To perform a search, click on ==> Search

Understanding Genesis

by Nic Samojluk

Adventist Today published a book entitled Understanding Genesis in 2007 containig material dealing with origins previously written by the following authors: Richard Rice, Brian S. Bull, Dalton D. Baldwin, Ivan T. Blazen, Fritz Guy, Richard Bottomley, Douglas R. Clark, Ervin Taylor, Warren H. Johns, and Lawrence T. Geraty. The editors of the same magazine asked Dr. Sean Pitman to write a book review of said book. This generated comments from other individuals, which in turn prompted Pitman to respond to those comments and questions.

I thought that the readers of this forum might be interested in reading said exchange of electronic communication, since Pitman has delved into this topic with an unusual intensity and devotion over the years. It represents a favorite hobby for him, and his knowledge of the subject is quite remarkable. You can access Pitman's book review by securing a copy of the November/December issue of Adventist Today, or else read the original, unedited copy sent by Pitman, which I have posted below. [The margins of the book review were slightly chopped as a result of transferring the material to this forum. If you find it hard to read, try the following link: http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA] The E-mail exchange between Pitman and others, including a few comments of my own follow the book review:

Book Review. Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives

Edited by Brian Bull, Fritz Guy & Ervin Taylor

ISBN 0-9786141-1-9

www.atoday.org

Sean D. Pitman

January 1, 2007

www.DetectingDesign.com

For those Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) who have not already read this book, consider doing so. It is an eye opening experience. Not so much because of the arguments made (briefly discussed below), but because of those who make the arguments.

Over the past several years, the SDA Church has organized several Faith and Science Conferences to internally discuss the topic of origins and review the SDA Church's official position on the first few chapters of the Genesis account (Glacier View, Colorado and Ogden, Utah). The problem, of course, is that the SDA Church has historically supported a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of a seven-day creation week and a universal worldwide flood. This interpretation is even listed as part of the Church's stated set of "fundamental" beliefs (Belief #6) as follows:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heavens and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was "very good,'' declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.) Of course, this statement has come under heavy fire and has been extensively discussed in the various Faith and Science Conferences over the past several years. Finally, on September 10, 2004, the General Conference (GC) restated the official position of the SDA Church to include the following specific affirmations and recommendations (among others):

1. We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

2. We affirm the biblical account of the Fall resulting in death and evil.

3. We affirm the biblical account of a catastrophic Flood, an act of God's judgment that affected the whole planet, as an important key to understanding earth history.

4. In order to address what some interpret as a lack of clarity in Fundamental Belief #6 the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Genesis narrative be affirmed more explicitly.

5. Church leaders at all levels be encouraged to assess and monitor the effectiveness with which denominational systems and programs succeed in preparing young people, including those attending non-Adventist schools, with a biblical understanding of origins and an awareness of the challenges they may face in respect to this understanding.

Given these specific affirmations of a fundamental position and key recommendations concerning this particular issue, it is very interesting to read what self-styled "contemporary Adventists" have to say in Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives. The authors contributing to this book are no ordinary members of the SDA Church. Many of them hold or held high positions of responsibility in the Church, including heads of academic departments within our school systems, hospitals, communities and churches. One author in particular, Lawrence Geraty, has recently retired as president of La Sierra University. So, what do these prominent members of our Church have to say about the SDA Church's stated fundamental position on origins?

These men argue strongly against the notions of both a literal seven-day creation week in recent history as well as the notion of a literal worldwide Noachian flood. Many argue that the Church's position is simply not tenable in this age of science and reason; that the significant majority of SDA scientists and even many SDA theologians simply do not believe and cannot honestly support much less teach the Church's stated position on this issue.

This is quite a serious challenge on the part of very prominent individuals within the SDA Church. Their book attempts to directly undermine something the Church, as an organized body, holds very dear, even "fundamental". While it is good and even necessary to have a way to present tough questions like these in internal forums within an organization, some methods of challenging the fundamentals of an organization are quite damaging and should not be tolerated. Is it really honest to continue to carry the name of, and sometimes receive financial support from, any organization while striving, in a very public way, to undermine the stated foundations of that organization? Why not just go and work for Reebok instead of posing as a Nike employee? Like it or not, the SDA Church, like any viable organization, has a product to sell - a certain fairly specific interpretation of the Bible that is thought to be valuable. Why would anyone who does not honestly believe in that product wish to carry the title of SDA?

Perhaps these men are actually right and the SDA Church is wrong? What then? Personally, if I ever became convinced that there really is no scientific merit behind the literal seven-day creation week or the worldwide nature of Noah's flood, or if Darwinian-style evolution one day made good sense to me, I would leave behind not only the SDA Church but Christianity as well. I may still believe in God, just not the Christian God. Does that make my faith fragile? What good are one's notions of any kind of "truth" if that truth is not subject to challenge or potential falsification?

Unlike the authors, I see no possibility of rationally linking Christianity, much less the specific SDA take on Christianity, with Darwinian-style evolution. Other forms of religion, such as Hinduism, are much more compatible with evolution than is Christianity. The Christian view of God presents God as a being who is actually concerned and grieved when a little sparrow falls wounded to the ground. Yet, early in this book Richard Rice attempts to counter by arguing that animals really don't suffer when they experience pain; that there is a difference between suffering and pain and that pain without suffering really isn't all that bad - even good. He argues that animals may experience pain, but only humans can experience true suffering. Really?! Why then should God be concerned at all for the pain suffered by animals be it a single sparrow or billions of sentient beings over millions of years? Why then should we be concerned? The Bible points out that, "The whole of creation groans and travails in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22).

