Taylor calls for "intellectual honesty in the Adventist Church."

 Talk about duplicity. Nowhere is it more evident of a lack of "intellectual honesty" than on this A-today forum and Dr. Tayor may well be the champion of duplicity.

Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black."

This forum does not even slightly resemble "Adventist today". It is such a fringe element in and of the church, scarcely can you find a church member in the main line church who even know you exist. Let alone embrace your false ideas and concepts.

Talk about a massive ego. Wake up, Dr. Taylor! For the most part, you are in "la la land."

Yet you feel highly qualifed to condemn "Educate Truth" for their activity.

Anyone reading any of my posts knows I don't patronize present day leadership for their failure to deal honestly with many spiritual issues in the church. But A-today is certainly no alternative for their failures.

You guys are so far off the wall both in honesty and spirituality, I doubt many liberals in the world would commend your positions.

I suggest you stick to talking to each other and confirm yourselves in your attack and opposition to the bible. Keep telling each other how brilliant you all are and how "highly enlightened" you are above simple bible believing Christians.

We can be sure that God will eventually purge His church of those who attack His word by persecution and trial.

None the less, you all "carry on" with massive doses of affirmation of each other with the hopes all will be well in the end. NOT.

Bill Sorensen

 Ervin, as I said about your last Educate Truth rant, perhaps you should go to grammar school yourself before you attempt grammar jabs that make you look ridiculous. "Sic"? Are you kidding? Educate Truth is obviously two words when not used with a ".com" ending. Therefore, your mistake -- again -- and you just pointed it out to whoever reads this silly blog. I noticed you still haven't changed the name error on your last blog about educatetruth.com, as you called it educatetruth.org. Didn't want to look foolish by making the revision? This continues to amuse me. I can't wait to see what other grammar jabs you conjure up, as you seem to think you're master enough to make them. 

Amie, I doubt that perfect English and punctuation is all that relevant in the discussions. What people mean is the issue.

 Bill Sorensen

Amie[sic] (everyone knows it's spelled "amY") - Erv's "sic" was a jab at the word "Truth" - not at the spelling or spacing or grammatical construction of the website URL.  Most people that "get" his sense of humor grasped this right away. 

I'd also imagine that he knows full well the exact URL for EducateTruth.  He's been there, commented there, and been published there.  Chalk the .org "error" up to another little jab at the site itself. 

If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am, Erv got a pretty good laugh from your comment.  He may have even done that airplane noise, and whooshed his hand over head.

Amie [sic],

For the record, there was a request by the blog author to the editorial staff to change the title of the blog you reference from "org" to "com." You'll note it has been corrected. However, the URL cannot be changed.

And yes, Steve is correct on all other counts. I did hear the "whooosh" sound passing through here as well.

Marcel Schwantes

Online Editor, Adventist Today

Oh, it was humor? Pardon me. I took it as attempted condescension that flopped. Either way, the headline is incorrect, which still makes the attempted jab ironic -- Educate Truth is two words. In my opinion, points should be made without petty, unnecessary condescension. Obviously so far these jabs haven't worked. Perhaps making facts more interesting or relevant material more solid would be a better goal than "humor" that's grammatically incorrect, and therefore confusing. At least keep it out of the headline. Since I don't share office space with "Erv", I can't see through grammatical errors to catch some deeper sense of humor. Sorry.

Bill, you're right! I agree. Now if only we could make "Erv" agree and knock off the pettiness.

I'm really puzzled, Bill, by the venomous quality of your attacks.  Who forces you or anyone else to read or participate in this forum?  I appreciate thoughtful, conservative, substantive comments posted to this site.  But what's the point of demonizing?  If you feel educatetruth has been the victim of calumny, why not demonstrate, by the quality of your comments, your superior character? As I recall, Jesus made it abundantly clear that the primary distinguishing feature of discipleship was the love exhibited by His followers.  Why the anger at AToday for not being what you wish it to be?  Christ never seemed too concerned about heresy.  He reserved His ire for the religious leaders who sought to imprison the hearts and minds of God's people in rigid orthodoxy fashioned by religious man-made traditions.

