The 2003 Faith and Science Conference, Glacier View Convention Center

The 2003 Faith and Science Conference at Glacier View Convention Center in Colorado is the second in a series of three annual Seventh-day Adventist conferences called to address questions surrounding the doctrine of Creation. Historically Seventh-day Adventists have been the champions of a short geochronology. This implies that the first terrestrial life appeared in a singular Creation Week a few thousand years ago. During the last three days of that week God created the precursors of all life forms and the processes of adaptation that would enable them to respond to subsequent environmental changes. There was no terrestrial life before this week, and there has been no special creation since that week.

Adventist commitment to this view has been driven by a concern to buttress biblical reliability and authority generally, and more specifically by our conviction that Sabbath, a prime reason for our existence, is inextricably linked with this particular understanding of creation history. The majority of Adventist members (I would estimate at 80 percent) have unquestioning confidence in the continuing validity of our traditional teaching of creation. They believe the Bible teaches it, and they believe there is credible scientific support for it. They could not imagine any Adventist believing that life appeared on earth millions or billions of years ago or that God employed a developmental process that involved the death of any terrestrial life (plant or animal) before the first sin by Adam and Eve.

On the other hand, two polls of faculty in Adventist colleges and universities in North America have indicated that less than 50 percent of the science teachers believe the traditional view of origins. Among theology faculty a growing minority question the validity of traditional Adventist interpretations of Genesis 1-11. Adventist teachers cannot espouse these aberrant views openly and still retain their employment, but there is a growing underground network of Adventists who believe that the church's historic position is scientifically and rationally untenable.

(The split in the Adventist church between scientists and laity corresponds to a similar split in American society at large. Fifty percent of Americans believe that humans originated through special creation. Another 40 percent believe that while human biology may have an evolutionary origin, the human spirit-altruism, spiritual and philosophical consciousness, and moral sensibilities-originated through the deliberate, supernatural intervention of God. On the other hand, among scientists in America, an almost immeasurably small percentage believe in the special creation of human beings. A large minority believe in some form of theistic evolution, and the majority believe in materialistic evolution.)

So as Adventist theologians and scientists convene, what will they debate?

Authority

What sources will we admit into the argument? At least some Adventist theologians and philosophers will argue that the only reliable authority is the Bible. As one conservative polemicist wrote "The Bible is not our supreme authority; it is our only authority." All human fields of learning are so susceptible to distortion by human sinfulness that the only reliable source of information is God's infallible revelation in the Bible. According to this view, we are not obligated to engage science in areas where the Bible has spoken. We don't need to look at the evidence of paleontology, sedimentology, radiometric dating, archaeology. Just read the Bible. Do careful exegesis. And come to a conclusion. (Of course, it must be observed that in the process of careful exegesis, these scholars rely on a number of minor authorities outside of the Bible itself-lexicons, grammars, studies of ancient culture, the writings of Ellen White.)

Other Adventists will argue that the very doctrine of creation requires us to regard the physical universe as a credible source of information and that the doctrine of the image of God requires us to respect human intellectual endeavor. The same human frailties and sinfulness that can distort our reading of the natural world affect our reading of the Bible as well. There is no distortion-free source of information.

All Adventists agree that God has spoken in the Bible. All agree that God created the earth. We disagree over how much the limitations and sinfulness of humanity affected the content of the Bible and continue to affect our exegesis. We disagree over how clearly we can read earth's story in either the Bible or the rocks. We disagree over the credibility of scientific consensus in matters related to earth history. (Adventists accept scientific consensus in almost all areas of science that do not touch on earth history, including the standard theories regarding the size and age of the universe.) We disagree about the nature of God's involvement in the creation of the Bible. (Just what does "inspired" mean?)

