Comment on Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit by David Read.
@Professor Kent: I agree with Bob and Sean that it works both ways, but I believe more the former than the latter. Because of the Genesis narrative, I interpret the fossil record, at least the great bulk of it, as the residue of the Flood. Were it not for the Genesis narrative, I might interpret the fossil record, or the bulk of it, according to the principle of uniformity, ala Lyell. So clearly, the primary determinant is Scripture, not unaided examination of the raw data.
For an example of how the fossil record can add depth of meaning to the interpretation of Scripture, consider Genesis 8:3. The King James Version renders it “And the waters returned from off the earth continually: . . .” The Hebrew word translated “from off” is usually translated “upon” or “above.” Two Hebrew words are translated together as “continually.” The first is yalak, which means, “to go.” The second is shuwb, which means, “to return.” The text might better be translated, “And the waters returned upon the earth, going and returning.” The floodwaters surged in and retreated in a repeating cycle. One commentator explains it as follows:
“In Genesis 8:3, “continually” is a translation of two Hebrew verbs: shuwb, which means “to turn about, to return,” and yalak, which means “to go.” Together they present us with a graphic picture of the powerful churning action of the flood waters! A going is followed by a returning. Both verbs are set in the infinitive absolute form, indicating emphasis and duration. The flood waters did not tranquilly seep into the soil. This was a moving Flood, carrying back and forth vast amounts of water, soil, vegetation, and sediments. Gradually, layer after layer of sediments, vegetation, and other materials were laid down and covered over. The infinitive form means that it kept happening over a period of time (instead of only once if the imperfect form had been used). Terrific hydraulic forces were at work. Massive erosional and depositional actions were taking place. Gradually, layer after layer of sedimentary deposits were laid down.”
The fact that the sedimentary deposits testify so strongly to this back and forth deposition pattern brings to our attention a detail in Scripture that we probably would not have noticed otherwise. The implication of back and forth action was always there in the Bible, but we would not have noticed it or attached any significance to it were it not for a very prominent characteristic of the stratigraphic record. So that’s an example of the fossil record enhancing our knowledge and interpretation of the Genesis record.
David Read Also Commented
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Professor Kent: “Naturalism applies the evidence to understand scripture, and creationism applies scripture (in no small part) to understand the evidence.”
Jeff, your clauses are not parallel. Naturalism first assumes that there was no Creator God (a faith assumption) and then uses that assumption to interpret the data of nature. It then uses its (atheistic) interpretation of nature to re-interpret Scripture. But since Scripture is all about miracles, all about an omnipotent Creator God, why would anyone who rules out such a God in his interpretation of the data of nature even be interested in the Bible?
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Professor Kent: Jeff, see my response to Eddie, above. It is clear that the modern world is not a reliable guide regarding conditions that existed before the Flood. Inspired history tells us that there were no bare, jagged mountain tops, no dismal swamps and no arctic wastes; the world was very different, and the conditions that prevailed then are not the conditions that prevail now.
The fossil record confirms inspired history; warm-weather flora and fauna are found in abundance in arctic and antarctic zones, and this fact cannot remotely be explained by continental drift. How were the arctic climes ever able to support these life forms? The fossils tell us that conditions differed radically, but they don’t tell us why. Inspired history tells us that conditions were very different before the Flood
These types of mysteries are at least as prevalent in the mainstream model as in the the creationist model.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Eddie: The fossil record gives evidence of a pre-Flood world differing in many respects from present conditions. But we also know that from inspired history, such as the fact that there was no rain in the antediluvian world, but rather the earth was watered by a mist. There were no desert wastes, no dismal swamps, and no arctic ice fields.
The radically different climatic conditions of the pre-Flood world might well have given rise to ecological zonation somewhat different from what we see in the modern world. Plants that have taken over in the modern world, such as angiosperms, might have had a much more restricted ecological niche in the pre-flood world.
Recent Comments by David Read
LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Pauluc: I do not agree that science must be naturalistic, but if that is your bottom line, it will not trouble me much where it concerns most day-to-day science–the study of current, repeating phenomena. But a rigid naturalism applied to origins morphs into philosophical atheism. Hence, mainstream origins science is not science but atheistic apologetics. This is what should not be done at an Adventist school, but sadly what has been the rule at La Sierra.
Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
@Pauluc: The Adventist doctrine of creation is that God created the world in six days and rested on the Seventh day and hallowed it. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11) Do you believe that doctrine? It won’t do to say that you accept some vague “Christian doctrine of creation.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a very specific mission to call people back to the worship of the creator God, on the day that He hallowed at the creation.
You say you believe that the “core doctrine of Christianity is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ,” but what was Jesus Christ incarnated to do? Wasn’t his mission to redeem fallen humanity, to be the second Adam who succeeded where the first Adam failed? And doesn’t your view of origins make nonsense of a perfect creation, a literal Adam who fell, and the need for redemption because of Adam’s sin? You seem to want to gloss over all the very profound differences you have not only with Seventh-day Adventist dcotrine, but with the most basic reasons that Seventh-day Adventism exists.
The syncretistic hodgepodge religion you’ve created for yourself, combining elements of a biblical world view (the incarnation) and elements of a pagan worldview (a self-created creation) is not Adventism. It is anti-Seventh-day Adventism.
LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Holly Pham: Holly, I will try, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@Pauluc: Since no creationist could land a job as chairman of a biology department at a public university, it seems entirely appropriate that no Darwinist should be given the chairmanship of a biology department of a Seventh-day Adventist college.
The SDA educational system doesn’t exist to expensively duplicate the public university system. It exists to provide a uniquely biblical and Seventh-day Adventist education to interested young people. If mainstream origins science is correct in its assumptions and conclusions about our origins, the entire enterprise of Seventh-day Adventism is an utterly foolish waste of time. So at Adventist institutions, our professors should assume that Darwinistic science is false, and that creationistic science is true (just the reverse of how it is done at public universities), and proceed accordingly.
LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
@gene fortner: What I like about your list of topics, Gene, is that it points out that many disciplines are implicated in the necessary change of worldview. It isn’t just biology and geology, although those are the main ones. History, archeology, anthropology and other disciplines should also be approached from a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview should pervade the entire curriculum.