I partially share your concerns.  I am afraid progressive Adventists, in rejecting traditionalist answers, too often seek freedom from God rather than the freedom of Christ's yoke.  I happen to consider myself a "simple Bible believing Christian." But I'm sure I would strongly disagree with you about many religious issues. My relationship with God and with my community of faith is not defined by jackbooted fellow believers.  Does that make me a wild-eyed radical? I happen to love dialoguing with folks who disagree with me.  It stretches me and helps to clarify my often inchoate and amorphous thoughts about issues.  Are there not enough magazines and websites for Red State Adventists?  When has AToday pretended to be something it is not?   

No one has ever claimed that this site is representative of Red State Adventism. But our educational system is not producing Red State Adventists.  Now you can continue the verbal beatings until AToday becomes what you want it to be, or you can join the dialogue with the wit and insight that most of us prefer.   

Why do so many so-called Christians, who believe in evolution, act as though there is no scientific evidence for creation? There are creation science institutes and info on-line and elsewhere. The science points toward creation today, not evolution.

Setting that aside, what is all this debate raging in the church about? This is all very simple...allow me to pose  a question to all on this site:

The Sabbath of the 4th commandment was assaulted by Christians who changed it to Sunday. And the Creator in the 4th commandment is assaulted by the secular world with Darwinian evolution. So I ask, from whence does this dual assault on the 4th commandment stem from? You know the answer-the opponent of God. And now the Christian churches give the 4th commandment a 1-2 punch by adopting theistic evolution or intelligent design. Speaking of being neither cold nor hot but rather lukewarm instead....

Do your SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH and you will see that Darwinian evolution is a joke, full of fallacies and inconsitincies.  And no, these points werent made to cut, but rather hopefully to get some of you to stop and think seriously. Why is it that so many on this site seem to be obssessed with feelings or acceptance of the "modern" world? Ellen White said herself to keep searching the Scriptures for more light. But when it comes to evolution vs. creation, well, I already made my point.

Have a nice 7th day SABBATH

"The Sabbath of the 4th commandment was assaulted by Christians who changed it to Sunday."

This is not an historically accurate statement by any stretch of the imagination.  There is abundant evidence from early church fathers that the new gentile Christians began celebrating the Resurrection on the first day of the week in the early second century, and continued to do so. Without the Resurrection there would have been no Christian church.

 They never sought to change the day of worship, as the Jewish Christians are never mentioned following the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.  From that time on, it was a gentile church and as such, the gentiles had never worshiped on any day, particularly the 7th.

Not until the first day of the week had become the unofficial day of         celebration in honor of the resurrection, did Constantine issue his proclamation for religious liberty of all religions, and shortly thereafter, that the first day of the week was to be free of work--never was it declared to be a day of worship.

The first day became a fait accompli:  what had been practiced for several centuries, was recognized by the Emperor Constantine, and in an effort to unite his large empire, he "became" a Christian and wished to legalize Christianity.

If If publicly declaring your belief in proposition X is a requirement for membership in some club or religion, then that alone is pretty good evidence that X is actually

false. Where X is ultraliteral Genesis, if it were true, then we'd be talking about rock formations, vestigal limbs, or the actual physical evidence and how an unbiased reading of it supports the 6000 year story.

I took a course, Evolution and Genetics in a non-adventist college. Students occasionally challenged the professor, and he never said, "if you don't believe me, then get out of my class!" If he had, I would've dropped the class. So it's kind of illuminating that this is basically the position of official Adventism.

Nathan,

I was wondering when someone would point out the hypocrisy of Bill and Amie. Bill is telling us that God is going to purge people like us from the church and Amie says that Erv's blog is "silly." They remind me of people who condemn those that watch TV programs like the Jerry Springer show. But, there they are themselves every week watching it.

