Sunday, June 14, 2009

La Sierra University and the teaching of Evolution,

Wrong Every Time

(This was originally published in Adventist Today. I think it bears on the current controversy surrounding the teaching of biology at La Sierra University.)

In 1795, based on his geological research, James Hutton wrote: we find no vestige of a beginning–no prospective of an end. But he was wrong. Science eventually replaced his smooth, everlasting uniformitarianism.

As a twelve-year-old Adventist in 1962, I already was smarter than Hutton. I knew there had been a beginning about six thousand years ago, and there was an end two years in the future. The beginning was the ex nihilo creation of the entire globe six thousand years ago, a view rejected by all the theologians at the Andrews seminary. And my date for the end was based on the (now) dubious parallel between Adventist preaching about the judgment and Noah’s 120 years of preaching about impending judgment. (As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be . . .).

I learned in church school about uniformitarianism. Scientists blindly embraced the notion of peat bogs in Michigan and Scotland slowly, inevitably turning into coal seams. The sea floor would gradually accumulate enough limey deposits to create another Red Wall in a future Grand Canyon. Even as a twelve-year-old I knew this was nonsense. I knew that the coal seams were produced by the Flood burying the pre-flood tropical rain forests and that limestone was formed from the rapid burial of marine layers in the Flood. Ten years later I read William Agee’s The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record. This prominent secular geologist pointed out that the geologic record is full of compelling evidence of non-uniformity. Coal is not being formed in our world; massive limestone is not being created.

Science had been wrong. Which would have been a very gratifying thought except that I lived on Long Island, a terminal moraine created by continental glaciation. In church school I had been taught, a la George McCready Price, that so-called Ice Age deposits were actually Flood residue. Living on a moraine and studying geology, I was inexorably moved to the conclusion of all post-Price Adventist scientists: G. M. Price and the Church had been wrong. There had indeed been continental glaciation. And I realized the Church had been wrong about the coal, too, because we “knew” there had been no rain before the flood, but you needed rain to create the tropical rain forests for the flood to bury.

The church and science are always getting it wrong.

But now we have it right. The scientists know that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the theologians know that life is about six thousand years old. There will be no further corrections. There is no new data for science to discover; there are no new accommodations that theology will need to make. We finally have it right. . . . And I have a bridge to sell you.

If the Church builds its doctrine (officially required belief) on the assured results of scholarship, it is building on sand. If it makes a doctrine of historical or chronological conclusions drawn from the Bible by devout Adventists, it is building on quick sand. Because we are always getting it wrong. Whether it is George McCready Price arguing that the geologic column is a godless fiction, Robert Gentry arguing that the universe was created 6000 years ago or a union president pontificating to his constituents that the sun is younger than the earth, when public figures in the Church make strong chronological assertions and insist they are based on the Bible, they diminish the Bible’s credibility in the eyes our educated children, because they always get it wrong.

I have seen Bible reading transform drug addicts and watched its words soothe the terminally ill. I’ve seen obedience to its principles heal troubled marriages. The Bible is a good book. It is too good, too precious, to be discredited by our clumsy history writing.

Twelve-year-olds will always be wrong about something. My prayer is that they will not be wrong because they have been listening to their church.

5 comments:

Antinyx said...

I disagree that evolution is fundamentally incompatable with Seventh-day Adventism. Do we not believe that being a creator is part of the character of God, and that God is eternal? Wouldn't you expect to see evidence of ongoing creation over a period of billions of years (actually more)?

Can anyone say how the "natural" evolutionary record would be any different than the evolutionary record of "intelligent design"? ie. How is biologic evolution qualitatively different than say, the evolution of the automobile.

John McLarty said...

Well said.

John McLarty

Sean Pitman said...

The evolution of the automobile required high-level intelligence. It wasn't the result of random mutations and function-based selection. Biological evolution via the mindless Darwinian mechanism doesn't do much of anything - at least not without the input of intelligence or higher level functional informational complexity.

Andrew said...

I am not seeing how evolution is compatible with faith.
I don't think it is our church's greatest threat either.
This entire debate is discouraging.

Unknown said...

Not only is Adventism not at odds with theistic evolution, but increasingly theistic-evolutionary theologians of all denominations are adopting positions long held by Adventists and emphasised by Ellen White.

For example:

i) Great Controversy theme (see Michael Lloyd re how the fall of Angels was in fact the pre-Eden fall of creation, the original-original sin);

ii) Nature of Man (that Adam was intended to restore the creation of God but failed in that vocation, to replace the fallen angles as Ellen White noted);

iii) hope in a literal eschaton (state of the dead, rejection of some spirit-world afterlife, hope in Christ's phyiscal resurrection, hope in a new literal heave and earth etc);

iv) Wholism (rejection of Platonic-gnostic beliefs separating the body from the soul, health and wellbeing);

v) Sabbath (contrary to common claims, theistic-evolution theologians are more likely to believe in and emphasise the importance of the seventh-day Sabbath, given it was made 'for man' as a symbol that despite the horrors of the natural world God and creation is 'good' despite it 'groaning as in labor'; and

vi) even vegetarianism.

I agree that basing one's faith on young earth creation is like quick-sand. It is akin to what we did with unbiblical misrepresentations about Mrs White the Church taught following the 1922 Bible Conference, which resulted in a mass exodus following the White Lie in the 1970s. We are only making a rod for our own future backs.

I have a faith based totally on the Bible. The problem is not the Bible - it is the misreading or proof texting of the Bible by well-meaning but ultimately uncorrect people.

For example, the word 'day' in Gen 1 does not necessarily mean 24 hours. Thus, if science proves creation could not have occured in 7 x 24 hours, and the Bible itself offers numerous interpretations, only the gross ignorant who still ignore God's revelation both in scripture and the natural world.

Thus, it is incorrect to say people who wish to expore theological possibilities re theistic evolution are not following the Bible.

After 150 years, Christian Scientists, including the SDA Church's own scientists, have made little head way into disproving evolution. Despite the snake-oil sold by many Christian writers, basic statistics show over 99% of scientists still believe in evolution by natural selection. Simply wishing it won't show, or ignoring the evidence 'on faith' won't make the problem go away.

As I noted above, Adventism is uniquely adapted to consider the theoligical implications of theistic evolution.