We are told that this condition is abnormal in God's universe. That it is the direct result of human sin affecting this planet. Evolution requires survival of the fittest - disease, suffering, pain and death of sentient beings. Would anyone call this situation "good"? Why make a New Heaven and a New Earth if such pain, predation, and death really "make important contributions to our lives [for which we should be] grateful"?! (pp. 11) Why do away with death, suffering, and pain when it is so beneficial to intelligent sentient beings? We aren't talking about bacteria or orange peels here or some little prick on the finger. Sure, predation, as Rice explains it, may be a necessary evil in a sinful place, but is it really ideal?

I, for one, would not like to live forever in such an "ideal" place. Just because we may ultimately gain something from this current experience of sin and its resultant life of pain, suffering and death, it does not mean that this experience was ever in God's original ideal plan. Bringing something good out of a bad situation doesn't mean the bad wasn't really all that bad. The whole point of this sin "demonstration" is to show that it really is very bad indeed; that it should never be tried again because of what it does to both the guilty and the innocent - like the wounded sparrow.

Although several challenging points are raised, most of the arguments in the book are beyond me. Several authors try to separate science from religion. Brian Bull, a very intelligent man and scientist himself, argues that "pure science" only deals with empirical observations without making any value judgments whatsoever - unlike religion. As much as I respect Dr. Bull, I cannot for the life of me think of any useful purely empirical observations that are entirely independent of interpretation or value judgments. The very basis of science includes the ability to establish predictive value; which involves making value judgments.

Later on, along with Fritz Guy, Brian Bull argues that the Biblical authors had no real concept of science or natural law - that the automatic "default" for everything, good or bad, was seen by the Biblical writers as resulting from God's direct "miraculous" will and action without any sense of natural law or chance events outside of God as a direct cause. The problem here is that many Biblical writers describe various tests to rule out "natural" or "chance" events. Consider, for example, the interesting account of the Philistines sending the Ark of God back to Israel by ox cart. If the oxen went to Bethel, it was clearly divine intervention and not "chance" because the oxen would "naturally" tend to remain with their newly born calves. The same is true of the experiment set up by Elijah on Mt. Carmel to judge between true and false Gods by the one who "answers with fire." Or, consider Gideon's fleece experiment . . . etc.

Dalton Baldwin argues that the Bible is confusing when it describes creation as happening during a literal week while also describing God as constantly creating over time - as in the notion of God individually creating us in our mother's wombs. Is the concept of original as well as ongoing creation or sustenance really that confusing? I fail to see the problem. However, Dalton may have something with his next point. He suggests that if the sun, moon and stars where not originally created in the sequence listed, and I personally agree that they were probably formed before creation week, then the entire creation week must be purely symbolic. I know this is a significant problem for many, but this apparent problem is nicely resolved if one considers that a very literal creation account is given by the prophet as he was shown what took place during that first week from an Earth-bound perspective.

Ivan Blazen, whom I deeply respect and admire as a brilliant theologian and Christian counselor, argues that Genesis 1 is neither scientific nor unscientific, but non-scientific; having other "transcendent interests" beyond the realm of science. The problem here is that without the potential of physical testability and falsifiably, no transcendent notion of "truth" (like God and his Nature) has any validity over any other potential theory of God's existence or action. Yet, Blazen concludes that, "God sustains the world against the powers of chaos." - - based on what? Even Christ referred to his miracles and to fulfilled prophecy as evidence for his metaphysical claims.

But what about the logical problems and physical facts that clearly counter the SDA interpretation of Genesis? What about Warren Johns' argument that, according to the Bible, only domesticated animals where taken on Noah's ark? - that the wild air-breathing land animals (like lions) survived because the flood was a local flood? Several other authors also argue in this book for the notion of a local flood. The problem is that the internal logic of the flood story breaks down given the truth of a local flood. Why the need to build an ark and save animals if the flood is going to be local? Why not just move elsewhere? Also, did all the bad people happen to live in the same valley to be destroyed by a local flood?

Johns also misinterprets the words for various kinds of animals described in the Genesis account. Johns argues that, "of the large mammals, only the domestic varieties (behemah) were on the ark" and that the original Hebrew, with its emphasis on the behemah is evidence that other types of land animals were not included. He argues that the Hebrew word, "behemah" refers to domestic animals or grazing hoofed animals and that the Hebrew word "chayyah" refers particularly to carnivores. The main problem with this argument is that the author of the Genesis account uses both words to describe animals that were on the ark. All the animals (chay) and all the creatures that move along (remes) the ground and all the birds – everything that moves on the earth – came out of the ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an alter to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals (behemah) and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. (Gen 8:19,20).

But what about Ervin Taylor's argument that the theory of evolution did not affect or bias the theory of long ages being represented by the geologic layers and fossil record? Regardless of motive, the theory of evolution is generally understood to be dependent upon vast spans of time; that evolutionary mechanisms could not produce the vast array high-level biosystem complexity that we see today in just a few thousand years. What most scientists do not seem to realize is that even if trillions of years were available, it wouldn't be nearly enough time to overcome the statistical problems with the proposed evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.