I suspect they have at least two reasons for coming to this blog. The first is they are here to voice their views, which is fine.  The second reason they here is because there is an interesting compulsion for fundamentalists to set others straight.  

Elaine,

Nice post to help educate SDA's that there was not some surreptitious desire by the power brokers in the Catholic Church to change Saturday Sabbath worship to Sunday. Catholics celebrate the day of resurrection and I do not have a problem with that. 

Dvd,

So as scientist who recognizes that conserved gene sequences between different species support evolution, I am attacking God and the sabbath? I never knew that. 

The science underpinning evolution in no way confirms or denies God. God as creator is a theological concept, not a scientific one. Theology and science should not be placed in the same museums. 

"..........there is an interesting compulsion for fundamentalists to set others straight."

Liberals hate the idea that we are "our brothers keeper" in issues of faith.  No doubt, Abel could have preserved his life if he had not been so "demanding" that Cain should follow the exact form of worship God had proscribed.

Abel was too much a "fundamentalist" and did not leave his brother alone.

As was Noah, and every true bible believer from the prophets to all the reformers. So they have an "an interesting compulsion" to set others straight.

While liberals have an amazing indifference to the word of God and His instructions found therein.

There is an obvious parallel to the flaming liberal political agenda in the US with the same liberal spirit in the SDA church today. So the SDA church reflects to a large degree the same spirit of Satan the world manifests.

Of course, we have no "Glenn Beck" in Adventism. Certainly no one with any dynamic influence to challenge the church. At best, we have a few "moderates" on the conservative side. But none willing to "stand up and be counted".

Loyalty to the word comes second to influence in the church. Even when they know the truth of the matter. They are not willing to demand accountability and put their reputation on the line as well as their income.

And hey, I don't know if I would either. They can undermine my influence in the church, but at least at present, it doesn't affect my income. So, someone who derives his living from the church would have to make a sacrifice that I don't.

We need to remember that God has always had more problems with "the church" that mis-represents Him, than the world that doesn't claim to. And when anyone stood up and demanded accountability in the name of the Lord, they often suffered severe consequences for doing so.

As Dr. Livingston said, "In light of the cross of Calvary, I never made a sacrifice." And I can say, "In light of his sacrifice, I don't know what sacrifice is."

I would suspect in the near future, all who are truly loyal to God and His word will soon have the privledge and blessing of finding out what "sacrifice" really means. I suspect it may be a little difficult to look forward to such an event. But it will come.

Bill Sorensen

The banter here reminds me of a joke that may be more real than we would like to believe:

Ole was shipwrecked, stranded on a desert island.

When a ship came years later to rescue him, Ole proudly showed the 
crew all that he'd built on the island while awaiting rescue.

"Here," said Ole, "is my house, and here is my barn, and here is my 
church."

"What's that building over there?" asked one of the sailors.

"Oh," replied Ole, "That's the church I used to go to."

chillout:

Odd as you my find it, the Protestant denominations, especially in post-Revolutionary North America, have mostly been organized around shared belief in propositional truths.  Catholics have traditionally seen salvific value in the mass and other ordinances, rites, and rituals, so doctrine assumes subsidiary importance.  But for Protestants, shared belief, shared doctrine has always been of prime importance, and the chief method of denomination and organization. 

With regard to Darwinism, "official Adventism" has been at pains to avoid taking the position that, "if you don't believe what we believe, then get out."  As I understand it, the faith-science conferences of 2002-2004 were organized because official Adventism recognized it had a problem with Darwinism in its college faculties, and wanted to have an opportunity to have a dialog with these folks, rather than a purge.  The dialog ended as all such futile exercises must (enthusiasts of the Carter/Obama foreign policy notwithstanding): with each side completely unconvinced by the other.  The church affirmed its historic doctrinal position, but did nothing along the lines of "if you don't believe what we believe, then get out."

I would argue that these talks were counter-productive for exactly the same reason that talks with Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah are counterproductive: they confer recognition, legitimacy, even equality.  Big mistake.  I would argue that the only concrete result of the fatih/science conferences was that now the Seventh-day Darwinians believe themselves, with some evident justification, to be just another legitimate constituency within the big tent of Adventism.  After all, official Adventism held organized, serial talks with them, ergo, they must be not only an actual constituency, but pretty important as well.

With official Adventism fecklessly punting, the issue simmered for several years, and has now erupted with the lay movement embodied in the "educate truth" website.  In turns out that lay Adventists are less sanguine about the destruction of the Adventist doctrinal structure than the guys on the payroll, the administrators drawing a tithe-supported paycheck.  There is, as Ervin has pointed out, an element of "populism" to this backlash, but the integrity of Seventh-day Adventism is much too important to be left to the "elites" (who are not real elites at all, but rather bureaucratic mediocrities).

I love that certain people believe that SDAism is a popularity contest, and that if a "majority" believes a certain thing, that it therefore becomes the "official" church position, and that those that disagree should go find another church to worship in. 

Now, David has assigned those that disagree with him the roles of "Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah."  Haha.

Time and again, David has panned church leadership for not taking his side.  He's called them "feckless bureaucrats" among other insults.  It kind of makes me wonder why he isn't the one abandoning this ship driven by fools, overrun by evildoers.

Of course, the answer is simple.  David is delusional - to the point of describing the EducateTruth site as an "eruption" of a "movement."  While the diahrretic nature of the David's description of EducateTruth might be considered apropo, EducateTruth is really more of a benign gas-passing type of event.  By their own description, they've gotten 80,000 hits, of which 4,000 have signed their petition to tar and feather the biology professors at La Sierra.  So roughly 76,000, or 95% of the people that visit, decline to be part of the "eruption movement."  The 4,000 signatures equals roughly 25 one hundredths of 1 percent of the total Adventist Church membership, meaning that 99.975 percent of SDA's are not part of the "eruption movement." 

If there is mediocrity involved at all in this debate, I would strongly suggest that the numbers indicate that it is the mediocrityy of the EducateTruth crowd, with the tepid (and .025 percent described as "tepid" is a true tribute to my generous nature) response to their hate-mongering that fits this description to a "T". 

I have a question for David Read, Bill Sorensen, and anyone else adhering to the ultraliteral interpretation of Genesis.

 Imagine I invented a time machine. We go back in time every 100 years and visit one of your ancestors. We hit 6000 years in the past, and Earth is still there. Eventually, it turns out your ancestor isn't a creature we can credibly call a human, and you concede that ultraliteral Genesis is the wrong interpretation.

When we come back home, would you really say that Adventism is garbage, the church should dissolve, and we should all become Catholics?

"When we come back home, would you really say that Adventism is garbage, the church should dissolve, and we should all become Catholics?"

Christanity would have no definable interpretation. We could all become "Catholic" or any other human speculation that we would choose to believe.

Yes, Adventism would "dissolve" as it is doing in many quarters today.

Bill Sorensen 

If any person has looked at the Educate Truth site more than once, 80,000 hits does not equal 80,000 people.

Monkey See Monkey Not Do

Yes, sadly, you are attacking the Sabbath....Why is your heart so hard? There is overwhelming evidence in science today to back up creation, yet you refuse to look at that. Why? Why is it you refuse God the right to be God?

Heres a point....If we evolved from monkeys, then sin entered through man, how do you explain in bones and the fossil record cancer, signs of pain, suffering death, fighting, etc. ? In other words, if the fossil record came before man, then sin was present before man....contradicting big time the Bible, so if you believe in the fallicy of Darwinian evolution, why do you waste your time claiming to be a believer in God? Whats the use or point?

Nerermind, some people are just "smarter than God" I guess.  Some hearts are just so hard and proud.

