I read Adventist World
The latest issue of Adventist World carries Angel Manuel Rodriguez's column "Bible Questions." This month's question is "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days?." (It's almost like they're writing just for me these days. Wheeeeee! I'm special!)
In the interest of time (mine, not yours), I'm going to skip over what's wrong with his first two points in favor of the third. What the reader really asks is this: "Is it true that some Adventist scientists and theologians no longer believe that God created everything in six literal days? If so, what can I do to protect my children?" (words in italics mine)
Because this is what Rodriguez says:
Space does not allow me to say more about the tragedy of Adventists who are evolutionists. But I do want to address the concern expressed in your communication about what Adventist parents should do in this situation. I agree that having teachers in our colleges and universities arguing and supporting the idea that natural evolution is the best alternative for the understanding of origins is outrageous. They not only violate the meaning of the biblical text, but also violate the trust the church placed in them by calling them to teach our young people.
Your alternatives are few. Remember, you are paying for your children to obtain an Adventist education; and if the school is not providing what you’re paying for, you have to make a decision. This is what I suggest: Visit our colleges and talk to the teachers about their views on natural evolution and their interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. If you are unsatisfied with their answers, discourage your son or daughter from attending that school. Most teachers in other Adventist schools stand by what the Bible teaches. You may also want to inform the school’s administration about your findings.
There are several pitiable groups of people here. One is the parents. Imagine the shock! Imagine the horror! that their children might be exposed to the evolutionists among us! To you I say: Rather than setting your children up for grave disappointment later, consider allowing them to learn more about how the natural world works. "God did it" isn't science, and it isn't an explanation.
Then there are the aforementioned Adventist scientists and theologians. If there are more than a handful of them who believe that evolution is true, Angel Manuel Rodriguez represents why it's not safe for them to talk about it in the classroom.
Finally, there are the Adventist students. The church as an institution and as a living, pulsing, breathing body cannot afford to continue its policy of refusing to engage with biological evolution. Somebody—and I don't know who—has got to stand up and describe how it's possible to both be a Seventh-day Adventist and also believe that evolution is true. It's got to be someone who matters and someone who can make their voice heard.
Because, you know, the numbers aren't looking so good. I'm not one to imagine that changing this one thing is enough to stem the tide of young adults headed out the door. But changing this one thing might be the beginning of a larger change.
As always, you're welcome to ask me why I care.
18 comments:
"Instead of allowing the Bible to interpret itself, which in this case would mean that God is the Creator because He created everything in six days, they arbitrarily conclude that it does not answer the how question."
Arbitrarily? Really? Really? Is the geological column "arbitrary"? Is chemistry (like in radioactive dating), genetics, fossils and atavisms all "arbitrary"? Give me a break...
If there is something arbitrary is to deny reality based on a personal understanding of a NON-SCIENTIFIC mythology. The bible can interpret itself (whatever that means), but not reality. One cannot "interpret" it.
"You may also want to inform the school’s administration about your findings."
What a great recipe for witch hunts, repression and stagnation. Toe the line or else. Galileo will be accused before the Inquisitors all over again...
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 NIV).
My friend, welcome back to the world of blogging. I've missed your unique point of view. As you know, I'm in the middle of the science-faith intersection...and it's not always a happy place. I wish you and your loved ones well. Don't hesitate to drop me a line if you need a sounding board.
I love that image of being the middle of the science-faith intersection.
I felt so lied to, as an Adventist student, after I finally independently developed the tools to understand scientific papers dealing with evolution, and understood how much information had been with-held from me all along because it was "dangerous."
It didn't CAUSE my atheism, that would have come anyway. But it DID add to the great emotional antagonism I now have towards any and all things religious. And... given the numbers of youth "walking out" not JUST of the Adventist church but organized religion in general... I really doubt I'm the only one.
Vera,
You have done a great job of caricaturing the creation/ID movement, especially when you write: "' God did it' isn't science, and it isn't an explanation." You make no progress with insinuating that those on the opposite side of you are saying it in these simple terms. That is such a gross and terrible straw man/simplification and hardly helps the discussion.
