter statements will not tear down the fragile faith of new believers.

However, Ivan and President Wisbey, the concern of many others in this site is for other students whose faith is fragile in a different way. The theory of molecules-to-man evolution logically does tear down faith in Jesus. I have met young people who no longer believe in Jesus as their savior because of the doubt that is inherent in the theory of molecules-to-man evolution.

One of the reasons that molecules-to-man evolution does this is because it requires that death of animals would have occurred billions of times over before there were any people that could sin against God. The Bible says that death came after and as a result of sin against God (Rom 5:12,14). It also says that “the wages of sin is death”(Rom 6:23) and that Jesus came to die in our place because of our sin (Isa 53:5). Thus if death isn’t really a result of sin, the cross of Jesus was not necessary, and we have no reason to believe in Jesus as our savior from sin and death.

To those that are posting statements such as Ivan quoted: Please be gentle while you call sin by its right name! Remember that Jesus wept over the city that would kill Him, and cried when He gave His most scathing rebukes.