March 3, 2026

The February issue of the Pacific Union Recorder features an article[1] entitled “Honoring God through Science and Scripture.” We resonate deeply with this aspiration, yet have significant concerns with what the article proposes to achieve this goal.

Our principal concern is that, while appearing in the official magazine of the Pacific Union[2] under the byline of its Editor, the article contradicts the clearly articulated position on creation and origins of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,[3] thereby undermining a foundational component of its message and one central to the mission of our institute. We respect the role of church officials elected with the responsibility and authority to address situations of this type, so our focus in this response is to engage with the content of the article.

In what follows, we seek to clarify principles that guide our journey as scientists engaged in origins-related research and as participants in the mission of the Church.[4]

God’s acts of creation differ from evolutionary history

The article opens on a positive note, affirming that “science and faith are not enemies but partners in exploring truth, beauty, and meaning.” It further acknowledges that the advances brought about by scientific investigation are a divine gift, since “the human capacity to reason, explore, and discover is part of what it means to be made in the image of God.” We gladly affirm these statements.

However, after these introductory paragraphs, the article pivots toward advocating evolution as the method of God’s creative activity. Evolution is presented as the explanation for how life developed, while theology and philosophy are assigned the task of addressing why life exists or who initiated it.

The context and citations of the article make clear that what is being endorsed is not simply the phenomenon of biological change over time, but the large-scale narrative of bacteria-to-humans evolution across deep time. This evolutionary account of origins, described as a natural process under divine guidance, corresponds to what is commonly called theistic evolution.

There are serious scientific, philosophical and theological challenges associated with this posture that have been widely discussed,[5] yet they deserve at least brief acknowledgment:

• Evolutionary theory as the foundation. Theistic evolution assumes evolutionary theory as established fact. In doing so, it may fail to sufficiently emphasize the limitations of historical sciences or to engage in critical evaluation of aspects of the theory undergoing significant scientific scrutiny.[6]
• Divine action. Theistic evolution does not clarify the nature of God’s interaction with creation. The instances, criteria, and dynamics of divine action remain largely undefined.
• The problem of death and divine character. We firmly disagree with the claim that “nothing in the theory of evolution can negate” the affirmation that “the world is good.” The how of creation bears directly on the character of the Creator. If God intentionally created living beings through the evolutionary process, then competition, struggle, suffering, and death function as divine instruments to generate biodiversity. In that framework, current ecological realities are seen as a positive outcome rather than the tragic manifestation of a fallen creation.
• Biblical coherence. The theistic evolution narrative does not arise from the biblical text and is in direct contradiction to it. Adopting it requires problematic hermeneutical and theological adjustments to harmonize Scripture’s portrayal of origins and salvation history.[7]

In light of these considerations, theistic evolution is a misguided path in the endeavor to honor God through both science and Scripture. We believe in the importance of understanding the strengths of evolutionary models, as well as their limitations, without dismissiveness or caricature. However, we affirm a posture that embraces a special creation of living organisms during Creation week and studies biological change within the biblical framework of a fallen world in need of redemption.

A holistic approach incorporates some tension

The article promotes the important idea that “science and faith need not be rivals—they can be companions, partners in the quest to know the truth” and that “they are two lenses through which we behold truth.” However, this vision of harmonious interaction appears to rely on a rigid separation of the two domains[8] and, perhaps unintentionally, a dualism of mind and heart, natural and spiritual, reason and belief.

The article encourages studying the heavens “with all our minds” and “praising their Maker with all our hearts.” The proper context for nurturing faith is described as “family, community, church, and personal devotion,” whereas science belongs primarily to the school. Citing Francis Collins,[9] the article states: “Science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world.” It affirms that “science and religion answer different questions. The Bible tells us who made the heavens and the earth. Science helps us understand how those heavens shine and how this earth thrives.”

This approach risks overlooking both the faith inherent in science and the science present in faith. These domains are interconnected rather than separate.[10] While the study of the natural world and the study of Scripture have distinct methods, they raise similar questions about purpose and process. Distinguished physicists have engaged with philosophical questions about the true nature of reality,[11] and Scripture provides a record of both historical events and future realities.[12]

Therefore, the demarcation or separation approach[13] is not fully satisfactory. Even Galileo, who supported the view that the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven not the way the heavens go,[14] recognized that Scripture makes claims about the nature of physical reality and the human condition. If “for centuries, there has been a perceived tension between these two realms,” it is because this unresolved tension is real.

We recognize that conflicting claims about origins have emerged and can continue to emerge from the study of nature and Scripture. Yet, we believe that a rigid separation of domains is not the solution. Science is not a monolithic unchanging understanding of nature, so working towards harmonization begins with openly acknowledging areas of tension and, for Bible-believing Christians, relies on a commitment to pursue careful research while holding to the biblical record of creation and earth history.[15]

The value of creationism and Intelligent Design

The article appears to acknowledge value in the concept of design: “for many, including scientists themselves, what they discover in nature points to a Designer.” However, within the context of science education, Intelligent Design is framed negatively as part of “efforts to undermine science education by introducing religious alternatives,” which, according to the article, damages both science and religion. Intelligent Design “masks theology as science. It doesn’t follow the scientific method. It doesn’t make testable predictions. As such, it is not science—and trying to present it as such in schools only weakens our witness and our credibility.” A similar negative characterization is applied to creationism, with the additional claim that creationists do not properly understand the fossil evidence supporting evolution.

We affirm the importance of engaging with the philosophy of science.[16] This type of reflection helps to appreciate how complex it can be to define what science is and to decide what counts as legitimate scientific inquiry. It also demonstrates that data (from the Latin word datum = given) are always given (presented) within a specific social and historical context.[17] With this understanding, we can be more open-minded about the unique contributions of creationism and Intelligent Design, which broaden the spectrum of inquiry, add to the diversity of perspectives among researchers, and have the ability to generate questions for scientific investigation.[18] While clear distinctions and definitions are useful, overly strict boundaries in science education can hinder meaningful dialogue between theology and the natural sciences rather than encourage ongoing conversation.

In summary, we affirm the importance of creationism and Intelligent Design for a comprehensive approach to the study of nature. Many scientists employ these lenses with integrity as they investigate the natural world.[19]

Biblical theology is rooted in history

As noted earlier, the adoption of theistic evolution requires accommodating biblical hermeneutics, particularly regarding the interpretation of the Genesis text and references back to it throughout the rest of Scripture. Predictably, the article follows this pattern by asserting that “at its heart, the story of creation in Genesis is not a science textbook—it is a theological declaration.” This statement sets up a distinction as if theology should not or could not be rooted in certain aspects of physical reality. Even if the premise that the Genesis account is not a science textbook[20] and that it certainly has a theological intent is correct, the article’s statement fails to recognize a critical point: such theology is rooted in history.[21] The hermeneutical stance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is that “God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity.”[22] For Adventists, any effort to honor God through science and Scripture cannot dispense with this foundational tenet of our faith.[23]

Adventist education cannot affirm theistic evolution

The article includes the following passage: “Now more than ever, our children need to be equipped with both scientific literacy and spiritual discernment. Teaching science accurately is not a betrayal of faith—it is an act of worship. When we teach evolution correctly in schools, we are not teaching students to abandon their faith but to understand how God’s world operates.”

There is some ambiguity in how to interpret the nuances of this paragraph. However, in light of the article’s earlier argumentation, it appears to suggest that teaching evolution as God’s intentional method for bringing about life forms in this world (i.e., theistic evolution) is both an act of worship and the proper way of equipping our students with scientific literacy and spiritual discernment. This conclusion is deeply problematic.

Teaching evolution (“correctly”) to our students is not the issue, since it is important for them to understand the theory and critically evaluate its claims.[24] The concern for Adventist education arises when theistic evolution is falsely portrayed as compatible with Adventist beliefs about origins and, more importantly, with the teaching of Scripture. It would be a terrible misrepresentation to attribute creation of a system characterized by death, violence, and suffering to God, when He instead gave His only begotten Son so that this groaning world could be rescued and restored (cf. Rm 8:19-23) and He Himself promises He “will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4 NKJV).

Adventist education requires teachers and mentors who model a life shaped by commitment to God’s Word as the trustworthy compass for every dimension of life, including the study of nature. This approach will equip students to look at the world, and live their lives, through the lens of the biblical arc of creation, redemption, and restoration.

Conclusion

We are concerned that the original publication may have caused significant confusion among readers of the PUC Recorder. In light of the concerns expressed in this response, we hope consideration may be given by church leadership at the appropriate levels to responding to the article with a clear affirmation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s position on the biblical record of creation.

---

The Geoscience Research Institute Staff

---

Endnotes

[1] Alberto Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026, 22–25, https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture, accessed February 18, 2026.

[2] Distributed to approximately 76,000 Adventist families, based on information reported in the front matter of the Pacific Union Recorder, February, 2026.

[3] See, for example, Fundamental Belief n. 6: https://adventist.org/beliefs/official/creation#belief-6-creation, accessed February 19, 2026; “Response to an Affirmation of Creation:” https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/response-to-an-affirmation-of-creation, accessed February 24, 2026; “Creation: The Bible’s Worldview:” https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/creation-the-bibles-worldview, accessed February 24, 2026.

[4] https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/mission-statement-of-the-seventh-day-adventist-church/, accessed February 18, 2026.

[5] See, for example, J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, eds., Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).

[6] The theory of evolution faces serious scientific challenges in areas such as the origin of information and complex novel biological structures, patterns of appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record, and documentation of detailed pathways of evolutionary transitions. See, for example, Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2009); Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2013); Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution (New York: HarperOne, 2019).