More than that, you also say that the church is "refusing to engage with biological evolution." Are you kidding me? No one in the pro-creation/pro-ID side refuses to engage with biological evolution. As far as I know, such individuals do present the arguments for this perspective, and no one is saying that they shouldn't.
I want to appeal to you to be a little more balanced in this! And, once again, I have to remind you that this is not a faith vs. science thing. There is plenty of good and legitimate science that has been done on the pro-ID side. Most evolutionists refuse to open their eyes in relation to this though.
"There is plenty of good and legitimate science that has been done on the pro-ID side."
Like? Have you heard of the peer-review concept?
You have done a great job of caricaturing the creation/ID movement
Funny since the SDA church as a religious institution pooh-poohs the ID movement just as much as evolutionary science. For SDA's it is 7 days, literal, god did it creationism and that is it. Do not mistake fact for "caricature". (Reference your 27 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists Book for details)
More than that, you also say that the church is "refusing to engage with biological evolution."
Just read the previous post on this blog to see how Pr. Stephen Chavez engages with biological evolution by misrepresenting it. To me that is not really engaging if all you do is attack straw men.
And, once again, I have to remind you that this is not a faith vs. science thing
It is.
There is plenty of good and legitimate science that has been done on the pro-ID side.
There is not.
Most evolutionists refuse to open their eyes in relation to this though.
In the same way scientists refuse to open their eyes to the revelations of moon landing deniers, flat earthers, alchemists or astrologists.
We should all be, not only fine but very happy with that.
You make no progress with insinuating that those on the opposite side of you are saying it in these simple terms.
Fact:
It dosn't matter how many words or complex terms cdesign proponentsists* use, ID is still religion and not science. (See the Dover trial records for details)
No wonder trying to insert it in science classes is an unconstitutional breach of church and state separation.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
Jemand, welcome. Your words are familiar to me.
Shawn, while I might have similar things to say about ID, ID wasn't part of the original article or my criticism of it. Rodriguez presented creationism as the only alternative for Seventh-day Adventists. So let's leave that aside for this post. "God did it" is written all over creationism.
Beyond saying that evolution is wrong, at what level does the church engage with the theory of evolution? How much does the average church member know about evolution beyond knowing that it is the enemy of creationism?
Vera,
"God did it" may be written all over creationism, as you say, but it is highly simplistic to imply that that's ALL there is to it - as if legitimate scientific inquiry isn't done by many (though not all) creation scientists.
We could also reduce evolutionary science to many simplistic one-liners as well, but that wouldn't be received very well.
"How much does the average church member know about evolution beyond knowing that it is the enemy of creationism?" you ask. I'm not sure that is a relevant question because I don't think we want to use the "average church member" as the barometer for much. The "average church member" (whoever that is) doesn't know a whole lot about what we DO believe, let alone what we DON'T believe. On a scholarly or academic level, however, I'd say that there is plenty of interaction with the ideas of evolution.
Perhaps. I left off "Satan did it," which is a fundamental part of creationism.
While there are scientists who are creationists who have practiced legitimate science, they have not done so in the name of creationism. By necessity, science deals with the natural, not the supernatural.
I'd prefer not to be so dismissive about the average church member. We tell the average church member that a literal reading of Genesis is a fundamental belief of our church. Don't they deserve something more?
Doesn't the average church member deserve more? If by this you mean we have to promote the theory of evolution from our pulpits (or even hint at its merits), then you are barking up the wrong tree. But I'm afraid this is the only option you are looking for. For some reason, people have a hard time accepting the fact that anyone could study the scientific reasons for/against evolution and study the scientific reasons for/against ID or creation, and conclude that the weight of evidence favors the latter.
And why does science "by necessity," have to only deal with the so-called natural? Who told you that? Shouldn't the agenda of the scientist be to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
Shawn; you say, "On a scholarly or academic level, however, I'd say that there is plenty of interaction with the ideas of evolution."
Not so. The only constructive intersection with the ideas of evolution have come from a few biology classes, and those classes are under particularly harsh criticism of late. Just ask any of the LSU bio professors what the interaction with the ideas of evolution has been like lately.
What you are saying to the average church member is this:
"If it contradicts what the church believes, what science tells us cannot be true."
Now, any church member who is interested has the option of doing further research. Should they stick to church-approved sources for their information? What if they don't?
Practically, sticking with natural explanations for natural phenomena means that scientists are more or less on the same page. What kind of supernatural evidence should scientists be willing to follow?
For some reason, people have a hard time accepting the fact that anyone could study the scientific reasons for/against evolution and study the scientific reasons for/against ID or creation, and conclude that the weight of evidence favors the latter.
Because that is not how science works. Clergy is not qualified to establish scientific facts.
Just because you conclude that angels pushing down on everything is the best explanation for gravity does not mean it is true or that it deserves serious consideration.
The scientific community has addresses all of the "cdesign proponentsists" arguments. People that promote these arguments still don't do it because they are scientifically valid. They do it because their own religious concepts compels them to. Nothing could be more clear than that.
In regards to SDA Church, evolution are ID equally not acceptable. ID and 6 day creation don't mix. Period. In SDA circles, ID is dead in the water. So, what is the point?
Alexis,
I am baffled by your apparent misunderstanding of Intelligent Design. You write that ID and 6 day creation don't mix, and that for SDAs ID is "dead in the water." Elsewhere, on my blog, you say that ID is essentially "evolution" with God stepping in every once in a while.
Have you read anything published by ID theorists? ID and creation science are not at odds whatsoever, nor is Adventism at odds with ID. The goal of ID is to simply recognize that things that show design have a designer. It does not address six day creation and leaves it up to the individual to decide on this. In this sense, it doesn't even address whether there was a six day creation week, so how can it contradict it? I'm perplexed.
At the same time, I have not interacted with any Adventist scientists who are opposed to ID. In fact, when I was an undergraduate at Andrews University, Michael Behe presented a special Friday night Vespers program on ID and his book "Darwin's Black Box."
To put it very simply (and at the risk of repeating myself over and over again), ID theory addresses A & B, for example, and creation/Adventist science agrees with ID on A & B. However, creation/Adventist science then goes on to address C, D, E, F, etc., which ID does not address. So if ID and creation science agree on the the claims that ID makes, but then creation science goes on to address more, how can you say that they do not mix?
ID is simply an "entry point" whereby the scientific community simply recognizes that there is a Designer. It makes no claims as to how the Designer designed; how long it took for the Designer to do what he did; when he did it; etc. The only goal of ID theorists is to show that organisms, etc., that show design, have a designer. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Lastly, Vera, you ask: "What kind of supernatural evidence should scientists be willing to follow?" This is also very simple. All ID theorists are saying is that if you come upon a scene where there is apparent design, the logical conclusion is that there is a designer. This is simple logic and it is very intuitive. But Darwinists will not go there because they realize the implications. And they go so far as to do explanatory gymnastics, saying, "Even though X, Y, and Z look designed, they're really not." They, in essence, expect us to throw away our logic, intuition, and common sense, simply because they don't want to follow the evidence where it leads. And this then takes us out of the realm of legitimate scientific inquiry, instead placing it into the philosophical and metaphysical arena.
Thanks for the clarification Shawn. Maybe my confusion stems from statements made by people like Stephen Mayer, who works at the Discovery Institute. He has stated the following:
“Advocates of design who envision a designing intelligence acting discretely at intervals across the geological time scale tend to favor a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic view of the history of life.”
Meyer accepts the geological timescale (who in their right mind couldn't?). The implications are obvious. So you will have to forgive me for taking the opinion of people from people that "work" at the Discovery Institute as having more weight than yours in regards to this issue.
For example:
“The ‘Cambrian explosion’ refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al.1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). “
Or:
“Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993). The emergence of the Ediacaran biota (570 mya), and then to a much greater extent the Cambrian explosion (530 mya), represented steep climbs up the biological complexity gradient.
Many more examples can be provided from other ID authors if desired.
Now, if some "cdesign proponentsists" disavow the geologic column (for example) then this particular brand of ID is even more weak than what I originally thought.
How can someone, lacking answers to questions of how and when, have the gall to conclude that it all was a he? Give me a break.
You state:
All ID theorists are saying is that if you come upon a scene where there is apparent design, the logical conclusion is that there is a designer.