Adventist creationism began with a strong attack on science. According to George McCready Price, scientists were so blinded by ungodly prejudice that they were egregiously misreading the rocks to support a long geochronology. If you looked at the rocks with a biblically informed mindset you would clearly see the biblical version of geology written in stone. Over the decades Adventist scientists have come to respect the findings of the larger scientific community. Most Adventist scientists who believe in a short bio-chronology have high regard for the methods, observations and integrity of non-religious scientists. Instead of impugning the work of other scientists, Adventists will wrestle with the question of what to do with credible science that disagrees with our traditional understanding of the Bible.

On one side will be exhibits of the changeable nature of science-theories once universally accepted and now universally discarded. On the other side will be exhibits of the changeable and controversial nature of Biblical exegesis-Adventists disagree among themselves and with other Christians on the meaning of a number of key passages. People will point out that we routinely trust science except when we are dealing with origins and that we don't trust the Bible when it makes "scientific" statements in areas other than origins. (That is, we don't accept at face value the Bible's statements about the mechanisms of rain production or the extent of Nebuchanezzar's kingdom or the impact of visual images at conception on the coloration of livestock.) Others will point out that "scientific racism" gave us the Holocaust and that biologists in Germany were strongly supportive of Hitler's master race schemes.

To conclude my comments on questions of authority I will cite two recent conversations.

An SDA geneticist who works for a private company: "I use evolutionary presuppositions every day in my work-because they work. I can't resolve all the questions surrounding origins, but I use evolution every day to do research which results in medically useful therapies. Would the church want me to do less effective research?"

An SDA minister: "Honestly, I don't know why those rocks appear old. Of course, I ask, who says they are old anyway? Surely God could have simply created them that way. I believe he did, so that we'd have to exercise faith. But I'm not bothered about how old they look. They could have a date stamped on them for all I care. I've read Genesis. So I believe it. Otherwise, what am I going to do with all the other mysteries? How did Jesus raise the dead? How could that whole thing with Noah's ark have played out? Etc etc."

Church Politics

The use of the word politics here is not pejorative. By politics, I refer to the processes, relationships and structures that link millions of people together in a single community.

The question of when life appeared on earth has daunting implications for the life of the church. If the church decides to publicly allow members to believe conventional scientific theories regarding origins, it will alienate the vast majority of its members. If it decides to publicly anathematize members who believe conventional theories of origins, it will alienate a significant percentage of its professional scientists.

Where this question becomes especially acute is in our schools. If lay members or pastors have aberrant views on geochronology their membership or employment is not in jeopardy. Teachers in our schools, however, are under constant scrutiny. And if their aberrant views become known their employment may well be in jeopardy. So the real question behind this conference is: What can be taught in Adventist schools?

This is not merely theoretical. Within the next few years, the church will either tell a parent: Yes, we allow our teachers to believe conventional scientific theories of origins or tell a teacher: No, you may no longer teach in our schools. Either statement will have enormous consequences.

Theology

Death before sin. Adventists and other Christians have historically taught that God created a naturally deathless world. All death (animal and plant) is a result of the original sin by Adam and Eve. A long bio-chronology challenges this theological position. Is this position a necessary presupposition for the crucifixion of Jesus to have any meaning?

Sabbath and Creation. Sabbath is linked in Scripture to the seven days of creation week. If the creation week of Genesis 1 is interpreted other than literally, is there any remaining basis for regarding Sabbath as a Christian obligation?

Beginnings and Endings. If the creation accounts are not understood literally, what warrant do we have for regarding the Second Coming and the New Earth as literal realities?

The Bible as infallible. If the Bible is not infallible about the age of the earth, how can we be sure that it is right about anything? If the Bible is not inerrant, how much errancy do we allow for?

Science

There will be a lot of discussion on radiometric dating. Questions about presuppositions and methodology. There will be evidence from sedimentology and paleontology. In all of these areas of science, the advocates of a short chronology will offer bits of evidence that run counter to the flood of the current scientific consensus. The bits are there, but so is the flood.

Pleochroic halos will probably make an appearance, but the current state of the evidence strongly suggests that these halos are the result of transport into the rocks after they were formed rather than the result of decay by atoms that were in the rock at their creation.

Thank you for you interest in the conference.

I invite your prayers for the participants and for our church.