The same type of subjectivity is seen in mainstream radiometric …

Comment on Readers respond to Adventist Review article by Carl.

The same type of subjectivity is seen in mainstream radiometric dating assumptions. Depending upon the assumptions you use and the calibration techniques chosen, you can pretty much get whatever date you want for the rock in front of

If that is true, why does the GRI Website say the following:

What unsolved problems about the age of the Earth are of greatest concern?

The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers. Other questions include why radiometric dating systematically gives ages that are much older than suggested by the biblical record; an explanation for traces of activity in the geologic column; and an explanation for the long series of layers in ice cores.
http://www.grisda.org/2009/09/age-of-the-earth/

The ocean floor is generaly recognized as one of the least understood ecosystems on the planet with the result that ocean chemistry is not quantifiable for dating purposes. The scientific community is well aware of this fact and does not attempt to use dissolved elements to date the oceans.

Although there are questions about radiometric dating, I have never heard of any challenge to standard dating that would shorten the time of life on the earth to anything even close to Ussher’s Chronology. Your claim that “you can pretty much get whatever date you want” is simply not true. There is no assumption of radiometric dating or ice-core dating that can be changed to give dates as short as Ussher’s Chronology.

Carl Also Commented

Readers respond to Adventist Review article

Also, organizations cannot be maintained if individuals think to move significantly faster or slower than the organization itself.

It’s strange, but I would have thought we were doing pretty well until you and Shane started EducateTruth.com. We had three summer conferences a few years ago, and there was a small gain of understanding. The literalists pretty well controlled the published results, so the official statements fell far short of telling what happened, but there was some progress in my opinion. It’s sad that the real nature of the discussions has not been published.

The official church publications have never been willing to inform members about the wide range of beliefs held by some members. So, few people know that the former president of Andrews University (Richard Hammill) espoused a form of theistic evolution, and a former editor of the Adventist Review and the SDA Bible Commentary (Ray Cottrell) called on GRI to give up their search for evidence of a world-wide flood. You, of course, have elsewhere dismissed their opinions because they weren’t scientists, but they didn’t reach their conclusions in a vacuum. You can be sure they had conversed with many others.

I think it’s good for SDA members to know what has been going on so they can make an informed choice. Many have already done so and, regrettably, have left the church, but you’re stuck with me and it won’t change my mind for you to claim that I am lacking integrity.

My purpose here is not to convince anyone that evolution explains human origin – I don’t believe that. I’m here mostly because your certainty about the science issues needs at least a little balance. I have never met anyone who is so sure about so much.


Readers respond to Adventist Review article

Given that your conclusions are correct, that there really aren’t enough biologists or other types of scientists to adequately support the educational institutions of the SDA Church, what should the SDA Church do?

For starters, why not state fundamental beliefs that don’t force people to deny their senses? When you (or someone connected with your site) finally looked into the history of FB 6, you found that it was written to allow a range of belief. It’s an interesting history where the political forces that schemed to make FB 6 very specific were out maneuvered by the forces that wished to say nothing more than what Genesis says. This, of course, does not suit your purposes, so you have posted a demand that FB 6 must be tightened up to be sure we can accurately label heretics in our midst. (I, on the other hand, admire the skill of the outnumbered few who pulled that off.)

… why work for such a backward Church …

Because my commitment to Adventism is based on a continuing search for the truth. The Bible is our only creed, and that leaves room for a range of interpretation. That’s why the preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs says that they are subject to review and possible change.

So, I hope FB 6 will be revised to widen the search for truth and you demand that we nail it down tight so as to prevent a further search for truth. But, we’re in this thing together.


Readers respond to Adventist Review article

All of these dating methods are fraught with subjective elements to include the very subjective process of “tuning” to match pre-concieved patterns.

But, none of the problems with dating methods suggest time spans short enough to fit Ussher’s Chronology. If you can’t shorten history to about 10,000 years, you can’t have a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

I don’t have a solution to the problem, and I wish you would use this Web site to present a broader range of information. As I have pointed out in other places, there is a long list of Adventist thinkers who have been aware of the short-history problem for a long time. Under GC Presidents William Branson and Reuben Figuhr, statements emphasizing a 6,000 year history were discouraged. During the formation of Geoscience Research Institute, those who wanted to do science left because their scientific results did not support a 6,000 year history.