Dvddvdd, I believe in a literal creation, but as a professional biologist I don't accept, not for one minute, that there is "overwhelming evidence in science" to back up my belief--which I base strictly on faith. The preponderance of data certainly supports an old earth, and I don't know how to deal with that. If the thief on the cross was saved without apparent "correct" knowledge on how life was created, over what time frame creation occurred, and whether the sabbath is an essential commemoration of God's creative act, why is it necessary for me or anyone else to believe in these things. Why can't living in faith, in the light of the cross, be enough? How can my salvation be dependent on accepting your point of view?

I find it sad that you would equate belief on origins with, or even elevate it above, faith in Jesus Christ, the only name under heaven by which men are saved. Some of us are satisfied to humbly say, "I don't know," to your questions. Speaking for myself, I am not "smarter than God," and will love and worship Him regardless of the many answers that, in my opinion, are not explicitly given in either the Bible or in God's second book, Nature.

Ella M

Prof. Not Kent:

Thank you for the most sensible and objective comment I have seen thus far.  We can't know exactly how God created the earth as none of us were there.  We rely on the accounts of those who have gone before and wrote in their language and with their worldview and through their personal experiences with the Creator. 

We can speculate, study and research, but finally as Christians we base our belief on faith in Jesus Christ and His beautiful story.  The One who lived out the OT ten commandments in a sinless life, died to save us, and rose that we may also come forth to eternal life. 

Hi KWalker - I'm not sure how much research you've done into Galileo (hopefully it's more than the 5-minute Googling that you referred to) but the article from photographer Wil Milan that you used as a resource is a little superficial and provides no references whatsoever to any source material.  If you want insight into Galileo, particularly enough insight from which to heap scorn on others, you might want to read "Galileo: A Very Short Introduction" by Stillman Drake, who built a deeper profile picture of Galileo by researching the extensive writings, both personal and professional, of Galileo, and framing those writings in historical perspective.  It's a good book, and not really very short.  I hope your eyes don't indeed fall out of their sockets - they'll come in handy when you start reading actual scholarly publications. 

Statefarm:  Actually KWalker has a valid point.  Tales of the persecution of Galileo have been exaggerated to fit the "science v. religion" narrative.  Here is what Ronald Numbers--a favorite source among the Atoday/Spectrum crowd because he is a former Adventist now an agnostic Darwinist--had to say in an interview with Salon about the Galileo episode:

"Occasionally, there were problems -- for instance, between Galileo and the pope. But Galileo had gone out of his way to insult the pope, who had previously supported him. He put the pope's favorite argument against heliocentricism into the mouth of the character Simplicio -- the simple-minded person."

So Galileo wasn't really arrested because of his science. It was because he was a lousy diplomat?

"Yeah, he was a terrible diplomat, thumbing his nose at the most powerful person who critiqued him. Also, Galileo was not as badly treated as many people suggest. When he was summoned down to Rome by the Inquisition, he lived in the Tuscan palace. And then when he was asked to move into the Vatican, to the palace of the Inquisition, one of the officials in the Inquisition vacated his three-room apartment so that the distinguished guest, Galileo, could have a nice apartment. And they allowed him to have his meals catered by the chef at the Tuscan embassy. Ultimately, he was under house arrest in his villa outside of Florence."

Is the whole notion, then, that Galileo faced possible execution because of his scientific statements just baloney?

"[It was] highly unlikely [he faced execution]. In fact, I don't know of a single pioneer in science who lost his life for his scientific beliefs."

Well, what about the 16th century philosopher and cosmologist Giordano Bruno? I've always heard that he was burned at the stake because of his Copernican view of the universe.

All I have to say is "sad"....someone of your education level would actually put in the same category the thief on the cross and people who have found the truth but refuse to believe it and harden their hearts? The whole purpose of Creation (IN 6 DAYS) is the reason for the 4th Commandment. He is the Creator and we didn't come from monkeys..... Again, an irrefutabale point is if you beleive the fossil record points toward evolution, then sin was in the world BEFORE MAN, not entered through man. So why even waste your time with Christianity?

