Dr. Ronny Nalin has been appointed the new Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) Director effective August 1, 2020. As an Italian, Dr. Ronny Nalin represents the international staff of scientists at GRI, with Spanish, American and Australian colleagues. He received his higher education at the University of Padova, where Galileo taught and many eminent pioneers in science and medicine studied. There he earned a doctorate in Earth Sciences. During his studies, he spent several months as an international student at the University of Leicester, UK, and then as visiting scholar at the University of Waikato, New Zealand. His first collaboration with GRI came through a summer field assistantship while still a graduate student.
I don’t know about the policy, but in real life it’s always like this: If the Bible says it, it’s open for discussion. If EGW says it, there is no room for any discussion, just for mere obedience."
After 60 years of financial funding received from hard earned money given by faithful givers, has the GRI come up with definitive evidence that our universe was created in a “recent” seven literal days per SDA Fundamental Belief No. 6?
research results contradicting the bible always reflect a set of assumptions…my guess is that GRI, like other creation science enterprises, don’t indulge those assumptions…
All faith is based on assumptions. There is no research validating the biblical rendition of creation that does not take as its basis certain assumptions of faith.
Besides…what legitimate scientific study doesn’t already assume that there could be at least two possible outcomes to a hypothesis? Oh, my head is already spinning.
I know, why don’t we just do away with those “assumptions”? It would make all those “results” simply go away and there would be no “biblical” contradictions. POOF…gone for ever!
If anyone is interested in GRI’s assumptions, I have been attempting to goad them into an honest discussion of them on their Facebook page. Trolling is an odd way to challenge one of the church’s institutions, but I had already given up on more private correspondence with them. Assumptions and biases are very important, as GRI often points out. However, like most creationists, they want to convince people that since we all have biases, we should make them the basis of our scientific method! That really, really doesn’t work as an epistemology, and it’s not science. Although we all have biases, in science we must systematically work to limit them and be critical of them as much as is possible. GRI does not do that, yet calls itself a scientific organization. To me, that seems like an obvious lie.
Much more at the link below for anyone who values truth more than tradition. If it seems ranty and angry, well, it’s because I’m angry. I’m finally seeing how obvious the lies are, and how they are being systematically taught to children. The church has to do better, and those who care about truth more than propaganda must hold it accountable for the harm of these teachings. It’s immoral and shameful.
Funny, I’ve been asking them these exact questions on their Facebook page, and they seem to have admitted to a whole LOAD of unfounded assumptions. In fact, in their materials they clearly state that nature does not provide clear evidence for God, and invoking a “designer” is outside the realm of repeatable, testable reality on which we base science. As far as I can see, they’re doing science, but then not connecting their work with any conclusions about the world whatsoever, and dismissing any concerns about that approach to knowledge with an appeal to “faith” and some clumsy theological slight of hand.
Congratulations Ronny! If I had to describe him I would use: awesome enthusiasm for rocks in all shapes and colors, great teaching ability, empathy, very fun (!) to be around, ability to admit where current science and Bible interpretation don’t match, respect for scientists with a different world view, respect for people in general. I am, even as a non scientist and with another biblical interpretation, truly happy for this humble Christian scientist. If more Adventists with a recent creation world view would be like him, we with a different world view would get along much better and dialogue would be much easier.
It seems clear that the GRI is an evangelistic tool of the SDA church. To rail against its distrust or non-use of some of the tenets of science is nonproductive. As Steven Jay Gould and others have discussed, religion and science operate in different domains of inquiry.
I would go further and say that religion and science approach knowledge and inquiry in very different ways. I think that is true for any combination of disciplines, but these two seem at opposite ends of the spectrum way too often. And, in some minds, there can be no rational discussion…
Yeah, but they should probably be honest about their objectives and the implications of their science, shouldn’t they? That’s what bugs me so much. Although I suppose it’s in the best SDA tradition to sacrifice the 9th commandment at the altar of the 4th…
I am more inclined to ignore it and allow it to die out with disuse as seems to be happening (or has happened) with the doctrine of the investigative judgement.