Now I'm sure most scientists are quite honest and sincere in their studies and interpretations and are not consciously biasing their interpretations to preferentially favor the theory of evolution. However, don't tell me there isn't any serious bias, even if unconscious, within the scientific community. All one has to do is read the story of J Harlen Bretz and his Scabland flood theory to understand that the scientific community is, generally speaking, no more immune to bias than a community of ardent, church-going, sectarian fundamentalists.

Oh, but what about Richard Bottomley's and Ervin Taylor's arguments of very reliable dating methods that all seem to agree with each other so perfectly? A little healthy skepticism goes a long way in this regard. Many of the dating methods discussed are calibrated against each other. Various patterns are even manipulated and refined by a process known as "tuning" in order to match a predetermined pattern. I've done a little bit of reading into the technical aspects and underlying assumptions behind several of these dating methods. So far, the more I read about them, the less solid they appear. Perhaps I'm blinded by my own bias here? Perhaps. But, I honestly want to know and am looking for the truth; wherever it may lead me.

Now, it does seem to me that the material of the Earth and of the universe as a whole may be very old indeed. However, as far as I've been able to tell so far, there is a great deal of physical evidence to suggest that life on Earth and the formation almost all of the sedimentary layers of the geologic record were formed recently and rapidly.

So what? What does it matter? Why does the governing body of the SDA Church consider its stated position on the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis so "fundamental"? Well, as I understand it, the traditional SDA view, if one sees the evidence for it, is a much more hopeful position than that espoused by the contemporary Adventist authors of this book review. Their view, if true, removes much of the solid basis behind the hope of the Gospel's "good news". I mean really, Ervin Taylor recently admitted, upon the Loma Linda University Church platform before a large public audience, that he wouldn't know what to tell his own granddaughter if she asked him for evidence of God's existence. Now, although admirably honest, that's a rather sad statement coming from any Adventist much less the executive editor of the "progressive" journal Adventist Today.

So, how do we really know what God is like or even if he exists at all if little in the Bible really happened as described? Sure, the creation story, the story of Adam and Eve in a perfect garden paradise, story of Noah's flood, Jonah and the whale, or the virgin birth are all nice stories. Even as fables they may present some important truths no doubt. But, they say a whole lot more if they are really true. I think children have an edge here. Why else do children always ask, "Did that really happen?" whenever they hear some tall tale? Is Genesis just an interesting tall tale? Or did it really happen? How about life after death? Is heaven real, or just a tall tale? Does it matter?

Sean Pitman Responds to Jack Hoehn

Hello Jack,

Thank you for your thoughts. I really appreciate your feedback on my book review for Adventist Today. I hope you don't mind if I respond line-by-line.

Sean,

Thank you for your book review of Understanding Genesis. We all share reticence about changing our views of Genesis.

Several of your points are good reasons to think long and hard about changes in our understanding of Bible truths.

However as I view the evidence it appears to me that never in my lifetime (born 1946 SDA all the way) have I ever had more confirmation for the Biblical truth that In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth, and less for a literal 7 day creation. So as I ponder this reality, I have asked myself, and now I am asking you, what really is essential.

1.) Since the truth of an Intelligent Designer is becoming overwhelming to any unbiased observer (excluding those who have decided for other reasons to exclude the possibility of God) this surely is something for Adventists to rejoice in? And clearly One who can design DNA and provide such a tuned environment for carbon based life as we find this universe to be, is quite capable of all the mysteries and miracles we find in Scripture. So Science is on our side here.

Well, unless you missed the recent NOVA episode, the clear majority of mainstream scientists disagree with you here. Most argue that the theory of evolution has never been stronger since the discovery of DNA and how it works. Of course, I agree with you, but if the SDA Church went with the majority of the mainstream scientific community on this issue, a scientific community who suggests that the argument of design in nature and in living things is nothing more than an appearance of design, the Church would indeed reject the DNA and other anthropic evidences as evidences favoring the concept of an Intelligent Designer as the true Creator of life and its diversity on this planet.

2.) I think even among conservative SDAs who bother to think about these things, it is generally accepted as impossible for earth to be only 6,000 years old. Would you agree with this?

What do you mean by "conservative" SDAs? It is clearly the view of the General Conference and of the vast majority of SDAs around the world. The Bible also clearly supports such as view, as does Ellen White. Of course, these SDAs may simply not have the appropriate education into mainstream science or may not have really "thought about" this issue?

Certainly there are those well educated SDAs who do suggest that this Earth and life on it are indeed much much older - - many millions and even billions of years old. Well, I for one see the evidence quite differently. It seems to me that the geologic and fossil evidence strongly supports the concept of a recent creation of both life and much of the geologic column within the very recent past.

It is quite interesting to me that you personally seem to reject the conclusions of mainstream science when it comes to the origin of DNA and of certain features of the universe, but you reject the conclusions of mainstream science as being biased against what is otherwise obvious. That's very intriguing to me.

(Even the conservative restatement of our creations beliefs says "of recent origin" fudging on the about 6,000 years scenario we had believed.)
It doesn't matter if you are a scientist or not, even our archeologists from archeology have long since understood that 4,000 years from the flood is a metaphor.

