I guess my final comment on the issue that is the focus of this thread is that the current approach of the SDA denomination - tying all its beliefs to creationism, actively evangelising on creationism, making non-creationists into second-class citizens in that they are muzzled[1] at least and often excluded - will lead to a selection process of SDA members. A certain type of people will tend to leave the church in large and growing numbers, and those who join will be a different kind of people. Please understand I'm not saying either type of person is superior or inferior, but I am saying that a 'monoculture' church that narrows its diversity is more vulnerable to various 'infections' and other illnesses, just like a monoculture farm.

[1] And I find it interesting that in the 'Affirmation of Creation' document there's precisely one reference to 'ethics and dissent', and it's in relation to how those with different views speak when they're in church employment. As always, much emphasis on the individual's obligations toward the denomination, none on the denomination's toward the individual. What is the ethics of the church's handling of dissent and intellectual freedom on this issue in its institutions?

If a denomination has gone on record as saying "if this changes all our doctrines fall", it's pretty hard to move from there. I may not live that long!