A Special Appeal From the GC President to all Adventist Institutions

[Keira Logan]

I would like to know which SDA college institutions do not teach evolutionary theory. I do not know one that doesn't. Or, Bob, do you mean to say that committed SDA Christians should not attend colleges with Biology or Psychology or History departments with professors that teach evolution as a viable explanation for origins?

It is important to be very detailed about what we mean when we say "evolutionary theory," as that topic embraces a diverse array of topics and ideas. We need to further distinguish Darwinian theory from other theories, such as the Big Bang, which Darwin did not actually theorize.

We should admit that it is as important for students today to understand evolutionary theory as it is for us to understand it enough to discuss it here. Therefore it makes sense to me that in place of avoiding SDA institutions that teach evolutionary theory in some capacity, that we should be seeking evidence that the professors at these universities are supplying our students with the foundations that they need in order to speak intelligently with others about the scientific underpinnings of life, change, development, adaptation, and other realities without necessarily jumping to a conclusion about origins. The reality is that in today's American culture, our students need to learn the language of science, which has been dominated by evolutionary theory, in order to survive college, graduate school and the working world in which they will encounter others who have studied these theories. Should we withhold from students the ability to choose, to reason, to learn what others are privileged to know? Should we withhold from them the opportunity to speak intelligently about their convictions and beliefs instead of coming across as ignoramuses in the light of what scientists sitting next to them on airplanes learned in Biology 101? Our students should be aware of the elements of evolutionary theory so that they can make their own informed choices as well as be able to tell someone else why they are able to believe in a Creator God even though they understand the processes of life, change, creature adaptation, and "survival of the fittest" (which is not, as many believe, "survival of the strongest" but "survival of those who can best adapt to environment"). Professors who can hold the paradox of belief in a benevolent God who created man even while they see evidence that seems to point at least a short-term process of evolution, if not a long one, would be highly valued in my eyes because those professors could help our students navigate through the evidence and see clearly what scientific evidence supports and what it does not necessarily support. It is the theory of origins and not the evidence that should be of primary concern in these discussions because from both an evolutionary and creationist standpoint, it is the theory of origins and not the evidence that takes nothing but faith to believe in.

I am much more likely to respect the belief of someone who has read and understood and heard the evidence and say, that even so, she still believes in God, than someone who has kept his ears shut to information about a prevailing cultural belief system, and yet has the audacity to say that he believes in God. That, in my opinion, is a cop-out and and an answer based on both weakness and cowardice.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

The church as an institution has to worry about this. Without the belief in a literal, six day creation, it is difficult to make a strong case for the seventh-day Sabbath.

Agreed - it undermines our entire doctrinal contribution to the Christian timeline.

in Christ,

Bob

Well spoken - Sir.

Duhh

g