While the exact date of origins is not made clear by the Bible, the 4,000 year approximation since the Flood and the 6,000 year approximation since the creation week, is thought by the SDA Church, as a body, to include at least some well-educated scientists, geologists, and archaeologists (review the work of Arthur Chadwick, Walter Veith, Ariel Roth, Tim Standish, etc), to be much more than a mere metaphor. Ellen White in particular used the phrase back in her day that creation week was "about 6,000 years ago". This clearly flies in the fact of mainstream science and its suggestion that life on this Earth was created several billion years ago and that human life, in particular, came on the scene several million years ago.

The age of California's Bristlecone pines, the layers of ice in Greenland (even if you challenge radioactive dating assumptions) makes it impossible for me to count 4,000 years from a universal flood and 6,000 years from creation.

Even being generous, the age of California's living Bristlecone pines is listed at 4,767 years. No tree or other living thing is older than that, even being generous with the notion that trees only produce one ring per year (which is not always true). Of course, tree ring dating has come back with much older ages for tree ring sequences, but these are not based on living trees. Tree ring dating is also fraught with serious problems, many of which I discuss on my website (see link below). There are also a great many very serious problems for the assumptions behind ice core dating (see link).

Again, it seem to me that you have fallen for interpretations of mainstream science here without really considering the evidence in detail while rejecting the interpretations of mainstream science when it comes to DNA evidence. How can you do that?

3.) So the 10,000 years archeologists need? 70,000 years from Greenland's ice cores? 120,000 years for appearance of modern homo sapiens? 250,000 years from the Adam and Eve Story? Once we realize it didn't fit the common Christian interpretation, then the number becomes a detail. The fact is that our dating from chronologies was flawed.

Well, as I see it anyway, this "fact" isn't a very clear fact at all.

See also my essay on: Early Man

Once I faced the above, then I went back to re-read my Bible, and to my surprise it was very obvious to me things I had overlooked before.

A.)    Genesis tells me what happened and who did it.

B.)    It does not tell me how.

C.)    It does not tell me when – (In the Beginning….is not a date).

The "In the beginning" phrase isn't talking about life on this planet. It is talking specifically about, "The Heavens and the Earth". As far as the universe and the material of this planet, I believe millions and even billions of years are possible since their original origin. However, when it comes to life on this planet, the Bible is very clear. The creation of life was performed in a very short period of time (one week marked off by evenings and mornings) and has not lasted very long ( i.e., well less than 10,000 years as per the lists of very specific lengths of succeeding generations).

That is just the Biblical evidence. Beyond this evidence, we have the evidence of the rocks and fossils themselves. These physical evidences, contrary to the conclusions of mainstream scientists, clearly show that life on this planet is indeed quite young (far younger than millions or even many tens of thousands of years old) and that it was involved in a recent worldwide watery catastrophe that created much of the geologic column and fossil record we see today.

I realize the Intelligent Designer could have made earth in 6 literal days. I just don't know if He did.

Well, if you accept that the Intelligent Designer made life at all, upon what do you base this belief? If you believe in the Virgin Birth and the death and resurrection of Jesus, upon what do you base this belief? What about Jesus walking on the water? What about the story of Noah's Flood? What about the story of God talking face to face with Abraham?

You see, after a point, if you start rejecting the literal truth of certain stories in the Bible that were clearly written by their authors in a way that has the intent of being taken literally, there is very little else left in the Bible that one can really accept as happening literally as described. You are left with a Bible filled with nothing more than moral fables and metaphors.

While that may be a valid position, it certainly isn't the SDA take, as a body of believers, on the Bible or Biblical interpretation.

So I have asked myself several questions:

1.) Does the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation depend on a literal 6x24 hour day creation week? The 4 ^th of July is the memorial of American Independence, but obviously the process of getting independent took more than 1 day. So the validity of the week and the weekly Sabbath as a memorial of creation, does not depend upon the Creation Week being 6 literal days.

The Sabbath does not have to be a memorial of a literal 7-day creation week. If, for example, God had said something like, "You know, I created the Earth and everything in it over something like six vast spans of time. But, I will only use a single day to represent and reflect upon what I did over eons of time - - for the convenience of mankind." Well, that would be fine. The Sabbath would be just as binding and just as important to us.

The problem, of course, is this isn't what the Bible says. The Bible specifically says that God created order in the physical structure of this planet as well as life and its vast variety on this planet in six literal days. It also emphasizes the measure used to mark off the days - - as in "evenings and mornings". It is quite hard to find any more specific description in the Bible than that. So, if one decides to reject such a specific description as fable or metaphor, the basis for a great many other stories and truths in the Bible also falls away to the level of metaphor and/or moral fable.

2.) Look at what had to happen on the 6^th day of creation. I am willing for God to have spoken all types into life suddenly, but the story in Genesis is clear that Adam had to meet and name at least major types, or do we think he was just naming the domestic animals? He had to learn about sexual dimorphism and paring in the animals, he had to feel lonely, he had to take a nap, he had to meet and fall in love with Eve…..All before lunch in a 24 hour day? That surely sounds like a cartoon speeding up of what appear to be profound experiences. All of these experiences, emotions, events between 6 am and sundown Friday night?

