adventist creationism

8/13/2019 Adventist Creationism

1/11


2/11

SP cmuM

terms. Most recently, the church invested instartup costs for a short lived geology programatLomaLinda University. If the geological timeknot could be untied, it seemed, threats to thedoctrinal pillars could be thwarted.Here I raise three such problems for con-structive consideration: first, the moral indif-ference of nature; second evolutionarychange; and third, death and reproduction. Iconclude with a brief discussion of severaltentative resolutions to these problems withinthe context of Christian faith.

The Moral Indifferenceof NatureI chneumons constitute the largest insectfamily, one with more species than all fish,amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammalscombined. Measuring from one-eighth of aninch to more than 1 1/2 inches long, thesewasps exhibit black, brown, or yellow col-oration. The most striking feature of ichneu-mons, however, is the feeding behavior of theyoung. The female ichneumon, after mating,locates a host--often a caterpillar or aphid--for her young. After stinging her captive, shedeposits fertilized eggs on or within its body.These soon hatch into voracious grubs. Thegrubs feast first on the paralyzed host's non-vital fat bodies and digestive organs. Only after

Fig 2. Aemale ichneumon wosp deposits on egg inside the body of o ornlyzed ophid.Once it emerges from the egg, the lorvol wosp will eot the aphid olive from the inside. U.S.Deportment of

24

finishing off these large, nonvital structures dothey devour the life-supporting nervous andcirculatory systems. The young ichneumonsfinally emerge from a hollow corpse-havingdined on living, quivering flesh to almost thelast bite. 2According to early creationists, God de-signed ichneumons as object lessons for thehuman species. Thus, Reverend William Kirby,rector of Barham and an early 19th-centuryentomologist, viewed female ichneumons asexemplars of motherly love. A very large pro-portion of them are doomed to die before theiryoung come into existence, wrote Kirby. Butin these the passion is not extinguished. . . .When you witness the solicitude with whichthey provide for the security and sustenance oftheir future young, you can scarcely deny tothem love for a progeny they are never des-tined to behold. Elsewhere Kirby praised theichneumons for keeping under control those. . . that would otherwise destroy us. Forexample, he mentioned the little wheat-eatingfly that is rendered harmless, by the goodnessof Providence, by not less than three [species]of these little benefactors of our race. 3Despite Kirby's apologies, and many simi-lar to his, it is impossible for the modernChristian biologist to overlook numerouscreatures that behave with what seems likewanton cruelty, some even more ruthless thanichneumons. Indeed, wherever one looks,nature seems to exhibit benign indifference tosuffering, greed, and deceit.During a recent visit to the Scottish Isle ofFoula, biologist Robert Furness was puzzled tofind living tern chicks with amputated legs andwings, and corpses of decapitated chicksscattered over the nesting colony. He knew ofno local predator capable of such mutilation,but observation soon revealed the culprits--domestic sheep. One animal was seen to pickup a tern chick in its mouth and shake it, bitingthrough the spine until the severed body fell tothe ground. The sheep then ate the head.Three times Furness saw sheep force a tern

VOLC ME 21 NUM ER 2


3/11

chick down on its back, bite off one or both ofits legs, eat them, and then continue grazingwithout further attention to the chick . . . Thetern chicks made little or no attempt to getaway from the sheep. 4The queen ofone species ofant from Franceintimidates workers of another species andrepeatedly tries to enter their nest. She eventu-ally succeeds, locates the resident queen, as-sassinates her, then assumes control of thework force for her own wishes.By contrast, the queen of a German speciesuses a more subtletactic. She calms the

