Because Seventh-day Adventists keep the Sabbath, and God established the Sabbath as a memorial to the creation week, the creation week has special importance to Adventists. A Lyellian or long-ages interpretation of the fossiliferous compels the conclusion that there was no creation week, because the world was “created” over the course of hundreds of millions of years, not six days. Lyellism is thus grossly inconsistent with the most basic Seventh-day Adventist beliefs.
But Adventists have additional reasons for rejecting Lyellian geology. Ellen Gould White (1827-1915) was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and a prolific writer. She wrote more than forty books and five thousand periodical articles covering a broad range of subjects, including religion, evangelism, prophecy, publishing, education, the family, health, and nutrition. In addition, her personal correspondence was on a vast scale. Her writings have been translated more often than have those of any other female writer, and she is the most translated American author of either gender. Her book Steps to Christ has been published in more than 140 languages.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen White was more than a gifted writer. We believe that she was a special messenger of God. Over the course of her life, beginning when she was 17, God gave Ellen White approximately two thousand visions, varying in length from less than a minute to nearly four hours. Ellen White wrote down the counsel and wisdom revealed to her through the visions.
The Bible promises that believers will see visions and dream dreams, and teaches that the gift of prophecy is one of the spiritual gifts given to the church. Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:17, 18; 1 Cor. 12:27-30. Ellen White’s prophetic ministry was a manifestation of the continued presence and guiding of the Holy Spirit, as promised in Scripture.
The writings of Ellen White are not a substitute for the Bible, nor do Adventists place them on the same level as Scripture. She referred to her writings as “a lesser light” pointing people to the “greater light” of the Bible. “The fact that God has revealed His will to men through His Word,” White noted, “has not rendered needless the continued presence and guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our Savior, to open the Word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings.”[1] Adventists do not view Ellen White’s writings as superseding or altering Scripture, but as shedding light on Scripture.
One of Ellen White’s visions confirmed that the creation week was a literal week, just like every week since. She specifically repudiated the “day/age” theory, i.e., that the days of the creation week represent seven vast, indefinite periods:
I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. . . . On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. 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.
When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” . . . “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days.
But 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.
Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. . . . And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them.[2]
It is one of Satan’s devices to lead the people to accept the fables of infidelity; for he can thus obscure the law of God, in itself very plain, and embolden men to rebel against the divine government. His efforts are especially directed against the fourth commandment, because it so clearly points to the living God, the Maker of the heavens and the earth.
There is a constant effort made to explain the work of creation as the result of natural causes; and human reasoning is accepted even by professed Christians, in opposition to plain Scripture facts.[3]
Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have . . . led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years.
Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature. Of the first day employed in the work of creation is given the record, “The evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:5. And the same in substance is said of each of the first six days of creation week. Each of these periods Inspiration declares to have been a day consisting of evening and morning, like every other day since that time. In regard to the work of creation itself the divine testimony is, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9. With Him who could thus call into existence unnumbered worlds, how long a time would be required for the evolution of the earth from Chaos? In order to account for His works, must we do violence to His word?[4]
Ellen White was very clear that, in cases of conflict between Scripture and “science,” Bible history must be preferred over naturalistic speculations about origins. Even the most brilliant minds will lose their way on this topic, unless they hold fast to the biblical record:
God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in both science and art; but when professedly scientific men treat upon these subjects from a merely human point of view, they will assuredly come to wrong conclusions. It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God’s word has revealed, if our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures; but those who leave the word of God, and seek to account for His created works upon scientific principles, are drifting without chart or compass upon an unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation. Because the Creator and His works are so far beyond their comprehension that they are unable to explain them by natural laws, they regard Bible history as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step further, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.
These persons have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. Human knowledge is an unreliable guide. . . . Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements.[5]
To many, scientific research has become a curse. God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world in discoveries in science and art; but even the greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to investigate the relations of science and revelation.
Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God’s word is to be tested by the teachings of “science falsely so called.” I Timothy 6:20. The Creator and his works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are let to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.[6]
In this generation there are many whose eyes become dazzled by the glare of human speculations, “science falsely so called;” they discern not the net, and walk into it as readily as if blindfolded. God designed that man’s intellectual powers should be held as a gift from his Maker and should be employed in the service of truth and righteousness; but when pride and ambition are cherished, and men exalt their own theories above the word of God, then intelligence can accomplish greater harm than ignorance.[7]
Ellen White was remarkably blunt in warning about the dangers of reasoning from naturalistic premises in derogation of Scripture—exactly the type of reasoning embraced by Lyellian geology. She called such reasoning “sophistry”:
We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestion.[8]
In the last days the earth will be almost destitute of true faith. Upon the merest pretense, the word of God will be considered unreliable, while human reasoning will be received, though it be in opposition to plain Scripture facts.[9]
Unfortunately, the tendency to elevate human reasoning over divine revelation is a serious problem even among professed Christians. Ellen White warned about this, and also condemned the type of creative interpretation—i.e., spiritualizing or explaining away plain scriptural teachings—that must be resorted to in order to make Scripture accommodate Lyellian and Darwinian theories:
Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come to deny doctrines that are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world. Thousands who pride themselves upon their wisdom and independence regard it as an evidence of weakness to place implicit confidence in the Bible; they think it a proof of superior talent and learning to cavil at the Scriptures and to spiritualize and explain away their most important truths.[10]
The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. . . . The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.[11]
Ellen White plainly stated that the fossils found in the earth are relics of the Genesis Flood:
It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men animals and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth’s crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God.[12]
Interestingly, White probably mentioned dinosaurs without calling them by that name. “I was shown,” she wrote, “that very large, powerful animals existed before the flood which do not now exist.”[13] The dinosaurs are most prominent among large, powerful animals that existed before the Flood that no longer exist.
White also clearly denounced the theory of evolution, especially the theory that mankind evolved from lower orders of animals:
God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man’s narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin.[14]
Akin to the theory concerning the evolution of the earth is that which attributes to an ascending line of germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds the evolution of man, the crowning glory of the creation.
When consideration is given to man’s opportunities for research; how brief his life; how limited his sphere of action; how restricted his vision; how frequent and how great the errors in his conclusions, especially as concerns the events thought to antedate Bible history; how often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another—considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27. Shall we reject that genealogical record—prouder than any treasured in the courts of kings—“which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”? Luke 3:38[15]
She saw the need for faith and humility in the study of nature, as in the study of nature’s God:
He who studies most deeply into the mysteries of nature will realize most fully his own ignorance and weakness. He will realize that there are depths and heights which he cannot reach, secrets which he cannot penetrate, vast fields of truth lying before him unentered. He will be ready to say, with Newton, “I seem to myself to have been like a child on the seashore finding pebbles and shells, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me.”[16]
Although this is not an exhaustive compilation of Ellen White’s statements on origins, it is a representative sample. Clearly, the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot turn its back on young-earth creationism without also repudiating the prophetic authority of Ellen White. This church will always believe that God created the world and its basic life forms in six days, and will ever remain a young-earth creationist denomination.[17]
Adventists have been at the forefront of creationism. Seventh-day Adventists who have contributed to a biblical understanding of origins and earth history include George McCready Price, Harold W. Clark, Frank Lewis Marsh, Ernest S. Booth, Harold G. Coffin, Robert H. Brown, Arthur V. Chadwick, Ariel A. Roth, and Leonard Brand, among many others. The church has established the Geoscience Research Institute, currently housed on the campus of Loma Linda University, to facilitate origins research.
[1] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. vii.
[2] Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864), vol. 3, pp. 90-92. Reprinted in Signs of
the Times, 5:90, March 20, 1879, and in Spirit of Prophecy (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1884), vol. 4, pp. 85-89.
[3] Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 113.
[4] Ellen G. White, Education, pp. 128, 129.
[5] Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 113, 114.
[6] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 522.
[7] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 573.
[8] Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, March 1, 1898.
[9] Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 94.
[10] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 583.
[11] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 598-599.
[12] Ellen G. White, Education, p. 129.
[13] Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1864), Vol. 3, pp. 92. See also White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 112.
[14] Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald Pub., 1890), p. 45.
[15] Ellen G. White, Education, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press), p. 130.
[16] Ellen G. White, Education, p. 133.
[17] The Adventist attitude toward Darwinism is probably best summarized by Clifford Goldstein in his article, “Seventh-day Darwinians,” Adventist Review (July 24, 2003)(“What amazes me isn’t so much that people can believe in evolution (after all, I used to), but that those who do still want to be Seventh-day Adventists. I can respect someone who, believing in evolutionary theory, rejects the Adventist Church entirely. I have no respect for those who think they can meld the two. . . . I speak, I believe, for millions of Seventh-day Adventists when I declare that . . . we will never make room for anything other than a literal six-day creation for life here—never.”)