Amalgamation: Good comments Sean. Not to contradict you, but it …

Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by Ron Duffield.


Good comments Sean. Not to contradict you, but it just might be that EGW was also writing before her time, so to speak. This maybe something that was impossible in her day but very possible now or in the near future (and might have been going on before the flood among a race that according to EGW was much more advanced than ours). Anyone can easily do a little study on the current issue of “Chimeras,” (the amalgamation of different animals or man and animal), and will find a lot of current information on this, not in the “National Inquirer” but mainline news sources and medical journals. Following are just a couple found in a quick qoogle search. The ethics of creating chimeras, even talk of human/chimpanzee (humanzee), is being discussed in many countries around the world.

As far as Nick having to “go back” to Ellen White’s comments in Spiritual Gifts in order to find supporting evidence that students shouldn’t be sent to schools teaching “delusive scientific theories” (what Alexander calls the “pre-scientific worldview”), a simple search shows that counsel didn’t change. Science falsely so called will raise a dreadful harvest:

“Some Points to Guard.–We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief. The Lord has given all the brilliancy of intellect that man possesses, and it should be devoted to His service.”–RH, Mar 1, 1898. (7BC 916.)

“To many of our youth there is great danger in listening to the discourses that are given by those who in the world are called great men. These discourses are often of a highly intellectual nature, and prevailing errors of science falsely-so-called and of popular religious doctrine are mingled with wise sayings and observations, but they undermine the statements of the Bible and give the impression that there is reason for questioning the truth of the inspired Word. In this way the seeds of skepticism are sown by great and professedly wise men, but their names are registered in the books of record in heaven as fools, and they are an offense to God. They repeat the falsehoods that Satan put into the mouth of the serpent, and educate the youth in delusions.
This is the kind of education the enemy delights in. It is sorcery. The great apostle inquired, “Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth?” Those who receive and admire the sentiments of these so-called great men are in danger, for through the subtlety of the enemy the sophistical reasoning of these false teachers takes root in the heart of our youth, and almost imperceptibly they are converted from truth to error. But the conversion should be just the other way. Our young men who have seen the evidences of the verity of truth should be firmly established and able to win souls to Christ from the darkness of error.
The youth who go to Ann Arbor must receive Jesus as their personal Saviour or they will build upon the sand, and their foundation will be swept away.”–Letter 26, 1891, pp. 1, 2, 3-6. (To Leon Smith, son of Elder Uriah Smith, October 9, 1891.) {4MR 50.3}

“The general method of educating the youth does not meet the standard of true education. Infidel sentiments are interwoven in the matter placed in school books, and the oracles of God are placed in a questionable or even an objectionable light. Thus the minds of the youth become familiar with Satan’s suggestions, and the doubts once entertained become to those who entertain them, assured facts, and scientific research is made misleading on account of the way its discoveries are interpreted and perverted. Men take it upon themselves to rein up the word of God before a finite tribunal, and sentence is pronounced upon the inspiration of God according to finite measurement, and the truth of God is made to appear as a thing uncertain before the records of science. These false educators exalt nature above nature’s God, and above the Author of all true science. At the very time when teachers should have been firm and unwavering in their testimony, at the very time when it should have been made manifest that their souls were riveted to the eternal Rock, when they should have been able to inspire faith in those who were doubting, they made admission of their own uncertainty as to whether the word of God or the discoveries or science, falsely so called, were true. Those who were truly conscientious have been made to waver in their faith because of the hesitation of those who were professed expositors of the Bible when they dealt with the living oracles. Satan has taken advantage of the uncertainty of the mind, and through unseen agencies, he has crowded in his sophistries, and has caused men to become befogged in the mists of skepticism.” {YI, January 31, 1895 par. 2}

“Drifting Away From Bible Landmarks.–Many know so little about their Bibles that they are unsettled in the faith. They remove the old landmarks, and fallacies and winds of doctrine blow them hither and thither. Science, falsely so-called, is wearing away the foundation of Christian principle; and those who once were in the faith drift away from the Bible landmarks, and divorce themselves from God, while still claiming to be His children.”–Review and Herald, Dec. 29, 1896.

“Conflict Between False Science and Religion.–I have been warned that henceforth we shall have a constant contest. Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other, because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me: ‘Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’ This will surely be seen among the people of God, and there will be those who are unable to perceive the most wonderful and important truths for this time, truths which are essential for their own safety and salvation, while matters that are in comparison as the merest atoms, matters in which there is scarcely a grain of truth, are dwelt upon and are magnified by the power of Satan so that they appear of the utmost importance.” {Ev 593.1, 1890}

Recent Comments by Ron Duffield

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
Alexander Carpenter stated:

“Next, will Educate Truth be alerting the denomination to the fact that a dangerous seducer of the brethren teaches at PUC and who goes by the name: Desmond Ford?”

It just so happens that in one of Desmond Ford’s latest books, For the Sake of the Gospel (2008), he has something to say about his personal views in regard to this discussion. In chapter 22, The Unpaid Debts of the Church, Desmond and Gillian have this to say:

“Most educated people in the Western countries regard Adventism as a nineteenth-century cult because of our promoting of Ussher’s six-thousand-year-old earth for most of our existence, and because we ignore the evidence furnished by the geological column, astronomy, continental drift and plate tectonics, radiometric radiocarbon, and amino acid dating, etc. Among Bible scholars who do accept an anachronism because of the way we interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Please not well that the issue here at stake is not the inspiration of Genesis but its interpretation. . . .

For decades, Adventism has been defending a young earth. Yet, more than half of the scientists in our ranks repudiate that position. In the recent volume of Creation Reconsidered, some well-known Adventist scientists and theologians speak their minds regarding the impossibility of holding the young earth doctrine. I know many of the writers personally, and I could add to the list others who stand in the foremost ranks of Adventist scientists. These would agree with the writers of this book [Desmond and Gillian Ford], though originally all of them believed in a young earth and once explained the geological column by resorting to a worldwide flood in Noah’s day. All these men of science I greatly admire. . . .

The problem facing the church is a very urgent one. Because we have dealt with science as an enemy, and because we have not been prepared to listen to the scientists amongst us, we have ill prepared the many thousands of our young people who go to universities and learn the sciences. Far more than half of them then lose their way, assuming that the church is not to be trusted in any of its teachings, seeing it is demonstrably wrong regarding its teachings on the very opening page of the Bible” (pp. 170-172).

It appears to me, Alex, that Desmond Ford and many of his doctrines are a detriment to the church today and not just a historic fact of bygone days. How sad that AdvenistToday published and promotes a biography on Desmond that upholds him and his doctrines as that which will save the Adventist church from all its supposed follies, including I would guess, our view on Genesis and denial of modern evolutionary science.

LSU responds to Michigan Conference
I appreciate all that this website has done in seeking to bring about a resolution to the problem of teaching evolution in the classrooms at La Sierra. However, living very close to another “Adventist” University I am aware that La Sierra is not the only Adventist school of higher education that has faculty members (not just in the science department) that openly support or promote evolution, and downplay a literal 6 day creation. While interviewing a potential faculty member for a position at another Adventist college years ago all of us on the Personnel committee where informed that most Adventist colleges in North America employ professors who no longer believe in a literal 6 day creation. While I cannot prove this myself, the professor who stated this would likely have known. My point is that the problem is much larger than just La Sierra, and the leadership of this world church needs to take this issue seriously. Just because an Adventist College or University publishes some official looking statement by the president claiming support of Adventist fundamental beliefs does not mean they have, or are dealing with those on their payroll that are teaching otherwise. Keep up the good work of keeping us informed, but maybe we need to broaden the call for reform.