A recent article—appallingly—in one of the Union papers in the North American Division [1], attempts to broker a peace between science and Scripture relative to the issue of creation, evolution, and the origin of life. The very fact that such an article found its way into a magazine published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a tragedy of scandalous proportions.

Like other Christian apologists for the theory of evolution, the author purports to find no conflict between the role of God as Creator and popular scientific explanations for the origin of the universe. At one point the author writes: “To say that God used natural processes to bring about His purposes is not to limit Him but to admire His wisdom” [2]. He goes on to say that “the story of creation in Genesis is not a science textbook—it is a theological declaration” [3]. Science and religion, in his view, are simply “two lenses through which we behold truth” [4], not necessarily in conflict one with the other. From his perspective, “evolution is a scientific explanation of how life has developed, not why it exists” [5].

Unbelievably, the author of this piece tries to establish the Christian credibility of evolution by citing the late Pope John Paul II, calling him a “devout Christian” who insisted that “acknowledging biological processes doesn’t negate God’s creative hand” [6]. Let’s remember, of course, that the one here cited served as leader of the religious system identified by Scripture and the inspired writings of Ellen White as the Antichrist of Bible prophecy, who publicly disputed—in defiance of Scripture—the “widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God” [##7|Don Schanche, “No Forgiveness ‘Directly from God,’ Pope Says,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1894, p. A12.##], and who openly presumed to differ with the words of Christ in claiming certain titles for himself. In the late pope’s own words:

Have no fear when people call me the Vicar of Christ, when they say to me “Holy Father” or "Your Holiness,' or use terms similar to these, which seem even inimical to the gospel. Christ Himself declared, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one father in heaven. Do not be called Master; you have but one Master the Messiah” (Matt. 23:9-10). These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either [##8|Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 6.##].

For any Seventh-day Adventist—let alone the editor of a church publication—to cite as an authority in any theological setting one making such blasphemous claims as the above, is nothing short of theological treason. One obviously incapable of seeing conflict between his own sacrilegious claims and the teachings of Scripture can hardly be trusted when perceiving so-called harmony between evolutionary science and those same Scriptures.

Irreconcilable Differences Between Evolution and the Bible

I am not myself a scientist, only a student of the inspired writings. But for the following four (4) reasons, no reconciliation is possible between the Biblical worldview and Darwinian macroevolution:

1. The Bible presumes the Genesis creation narrative to be historical fact. The problem between evolution and the Bible is not merely found in Genesis. Those who think a symbolic reading of the Genesis creation story is the only thing needed to effect reconciliation between the Bible and the Darwinian model of origins, seem not to understand that elsewhere the Bible takes for granted the historicity of the Genesis creation account.

Jesus, for example. In discussing marriage and divorce, the Master hearkened back to the Genesis creation narrative:

Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-6).

These statements of our Lord are, of course, a reference to the Genesis account of the marriage of Adam and Eve, the first human wedding ever: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus is using this original marriage story in the human experience as the basis for His stance on marriage, divorce, and the permissibility in certain cases of remarriage (Matt. 19:7-12).

Jesus is treating this passage from Genesis not as a metaphor or symbol, but as historical fact, as the basis of a major moral command. If this were merely a myth, sacred or otherwise, would the Savior have cited it as a moral cornerstone for His followers?

We are reminded of God’s promise through Isaiah regarding the non-recurrence of Noah’s Flood, and how that promise was the basis for God’s assurance of His love and mercy for Israel:

For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I will not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee; neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee (Isa. 54:9-10).

Would God base the assurance of His love and mercy on something that never happened? Would our Lord base a moral injunction on a historical non-event? The very suggestion is ludicrous.

What is more, the Adam and Eve of the Genesis narrative are affirmed as historical realities even more strongly by the apostle Paul. The language of Romans chapter 5 regarding Adam and Christ simply does not allow the reference to Adam to be merely symbolic of humanity in the broadest sense. This is because six times in Romans 5:12-19, the phrase “one man” is used with reference to the one who brought sin and death to the world, thus necessitating the coming of a Savior to bring salvation and life to the same. In verse 14 Paul is even more explicit, speaking of how “death reigned from Adam to Moses,” again making it clear that to the apostle, the Adam of Genesis is not a metaphor for the whole human race, but rather, an authentic historical personage, just like Moses. In First Corinthians the same reality is affirmed by the same author:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Cor. 15:22).