[7] It is beyond the scope of this response to provide a comprehensive survey of the areas in which Adventist theology stands in contrast with the tenets of theistic evolution. It is sufficient to note that its adoption would profoundly destabilize the Adventist understanding of the authority of Scripture, the nature of humanity, the character of God, soteriology, Christ’s ministry and message, divine institutions such as marriage and the Sabbath, theodicy, and eschatology. See, for example, Norman R. Gulley, “What Happens to Biblical Truth if the SDA Church Accepts Theistic Evolution?” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 2 (Autumn 2004): 40–58, accessed February 24, 2026. http://archive.atsjats.org/04_Gulley_Theistic_Evo-41E0.pdf; Ed Zinke, “Theistic Evolution and Adventist Theology,” Perspective Digest 18, no. 4 (2013), accessed February 24, 2026. https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archive/18-4/theistic-evolution-and-adventist-theology.

[8] Note that the article frequently uses “religion” as the category contrasted with science. This term is not synonymous with “faith,” nor is it equivalent to “Scripture,” as referenced in the title.

[9] Founder of BioLogos, an organization which accepts evolution as the best scientific explanation for how life on Earth has changed over time, including the idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor over many generations, under the providential guidance of God. See https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation, accessed February 24, 2026.

[10] See for example, Gary W. Burdick, “The Faith That Lies at the Heart of Science,” abstract presented at the Seventh Annual Andrews Autumn Conference on Religion and Science, Andrews University, 2012, accessed February 18, 2026, Andrews University Digital Commons, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/aac/2012-conference/presentations/10/.

[11] As illustrative examples, see Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992); Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010); Sean Carroll, The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (New York: Dutton, 2016).

[12] See, for example, Gen 2:4 and Rev 22:6, drawn from the first and last books of the Bible, respectively, as illustrations of this point.

[13] Also known as NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria). See Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106, no. 2 (March 1997): 16–22.

[14] Galileo Galilei, “Lettera a Cristina di Lorena” (1615), in Le opere di Galileo Galilei, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. 5 (Florence: Barbera, 1895), 316.

[15] See Gary Burdick, “How Can I Live Without Having All the Answers?,” Ministry, vol. 84, no. 7 (July 2011), accessed February 18, 2026. https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2011/07/how-can-i-live-without-having-all-the-answers; Ben Clausen, “Respecting God’s Word, God’s World, and People in God’s Image,” in Design and Catastrophe: 51 Scientists Explore Evidence in Nature, edited by L. James Gibson, Ronny Nalin, and Humberto M. Rasi (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2021), accessed February 18, 2026. https://www.grisda.org/word-world-and-people.

[16] Daniel Blanco, “Copernicanism, Realism, and the Import of Philosophy in the Dialogue Between Science and Religion,” Geoscience Research Institute, August 8, 2025, https://www.grisda.org/copernicanism-realism, accessed February 19, 2026.

[17] As an example, see Jeffrey Koperski, “How the Laws of Nature Were Naturalised,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42, no. 3 (September 2011): 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.03.002.

[18] Leonard R. Brand, “A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science,” Origins 2006, no. 59 (2006): 6–42, https://www.grisda.org/origins-59006, accessed February 19, 2026; Stephen C. Meyer, “A Scientific History – and Philosophical Defense – of the Theory of Intelligent Design,” Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft: Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews 7 (2008): 203–247, https://www.discovery.org/a/7471/ (Discovery Institute version) accessed February 19, 2026; Ronny Nalin, “Reflecting on Creationism,” Adventist Review, June 3, 2025, https://adventistreview.org/perspectives/culture/reflecting-on-creationism, accessed February 19, 2026.

[19] L. James Gibson, Ronny Nalin, and Humberto M. Rasi, eds., Design and Catastrophe: 51 Scientists Explore Evidence in Nature (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2021), 240 pp., accessed February 19, 2026, https://www.grisda.org/design‑and‑catastrophe‑51‑scientists‑explore‑evidence‑in‑nature (PDF version).

[20] However, for a reflection on what should not be implied with this statement, see Sven Östring, “Genesis: A Scientific Account?,” Adventist Review, September 3, 2020, https://adventistreview.org/magazine-article/2009-50/, accessed February 19, 2026.

[21] See Abner Chou, “Did God Really Say? — Hermeneutics and History in Genesis 3,” in What Happened in the Garden: The Reality and Ramifications of the Creation and Fall of Man, ed. Abner Chou (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2016), 19–46.

[22] Fundamental Belief n. 6: https://adventist.org/beliefs/official/creation#belief-6-creation, accessed February 19, 2026.

[23] See Fernando L. Canale, “Evolution, Theology, and Method: Part 3: Evolution and Adventist Theology,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42, no. 1 (2004): 5–48, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/auss/vol42/iss1/1, accessed February 19, 2026.

[24] For an example of this approach, see the Biology ByDesign textbook, https://science.adventisteducation.org/bydesign, accessed February 24, 2026.