THE oURNAL OF THE AssoCIA11 N OF ADVENTIST FoRUMS

gans and is inadvertentlyused by these malesto inseminate females with which they mate.Males thus father offspring directly when theymate with females and indirectly when theymate with other males. Homosexual matingssometimes occur while the violated males arethemselves copulating with females. 6One would hope that the lower levels offossil record containing the remains of earlierliving creatures would provide evidence of amore benign creation. Unfortunately, this is

not the case. Sharks and other predatory fishwere apparentlyabundant when

host workers bygently stroking themwith her antennaeand her mouthparts.Then, once inside,she grabs their queenfrom behind, crushesher neck with saber-shaped mandibles,and takes control ofthe colony.Similarly, slave-making ants of nu-merous species in-vade neighboringcolonies killing

dventists have generallyunderplayed the seamy side ofnature perhaps out of igno-rance .. . Tbis approach whileentertaining creates a card-board caricature ofnature . .that sets people up for disillu-sionment when confrontedwith the facts.

these early rockswere formed. Laby-rinthodonts-am-phibians with teethlike sharks-arefound at this samelow level alongwith many otherpredatory animals.Structures for of-fense and defenseseem to have beenpart of the animalworld for a longtime.7

both the workers and the queen. However, theyoung are captured and carried back to theinvaders' nest. The captives are raised to adult-hood and are put to work foraging, nest-building, and caring for their captors' young.Typically, slave-makers possess large man-dibles for puncturing the heads of their oppo-nents during raids.5Insects of the species Xlyocaris maculipennisreach what seems to be the pinnacle of naturalobnoxiousness. Using a daggerlike penis,males of his species stab the abdomens of bothmales and females and deposit their sperm. Infemales, the sperm travels to receptacleswhere it is stored until ovulation. In recipientmales, sperm travels to the reproductive or-MARcH 99

Adventists havegenerally underplayed the seamy side of na-ture, perhaps out of ignorance. Church pub-lications focus on features of the natural worldthat provide evidence for Creation or providesome object lesson-nature nuggets andmoral illustrations for Sabbath school pro-grams and bedtime stories.This approach, while entertaining, creates acardboard caricature of nature, one that setspeople up for disillusionment when con-fronted with the facts. Moreover, when Ad-ventists do address the issue of the moralneutrality of nature, their explanations aresometimes inconsistent.Harold Coffin, for example, ascribed re-sponsibility for many abhorrent natural fea-

5


4/11

SPE JRUM

tures directly to Satan. Shouldwe accuse Godof creating the fangs and poison glands of thereptiles, the stings of the wasps and bees, themusk gland of the skunk with its accompany-ing odor, the large head and jaws of soldi =rants, or the thorns on the rose? He noted thatSatan has done what he can to corrupt God'sCreation. Jesus said to the tares, 'An enemyhath done this,' and He identified that enemyas Satan. 8By contrast, Harold W. Clark seemed lesswilling to ascribe the production of abhorrentfeatures to the direct workings of the devil. Hesuggested that partof he corruption in animallife was due to intermingling of the originalkinds, and that only the created kinds weresaved in the ark at the Flood. Today the bonesof these so-called confused species are dugup as fossils, testimonies to the witness ofScripture.9 Elsewhere, however, Clark was com-fortable attributing many adaptive characteristicsof organisms to evo-lutionary changethrough natural selec-tion.10

behold, it was very good. But how extensivehave these changes been, and when and howdid they come about?

Evolutionary hange"T here is in this Universe a Stair, wroteSir Thomas Browne, rising not disor-derly, or in confusion, but with a comely

method and proportion. To Browne and his17th-century contemporaries, all earthly andheavenly things were links in the Great Chainof Being spoken into existence by the Creator.This Greek-inspired chain, or Ladder ofPerfection, rose from the minerals, throughplants, animals, humans, cherubim and sera-phim, to God himself. The links of the chainwere of equal length. The mythical Scythianlamb-part plant, part sheep-linked veg-etable and animal worlds; the dual-naturedhuman, Homo uplex bridged a tem-poral earth with aneternal heaven. Ev-erything found itspreordained place in

the divine scheme.Clearly, no con-sensus has emerged

among Adventistson the issue of themoral indifferenceof nature; indeed,this topic has re-ceived little atten-tion. This is duepartly to the diffi-culty of determiningwhat is good or bador perfect in a cre-ated sense. Manyfeatures that humans

Fig. 3. The mythical Scythian linked plant ond onimol kingdoms in the Groot Chain of Being.published in C Duret s Histoire admirable des p/ontes 1605. Reproduced from John Prest,he Gorden o Eden (New Hoven, Connecticut: Vole University Press, 1981), p. 51. Used by per

Swedish natural-ist Carolus Linnaeusset out to classify thisstructured world.God creates, Lin-naeus arranges, heopined, immodestlyreferring to himselfin the third person.Linnaeus believedthat he saw nature asmission.

view with abhorrence apparently do not evokethe same response among other organisms.Faced with the reality of nonmoral nature,most Adventist creationists agree that signifi-cant changes have occurred since the time thatGod saw every thing that he had made, and,26

it had come from thehands of the Creator-complete, orderly, pur-poseful, manageable, knowable. 12Today an army of taxonomists scours theplanet to catalog life. In contrast to Linnaeus,the new classifiers recognize the impossibilityof their task-and their estimates of species

VoLUME 21 NuM ER 2


5/11

numbers keep rising: 5 million is conservative;30 to 50 million seems within reason.

When the late ] B S Haldane was askedwhat his studyof biology had taughthim aboutthe mind of God, he quipped, "Madam, onlythat he had an inordinate fondness for beetles "Nearly a half-million species have been de-scribed.13 The question emerges: Why wouldGod create so many similar species?

As I have already noted, most Adventistscientists concede that significant biologicalchange has occurred since Creation, and thatthis change, in part, is responsible for much ofthe diversity. But they are quick to add thatchange never occurs from one "created kind"to another. For example, Harold Coffin wrote:Living organisms are not fixed or static. Theychange either naturallyorthrough man's manipu-lations. Newvarieties, races, subspeci es and evenspecies have [been formed] and are forming. In asense evolution is taking place, but it is not thekind of change evolutionists need. . . . t is smallchange, microevolution, that we see. Variationswithin the basic "created kinds" are a fact of life

and part of God's scheme for nature. But they donot pass the barriers God established at Cre-ation 14

Statements like Coffin's raise several issuesabout the extent and nature of evolutionarychange. First, there is an apparent dispute overthe terminology used to describe change. Tomost evolutionists, microevolution refers to"slight evolutionary changes within species,"15changes often driven by natural selection.Moths on darkening backgrounds, for ex-ample, become darker and less visible topredators; house sparrows in northern climesbecome bigger and thus better able to retaintheir body heat.Microevolutionary mechanisms, the prov-ince of population geneticists, are quite wellunderstood and accepted by most creationists.

Macroevolution by contrast, refers to "theevolution of great phenotypic changes, usu-ally great enough to allocate the changed lin-eage and its descendants to a distinct genus orM RcH 99

THE OURNAL OF m E ssoci TION OF DVENTIST FoRuMs

higher taxon." 16 Herbivores, for example, de-velop the musculature, dentition, and diges-tive tracts to become carnivores; desertdwelling plants reduce the sizes of their leavesor eliminate them altogether and thus con-serve water.While creationists eschew macroevolu-tionary terminology, they accept selected evi-dence for macroevolutionary change. For ex-ample, Frank Lewis Marsh pointed out thatvinegar flies, along with many other organ-isms, have undergone species transformation.How, then, he asked, "can we escape the factthat the development of a new biological spe-cies does not necessarily constitute macroevo-lution, that is, organic evolution?" Marshsolved this problem through redefinition.Simply call such change microevolution, hesuggested, for "the term macroevolution ispoorly and inaccurately defined." 17Similarly, Coffin viewed the remarkablespecializations of egg-swallowing snakes, ant-eating mammals, coral-crunching fish, andblood-drinking bats within the context of mi-croevolution, though secular biologists wouldconsider these and similar examples the resultof macroevolutionary adaptations. 18Second, the meaning of the term "createdkind" (also called "basic kind," "original kind,"et cetera) is raised. Creationists assert thatwhile extensive change has occurred, it hasnever occurred from one created kind to an-other. But what is created kind? According toCoffin,

