The Creation Story

[JoeMo]

I know this topic has been discussed multiple times; but we got into an "animated" discussion in Sabbath School this morning concerning the topic.  We were discussing the logic involved with the order things were created.  We go on a rabbit trail about how old the universe was.

Pardon my potential apostasy, but I have a very difficult time believing the universe is only 6,000 years old - which is the position that most of the class took. To me, there could have been an inordinate amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep."

To me, these verses also show the earth was in a state of total chaos. I don't believe that God created anything in a state of chaos; He created everything perfectly.  Something happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that reduced earth to a chaotic condition; and the creation story is about how God restored the planet and created man to watch over it.  The Bible is a story of God's interaction with the humanity that He created 6,000 years ago; not the history of the entire universe.

God created physical law as well as spiritual law.  If His spiritual law is immutable, why wouldn't His physical law also be immutable?  There are multiple forms of correlatable radioactive data that indicate the world/universe is several billion years old.  There are also physical data that show heavenly bodies more than 13 billion light years away.  I believe that God gave us true science to verify His word.  Why would He deceive us by providing physical laws that mutate over time if we believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, when evidence based on immutable (IMHO) physical laws says otherwise?  Wouldn't God give us sound physical evidence to verify His Word?

I'm not taking any sides on this; just curious how you all feel.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

But I am not sure where you get from the text the idea that something "must have happened" in between Gen 1 & 2?

It's from my opinion that God would make everything perfect; not chaotic.  My thought (not my doctrine) is that God created everything perfect; and then there was war in heaven.  It is obvious from the story of Adam and Eve that satan had already fallen by the time Adam and Eve were around.  Job states that the angels were around at the time of creation.  Could a "war in heaven" prior to the creation of the present age turned the earth from "perfect" to "chaotic"?  And as a result He had to "reboot" the earth to make it habitable for physical life?

 

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

are you trying to defend God's character here with your idea that He would not create anything "in a state of chaos?"

God does not need me to defend Him.  IMHO, He has given us physical evidence of His creation.  It just may not be as some of us have interpreted it.

I firmly believe (as a doctrine) that God created the heavens and the earth and everything seen and unseen in them.  I just am questioning whether or not He did it all 6,000 years ago.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

the earth WAS without form and void..."  meaning it was that way already before God did creation??

I am currently thinking (not as a doctrine; but as an opinion) that God may have created the heavens and the earth perfectly  "In the beginning".  Then, after millions or billions of years, there was a war in heaven when satan rebelled in which the earth  was severely damaged or destroyed.  So God "rehabilitated" (i.e. created) the earth from existing material that remained after the war to be habitable for the creatures He intended to rule over the planet.  THAT is what happened 6,000 years ago.  Coincidentally, archeological evidence indicates that "civilization" suddenly erupted 6,000 - 10,000 years ago - about the same time that the Bible says God created man.

[phkrause]

I have no problem with the Universe being millions, billions or even trillions of years old?? I don't believe that anything happen between G1:1 and G1:2. It does seem to be something was there when God decided he would create us humans in his image, so he created our little piece of the Universe; which is this earth and all the surrounding planets and there moons and all the stars. Was it or did it include the Milky Way piece of the Universe, etc.? As far as something that was originally here on this planet earth before us? I don't believe that at all!!

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

As far as something that was originally here on this planet earth before us? I don't believe that at all!!

From my observation at Sabbath School yesterday, you have a lot of company.  I'm glad that one day in the Kingdom we will have an opportunity to see how God did it all:

" Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, ... He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making [creating?] everything new!” (Rev. 21:1-5)

Whether he creates it out of something or nothing, it will be a spectacle to behold!

My "detailed" opinion may or may not be valid; but one truth I hold steadfast to is that "In the beginning, God created ..."

[Aliensanctuary]

EGW indicated that others knew that life on Earth was about to be created.

Recall that the "heavens" were below the firmament in the sky. Perhaps the Earth was surrounded by concentric force fields with water sandwiched in between with artificial sun, moon, and stars affixed to the force fields. This all came crashing down at the onset of the Great Flood, transforming the warm, humid, high pressure climate below the firmament into a much cooler one.

The cold air rushing in created massive thunderstorms and deluges that inundated the land below.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, Aliensanctuary said:

EGW indicated that others knew that life on Earth was about to be created.

"Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:5-7)

I believe that this verse indicates that the angels were there to witness creation.  I also believe that satan had fallen by this time.

[Kevin H]

If the universe is only 6,000 years then what day was Lucifer and the other angels created and what day did Lucifer fall?

The universe was here for a long,, long time. This earth was to help the angels experiment to see if the evidence points towards God or towards Lucifer's claims. We don't know how long that went on but what ever happened ended up on chaos. Once the angel's decided which side of the great controversy to be on did God go beyond evidence to give proof as his spirit hovered over the waters and started that special week with "Let there be light"

[Kevin H]

As I understand it, there are different problems for Adventists for the 6,000 years. First of all the ancient manuscripts and translation problems get different ways of translations and thus additions, getting to 6,000 to 10,000. (In one class the professor pointed out that there were 3 textual families in Jesus day. The Palestinian Family, the Bible Jesus used had the world just turning 7,000 when Jesus came. A Rabbi seeing this a little before Jesus came made a comparison with the thousand years. The second family was the Egyptian family of texts used by Jews in Egypt, where the ages are different. Then there was the Babylonian family, the Bible used by the Jews who stayed behind in Babylon. Theirs had the ages only add up to about 4,000. As Jews wanted to down play Jesus, they gave up the Bible that has Jesus coming when the world turns 7,000 but puts off the 7,000 years three thousand years in the future.) But anyway we have issued with the translations of the numbers to be able to stand fully on them and say that we are 6,000 years old. Sadly we have people who are carrying on the same intertestamental Jewish tradition that was expecting the Messiah to come around there time (I think they figured the 7,000 year would start around what we call 30 AD) and are trying to say that God is waiting for the 7,000 year for the second coming. A second problem is that to get the 6,000 we have to impose on this Ancient genealogy the assumptions of a post-Alexander the Great Greek ideas. Some of the differences between our modern Greek genealogy's and ancient genealogies include: 1.) They are not necessary father-son, but other relationships. For example if we were living then and wanted to list the Presidents of the US they would say "George Washington begat John Adams.." Now what we have in Genesis is most likely a Father-son Genealogy but not necessary. However, the next problem with the genealogy is that the ancient genealogies, the genealogies we have in the Bible and other genealogies found in the ancient world then DO NOT LIST EVERYONE, but just the most important!!! When we read "When Enosh was 90 years old he had a son named Kenan" it meant that when Enosh was 90 years old he had a son. Either that son's name was Kenan, or that son was one of Kenan's ancestors but was the direct link between Enosh and Kenan. The third issue with the genealogies is that frequently in history the first born son would be named after the Paternal Grandfather. Thus you have several generations where the two names are switched back and forth. In ancient genealogies the two names that cover several generations only have the one mention. As Adventists we want to be fair to the Bible, and that means being fair to realizing the historic context of ancient genealogies and not impose modern Greek presuppositions to a completely different thought process. The third issue is we want to be fair to Mrs. White. I took a Biblical Archaeology by Dr. Gerity at the Seminary in the summer of 1984. One day he gave us a reference that we had to read in person at the While Estate in the James White libarary. Sadly after 30 years I have forgotten what the reference is. I wish someone would find it and share it with us. Anyway, we were all shocked to read this article and the next class was a buzz with this shocking article. In this article Mrs. White down plays the 6,000 years saying that they may not be accurate. She supports the literal 7 day creation week and a fairly young world, but appeals that what ever age we pick for the age of the world, just make sure that it is fair to the Biblical Record. For some reason that article likes to stay buried in the White vault. At AUC it had been pointed out that when young Mrs. White did make a fairly strong quote that appears to have supported the 6,000 years. As she was revising her works into Patriarchs and Prophets, she came across that earlier quote. She crossed the statement out and put her initials by the cross out. I am not positive in the exact dating, but it seems to me that the approximation of working on Patriarchs and Prophets seems like the ball park of time for her to have written that amazing article we had to read at the Seminary. As Adventists, the life and ministry of Mrs. White is important to us. Thus we need to be fair to her as an older woman crossing out that 6,000 year quote from when she was young, and her writing that article. An additional issue with Mrs. White is with her Great Controversy theme, this world was created to help the angels and beings on other planets to deal with the issues on the great controversy. God worked long with them. He worked with evidence rather than proof so that they could make their choice based on faith. Once they had made their decisions whether to join the rebellion or stay faithful to God did God come and hover over the empty and void waters (and water's represented chaos) of what ever was happening here to help them choose sides, before God gave the proof saying "Let there be light." As Adventists we need to be flexible enough to be fair to the translation problems, need to be fair enough to respect that we are working with ancient genealogies, not Greek genealogies and thus we are being unfair to scripture to impose a modern Greek genealogy upon an ancient document instead of reading it in light of genealogies from it's culture. And we have to deal with the fact that Mrs. White crossed out that one quote and wrote an article down playing the 6,000 years just encouraging us to whatever age we pick for the world that it be fair to the scriptures. As Seventh-day Adventists we cannot approach this topic without including these three issues. While we are litteral creationists, our understanding of creation is different than say the Baptists or other evangelicals. But unfortunately we tend to be more interested in tradition rather than scripture, and as Adventists we sadly have a tendency to want to prove to the world that we are good Baptists. We lag behind Mrs. White and blame her for our not keeping up with her.

[Kevin H]

As I understand it, there are different problems for Adventists for the 6,000 years. First of all the ancient manuscripts and translation problems get different ways of translations and thus additions, getting to 6,000 to 10,000. (In one class the professor pointed out that there were 3 textual families in Jesus day. The Palestinian Family, the Bible Jesus used had the world just turning 7,000 when Jesus came. A Rabbi seeing this a little before Jesus came made a comparison with the thousand years. The second family was the Egyptian family of texts used by Jews in Egypt, where the ages are different. Then there was the Babylonian family, the Bible used by the Jews who stayed behind in Babylon. Theirs had the ages only add up to about 4,000. As Jews wanted to down play Jesus, they gave up the Bible that has Jesus' ministry during the time  when they saw the world turning 7,000 but puts off the 7,000 years three thousand years in the future.) But anyway we have issued with the translations of the numbers to be able to stand fully on them and say that we are 6,000 years old. Sadly we have people who are carrying on the same intertestamental Jewish tradition that was expecting the Messiah to come around there time (I think they figured the 7,000 year would start around what we call 30 AD) and are trying to say that God is waiting for the 7,000 year for the second coming.

A second problem is that to get the 6,000 we have to impose on this Ancient genealogy the assumptions of a post-Alexander the Great Greek ideas. Some of the differences between our modern Greek genealogy's and ancient genealogies include: 1.) They are not necessary father-son, but other relationships. For example if we were living then and wanted to list the Presidents of the US they would say "George Washington begat John Adams.." Now what we have in Genesis is most likely a Father-son Genealogy but not necessary.

However, the next problem with the genealogy is that the ancient genealogies, the genealogies we have in the Bible and other genealogies found in the ancient world then DO NOT LIST EVERYONE, but just the most important!!! When we read "When Enosh was 90 years old he had a son named Kenan" it meant that when Enosh was 90 years old he had a son. Either that son's name was Kenan, or that son was one of Kenan's ancestors but was the direct link between Enosh and Kenan.

The third issue with the genealogies is that frequently in history the first born son would be named after the Paternal Grandfather. Thus you have several generations where the two names are switched back and forth. In ancient genealogies the two names that cover several generations only have the one mention. As Adventists we want to be fair to the Bible, and that means being fair to realizing the historic context of ancient genealogies and not impose modern Greek presuppositions to a completely different thought process.

The third issue is we want to be fair to Mrs. White. I took a Biblical Archaeology by Dr. Gerity at the Seminary in the summer of 1984. One day he gave us a reference that we had to read in person at the While Estate in the James White libarary. Sadly after 30 years I have forgotten what the reference is. I wish someone would find it and share it with us. Anyway, we were all shocked to read this article and the next class was a buzz with this shocking article. In this article Mrs. White down plays the 6,000 years saying that they may not be accurate. She supports the literal 7 day creation week and a fairly young world, but appeals that what ever age we pick for the age of the world, just make sure that it is fair to the Biblical Record. For some reason that article likes to stay buried in the White vault.

At AUC it had been pointed out that when young Mrs. White did make a fairly strong quote that appears to have supported the 6,000 years. As she was revising her works into Patriarchs and Prophets, she came across that earlier quote. She crossed the statement out and put her initials by the cross out. I am not positive in the exact dating, but it seems to me that the approximation of working on Patriarchs and Prophets seems like the ball park of time for her to have written that amazing article we had to read at the Seminary. As Adventists, the life and ministry of Mrs. White is important to us. Thus we need to be fair to her as an older woman crossing out that 6,000 year quote from when she was young, and her writing that article.

An additional issue with Mrs. White is with her Great Controversy theme, this world was created to help the angels and beings on other planets to deal with the issues on the great controversy. God worked long with them. He worked with evidence rather than proof so that they could make their choice based on faith. Once they had made their decisions whether to join the rebellion or stay faithful to God did God come and hover over the empty and void waters (and water's represented chaos) of what ever was happening here to help them choose sides, before God gave the proof saying "Let there be light."

As Adventists we need to be flexible enough to be fair to the translation problems, need to be fair enough to respect that we are working with ancient genealogies, not Greek genealogies and thus we are being unfair to scripture to impose a modern Greek genealogy upon an ancient document instead of reading it in light of genealogies from it's culture. And we have to deal with the fact that Mrs. White crossed out that one quote and wrote an article down playing the 6,000 years just encouraging us to whatever age we pick for the world that it be fair to the scriptures. As Seventh-day Adventists we cannot approach this topic without including these three issues. While we are litteral creationists, our understanding of creation is different than say the Baptists or other evangelicals. But unfortunately we tend to be more interested in tradition rather than scripture, and as Adventists we sadly have a tendency to want to prove to the world that we are good Baptists. We lag behind Mrs. White and blame her for our not keeping up with her.

[Gregory Matthews]

In readling the Bible, it is critical to understand the perspective of the author and what would be understood by the person reading that text in the time and culture that the author wrote.

[Gustave]

It would be difficult to discuss Biblical topics with individuals who were hard set on belief that the earth was only 6000 years old. If that belief is the product of their application of science and logic what would they do with the actual texts in Scripture?

I'm saying this from "my perspective" - as in it would be difficult for me.

[Kevin H]

Sadly that is how things work. Bishop Usher added up the ages in his Bible. We accept and teach his conclusion and it becomes tradition. We learn more about the text that he was not aware of, and people become upset because of it flying in the face of tradition.

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think this is key to deciding whats right or wrong or what doesnt matter. I am enjoying your posts on this. And learning from it. Thanks for posting this. Is ther any official belief we have where "6000 years" would really matter? How do you read that?

The big place where I see the 6,000 years matters to some people in in their wanting to date set the second coming by following the Rabbinic theory that the thousands of years will follow the 6 days of creation and that 7 thousandth year will be living in the age of the Messiah.  I saw many on some other Adventist discussion sites that was using this theory. (Especially in the first decade of the 21 century).  Of course they neglect to mention that when the Rabbi came up with this theory he had added up the ages in his Bible and saw himself living near the end of the 6,000 years. When nothing happened (except for that troublemaker Jesus having a ministry around that time) the Jews decided to focus on alternative translations that set the 7,000 year a couple of thousand years in the future. 

A second concern is careful and superficial reading of the Bible. People take Psalm 90:8 and 2 Peter 3:8 to see a equivalent in time  between the day and a thousand years. That is not what these texts are saying. They are telling us that God's timing is not our timing and the vastness and greatness of God. 

Now there are cycles where times are seen as equivalents. For example in Egypt a "day" was either the 24 hour cycle of the Sun or the annual flooding of the Nile. But the Bible gives us the Hebrew cycles.  Leviticus 23 and here and there in Deuteronomy.  Leviticus 23 is a nice all in one spot telling what a Hebrew week was: 6 days and the Sabbath, 6 months and the Sabbath of either Passover or Yom Kippur, 6 years and the Sabbatical year and 6 sabbatical years and the Jubilee. Deuteronomy has the same cycles except for the 6 Sabbatical years and the Jubilee  and all that is supposed to happen in the Jubilee in Leviticus happens in the Sabbatical year in Deuteronomy. 