In First Timothy, where Paul describes the relationship of men and women in the leadership of the church (I Tim. 2:12-14), the historicity of Adam and Eve in Genesis is reaffirmed once more:

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (verses 13-14).

Again, it makes no sense to believe an inspired apostle of the Lord—any more than the Lord Himself—would base a moral command or an injunction relative to church order on something that never happened. The spiritualizing or symbolizing of the early figures and stories in Genesis, whether our first parents or the later Flood narrative, simply won’t harmonize with the clear teachings of the New Testament.

2. With evolution, no perfect world ever existed, and consequently no Fall is possible. If God employed the processes of evolution to bring into being the world of nature, including humanity, at what point did a perfect world exist, and at what point did it cease existing? If Adam is merely symbolic of the human family, at what point did humanity possess the perfection depicted by the Bible in the beginning (Gen. 1:31), and at what point in the evolutionary trajectory was this perfection lost?

Put simply, there is no room in the evolutionary paradigm for a perfect world free of death, disease, or predation, and thus no room for a Fall or a Savior to redeem that Fall. The article in question claims that the Genesis creation story “tells us that the world is good, and that rest, work, and relationship all matter. Nothing in the theory of evolution can negate that. Science does not explain away the soul. It does not tell us about sin, salvation, or grace. Only Scripture does that. Science and religion answer different questions, and we need both” [9].

But if evolution is true, the world has never been good—at least not as the Bible defines goodness—and rest and relationship don’t matter if they get in the way of nature’s and humanity’s progress. Sin, salvation, and grace lose all meaning if evolution is the way the world came into existence, and how we can expect it to advance in the future. More on this in a moment.

3. If evolution is true, the Sabbath is gone. According to the Bible, the seventh-day Sabbath is the eternal memorial of God’s creation of this earth, following six literal, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four-hour periods (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11; 31:16-17). How does the Bible Sabbath fit into a paradigm in which the natural world evolved into its present state over hundreds of millions of years? No one has yet offered an explanation as to how this is possible.

4. The Darwinian paradigm of origins is one in which cruelty, the suppression of the weak by the strong, and all in human history that flows from these practices become not only justifiable, but necessary in order for progress to occur. Many forget that this was a key reason why William Jennings Bryan—Biblical fundamentalist, political progressive, and thrice-nominated U.S. presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket (1896,1900,1908)—opposed the teaching of evolution in the famous Scopes Trial of 1925. A longtime defender of the poor and downtrodden, Bryan rightly denounced evolution as “a bloody, brutal doctrine” which, like the mob in Pilate’s judgment hall, demanded the death of Jesus and thus the rejection of His message of love and justice [##10|Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.##].

The wisdom or lack thereof shown by Bryan in his defense of creationism at the trial in question are not in focus here. But the logic behind his argument is difficult to dispute. The application of the Darwinian theory of origins to human affairs has justified economic oppression, racism, and wars of conquest. The poor and the weak become obstacles to the advancement of civilization, and are thus meant to be marginalized, even eliminated. Far from lying on a different plane from Biblical grace and mercy, evolution obliterates such virtues as impediments to progress, landing us squarely in the pages of Mein Kampf.

Conclusion: No Peace With Evolution

The article in question addresses the issue of the origins debate in the context of public education [11]—for the purposes of the present article, a separate issue. But for the above reasons, and likely others, no peace is possible between the Biblical worldview and Darwinian macroevolution. The Bible doctrines of sin, grace, mercy, salvation, and justice to the downtrodden have no place in the evolutionary paradigm—indeed, they clash directly with it. According to evolution, there never was a perfect world, and if one is ever to be, it will be accomplished—not through Biblical grace, compassion, and peace among God’s creatures—but through the brutal, merciless process of natural selection.

Those seeking harmony between evolution and the Bible must necessarily reject SDA Fundamental Belief No. 6, which affirms God’s supernatural creation of this world in six literal, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days, followed by a literal seventh-day Sabbath [12]. Those occupying the positions of leaders, pastors, and church members in the territory served by the publication in which the article in question appeared, must demand strict accountability from the author of this article, which will invariably lead to the application of church discipline to his case. No one holding the views expressed in his article has any right either to employment or to membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

REFERENCES

1. Alberto Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Don Schanche, “No Forgiveness ‘Directly from God,’ Pope Says,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1984, p. A12.

8. Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 6.

9. Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

10. Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), p. 295.

11. Valenzuela, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” Pacific Union Recorder, February 2026 https://www.adventistfaith.com/media/recorder/honoring-god-through-science-and-scripture?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

12. https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-6