Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
Understanding Ellen White - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    Chapter Thirteen - Ellen White and Science

    Jerry Moon and Tim Standish1The content of this chapter is generally indebted to Roger W. Coon and, in particular sections, Jud Lake and Michael Campbell.

    Ellen White displayed a positive attitude toward the study of science and encouraged believers “to gain a knowledge of the sciences.” 2Ellen G. White [EGW], Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 2:301. She was unsparing, however, in her denunciation of those who “exalt nature above nature’s God, . . . the Author of all true science.” 3EGW, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1923), 328, 329. While supporting science, she rejected placing science in opposition to the Bible. Her condemnation was particularly focused on geology where it contradicted the biblical record:UEGW 180.1

    Science is ever discovering new wonders; but she brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.UEGW 180.2

    Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation. . . . Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. 4EGW, Education (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press®, 1903), 128, 129.UEGW 180.3

    Ellen White also criticized nineteenth-century medicine. A commonly prescribed laxative was calomel or chloride of mercury. Calomel produced immediate and violent bowel movements, but the inevitable side effect was mercury poisoning. Tartrate of antimony, also a “lethal poison,” was given to induce vomiting. For patients who were debilitated, doctors prescribed “tonics” such as arsenic, strychnine, quinine, or opium. 5William G. Rothstein, American Physicians in the Nineteenth Century: From Sects to Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), 45-55, 194, 261-266.Ellen White denounced most of these by name, correctly pointing out that “preparations of mercury and calomel taken into the system ever retain their poisonous strength as long as there is a particle of it left in the system.” 6EGW, Spiritual Gifts: Important Facts of Faith, Laws of Health, and Testimonies Nos. 1-10 (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing, 1864), 4:139UEGW 180.4

    Instead, she encouraged a healthy lifestyle and the use of harmless remedies. “Pure air, sunlight, abstemiousness [temperance], rest, exercise, proper diet, the use of water, trust in divine power—these are the true remedies”7EGW, The Ministry of Healing (Washington, DC: Review and Herald®, 1905), 127. Most of her health teachings enjoy broader scientific support now than they did when first written. For example, she denounced tobacco as a “malignant” poison. 8EGW, Spiritual Gifts, 4:128. She recommended whole grains as nutritionally preferable to refined flour, vegetable oils as healthier to eat than animal fats, and a balanced, varied, vegetarian diet as preferable to a diet including flesh food. A few statements, however, have been questioned from the perspective of twenty-first-century science.UEGW 181.1

    This chapter addresses thirteen statements by Ellen White that some believe are in direct or partial conflict with current understandings in the natural sciences. These statements can be divided into three categories: (1) Four considered to be sound advice at the time, and would still be considered sound under the same circumstances. (2) Three for which there is full, partial, or tentative scientific support. (3) Six that are either unclear as to their original meaning or remain at least partially inconsistent with current scientific opinion.UEGW 181.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents