Geoscience Research Institute

Science and technology are powerful, respected, and highly successful. They have immensely improved our standard of living — from houses, appliances, food, health, and recreation to methods of communication, transportation, and record keeping — leading some to believe that all of humanity's problems can be solved by science. But can science aid in finding answers to philosophical questions about our origin and destiny and about our purpose for living? Can it solve the problems of war and mismanaged environments? Science has tried unsuccessfully and often in direct conflict with answers given in the Bible.

The most notable conflict is between the theory of evolution with its billions of years for the progressive development of life and the biblical account of the creation of life by God in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Does the success of science in other areas force us to conclude that scientific evidence for an evolutionary theory is irrefutable?

The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.

Seven research scientists are employed by the Institute:

• L. James Gibson (Ph.D., Loma Linda University), the Director of the Institute, has research specialties in vertebrate speciation and biogeography.
  
• Roberto E. Biaggi (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) is pursuing paleoecology research in Wyoming.
  
• Benjamin L. Clausen (Ph.D., University of Colorado) has pursued research in nuclear physics.
  
• Raul Esperante (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) is pursuing paleontology research in Peru.
  
• Ronald Nalin (Ph.D., University of Padua) does research on limestone sedimentology in Italy.
  
• Jacques Sauvagnat (Ph.D., University of Geneva) is pursuing research in the paleontology of the Barremian ostracodes of southeastern France.
  
• Timothy G. Standish (Ph.D., George Mason University) has pursued research in molecular biology.

In addition to these full-time research personnel, the Institute sponsors a modest research grant program providing assistance to other qualified investigators. Over the past two decades, funding has been provided for nearly 100 research projects on questions related to Earth's origin and history.

Although not all the conflicts between scientific interpretations and the Bible have been resolved, the staff finds sufficient evidence from its research and from the scientific literature to reinforce faith in the biblical account of origins.

Thank you.



One of the biggest criticisms of creationists by naturalists that I have heard is that creationists don't do science - they just read about what "real" scientists are doing and criticize it. Not true of the Seventh-day Adventist church. We do science.

This is a great part of our organized church. And look at the date. Since 1958! That is ahead of the creation/evolution debate. Creation was still being taught in most public schools in teh USA in 1958. GRI is not reactionary, it is proactionary.

*cough*circularity*cough*

It is all circularity. Creationists don't have a problem admitting that, most naturalists do.

Shooting oneself in the foot is entirely optional.

Shane, when you're quoting someone else, would you mind making it perfectly clear (here I refer to the first post in this thread). Thanks.

Follow the link.

GRI is an excellent resource not only for Adventists but for all truth-seeking people. I think they are the best creationist organization out there. They are a definite asset not only our church but to all of Christianity.

I already did.

My request is intended to address what it looks like in the body of a post.

For example, you could have prefaced it by saying "The following is taken from the web site of the Geoscience Research Institute." And perhaps put the following in quotes.

It's a service for readers and prevents anyone from thinking that you're plagiarizing.

Having said all that...

Without actually looking into it, I'd assume that all of the scientists of the GRI have at some point published their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

But have they published any of their creationist research in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Something doesn't seem quite right with that statement.

Can we have it both ways? Real science doesn't rely on nonscientific means for evidence, does it? Scientists may use unscientific means to arrive at hypotheses, etc., but when it comes to analysing results, something observable/measurable has had to happen. Physics and metaphysics are two different things, I believe. Each has its own proper place. To confuse the two - wouldn't that result in the creation of fiction? rather than truth?

If the use of science is too narrow why even bother with it? Surely it is not needed if we have the answers already.

This is my problem with the whole enterprise. By any definition of the term 'science', going in with a predetermined answer and seeking evidence to bolster that answer is not it. Especially when doing so requires ignoring or distorting the evidence.

I have *zero* problems with God's absolute power and ability to create the world and life 6000 years ago, looking mature. (Or 5 minutes ago, for that matter.) But if He did that, it was a miracle and is therefore not susceptible to science.

So long as creationists are doing theology and don't claim to be doing science I have no beef with them. But my vocation in life - which I believe God gave me - is to be a science educator, and I'll keep on doing that.

On the circularity point, I agree that both creationists and naturalists have basic assumptions. But that is different from having a predetermined conclusion. Scientists did not go in saying 'the universe is 13.7 billion years old'. They were led to that conclusion by the evidence. Creationists presume the answer, because they have to. Again, as long as they base that on Scripture, more power to them.