It is clear from the reading of the Genesis account that Adam was created with a lot of intellectual ability from the get go. He already knew a very complicated language and obviously had a huge advantage over us when it comes to intellectual capacity. It doesn't take much insight given this advanced starting point to recognize that each different animal has its pair, but Adam does not. Also, the Bible does not say that Adam named every single kind of living thing in one day. I'm sure that there would be endless days of discovery of new kinds of living things all the time as Adam and Eve explored their world. When it comes to falling in love, ever hear of love at first sight? Beyond this, the Bible doesn't say that Adam fell in love with Eve that same day. It just says that Eve was created on Friday and that they seemed to hit it off from there on after.

3.) And what is the meaning of "a day" before there is a Sun and Moon? Since a day is one sunset to the next, what does a day mean in absence of a Sun? Perhaps Days 1-3 were days from Heaven's point of view, and how long would that be?

I personally think that the sun and moon and the stars all already existed before creation week, but that they were obscured from view by the thickness of the gases of the firmament/atmosphere. The vision of creation week was given from an Earth-bound perspective. Given this perspective, the whole scenario makes good sense. Certainly there is no reason to suggest that the author of this account didn't know what he was talking about when he said "evening and morning" marked off each day. Why would he write that if it wasn't clear to him?

I am a conservative Seventh-day Adventist. I accept Ellen White as a true prophet. But seeing how she can be wrong on the cause of volcanoes, makes me understand that true prophets from Moses to Ellen don't have Divine control of their interpretation of natural events. The prophets speak for God, they are not God. And this is true for the Bible as well as the Great Controversy series.

Ellen White was wrong on many of her own personal interpretations of various events. However, when she says, "I was shown" or "I saw in vision" she was not wrong about what she actually saw or was told by her "accompanying angel". When it comes to creation, Ellen White actually claims to have seen the creation week herself as well as Adam and Eve in Eden. She says she saw the pre-Flood history as well as the Flood and its aftermath in vision. Such direct eyewitness testimony cannot be discounted by one who claims to believe that she was actually a prophet of God.

As far as her statements on volcanoes goes [as per the Ellen G. White Estate], some do indeed charge that Mrs. White's statements regarding the cause of volcanoes reflected the myths and fanciful thinking of age-old theories. Her writings contain eight relevant concepts that have been debated since they first appeared in 1864.

This list includes: (1) Formation of coal beds is linked to the Flood; (2) Coal produces oil; (3) Subterranean fires are fueled by the burning of both coal and oil; (4) Water added to the subterranean fires produces explosions, thus earthquakes; (5) Earthquake and volcanic action are linked together as products of these underground fires; (6) Both limestone and iron ore are connected with the burning coal beds and oil deposits; (7) Air is involved in the super heat; (8) Deposits of coal and oil are found after the subterranean fires have died out.

Many theories abound as to the causes of volcanoes and earthquakes and the formation of oil and coal. Most earth scientists base their ideas on the plate-tectonic theory. Nothing in Ellen White's comments rules out that theory. Further, nothing in her writings states that all volcanoes are the product of burning coal fields or that all earthquakes are caused by subterranean fires. When she links earthquakes and volcanoes together, one immediately thinks of the Pacific Ocean "ring of fire" and its high potential for disasters from both.

However, notable scientists have confirmed Ellen White's observations. Otto Stutzer's Geology of Coal documented that "subterranean fires in coal beds are ignited through spontaneous combustion, resulting in the melting of nearby rocks that are classed as pseudo volcanic deposits." Stutzer listed several examples of such activity, including "a burning mountain," an outcrop that "lasted over 150 years," and "the heat from one burning coal bed [that] was used for heating greenhouses in that area from 1837 to 1868." Modern confirmation exists for the igniting of coal and oil with its sulfur constituent "seen around the eruptions of hot springs, geysers, and volcanic fumaroles."

References to rocks "which overlie the coal [and] have suffered considerable alteration because of the fires, being sintered and partly melted," correlate with Ellen White's statement that "rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted." Further research in the western United States has produced conclusions and language very similar to Mrs. White's writings of a century earlier: "The melted rock resembles common furnace clinker or volcanic lava."

One last charge has been that melted iron ore is not found in connection with burning coal and oil deposits. However, a United States Geological Survey paper records the discovery of hematite (an iron ore) that had been "formed in some way through the agency of the burning coal."

The suggestion that Ellen White was wholly dependent upon existing sources for her scientific information is without merit, because some of this verification only became known many years after her death. Further, "It is much more unlikely that she resorted to the published ideas of contemporary Creationists on the subject, since their views were relics of wild cosmological speculations."

So now this conservative Seventh-day Adventist is trying to understand what the truth of Revelation and the truth of Nature are saying.

That certainly is a noble effort which I myself am trying to achieve on a daily basis.

The Who and what and why are becoming clearer and clearer. When how and the when are becoming less and less important.

I have to disagree with you on that one. The who and the why are very much based on the how and the when - to at least some degree. The very basis of Biblical reliability as to who the who is and why the who did what he did, is built upon our ability to test those Biblical statements that are actually within our ability to test. Without at least some physical basis in testable reality, what is there left about the Bible that makes its statements about anything, to include the identity and nature of God any more reliable than a nice children's story, moral fable, or allegory?

Thank you for helping me think through this again. Any suggestions you have on where we go from here will be welcome.

Thanks Jack. I really appreciate your thoughts and the effort that goes into considering such topics. I'm with you in your struggles and your walk as I'm there myself - - if not at the same spot on the path which you find yourself.