The original created kind may be representedon the species level by mankind; it may be pre-sented on the family level by the Galapagosfinches; it may have been on the order level withsome insects; and it may have been on the phy-lum level with the Acanthocephala, which areentirely parasitic. 19

In this broadened view, "created kind" losesoperational significance it becomes any-thing we want it to be.Third, we face the issue of what is simpleand what is complex surfaces. Creationists

27


6/11

SPEcmuM_____________________________________________________________________

sometimes deny that change results in theproduction of more complicated structuresfrom simpler structures. However, they con-sider many structural, physiological, and be-havioral features of organisms to be the resultof post-Creation change. Often these featuresare very complex, and it is difficult to visualizefunctional created structures from which theycould have been derived. Consider, for ex-ample, the proboscis of the Acanthocephalanworms, all 500 species of which are parasitic.This structure is covered with curved spinesfor attachment to the digestive tracts of theirhosts. The proboscis can be retracted by spe-cialized muscles into a protected sheath whennot in use. 20 Is it reasonable to refer to thiscomplicated organ as a degenerate structure ?Fourth, many organisms exhibit vestigialstructures that have no apparent function.Vestigial structures seem to be the anatomical

Fig 4 An oconthocepholon worm The spiny proboscis is used by the worm to ottoch to thedigestive tract of its host The proboscis con be pulled into o rotective sheath when it is notin useremnants of once-functional organs. For ex-ample, whales have tiny pelvic and femurbones floating within the muscles of theirhindquarters. Boa constrictors have thesesame bones. Today, whales and boas have noneed for pelvises or femora, for they are with-out hind limbs. 21Likewise, many salamanders have fourfunctional legs; others have no legs; still othershave only front legs by which they drag them-selves along; and still others have four legs,though only the front two are functional theremaining vestigial legs drag helplessly alongbehind. It is doubtful that God created organ- 8

isms with useless structures. Significant his-torical change seems to be implied.Fifth, attempts by creationists to explainmoderate change within the context of a short-term chronology are problematic, consideringthe apparent diversity of life in Egypt, Meso-potamia, and other areas of the Middle Eastthree or four thousand years ago. A visit to anycollection of artifacts from this period showsthat many species thriving then are still alivetoday. Some, like the lion, leopard, and adder,exhibit predatory characteristics that cre-ationists cannot picture in a newly createdworld.The eggs of Schistosoma haematobium par-asitic flatworms that continue to plague Africanstoday, are preserved in 3,200-year-old Egyp-tian mummies. At least 50 references tobloody urine, a sign of the presence of thisparasite, have beenfound in Egyptian papyri,23When and how did these organisms appear?Sixth, patterns exhibited by the fossil recordare difficult to account for from a traditionalcreationist perspective. While there is notspace to adequately develop this topic here, Iwill note several generalities. For example, as

one goes deeper in the geologic column, theproportion of extinct types of organisms in-creases gradually, not suddenly as one mightexpect with a worldwide flood. Many moderngroups of organisms are not represented in thelower levels of the column, including flower-ing plants, mammals, and birds. Others, unlikeanything we see on earth today, were abun-dant: for example, trilobites, armored fishes,dinosaurs, and therapsids.Many of the complex organisms n lower levels of the geologic column were, by all appear-ances, fearsome predators. I am unaware of anyreasonable explanation that accounts for thesedata from a traditional creationist perspective.Finally, the present-day distribution of or-ganisms broadly reflects the spatial distribu-tion of their putative fossil ancestors, a fact thatcomplicates any reasonable model of earthhistory, especiallyone proposing that modern-VoLUME 21 NuM ER 2


7/11

day animals radiated out from Noah's ark sev-eral thousand years ago. Most fossil marsupi-als, for instance, are found in Australia andSouth America, where today's marsupials arefound. Edentates, including anteaters, arma-dillos, and sloths, are restricted to the NewWorld, both as living and fossil forms. Manyorganisms are modified to function in theirlocal ecosystems and could survive nowhereelse.George McCready Price suggested that afterthe Flood, animals migrated back to their pre-Flood localities by instinct. 24 Carefulexamination of the