You make it sound as if the present problem exists only because of a few biologists at LaSierra U. What about the Atoday survey showing that SDA scientists have been moving steadily toward a long-history position for many years? What about the dramatic change in Adventist thinking about the age of the Universe? What about the very conservative Dr. Robert Brown (and others) who gradually convinced many church leaders that the rocks of the earth were very old? What about the three Faith and Science Conferences that ended with a statement that did not reflect the position of many of the scientists who attended?

To have a public site such as this you should also take on the responsibility of providing balanced information. The average SDA member is poorly equipped to understand what has happened at LaSierra, and you add to the problem by making it appear as if there is a very clear and obvious solution. There are important reasons why you have not gotten the action you desire.


Recent Comments by Carl

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’

These layers should have been washed away many times over by now. That’s the problem.

Well — maybe. I’d say the real problem for your position is that no one has proposed a comprehensive model that can explain the evidence of geology within about 10,000 years. That is such a huge problem that I don’t know why we are talking about anything else. The evidence for life beyond 10,000 years is massive as compared to the few objections that Sean has collected.


Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Sean,

I understand better how you have reached your conclusions. You have a powerful bias that the Bible must be literal history, and that predisposition has driven much of your scientific thinking. What still mystifies me is that you attempt to take the open issues of science and use them as an argument that a short history is equally as believable (I think you claim more believable) as a long history. That is one huge leap.

I’ve read parts of your personal Web site, and it seems to me that you have failed to establish your points. In what you have written, I have found no compelling evidence to believe a short history. You do well in raising doubts about the standard model, but doubts on one side are not a convincing argument on the other side.

You do not have any detectable theory of how the earth could possibly come to be as it is within about 10,000 years. Your discussion above again misses the major issue. The evidence that is at odds with a short history is much greater than the evidence that is at odds with a long history. You have come nowhere close to showing otherwise. Ten thousand years is a very short period of time.


Report on LSU constituency meeting
Here’s a link for Hammill’s interesting report:

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/15-2hammill.pdf


Report on LSU constituency meeting
@BobRyan:

Not found in Adventist literature.
Not found in Quiquinium voted documents.
So “general” as in you and a few of your closes friends?
How is that “general”?

The Consultant Committee on Geoscience Research was terminated and a new emphasis was instituted for staff activities. Research tended to concentrate on selected areas where the data were most supportive of the 6,000-year biblical chronology of Bishop Ussher. Before long, the tacit policy arrived at in the 1950s during the General Conference presidency of W. H. Branson (to the effect that the 6,000-year chronology need not be emphasized in Seventh-day Adventist publications) was abandoned. (Richard Hammill, AAF Spectrum, Vol 15, No. 2 p 41)

I did not know Dr Hammill personally, so, no, this wasn’t cooked up among my closest friends.


Report on LSU constituency meeting
@Art Chadwick:

The theology department has preceded the sciences by some year in losing confidence in the Scriptures and in promoting belief in naturalism.

Here again is the suggestion that we must interpret Scripture literally or else we are “losing confidence” in them. I think it often works the other way around. By insisting on literal details, we can miss the most important point and make it more difficult to believe.

The tragedy of this Web site is that it thwarts the creative thinking that we need for dealing with modern science issues. It’s not an easy problem, and the success of this site will drive many thinking people into seclusion. That’s where we’ve been for decades.

In the 1950s, there was a general understanding that Adventist literature would not emphasize a 6000 year history. President Robert Pierson brought that to an end and set us on a path to avoid any science that we did not like. The result is that many Adventists are very suspicious of science and scientists.

If truth has nothing to fear from examination, which sometimes seems to be a Adventist assumption, I say it’s time to stop trying to fix LSU. Students are pretty good at figuring out who to believe. So, if you’re afraid to think out of the box, go where you’ll be told what to think. If you want think it out for yourself, go where the box has been opened.

I have little doubt that Geanna, Adventist Student, and many others will figure things out with or without the “help” of the reformers sponsoring and speaking on this site.