People ignore the texts where the context is a discussion of the cycles,only to pick two texts out of context to make a cycle that is not in the Bible. Neither Psalm 90:4 nor 2 Peter 3:8 say "Oh, we need to let you know a horrible mistake that was made in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and now we are going to correct that mistake for you."

By the way, 1844 is based on the Levitical and Deuteronomic cycles.  Based on the high date of the exodus (spring 1445 BC) Yom Kippur 1844 was  finishing a Sabbatical year and the going into a Jubilee year and is a much stronger year - day evidence than our two weak proof texts. (there are also other stronger year-day passages than our two weak proof texts in the Bible and other middle eastern writings)

[Gregory Matthews]

I would add another issue to the list that Kevin has given:

A common argument that some Adventists make that many important doctrines of the Bible , to include the doctrine of the Sabbath would be undermined and even thrown out if one were to accept a time period greatly exceeding  6,000 to 10,000 years.

I reject this argument.  (Actually, I think it is nonsense.)   I am thinking right now of  PhD. (chemical geology)  Adventist who believes in a much longer time period.  Yet, he is a strong advocate for the Sabbath, deeply involved in the ministry of the local SDA congregation that he attends and is in harmony with other doctrinal positions that the SDA Church has taken.

 

[B/W Photodude]

On March 28, 2019 at 4:16 AM, Kevin H said:

 But anyway we have issued with the translations of the numbers to be able to stand fully on them and say that we are 6,000 years old. Sadly we have people who are carrying on the same intertestamental Jewish tradition that was expecting the Messiah to come around there time

Anyway, we were all shocked to read this article and the next class was a buzz with this shocking article. In this article Mrs. White down plays the 6,000 years saying that they may not be accurate.

 

While it may not be 6000 years, the amount of variance from that is probably not significant. And it doesn't really matter on the rabbis that are quoted. If you are going by the 6000 year Second Coming, we are really in trouble. This is the Jewish year of 5779, which means the Second Coming will not be for another 221 years!

For whatever reason Sister White downplayed 6000 years again is not really significant. If it were off be several hundred years, "What difference does it make?!" However, in her time (say 1860), it would have been the Jewish year of 5620, and then we have 380 years until the Second Coming.  One serious difference it could make is that there are plenty out there trying to make a case for theistic evolution.

[Bravus]

Not getting into all of the themes being discussed here (too busy!), but I'm interested in why you're reading 'without form and void' as chaotic, JoeMo. To me it sounds like simply a location in space in which there is nothing. That's how I understand 'void', and of course, empty space does not have a 'form' (shape). That would mean all the physical laws would apply, and would not require some event to create chaos.

I guess that would take care of the 'ancient starlight' problem (i.e. the universe is old but Earth is younger). It would not take care of the radioactive dating of rocks that show the planet itself is billions of years old (though much younger than the universe as a whole). It would just mean that you interpolate a large lapse in time between the creation of Earth and then the rest of the events describing the creation of life in the remainder of Genesis 1.

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, Bravus said:

I'm interested in why you're reading 'without form and void' as chaotic, JoeMo. To me it sounds like simply a location in space in which there is nothing.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen. 1:2)

I infer from this verse that it was not empty space.  There was some sort of rock there that was covered with water. (I say rock because liquid water would not just be sitting in a ball somewhere in space).

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, Bravus said:

It would just mean that you interpolate a large lapse in time between the creation of Earth and then the rest of the events describing the creation of life in the remainder of Genesis 1.

I do. I see no justification for putting a time limit between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3.   It is my way of understanding how the Bible does not disagree with science as far as the cosmic age of the earth is.  I have no squabble with the earth being made fit for habitation by plants, animals, man and civilization much more recently - like 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, Bravus said:

Not getting into all of the themes being discussed here (too busy!), but I'm interested in why you're reading 'without form and void' as chaotic, JoeMo. To me it sounds like simply a location in space in which there is nothing. That's how I understand 'void', and of course, empty space does not have a 'form' (shape). That would mean all the physical laws would apply, and would not require some event to create chaos.