THE jOURNAL oF mE AssociA11 N OF ADVEN11ST FoRuMsinner tissues. Eventually they emerge from herempty shell, having eaten her alive. But twodays hence the eaters become the eaten astheir own young repeat the process. 25Mites of the species carophenax triboiiexhibit similar but even more bizarre repro-ductive strategy. Fifteen eggs develop withinthe mother's body. Fourteen of these hatchinto females, one into a male. As in the case ofthe gall midges, the larval mites feed them-selves into adulthood on the mother's tissues.The single male then copulates with his sisters.The impregnated sis-ters now give birth tothemselves by chew-intricate structure ofecosystems and thecomplexity of plant

and animal adapta-tions and distribu-tions reveals the in-adequacy of expla-nations such as this.

Withoutreproduction deathwould bring life to extinction;without death reproductionwould spawn overpopulation.

ing their way out oftheir mother's hollowcorpse. The unbornincestuous brother,having carried out isonly responsibility,remains behind todie-death beforebifth.26he incredible

complexity of lifeand its temporal andspatial distributionare only beginning

. . For the creationist noproblem s so vexing yet socentral as this one. Gall midges andmites juxtapose twomutually dependentto dawn on us. If we want to be taken seri-ously, we must take this complexity into ac-count as we construct our models of the past.

Deathand Reproduction

Small flies called fungus-eating gall mid-ges reproduce in two ways. Females ei-ther mate with males and produce offspring inthe usual manner, or, if conditions permit,females reproduce parthenogenetically as vir-gins. Young from unfertilized eggs hatch inside the mother's body. Because the only foodavailable to these cloistered larvae is theirmother, they gorge themselves on her soft,MARcH 99

processes-deathand reproduction. Without reproductiondeath would bring life to extinction; withoutdeath, reproduction would spawn overpopu-lation. Reproduction assures the inevitabilityof death-one is impossible without the other.For the creationist, no problem is so vexing,yet so central, as this one. Virtually everything anorganism does is related to reproduction. Plantsform flowers that produce seeds. Roostersmake feathers that attract hens. Women de-velop bodies that accommodate childbirth.Take the reproductive functions from organismsand life ceases to exist. Indeed, the repeatedcommand of Genesis 1 is to Be fruitful, andmultiply.But death, too, is a creative process. With-out death, plants would lack nutrients andanimals would be without food. Indeed, ani-

29


8/11

SP cmuMmal digestive tracts and the batteries of diges-tive enzymes they produce are for the absorp-tion of the dead by the living. A whole king-dom of organisms Kingdom Fungi withsome 100,000 species depends primarily ondead material for its existence.Moreover, without death there could be nonatural selection; without natural selectionthere could be no adaptation to environmentalchange; and without adaptation to environ-mental change, life would cease to be. Deathis even more important to embryonic develop-ment the death of cells in paddlelike embry-onic hands frees human fingers for their amaz-ing dexterity. Ironically, death shapes life.t is impossible,then, to think of lifeas we know it with-out reproductionnd death. Nine-teenth-century Pres-byterian writer JamesMiller Killen recog-nized this:

onclusionis important to recognize that the issuesabove will neverbe fully resolved. But given

our immersion in the natural world and ourcommitment to faith, many of us find it neces-sary to achieve some measure of resolution.How can this be done?First, questions about the origin and natureof life must be placed within their appropriatecontext. Despite major differences of opinionover the history of life and the interpretation ofsacred writings pertaining to that history, life isundeniably abundant and diverse.Moreover, this abundance and diversity iscrucial for human

Marriage in thisworld is the ordinance God hath ap-pointed to repair theravages of death: butin heaven there willbe no death, so thereisno such compensa-tory institution asmarriage to coun-terbalance the effectsof dissolution.