As I see it, ones location on this path has nothing to do with salvation. But, it may have a lot to do with ones hope and happiness in this world. I personally believe that there will be a lot of surprised evolutionists and atheists in heaven. It is just that they will have missed out on the one and insight they could have had here and now is all. I think the Gospel is all about making peoples lives more hopeful and more bearable here and now. We don't send missionaries out to save people from eternal loss as we send them out to give people knowledge and hope in what they already have, but just don't know it.

Jack Hoehn

John B. Hoehn, M.D.

Family Physician

Walla Walla, WA

Thanks again and may God bless your efforts.

Sean

www.DetectingDesign.com

Another Exchange of E-mails

Between Hoehn & Pitman

Hey Jack,

Thanks for your reply. Again, I hope you don't mind if I respond line-by-line.

Thank's for your detailed reply.

You sound like me 20 years ago. (I'm 61 now).

I have not found my reevaluation of what the Bible actually says weakens my zeal or my fidelity to the Creator.

But it does make me less dogmatic, less rigid, and easier to be a missionary to those who have been frankly turned off by rigid literalism.

Just like a false interpretation of Hell verses in the Bible drives to atheism many moral people who can not accept a God who would torture sinners for eternity for temporal sins, so a rigid literalistic interpretation of Genesis is driving our children out of Adventism.

There are a lot of reasons to leave Adventism and Christianity as well. If one's own religion is not subject to testability and potential falsification, I don't see it as being very helpful. As it turns out, both Christianity and Adventism make some very clear statements about the nature of the world and universe in which we live, as well as the way God interacts and has interacted with nature and with us. Many of these statements are in fact testable in a falsifiable manner. If someone feels like certain key statements have indeed been falsified, they should leave the SDA Church and perhaps even Christianity as well.

For me, the SDA take on the story of Creation is a key fundamental idea. If the SDA Church, as an official body, changed its interpretations on this idea, and accepted long-age notions of the Creation Week and of life existing and/or evolving on this planet, I would leave the SDA Church. If I became personally convinced of long-age notions and of Darwinian-style evolution acting over eons of time, I'd leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well. I'm convinced that those scientists who hold views similar to views held by Richard Dawkins are right when it comes to the complete dichotomy of Darwinian-style evolution and any basis for Christian-style religion based in the Bible.

If the Theory of Evolution is true, the Bible is definitely made up largely of moral fable and legend. There really is no basis to believe the other metaphysical claims of the Bible if its physical claims are falsified.

They see what you have not yet accepted, that there are many valid points in science incompatible with Adventist short term creationism.

That, my friend, is a matter of interpretation. We all have to go where the facts take us individually. Different people, even different mainstream scientists, looking at the very same set of facts may come to very different interpretations or explanations of those facts. The good thing about this country is that one is free to go where one pleases when it comes to interpreting the facts - - short of breaking civil law of course.

The SDA Church has taken on a very specific interpretation or view of physical reality which clearly flies in the face of many positions of mainstream science. You also have taken on views that fly directly in the face of mainstream science. You actually believe the DNA evidence supports the theory of intelligent design. That's quite fringe of you really. Yet, you accept mainstream scientific arguments when it comes to the age of the Earth and the fossil record? That is quite a mystery to me.

I asked you this question in my last letter and I don't see that you've answered it or even commented on it in this letter. So, I ask again: Upon what basis do you personally reject mainstream scientific interpretations and yet accept them on the other hand? Upon what basis do you pick and choose what is "obviously" true and what isn't when it comes to agreeing and/or disagreeing with what mainstream science says is true? You seem to call the very same scientists crazy on the one hand and brilliant on the other. Which is it?

DNA/ mRNA/ mitochondrial DNA, etc. is a huge evidence for intelligent design. It is one of the prime evidences that God is behind all life.

That's simply not true according to mainstream scientists. That is what Darwinian-style evolution is all about. The mechanism of random mutation and natural selection is supposed to explain the origin of all the variety of living things that exists today - - all evolving from a single ancestral life form that originally arose in the pre-biotic oceans. Scientists say they have mountains of evidence to support this view, and they do.

Where do you get your backing for this your contrary beliefs in the fact of such evidence? Can you actually explain the limitations of the proposed mechanism. What is it about random mutation and natural selection that makes it incapable of producing the variety of form and function that we see in living things today? Can you actually explain that?

Now it may also be evidence of adaptation and progressive revelation (I mean progressive development of life) like Genesis teaches, from simple to complex, from plants to fish and dinosaurs (I mean birds)……and then to mammals and then to man and then to woman.

How is that? If DNA evidence overwhelmingly favors the idea of an intelligent designer, as you claim, then how can it also support the evolutionary ideas you've just listed? I'm clearly confused here. Could you help me out on this one? How can you hold both ideas of ID and evolution at the same time?

The NOVA piece was a hack job of propaganda. Its function was to applaud and support the restriction on investigation into truth imposed by a sham trial onto public school students. It will one day be a mark of shame for those who made it and proposed it. They are doing to students what the papacy did to Galileo! Stopping them from thinking!

The NOVA piece represents the very real thinking of mainstream science. If it was a "hack job", perhaps you can explain were the arguments of the very well educated evolutionist interviewed went wrong? These evolutionists are the very same men and women to whole you point, the very same ones, for your support of your notions of old life, fossils and geologic column on this planet. How can you call their arguments a "sham" on the one hand and "brilliant" on the other? That simply makes no sense to me.