I guess that would take care of the 'ancient starlight' problem (i.e. the universe is old but Earth is younger). It would not take care of the radioactive dating of rocks that show the planet itself is billions of years old (though much younger than the universe as a whole). It would just mean that you interpolate a large lapse in time between the creation of Earth and then the rest of the events describing the creation of life in the remainder of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 talks about God's spirit hovering over the waters. In the ancient world waters represented chaos. As for the "Without form and void" I've read some on it but don't really understand it, however what I have gotten was that there was something here for a while. Looking to Mrs. White this earth was created for the angels and beings on other worlds to try to look at the evidence for the great controversy. What ever happened here during the time of "without form and void" it ended up having the universe choose one side or the other in the Great Controversy. Once the two sides formed based on the weight of evidence rather than being forced by proof, then they finally got proof as God hovered over the chaos and started that one special week. 

[pierrepaul]

On 3/30/2019 at 9:13 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

I would add another issue to the list that Kevin has given:

A common argument that some Adventists make that many important doctrines of the Bible , to include the doctrine of the Sabbath would be undermined and even thrown out if one were to accept a time period greatly exceeding  6,000 to 10,000 years.

I reject this argument.  (Actually, I think it is nonsense.)   I am thinking right now of  PhD. (chemical geology)  Adventist who believes in a much longer time period.  Yet, he is a strong advocate for the Sabbath, deeply involved in the ministry of the local SDA congregation that he attends and is in harmony with other doctrinal positions that the SDA Church has taken.

 

Thank you for this perspective. Too often Adventist apologetics has taken the following form:

1. A is a distinctive teaching of the SdA Church

2. B supports A, therefore

3. B is true.

Anyone who ponders the possibility that A can be supported without B, or that perhaps A might be misunderstood and in need of re-evaluation, is metaphorically tarred and feathered as a heretic.

In my humble opinion, no one can observe, study and ponder the mysteries of life and the universe and seriously believe it is the result of happenstance; similarly no one can observe, study and ponder the mysteries of life and the universe and seriously believe Genesis 1 & 2 literally occurred.

Since the dawn of the scientific age, religion has been fighting a losing rearguard battle with the scientific method. One after one, the previously held biblical "truths" fell - from the geocentric model of the universe supported by Genesis 1, to the properties of the rainbow, to the nature of dreams and visions, to the documented unreliability of eyewitness testimony of extra-ordinary events, to the mis-diagnosis of conditions such as epilepsy, erroneously attributing them to daemon possession, one by one the old traditions fell.

Creation "science" has done an admirable job in trying to square the circle The fossil record is incompatible with Genesis 1 & 2. Creation "science" likes to use the flood as a "catch-all" to explain all which is unexplainable, but the geological evidence points to a slow-moving ice-age, not a catastrophic flood.

Science doesn't have all the answers. This is not the way science works. The scientific method consists of establishing a hypothesis and then attempting to disprove it. If a hypothesis cannot be disproved, it is a theory and is useful if it accurately predicts natural phenomena. There is always the possibility that the theory is disproved at a later date.

No one needs to accept evolution as a random process occurring over millions and millions of years in order to take note of and accept the fact that the observable world is inconsistent with "young earth creationism".

[pierrepaul]

There is a lot of institutional inertia in the world of ideas. Scientists are men with all of the jealousy, envy, pride, ego, arrogance and vanity that accompanies any collection of accomplished men - no different than a collection of knowledgeable theologians :).

Careers are made and unmade based on the opinions and recommendations of leaders in the field. Academic freedom has never been absolute - although it is greater in the universities than in the church. A man with tenure (only acquired after a decade or two of navigating the politics of academia) has such academic freedom in that he can opine as he wishes without fear of dismissal. But he may have difficulty securing research funding should his views be too eccentric. Staying the course of orthodoxy is a safe career move.

A pastor, teacher or theologian on the other hand never acquires such tenure or freedom. Once a pastor or theologian in the employ of the church strays off orthodoxy, he risks termination.