existence. t wouldbe ironic if we wereto participate in thedestruction of thisabundance and di-versity while argu-ing over its natureand origin. Clearly,then, our questionsabout life s originand nature, while in-teresting, must al-ways remain secondary to ethicalquestions abouthow to serve asproper stewards ofthe planet.Fig 5. Eorly hullllln embryos hove poddlelike hands and feet. By the eighth or ninth weekof development however the fingers and toes ore freed for independent movement as aresult of the cell death between these digits. Second, develop-ing an understanding of molecular genetics

and developmental biology provides fascinat-ing glimpses into mechanisms of biologicalchange. For example, studies in molecularbiology reveal that levelsofgenetic variation innature are much higher than we once thought.This is an important discovery, for geneticvariation provides the raw material for naturalselection, and natural selection adapts organ-isms to the environment. We also know thatgenetic systems have remarkable capacities to

Another Presbyterian, John Kerr, was evenmore direct:As there shall be no more death [in heaven],

neither will marriage, instituted to supply thewaste of mortality, be any longer necessary, andof course have no place.27To most Adventist creationists, however,reproduction began at Creation; death beganlater with the entrance of sin. We have largelyoverlooked this apparent inconsistency.

3 VoLUME 21 NuM ER 2


9/11

undergo recombination, either spontaneouslyor through action ofviral and bacterial vectors.This recombination sometimes involves thetransfer of genes from one type of organism toanother, resulting in modifications to the re-cipient.But perhaps the most interesting discoveryis that minor genetic switches during embry-

Fig 6. Aormal fruit fly develops one pair of wings left). However, a imple mutation conalter embryonic development in the fly so that it forms two pairs of wings instead of oneright).onic development can translate into major al-terations in adult form plants produce flow-ers with fused petals instead of free petals;insects develop extra pairs of wings or legs;and salamanders that normally have only gillsdevelop lungs. In short, we are only beginningto appreciate how the macroevolutionaryprocesses alluded to by Harold Coffin occur.

THE oURN L OF THE ssoci TION OF DVENTIST FORUMS

Finally, as Christians interested in naturalhistory, we must resist the temptation to assertcontrol over the past. Just as we must relin-quish control of our lives to the Creator-Re-deemer, we must also relinquish control of thepast to the divine Person. Our assemblages ofdata, our interpretations, our conjectures allof which continually change have no impacton what really happened. God is over all,including the history of life. To the scientistwho is a Christian, it is a great relief tomake thisdiscovery.

One thing seems clear. Despite the ques-tions it poses, life is too wonderful to be ac-counted for on purely naturalistic grounds.Life is a mystery, a divine mystery ultimatelybeyond the purview of rational analysis.It was in this context that the Apostle Johnpenned the most profound confession of cre-ationist faith ever recorded:

In the beginning was the Word, and theWord was with God, and the Word was God. Hewas with God in the beginning. Through him allthings were made; without him nothing wasmade that has been made. In him was life, andthat life was the light of men. The light shines inthe darkness, but the darkness has not under-stood it Qohn 1:1-5, NIV .

Notes and References1. Ronald L Numbers, ' Sciences of Satanic Origin':Adventist Attitudes Toward Evolutionary Biology and

Geology, Spectrum Qanuary 1979), pp. 17-30.2. Stephen]. Gould, Hen s Teeth and Horses Toes:Further Reflections in Natural History (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1983), p. 37.3. William Kirby, Tbe Bridgewater Treatises on thePower, Wisdom, and Goodness ofGod as Manifested inthe Creation. Treatise VII- On the History, Habits andInstincts of Animals, Volume 2 (London: WilliamPickering, 1835), pp. 62, 63, 333; Stephen Jay Gould,

MARcH 99

Hen s Teeth andHorses Toes pp. 39, 40.4. RobertW. Furness, NotbyGrassAlone, NaturalHistory(December 1989), pp. 8-12.5. Edward 0. Wilson, Sociobiology: Tbe New Syn-thesis (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press, 1975), pp. 363-371.6. David Quammen, Tbe Flight of he guana (NewYork: Delacorte Press, 1988), pp. 25-31.