The GREATEST THREAT TO CHRISTIANITY isn't EVOLUTION-its CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION. Wasn't Christ betrayed by one of His own-Judas? So too in the world today He is betrayed by His own.

I'm not trying to cut you with "points" of agruement or trying to see who is a better debater. Rather I'm trying to reason with you to reach your heart. He said not to seperate the tares from the wheat. He will do that in the end. So in the context of the debate between creation and evolution in the church, who do YOU think HE would consider the tares to be?

Please, stop trying to mix the spiritual with the temporal. I was once like you on this. For 20 years I strayed away. Then one day as I was reading my favorite science books it all became a joke. Then I started thinking on how I left the church for this??? And was distracted also by the amusemnents of the world. Again, of course your not saved if your the thief on the cross based on whether you believe the Creation story...But in his moment of faith, if asked, the thief would have believed in Biblical Creation. Why? Because he would have said if God says it - then I believe it. You think the thief on the cross would have argued that point at that moment? (If it would have come up).

How can one be a light unto the world while believing openly (or privately-if the truth be known) in Darwinian Cross Species Evolution. And NO my friend, WE DON'T COME FROM MONKEYS.... Please, lets not be LUKEWARM, I think you know why to that.

Statefarm:  Please understand that I'm not suggesting (nor do I think Ronald Numbers would suggest) that the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo was appropriate, reasonable, or even sane.  He should never have been summoned to Rome by the Inquisition, shown the implements of torture, made to recant heliocentrism, and placed under permanent house arrest at his villa in Tuscany. 

I am suggesting (and I think Numbers argues) that 1) Galileo's own arrogance and obnoxiousness got him into trouble, whereas previous heliocentrists, like Copernicus, had not run afoul of the church; and 2) compared to many thousands of other victims of the 600 year inquisition, who were tortured sometimes for weeks on end and then burned at the stake, the treatment of Galileo was quite courteous and hospitable.

I understand, David.  I'm looking forward to reading the book - you've definitely piqued my interest.

ProfessorNot Kent, I have been impressed with the comments you have posted on this forum. I appreciate that you do not forget that those you disagree with are real people and thus you consistently treat them with respect and courtesy. This topic is of immediate concern not only to scientists and university professors but to science educators at all levels as well.

As the current president of the Adventist Science Educator's Association I have wondered how to create an opportunity for our members to communicate with one another about this issue in a respectful and open manner that offers support to those with whom they disagree. The problem, as I see it, is that those who subordinate scientific data to a literal understanding of Genesis are genuinely concerned that anything other than that position will result in the loss of faith of their students. To feel that degree of responsibility for the salvation of others is a heavy burden and does not allow for acceptance of an opposing point of view.

On the other hand, the science teacher who accepts the validity of data that supports evolutionary history and recognizes how the theory of evolution informs nearly all current research and scientific advances is faced with a question of personal integrity every time they deal with the topic. This teacher has no less of a sense of responsibilty for guiding the faith of their students but may not feel that a literal belief in the Creation story is essential for salvation. This teacher may believe that an honest relationship with God and with others is more essential to faith than a correct interpretation of all of the mysteries of scripture.

I think that the problem is not really about evolution vs. creation but rather about what believers think is the path to God. Unfortunately there is so much fear involved that it is difficult to have a respectfully sane discussion. On the one hand, people are afraid of losing their children and their identity with their church and on the other hand people are afraid of losing their jobs and the opportunity to contribute to the diversity of a community of believers.

After the end of the 2004 conferences Jan Paulson said to those scientists who struggle with these issues: We need you.  I think that if we all embraced those three words and applied them to all believers with whom we disagree we could make progess.

Gail Redberg College Place, WA

Thank you so much Gail. I agree with you about the quality and integrity exhibited by the posts of ProfessorNotKent.  You say, "...the theory of evolution informs nearly all current research and scientific advances..."  But doesn't the problem go far beyond true science?  Don't evolutionary theories form the foundations for social, economic, and behavioral theories as well?  Isn't philosophical materialism firmly grounded in Darwinian theory? Evolutionary theorists deny free will and sinful human nature in the name of "science". They are overwhelmingly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Shouldn't Christian SDAs reasonably expect that science teachers will differentiate between theory and science, and point out to their students the pitfalls and challenges of evolutionary theory from the perspective of Scripture? How much of evolutionary theory is truly experimental, falsifiable science - as opposed to logical and reasonable cause and effect deductions drawn from correlation?  Can science explain the Cambrian explosion, with its startling absence of transitional life forms?  

My concern is that the science debate is narrowly framed within Adventist Creation science claims - and the larger threat posed by scientism, as a religion that defines ultimately reality, who we are, and what we should be, is lost sight of in the fight to protect parochial claims.  It disturbs me that progressives, who now control the classrooms, disingenuously try to erect a wall of separation between faith and science to prevent scripture from posing powerful challenges to the secularist claims of science, that need to be mounted in the name of the church. Do Adventist science professors recognize the insidious danger of the totalitarian claims of science, and are they warning their students of them?  My fear is that the answer is no, because too many Adventist scientists offer a warm embrace to the tyranny of scientism in their classrooms.    

Gail,

I am trying to detach myself from these issues, particularly the sadness I feel when I read the harsh rhetoric and intolerance at Educate Truth. I really don't have the time to invest in this stuff and need to let it go. But my heart does ache for those affected by this controversy, and I feel deeply for my fellow biologists who struggle, in untold ways as I do, with how to juggle science and faith. And as much as I disagree with those who wish to exclude brethren with divergent views from the fellowship of believers, my heart aches for them as well; I wish upon them the fullest measure of Christ's love and wish it could rub off on those they sometimes treat unkindly. 

As the current president of the Adventist Science Educator's Association, you are in a very difficult position. You are probably there for a very good reason: you certainly have articulated some of the issues very well, and you are surely a voice of reason where emotion tends to prevail. I appreciated your mention that science teachers -- even those who appear to have "strayed" -- feel responsible for the faith of their students, a fact that seems overlooked by many. I'm also a tad surprised and very impressed to learn of Paulson's desire to retain diverse views in the Church; surely he recognized the honest relationship with God that these scientists with less-conservative views can have.

I'm really not in a position to be of much help, though I do care. The best that I can really do is to pray for you and those whom you might be able to impact.

Nathan,

 I have a close friend who is an SDA biologist at one of your universities. I can assure you he is much appreciated within the Church and in a position of awareness and understanding. As we have discussed these issues by phone, I get the opposite impression as you: that conservative creationists very much control the classroom, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. He has also described to me, university by university, how the majority of your tertiary programs teach conservative science. I get the feeling that La Sierra University may well have been the most extreme, but that the problem is also being addressed. None of this may suffice for those "awakened" to this issue and demanding change, but I think that your concerns may be a tad inflated. I get the feeling that God is still in control of your classrooms. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit," says the Lord.

