Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/1 (Spring 2003): 1–3. Article copyright © 2003 by Ed Christian. The Editor’s Page Ed Christian This is not the first issue of JATS to focus on creation, but it is the first to include articles on creation written by well-credentialed scientists. Far too often theologians writing on creation or the flood are woefully na•ve about basic physics, chemistry, and biologyÑand more na•ve about such fields as geology, paleontology, and evolutionary theory. This sometimes leads them to speculate in unfruitful ways or accept as fact ideas that creation scientists know to be im- possible. We welcome the four articles our scientific colleagues have contrib- uted.1 They all believe in creation, but they have the technical expertise most of us lack. All but three of the articles in this issue were first presented at the Interna- tional Faith and Science Conference held August 23Ð29, 2002, in Ogden, Utah.2 These articles were selected by three of the ATS officers present at the confer- ence. Papers selected had to be within the bounds of the ATS centrist beliefs on creation.3 The conference was limited to eighty-four Seventh-day Adventist sci- entists, theologians, and church administrators.4 To encourage frank discussion, only those invited were admitted, and comments made there have been kept con- fidential. Dabrowski writes: ÒThe conference was held both to affirm belief in God as Creator as revealed in the biblical account, and to begin a dialogue on questions, issues, and diverse views about the origin of the earth.Ó 1 You may note that some of their papers do not follow the citation style generally found in JATS. IÕve allowed them to use note styles acceptable in their own fields, so long as they are consis- tent. 2 The articles by Schafer and Booth and BrandÕs article ÒWhat Are the Limits of Death in Paradise?Ó were submitted independently and went through the usual double-blind review process. 3 Three other papersÑby Randy Younker, John Baldwin, and Fernando CanaleÑwere recom- mended but for various reasons were not available. 4 Details and quotations given here, unless otherwise noted, are from Ray DabrowskiÕs news report, ÒAdventist Scholars and Leaders Begin Faith and Science Conversation,Ó found at http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1538/news.html. Dabrowski is the communication director of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. 1 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY In his remarks to those attending, General Conference President Jan Paulsen said, ÒHaving the faith and science conference with focus on creation was in part difficult, but very necessary. More good comes from having it and talking about difficult matters than from running away from them. It is necessary that we learn to talk together.Ó However, he also cautioned, ÒAs a church we don't come to these discus- sions with a neutral position. We already have a defined fundamental belief in regard to creation. We believe that earth and life on it was created in six literal days and that the age of earth since then is a young one.Ó The position of the Adventist church on creation, as found in the churchÕs statement on fundamental beliefs, is as follows: Creation: God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made Òthe heaven and the earthÓ and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was fin- ished it was Òvery good,Ó declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)5 Having read all of these articles at least three times, I am especially excited about the first four. Richard DavidsonÕs ÒThe Biblical Account of OriginsÓ is probably the best available scriptural defense of the position held by many ATS scholars. Be sure to read Timothy StandishÕs ÒBits and Particles: Information and Machines Sufficient to Infer an Intelligent Designer.Ó Standish carefully ex- plains the biological role of a single protein without which animal life is impos- sible and shows that it could not possibly have come into being through evolu- tion. The article filled me with love and admiration for the God Who Designs. Genesis 1 gives us God speaking things into existence. True science, working in harmony with Scripture, reveals to us the astonishing complexity and elegance with which the Creator made all things fit together. I donÕt see how any scientist could read this article without falling at GodÕs feet in awe. Surely, every step forward in scientific knowledge, read correctly, provides additional evidence that God is the greatest of all scientists. Leonard BrandÕs ÒWhat Are the Limits of Death in Paradise?