7 Carl 0 Dunbar and Karl M Waage, HistoricalGeology(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969),pp. 248-250.

31


10/11

5PEC1RUM8. HaroldG. Coffin, Origin by Design (Washington:Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1983), p.413.9 Harold W. Clark, Genes and Genesis (MountainView, CA: Pacific Press Publi shing Association, 1940),

pp. 99, 100.10. Ibid., pp. 42-59.11. Loren Eisely, Darwin s Century: Evolution andthe Men Who Discovered It New York: Doubledayand Company, 1958), p. 7; John Prest, The Garden ofEden: The Botanic Garden and the Re-Creation ofParadise New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1981), pp. 51, 52.

12. Neil A Campbell, Biology(Rosewood City, CA:The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.,1990), p. 425.13. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology NewYork: Worth Publishers, Inc., 1989), p. 574.14. Coffin, Origin by Design, pp. 394, 395.15. Douglas]. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sun-derland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1986),p 553.16. Ibid.17. FrankL. Marsh, Variation andFixity in Nature(Mountain View: Pacific Press Publ ishing Association,1976), pp. 40, 41.18. Coffin, Origin by Design, p. 416.

19. HaroldG. Coffin, Creation: AccidentorDesign?(Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Associa-tion, 1969), pp. 416, 417.20. Robert D. Barnes, Invertebrate Zoology (Phila-delphia: Saunders College, 1980), pp. 309-311.21. Salvador E. Luria, Stephen]. Gould, and SamSinger, A View of Life (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1981), p. 580.22. David Attenborough, Life on Earth: A NaturalHistory(Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1979), p.139.23. Gerald D. Schmidt and Larry S. Roberts, Foun-dations ofParasitology, (St. Louis: Times Mirror, MosbyCollege Publishing, 1989), p. 265.24. George McCready Price, Outlines ofModernScience and Modern Christianity (Oakland, CA: Pa-cific Press Publishing Association, 1902), pp. 188-191.25. Stephen ] Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflec-tions in Natural History New York: W. W. Norton andCompany, 1977), p. 92.26. Stephen]. Gould, The Panda s Thumb: MoreRejlectionsinNaturalHistory (NewYork: W. W. Nor-

ton and Company, 1980), pp. 74, 75.27. Cited by Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang,Heaven: AHistory(NewHaven: Yale University Press,1988), p. 260.

Appendix: The Evolution of Adventist Evolutionism

Seventh-day Adventist scientists believe in the divinecreation oflife as witnessed by Scripture. Because ofthis belief, many people assume that Adventist scientistsreject the concept of evolutionary change, or think thatif such change occurred it was insignificant. This is amisconception. As the following published statementsdemonstrate, Seventh-day Adventists have always ac-cepted the occurrence of evolution to some degree oranother. Adventist writers have usually avoided use ofthe term evolution, favoring instead words like varia-tion, adaptation, speciation, or simply change. How-ever, the term evolution, as used by contemporary sec-ular biologists, applies to the processes of changeacknowledged by all these SDA writers. Significantly,the degree of evolution implied by several of thesestatements fits the category of macroevolutionarychange, though the authors do not label it as such.Anonymous writer n The dvent Review andSabbath era ld 1860

As to the number of beasts [in the ark], it is notnecessary to suppose thateach species now known wasrepresented; for naturalists are generally of the opinion

32

that their number has greatly increased from the influ-ence of climate, food, intermixture of races, et cetera. 1Ellen G. Whi t e 1864Since the flood there has been amalgamation ofman and beast, as may be seen in the almost endlessvarieties of species of animals, and in certain races ofmen. 2

George McCready Price 1911There are, indeed, many proofs that various typesnow classed as distinct species must have had a com-mon origin. For instance, . . . we know that the extremelydiverse types of dogs, scattered in all climates, are notonly perfectly cross-fertileamong themselves, but breedfreely with wolves and others of he canidae, so that thiswhole family may possibly represent one original stock.Hence, a broad view of species would lead us to trace areal genetic relationship between many quite diversetypes of animals, just as we are as sured that the Negro,white, and yellow races of mankind are all descendedfrom a common stock. 3