In particle physics, "String Theory" has acquired a devoted following, although there is precious little observed in nature to support the theory, and much of the theory is not even susceptible to experimental verification (which raises the question as to whether or not it is even "science"). Yet many men (and a few women) labour in the field of string theory, and use their wages to purchase food, clothing, shelter and luxuries for themselves and their families. These men and women will defend their pet theories tooth and nail. A few men have gained considerable fame from their work in string theory; they are not likely ever to admit that it is all nonsense.

I am not a specialist in the earth sciences. Although I have worked as a scientist, with respect to evolution I am a layman. What I do know is that the Genesis 1 & 2 account does not explain what we observe in nature, unless Genesis 1 & 2 is to be understood as metaphor. What I also do know is that "evolution" (by which I mean speciation and a gradual ascent from lower to higher life forms) is observed in the fossil record, but is not explainable by any credible or verifiable scientific theory. To my knowledge no one has offered any reasonable explanation as to "why" nature would be driven to evolve higher life forms.

What I also know is that I do not need to know everything, and I certainly need not exert energy to defend the indefensible or the unverifiable. I have no dog in the evolution/"young earth creation" fight. Nor do I care for attempts to harmonize the two with some form of "intelligent design" or any other variations on that theme. I am embarrassed for my church when I hear suggestions that scientists are tools of the devil or that Satan planted fossils to deceive us or any other such conspiracy theories.

[pierrepaul]

Darwin's theory postulated that genes having a survival benefit would be more likely to be passed on to the next generation and thus propagated. Darwin observed that in nature, in most species only a fraction of offspring attain maturity and reproduce in turn? We observed this in humans where until about 100-150 years ago, many sickly children died, and only the stronger ones (by which I mean with a stronger immune system, not muscular strength) survived to reproduce.

Bacteria and other single-celled organisms are among the most "successful" species in terms of survival and reproduction. So how would we get from there to the evolution of humans who are helpless throughout infancy up to about age 12?

Speciation has never been observed, and to my knowledge there is no credible explanation as to why single-celled organisms would try to develop into multi-celled organisms when the single-celled organism is already super-successful in terms of reproduction.

We observe through the fossil record that simpler life forms predate the more complex life forms. We observe that this process took far longer than 6 days. Based on observations in space, we can credibly conclude that the sun and most stars predated the formation of the earth. We have no scientific explanation as to why humans would evolve nor why there is such a chasm in terms of intelligence and inventiveness between humans and the next most developed species. Creation stories both in scripture and other religious traditions do appropriately explain humans as a species apart from others.

[JoeMo]

Back in the 1980's, I attended a lecture by an SDA physicist named Robert V. Gentry; and bought his book "Creations Tiny  Mystery". In his quest to find physical evidence of a young earth (which he failed to find), he did find something quite amazing - the evidence of radioactive decay of an element with a very short half-life (a matter of minutes).  This evidence, called microspheres are tiny halos of deformation and discoloration in quartz crystals found in primordial granite.  This radioactive distortion originated from within the crystal itself.  Had it originated from an external force (say a cosmic ray), the path of the external source would have also left a trail of crystalline distortion through the crystal.

While this is not evidence of a young earth, Gentry asserts that it is evidence of a "created" earth; where there was suddenly a solid rock ball where previously there was nothing.  In secular cosmology, the earth existed as a swirling ball of hot gas for millions of years before it turned into a ball of lave that eventually cooled into rock.  If this was true, all of the radioactive polonium would have long decayed into inert substances before the rock crystalized.  This provides very strong evidence to me for an instant creation of this rock we call earth.

Gentry's work has been challenged and criticized in the academic and scientific community - some say because of his aggressive and abrasive personality as much as some challenges to his scientific method.  I'm no physicist, but I think the signature of the decay of radioactive polonium from within the quartz crystalline structure if pretty strong evidence for the creation of earth as a rock in an instant.

[phkrause]

I've watched Gentry and his son on 3ABN, etc., and he does come across as aggressive, but what is not said from his evolutionist buddies, is that he was that same way as an evolutionist!! But he's not the only one!! There is Walter V, and C.S. Lewis.