Honest non believers of all stripes have come closer and closer to deism and theism based on scientific evidences of the past 20 years. That is the first step on a slippery slope that will lead many to Christ…. Which is why the Dawkins, Hutchins, and Harrises of the world are in such a lather.

I'm afraid that this turn-around you speak of is still a minor percentage of the scientific community as a whole. I do agree that the first step in recognizing God is recognizing design in Nature. However, recognizing the Christian-style God requires recognizing the validity of the Bible. For me distinguishing the preeminence of the Bible over other religious books is based largely in the testable statements of the Bible concerning physical reality - - such as prophecies, Noah's flood, a recent creation of all life on this planet, etc.

The good news for both atheists and literalists is that someday science and revelation will agree.

I think they already do. True science and revelation have always agreed. The problem is that mainstream "science" has not always been "true" and neither have mainstream interpretations of "revelation". When it comes to human interpretation and mainstream science, I'm much more skeptical than you seem to be. I think there will always be a wide gulf between true science/revelation and mainstream science.

At one time I felt they would agree when the scientists came over to my literalism side. Now I think they will agree when we meet in the middle, accepting truth wherever it leads.

We should always follow the evidence wherever we think it leads - - if we are to be honest with ourselves.

Long earth creationism doesn't lead to loss of anything of value, except pride of opinion.

Of course, as you know already, I disagree. Long-earth Creationism is not the best explanation of the data in the rocks, fossils, or living things, and it definitely would take away a main pillar of both Adventism and Christianity.

If your acceptance of Christ's meaning to Creation excludes (based on SDA tradition or your own previous understandings), the possibility that He could have created over longer periods of time, and using natural means to prepare Earth for mankind, then your God may be too small, and your understanding of God's revelation is Scripture may be too small as well.

I never said that God couldn't have created life on this Earth over a long period of time. God could have done anything he wanted. What I said was that everything we have been given by God describing what He did declares that He created life on this planet over a very short period of time in recent history. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate otherwise. To actually suggest otherwise one has to actually turn the very specific statements that are in the Bible into fable or allegory - - as you have done.

In short, there is a big difference between what God could have done and what God says He did.

God told Moses to "write down this song." (Deut 31:19) It doesn't sound like a song in English, but truthfully when read in Hebrew it can be read in a sing song voice that is clearly a form of music. The Cantor that reads truly sings it. (Canticles = SONG of Solomon, remember?) It seems the stories of Genesis can be understood as the first verses of that song? Genesis 1 is the first part of that song. It is beautiful, honest, and very simple, and of course profound.

What it is NOT is detailed. It is truth through simplicity, it is poetry, it is a song of creation with 7 verses.

It is poetry, for sure. But, as I see it anyway, there is a lot of specific detail in this poetic description of the Creation week. How can you say that throwing in "evenings and mornings" isn't detailed? Also, the very fact that God himself, in the Ten Commandments no less, uses the very same language as is used in Genesis to describe the length of the Creation Week is quite telling. God Himself writes, with his own finger, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day. Wherefore the LORD blessed the seventh day and made it holy."

Is that just poetic allegory? If it is, what do you have left to base your belief in any of the numerous metaphysical statements in the Bible for which there is absolutely no way to test or validate?

Obviously you may feel truth is threatened by my attitude, so I'll not try to put 20-40 years of thinking on this into 20 minutes of composing this email. I'll just ask if you have ever been to the Hawaiian archipelago and seen with your own eyes, or your own map of the islands, the evidence for:

1.) Volcanism with plate tectonics leading to what we see there?

I have noticed that the volcanic islands, especially of the Hawaiian archipelago, are formed in a nice sequence that very much fits the theory of plate tectonics. In fact, I personally believe in plate tectonics - - though I do have a few questions regarding the proposed driving force behind plate tectonics. The basic idea of plate tectonics, that the continents used to be connected to each other and have seen separated over time, is quite clear and very convincing. North and South America and Africa, in particular, look like a giant jigsaw puzzle that seems very much like it was once connected. The only significant issue I have with plate tectonic theory is the idea that the split happened some 200 million years ago.

Do you know how much coastal erosion would take place in 200 million years? Think about it for just a minute. Would the puzzle pieces still fit if even 1 cm of average coastal erosion took place over hundreds of millions of years?

For a further discussion of plate tectonics see my essay on Continental Drift (Link).

2.)   Old worn out islands to the east, new younger ones to the West.

3.)   Newer ones forming off the island of Hawaii as the plates continue to move.

4.)   Can you fit the hundreds of islands terminating in the younger, larger ones into 4,000 years? Or even 10,000 years?

Much more easily than I can fit the ideas of plate tectonics into 200 million years.

If so you are a better imaginer than I am!

You said it, not me ; ) - just kidding. Seriously, do read what I've written on my ideas of plate tectonics and let me know what you think.

I will share as much as you are willing to think about, if you want to understand the Biblical reasons why a literalist Adventist is now an open Creationist no longer wedded to literalism, or to evolution of any kind, but open to the truth from all sources. As long as you do not decide to impute to me motives (backsliding, hidden sin, ulterior agendas, etc.) that you can not know, for challenging the literalistic interpretations of Genesis.

