User:8een4Tfor/test

Seventh-day Adventists are historically creationists, meaning, that they believed that the world was created by a higher power, or more specifically, the Christian God. This belief is reiterated in number seven of the church's 28 Fundamental Beliefs which outlines the church's belief on the topic.

Wording of Fundamental Belief 6

Despite the fact that a large segment Adventists believe in a literal six-day creation week, fundamental belief uses language to which Adventists "can all agree."

Theological importance

It is important to Seventh-day Adventists, because without it, the Sabbath has no meaning and the Sabbath is one of their most distinctive doctrines. The earliest known writing on the topic of the creation for the Adventist church was by Ellen White in 1864, just five years after Darwin's Origin of the Species was published:

"The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. ... The infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom.

— Ellen White, 1864, pp. 90-91

Agassiz adamantly refused to let religion determine the course of his science, whether it be with respect to the age of the earth, the appearance of humans, or the reality of the Noachian flood.

History

Historical Setting

During the first part of the 19th century, British and European scholars abandoned the Biblical account of the history of the world. The scriptural geologists were the last hold out against the sweep of popularity of the new geology. As scholars and theologians abandoned the Biblical flood account, belief in the Creation account soon followed. Darwin's "origin of the Species" (1859) provided another account of the origin of life. During the later half of the 19th century, many theologians, not wanting to completely reject the Biblical account, devised gap theology and the day age concept to gloss the biblical account and the new geology with Darwin's evolution.

Numbers' notes that within twenty years (by about 1880) after the publication of the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, nearly every reputable North American naturalist had accepted some form of organic evolution. And, the editor of one American religious weekly estimated that up to on half of Evangelical minister considered the story of Creation, the Fall and the Flood as but parables like the Prodigal Son.

Ellen White wrote on the topic.

George McCreedy Price.

Others.

Creationism and science

(this is just on outline of the main ideas. Everything point will have to be sourced) The controversy is thought to be between Creationism and Evolution, Or Creationism and Science, however, those are red herrings. The real controversy is over which world view one chooses to do science Creationism or Naturalism. Both supply the necessary assumptions needed to do science.

Naturalism starts with the assumed fact that nature is all there is, has ever been or ever will be. Since there is no god to mess with things then abiogenesis and evolutionism must be true. Deep time is a must. They also hold that the present is the key to the past. What happens now is all that can have happened in the past. They hold that nature originated following the laws of how nature functions. So, studying how nature functions is also studying how nature originated. American astronomer Simon Newcomb;s (1835-1909) reason for choosing evolution over creation was the appeal to nature originating from how it functioned "We are not to call in a supernatural cause to account for a result which could have been produced by the action of the known laws of nature."

Creationism is based on the revealed record of the Bible. Only God is Eternal. Nature exists only because God Created it. Creationists hold that how nature originated and how it functions are two different things. Nature originated by the creative act of God. As such, its origin is not subject to investigation by science. How nature functions, on the other hand is subject to scientific study. Creationists also hold that the present is the key to the past as outlined in the Bible. The history of the Earth is defined by the Bible and scientific study of nature is therefore interpreted by the Bible.

Creationists do not have a theory or hypothesis of creation. Creationism is not a hypothesis. It is an assumed fact based on revealed biblical evidence. No type of scientific experiment can be set up to study singularities such as Creation.

The same goes for the Genesis global flood. It too is not a hypothesis, but an assumed fact within which scientific geologic evidence is understood.

karl Popper has shown that science cannot prove a hypothesis outright. It can only disprove hypothesis. However, hypotheses which withstand the test of multiple attempts to disprove it may well be close to the truth. Since Creationism and Noah's Flood are NOT hypotheses they are not and cannot be "tested by science" to prove false. They are by definition true. Naturalism, Abiogenesis, Evolutionism, and Deep Time are also assumptions, not hypotheses tested by science. Still it is common to hear that the theory of evolution has been proved beyond any doubt by science. Anyone saying this and believing this is completely ignorant of how science works.

Thomas Kuhn has shown that all science is interpreted within ruling paradigms and world views. This explains the controversy between Creationism and Naturalism. The problem is not about science at all, but about which worldview one chooses to do and interpret the results of scientific inquiry within. There is no such thing as self-evident empirical evidence. All evidence is interpreted by a paradigm or world view, knowingly or not. Creationism and Naturalism are mutually exclusive world views. You cannot hold both at the same time unless one is schizophrenic. This makes 'theistic evolution' an oxymoron, a logical impossibility.

SDA cosmology

SDAs have a cosmology (an explanation of origins) based on the Bible and Ellen's statements. It is not YEC.