the literal six-day creation week is open to the potential …

Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Eddie.

the literal six-day creation week is open to the potential for essential falsification.

And how?

the living things that were originally created on the Earth are still around for scientific evaluation.

That’s funny, for all these years I thought they had all died, but once again I was mistaken. So roses were originally created with thorns, spiders with venom glands and fangs, and snakes without wings?

Eddie Also Commented

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’

I wish that, when people hear of us, their response would be, “Oh, Seventh-day Adventists are the people who really love Jesus.”
Is there anyone else who thinks we ought to make this a high priority? ANYONE?


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

So exactly who are the SDA science professors who agree with you that the weight of geological and biological evidence strongly favors the SDA positions on origins? And that only such professors who agree with you should teach in SDA colleges and universities? You have claimed that Drs. Brand, Chadwick and Lee do, but why should I believe your claim? What is the basis of your claim: is it based on mere personal conversation, or published statements that we can actually verify?

Furthermore, if any such professors actually agree with you, I would like to see them publicly declare here at Educate Truth that they agree with you that the scientific evidence strongly favors the following three SDA positions on origins: (1) creation of all basic life forms occurred within a few days instead of megaevolution in which primitive forms of life gradually evolved into more complex forms of life; (2) life has existed on the planet for less than 10,000 instead of millions or billions of years; and (3) Noah’s flood covered every speck of land on the planet. And a fourth position: that anybody who disagrees with any of these three positions should resign from employment in the SDA church.

I would be very surprised and impressed if any SDA professor actually agreed with you for any one of those four principles. But maybe I’m mistaken, as you believe I usually am. I challenge you to prove that I am mistaken.

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

It is unjustifiable for you–and apparently you alone–to insist those of us who interpret the Bible the same way you do but interpret science differently are not fit to teach in a SDA school. It is unjustifiable for you to imply that we are less faithful to the SDA church and undermining the church simply on the basis of how we interpret science.

The strongest evidence for long ages in the history of Earth and life on Earth comes from radiometric dating. Numerous techniques have been developed and tens of thousands of studies have been published. Virtually all point toward ages much longer than what the scriptures imply (although the Bible never states when the creation week or flood occurred). All you can do is point out flaws in the assumptions and methodology of the research. The best you can do is toss out the data as unreliable–and I honestly hope that you are right. However, you cannot–I repeat–you cannot argue that the flaws in assumptions and methodology of radiometric dating provide empirical evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation. You cannot expect me to stand in front of students and honestly tell them that the weight of empirical scientific evidence of radiometric dating supports the presence of life on Earth for only 6,000 years. If that’s what you want to believe, I’m happy for you, but I don’t see it that way. I totally agree with you that there are other forms of evidence supporting a short chronology, and like you I want to belive that those forms of evidence are more reliable. But there is no getting around the fact that the evidence from radiometric dating, which provides the strongest evidence for a long chronology, does not support a short chronology.

The strongest evidence for megaevolution comes from the fossil record, not similarity in DNA sequences (which could be created by design). If human and whale bones were mixed in with those of dinosaurs and trilobites, I would agree with you that the weight of scientific evidence favors the creation of modern life forms within a short period of time. However, you know just as well as I do that human fossils appear only near the top of the fossil record, and that whales do not appear until after the dinosaurs are extinct. And that the fossil record shows an apparent progression of primitive to complex organisms. The best you can do is point out irregularities in the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion and unexpected sequence problems in megaevolutionary transitions (e.g., fish-amphibian transition), and attempt to attribute the apparently sequence of primitieve to advanced organisms to ecological zonation. I see problems with megaevolutionary theory, but those problems do not–I repeat, do not–provide evidence that humans were created within a few days of trilobites. You cannot expect me to stand in front of students and tell them that weight of evidence from the fossil record favors the creation of humans and other complex organisms within a few days of the most primitive organisms. If you believe it does I am happy for you. But I am not going to lie on your behalf in the classroom.

Recent Comments by Eddie

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?

Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.

Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?

Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”

Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.

It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.

David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.


David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.

David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.

I agree.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.

David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.

How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.