Again, as I mentioned before, I don't think these ideas have anything to do with sin or salvation. I think a lot of very confused people will be in heaven where many of the errors of knowledge entertained here on Earth will be corrected. As you point out, the only real issue involved in ones salvation is one's motive - i.e., what do you do with what you think you know? That is all that matters to God. Do you "love the truth" - - regardless of where it may lead you? That's the most important question. It isn't so much that you've found the truth, but that you're looking earnestly for it that really matters.

Jack Hoehn

Thanks again for your thoughts. They certainly are thought provoking. Do check out my website though. I'd be especially interested in your take on my essays dealing with the fossil record and geology:

As you can see, it isn't like I haven't at least thought about these issues and problems for some time myself. Anyway, thanks again.

Sean

Donna Carlson Questions San Pitman

Sean -

Thanks again for keeping me on the e-mail list.

I didn't hear [or rather, "see"] all of your exchange with Mr. Hoehn, but do you not think it is possible to accept some statements from a source and reject others? That is, one might agree with "mainstream science" in one area and disagree with it in another; or find a particular story in the Bible more likely to be literally true than another. Our job in both cases is to use our brains, not to determine that a source is authoritative and then take everything we find there as literal and absolute. In any case, as information accumulates we may find ourselves having to modify our positions - and levels of uncertainty may actually rise, rather than fall.

You said [if I'm right that your comments are in black and Mr. Hoehn's are in blue] that "If I became personally convinced of long-age notions and of Darwinian-style evolution acting over eons of time, I'd leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as well." Would you really?

Donna

P.S. Jack Hoehn's name is remotely familiar to me - where is he from?

Pitman Responds to Donna

Hey Donna,

Sure it is possible to accept some statements from a source and reject others. I do that all the time myself. In fact, I accept most of the stated observations and even most of the interpretations of mainstream scientists regarding the topics of geology, paleontology, biology, physics etc. Of course, I also disagree with mainstream scientists in a few key areas. However, I do understand why even the very intelligent might easily interpret the data according to the mainstream understanding.

My view is not overwhelmingly obvious at first approximation of the data in my opinion (and certainly in the opinion of many others). So, it is very interesting for me when someone says that the DNA or genetic evidence "clearly" or "obviously" favors the theory of intelligent design (counter to the mainstream conclusion) while the fossil and geologic evidence clearly favors the mainstream conclusion of millions and billions of years of elapsed time. As it see it, the mainstream conclusion on both accounts is the most obvious conclusion given just a little bit of exposure to mainstream scientific arguments - - which are actually very convincing at first approximation.

I mean, it took me several years of intense investigation to figure out why both the genetic evidence and geologic evidence do not favor the mainstream conclusions of scientists - at least to my own personal satisfaction up to this point in time. I am therefore just a bit skeptical when someone with my own religious background says that one vast field of evidence clearly favors a fringe view while another vast field of evidence clearly favors the mainstream view - - views which are actually very much related and interlinked in mainstream scientific thinking (i.e., Darwinian-style evolution cannot be responsible for the diversity of life given less than 10,000 years of time).

This is why I wish to see more than mere assertions that the genetic evidence obviously supports intelligent design. I personally think it does, but I don't know very many people who can explain why they think it does (and I've asked for such reasons from a lot of creationists/IDists). It isn't that easy of a question to answer. So, I'm curious to see if Dr. Hoehn actually has a reasonable explanation as to why the genetic evidence is so clearly beyond the powers of the proposed evolutionary mechanism. I want to see if he has an answer that goes beyond the subjective assertion that living things just look too complex to have evolved. As you know, even the arguments used by Arthur Chadwick in his Sabbath-school presentation would not hold water in a debate with someone like Kenneth Miller (prominent witness for mainstream science at the Dover trial). Miller would definitely win a public debate with Chadwick when it comes to the potential of the evolutionary mechanism acting on genetics.

It seems to me then that if someone has actually spent as much time figuring out why, statistically, the evolutionary mechanism won't work to produce certain features of living things, that they would also at least start to become a bit more suspicious about the other aspects associated with the overall theory of evolution - to include the vastness of the assumed ages needed for Darwinian-style evolution to actually work. The fact that someone like Jack accepts one key aspect of evolutionary theory but reject another is most intriguing to me and makes me wonder if he really has carefully considered that part of the theory of evolution that he actually rejects? I'm betting he hasn't.

As far as my statement that I would leave the SDA Church and Christianity if I ever became convinced that Darwinian-style evolution were in fact true, I'm not joking. For me, religion can be a science that is subject to potential falsification. Without this risk of being wrong, I don't see religion or any view of the world outside the mind as being of any use or value. As I see the "theories" of the SDA and Christian take on certain "realities" that exist outside of my mind, this "take" is completely opposed, irreconcilably, with the Theory of Evolution as it currently stands. Therefore, if the Theory of Evolution seemed to me to take the weight of evidence, both SDA and Christian views in general would be effectively falsified.

I might still believe in God, but certainly not the Christian God and perhaps no God at all if I actually accepted Darwinian-style evolution. It is because of this view that I most admire those evolutionists, like Richard Dawkins, who are actually honest or perhaps logical enough to follow the path of their beliefs to its logical conclusion. In my view, Richard Dawkins is far more consistent in his thinking than are those evolutionists who also claim to be Christians at the same time. That, for me, is a complete m