Ó raises ques- tions we have too long ignored. Many of us are guilty of imposing onto Scrip- ture our own conceptions of what a perfect world would be like, assuming that our thoughts are GodÕs thoughts (Isa 55:9), that our definition of death is GodÕs definition. We admit that we live in a world where all things are to some degree 5 Fundamental Belief 6, available at http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/index.html 2 GIBSON: CONTRIBUTIONS TO CREATION THEORY influenced by sin, but just how different is what we see from the original crea- tion? If ÒThe spirit of ChristÕs self-sacrificing love is the spirit that pervades heaven and is the very essence of its bliss,Ó6 is self-sacrifice also part of GodÕs design for this earth? If some of the e.coli bacteria necessary for diges- tionÑwhich presently multiply by the millions in our colons every day and die by the millionsÑwere excreted during a bowel movement, would they live for- ever? Would that piece of excrement remain forever intact and undecayed in the Garden of Eden, or did God design a way for it to be useful as it decayed, disin- tegrated, and disappeared? If Adam ate an apple and tossed the core to the ground, would that core always remain white and juicy, or would it decay, pro- viding food for insects and plants? If the cycle of self-sacrificing decay and re- generation we see today is not somewhat similar to what happened before sin, then how do we account for it? Is it all a result of sin? This is not like saying, ÒOnce we had perfect digestions, but now we sometimes have indigestion.Ó ItÕs more like saying, ÒNow we digest, but once we had systems where digestion wasnÕt necessary.Ó Holding the latter position makes necessary a second crea- tion after the fall, and this is not the biblical teaching. Brand raises several inter- esting possibilities while remaining within the bounds of scriptural teaching scholars have too often misinterpreted. Finally, Rahel SchaferÕs ÒThe ÔKindsÕ of Genesis 1: What Is the Meaning of Mˆîn?Ó compares the word ÒkindÓ in Genesis with the same word in Lev 11, shedding light on both chapters. This is an example of sound, useful biblical exegesis, answering questions and illuminating texts. Schafer provides strong evidence that the ÒkindÓ and the ÒspeciesÓ are not synonymous and that the Bi- ble does not teach the fixity of species. On the other hand, she also shows why the text precludes the possibility of macro-evolution, as God commands the sea or the earth to bring forth the ÒkindsÓ ready-made. 6 Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, 77. 3 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/1 (Spring 2003): 4–43. Article copyright © 2003 by Richard M. Davidson. The Biblical Account of Origins Richard M. Davidson Andrews University Introduction The basic elements in the biblical account of origins are summarized in the opening verse of the Bible, Gen 1:1: I. ÒIn the beginningÓÑthe ÒwhenÓ of origins; II. ÒGodÓÑthe ÒWhoÓ of origins; III. ÒcreatedÓÑthe ÒhowÓ of origins; IV. Òthe heavens and the earthÓÑthe ÒwhatÓ of origins. In this paper we will take up each of these elements in turn, with special emphasis upon the ÒwhenÓ1 and aspects of the other elements that impinge upon the relationship between Scripture and science. I. The ÒWhenÓ: ÒIn the BeginningÓ In discussing the ÒwhenÓ of creation, a number of questions arise for which an answer may be sought in the biblical text. Does Gen 1Ð2 describe an absolute or relative beginning? Does the Genesis account intend to present a literal, his- torical portrayal of origins, or is some kind of non-literal interpretation implied in the text? Does the biblical text of Gen 1 describe a single creation event (en- compassed within the creation week), or is there a prior creation described in Gen 1:1, with some kind of gap implied between the description of Gen 1:1 and 1 This emphasis upon the ÒwhenÓ of creation is in stark contrast with that of, e.g., Raymond F. Cottrell, ÒInspiration and Authority of the Bible in Relation to Phenomena of the Natural World,Ó in Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives, ed. James L. Hayward (Roseville, CA: Association of Adventist Forums, 2000), 203, who claims that ÒThe Bible writers have much to say about who created the universe [which according to Cottrell refers exclusively to Ôthe atmospheric heavens, or sky, and to the surface of the earth,Õ 197], some to say about why he created it, little to say about how he created it, and nothing to say about when he created it.Ó Like- wise, this is contra Frederick E.