The thing is that evolutionary theory explains how "apparent design" can exist without a purposeful designer. Fact: Evolution IS the designer. And to top it, evolution provides answers to the how and the when.
Why should we bother with the nebolous, non-predictive, evidence lacking, ID philosophy?
I do expect you to throw out your common sense in the face of evidence. Heck, common sense told ancient peoples that the sun revolved around the earth and that our planet was flat. Shawn, common sense and logic can only work effectively inside a verified, factual, reality-based framework. Your subjective opinions have no value whatsoever by themselves. That is why science is the best and only tool we have to know how the universe around us works. Period.
By the way: Noticed how ID people like Behe can only find an audience in churches, where people have little to no idea how evolutionary science works? ID is not science. Over at your blog Olorin already demonstrated that. The fact that only religious circles promote it (well at least the parts they like in SDA churches) tells me something.
Alexis,
You don't have to pay any attention to my thoughts on Intelligent Design, but Bill Dembski seems to be pretty clear about it: "In biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its basic claim is that intelligent causes best explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are detectable by the methods of science. In other words, intelligent causation is empirically detectable. . . . Intelligent design provides a platform for Christians of various stripes - including young earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and gap-theorists - to find common ground in making the case for design in nature" (William Dembski and Sean McDowell, Understanding Intelligent Design, pp. 41, 45). Again, ID is simply a way to "find common ground in making the case for design in nature."
In this 233 page primer on ID, not once does he insist that anyone who subscribes to ID has to believe anything particular about the geological timescale, the fossil record, etc. Though there may be varying views on these specific issues within the ID community, these individual views are not reflective of the whole movement.
Again: ID theory is simply an entry-point where a community of scientists and philosophers agree on the foundational principle that things that are designed have a designer. I am not sure how much clearer this can be.
Lastly, I would be happy to throw out my "common sense" in the face of the evidence. Fortunately, when it comes to the issues of origin and design, I don't have to choose between the two - the two coincide.
ID theory is simply an entry-point where a community of scientists and philosophers agree on the foundational principle that things that are designed have a designer. I am not sure how much clearer this can be.
Fair enough. I thought ID was more than just believing that "if it looks complex that means a designer (really meaning god) did it". I made the mistake of taking the most evolved or refined ID proponents as representatives of the whole. My mistake. Thanks for clarifying.
is nothing more subjective than claiming "personal design" (as opposed to impersonal design or natural design, aka evolution) based on "personal common sense". Again, science does not work that way. In science, bias is not allowed. That is why there are methods to minimize it.
Lastly, I would be happy to throw out my "common sense" in the face of the evidence. Fortunately, when it comes to the issues of origin and design, I don't have to choose between the two - the two coincide.
The point you always seem to miss is that evolution IS the designer. We already have a natural explanation for what you call "design". Why then do people need to assume a personal designer? Obviously it is not because of a lack in the science. It is all because of the particular religious beliefs. If not, why is Behe doing vespers at church? Why isn't he researching or presenting the results of his latest work before the scientist that have the knowledge to reproduce and validate it?
(Oh yeah, ID produces NO research, NO bio-technological applications, NO scientific papers, nothing of scientific value whatsoever....)
Evolutionary science is not based on religiously/personally biased "common sense" but on the overwhelming weight of the evidence and how all of it fits neatly together within the theory. It is an explanation that is able to converge all the evidence we have available. A convergence that your brand of ID/creationism will never be able to do.
Now, the supposed coincidence of evidence (?) and "common sense" in ID that you assert does not exist. Again, I defer to the experts in the mainstream of the scientific community. The ones that decide to go trough the peer-review process, the ones that do not use churches as PR machines, the ones that fight the validity of scientific ideas within scientific circles, the ones that reproduce and validate the research of others.
If the scientific community, whose members are qualified to give informed opinions on these matters, tells us that ID is a evidence-less non-science; what makes people think that pastors (like the ones writing the articles this blog comments on) are any more qualified to assert the opposite?
Heck, these authors distort what "survival of the fittest" means and say that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Pretty simple stuff that a google search can easily correct. Sadly, I am not surprised. If they really took the time to understand evolutionary science, they would not be creationists.
Post a Comment