VoLlME 21 NuM ER 2


11/11

HaroldW Clark 1940Largely, however, it must be recognized that the[diverse forms of organisms of particular major groups]are adaptive, and must have come from ancestors whichwere notsimilarly adapted. No creationist can accept theidea of rock slides, deserts, high altitude winter condi-tions, and the like, in the original creation. A consider-able amount of change from the original condition ofthe earth must be conceded in order to explain thesefindings in nature.In a given population where variations are continu-ously arising, the ones best adapted to meet the strugglefor existence would survive whereas the ones less for-tunate would succumb. The survival of he fittest is a realphenomenon every field naturalist must reckon with.The theory of divergent evolution' . . . is apparentlya valid one within actually observable limits. Like anytheory, it loses its value when an attempt is made toapply it universally beyond the range ofexperience andobservation.

A thoughtful consideration of the problems of dis-tribution of plants and animals emphasizes the reality ofthe struggle for existence, the survival of the fittest, andnatural selection. As a working basis for understandingsuch problems, these principles constitute fundamentalbiological background of value to every practical ecolo-gist. The creationist viewpoint is one of limitation of theamount of change rather than the disallowance of anychange whatsoever. 4

George McCreadyPr ice 94Believers in creation admit that considerablechanges are possible, such, for instance, as the possi-bility that all the bears of the world may have come froma common ancestor, that all the cats may be of commondescent, or tha t all the dogs and wolves may have had acommon origin. Creationists do not claim to know thelimits of such variations, but they seriously question

Notes1 G.W.A. The Skeptic Met, TbeAdventReviewandSabbath Herald, (Sep tembe r 4, 1860).2 Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3 (Battle Creek: Re-view and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1864), p. 75.3. George McCready Price, God s Two Books, or PlainFacts About Evolution, Geology, and the Bible (Washington,D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1911), pp.56, 57.4. Harold W. Clark, Genes and Genesis (Mounta in View,

CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1940), pp. 42, 50, 56,58, 59.5. George McCready Price, Genesis Vindicated (Wash-

M RcH 1991

THE joURN L oF THE ssoci TION oF DVENTIST FoRuMswhether any distinct transformation of one genuinespecies [Price here means created kind, not the bio-logical species that scientists speak of] into another hasever been possible. 5Frank Lewis Marsh 1947The special creationist oes believe in 'fixity,' but itis most decidedly not 'fixity of species. Many species(modern) are being built up and have been built rightunder our eyes today. The creationist welcomes thisknowledge with a mind just as joyously open to the factas does the evolutionist. Anyone with his eyes open tofacts regarding the origin and development of any oneof our modern, economically valuable plants or animalsmust become very conscious of the fact that there israrely 'fixity' of modern form and coloration.

If there ever was a group of scientists sold on theidea of descent with change (within limits) it is specialcreationists. 6Harold G Coff in 1969

As we look at the examples of speciation out of thepast, there are also questions that a creationist cannotanswer and that indicate a level of speciation (at least insome instances) beyond what most of us have previ-ously thought. 7he Seventh day Adventist Bible Commentary1978New species ofplants and animals are being formed

at the pre sent time. The almost endless intergradationswithin the various kinds of animals and the variouskinds of plants in the world, the profound degenera-tion among some parasites, and the evident adaptationsfor offense and defense among certain animals lead tothe inevitable conclusion that much change has oc-curred among the living forms on earth. But the re is noevidence of major change from one fundamental kind toone another. 8

ington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1941), p.173.

6. Frank Lewis Marsh, Evolution, Creation, and Science,(Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1947), pp. 334, 345.

7. Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design?(Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association,1969), pp. 336, 337.

8. Francis D. Nichol, The Creationist Model of Origins,Tbe Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington:Review and Heral d Publishing Association, 1978), p. 63.

33

adventist creationism

Documents