Once again....Sin entered the world through man. If you believe in evolution, then the fossil record disproves the Bible entirely. (of course it would fit if the fossil record was from the flood, but I suppose you doubt the flood too on this site). For the fossil record (death, pain, suffering, etc.) is full of the results of sin. HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT? You can't. Christ came cloaked in humanity to do what Adam failed to do-resist the temptation to taste of the forbidden fruit. Notice Christ didn't come cloaked as a monkey, dinosaur, or a concestor from Dawkins book The Ancestors Tale. Again, I humbly ask for the sake of our youth, Why are your hearts so hard on this against God? Why do you join with the world while hiding behind the argument that Creation isn't important to salvation? It is important, for the reason already stated. For acceptance of Evolution undermines the whole premise of Christianity. President Warren G. Harding was raised an SDA. But left the church when he studied evolution in a secular college. Its been repeated for the many decades since. Also, as Adventists, it goes against everything we believe in the Sabbath...again....the churches assault the 4th commandment by replacing Sabbath with Sunday observance and the world assaults His creative power in the 4th commandment with Darwinian evolution. Yes, we MUST develop a personal relationship with God, but with a god presented as a liar by your friends in the science community? (That He didn't create in 6 days and the fossil record, showing sin before man evolved). Also, whats with this silly fake martyr syndrome on here? Your side is the one who is ridiculing Creationists outside of the church. And now you want to do it IN the church too? And there is NO ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR ANYONE IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TO BE TEACHING EVOLUTION as fact. YOU have plenty of science resources today for Creation SCIENCE to be taught in our schools, BASED ON SCIENCE. Truly, your heart has to be hard to not even attempt to see that.

Can we be honest here together? You know what it all is about? Some of you in our schools went to secular colleges and didn't defend your belief. You let your first love fall by the wayside as truth is fallen in the street. Someone on here mentioned "diversity". I know what that means....It means watering down the truth...thats what it means...to be agreeable to your academic collegues in the world. ERROR then APOSTASY then OPEN SIN.

OH..and as far as setting SDA youth up for "cognitive dissonance" or "Leaving" the faith when they attend college since they weren't brainwashed with a washed up theory from the turn-of-last century.(evolution in grade school)..Uhmmm... How about arming them with the truth of scripture and science. Like Answers-in-Genesis, Creation Magazine, etc. ?

To the man on here who thinks kids leave the faith because they DIDN'T get brainwashed with evolution in gradeschool....THROUGH FAITH WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORLDS WERE FRAMED BY THE WORD OF GOD, SO THAT THE THINGS THAT ARE SEEN WERE NOT MADE OF THINGS WHICH DO APPEAR......GIRD UP NOW THY LOINS LIKE A MAN; FOR I WILL DEMAND OF THEE, AND ANSWER THOU ME. WHERE WAST THOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH? DECLARE, IF THOU HAST UNDERSTANDING...this is where  YOU  as the creation say to the Creator..BEHOLD, I AM VILE; WHAT SHALL I ANSWER THEE? I WILL LAY MINE HAND UPON MY MOUTH. Remember, if you are in our educational system at any level, and point to the feet beneath our students and say those fossils came before man (which show the signs of sin, though sin entered through man into the world, not before) you will be held accountable one day. SO PLEASE, let your light shine a different shade than the shade of the world.

I'd like to see just one verse from the Bible that mentions "fossil." I would love for someone to show me where in the Bible we are told when, where, or how fossils were formed.

People secure in their convictions generally don't defend them by using the literary equivalent of screaming at the top of their lungs.

You would sound much more convincing if you abstained from all-caps, bold in your comments.  

Kent, I would point you to Genesis seven and eight.  Those chapters do not use the word "fossil" (which is a Latin word meaning "dug up"), but if you use your noggin, you can see that the events described would have buried an enormous number and range of life forms. 

I used my noggin, and it led me here.

It doesn't seem to me that Genesis 7-8 is relevant.

David you wrote "......I would argue that these talks were counter-productive for exactly the same reason that talks with Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah are counterproductive: they confer recognition, legitimacy, even equality.  Big mistake. ..."

You equate this type of dialogue with leaders of terrorist nations with faith/science conferences? They may be unproductive in your view but the analogy is not instructive as they are not the same thing. Also you imply that dialogue between the SDA faithful and those members from the sciences gives "legitimacy" to those that hold the view that science has something to say regarding animal and human evolution. Here is a news flash. The scientific enterprise is already legitimate and does not need SDA approval nor is its methodology legitimized by any religious organization.