1Current Science and Ellen White: 12 Controversial Statements1 Jerry Moon, 2007 Certain statements by Ellen White seem to conflict with current understandings in the natural sciences. It is well known that some of her statements contradicted scientific thinking at the time she wrote, but have since received broad scientific support, such as her denunciation of tobacco as a poison (4SG 128 [1864]), and her recommendation of a balanced, varied vegetarian diet as preferable to a diet including flesh food. The “problematic statements” may be grouped in three general categories: (1) statements that were considered sound advice at the time they were given, and that would still be sound advice if the same conditions still prevailed, such as her warnings about wigs, too-tight corsets, toxic cosmetics, and possible problems with cheese; (2) statements on which there is partial and increasing scientific support, including disease from “miasma,” a connection between pork-eating and leprosy, the influence of a wet-nurse on a nursing infant, and risks associated with extreme age differences between spouses; and (3) statements in harmony with commonly accepted thinking at the time they were given, but which remain partially or wholly unconfirmed by science in the 21st century, such as the causes of volcanoes, the height of the antediluvians, amalgamation of humans and animals, and the physical effects of masturbation. This article addresses 12 topics, grouped under categories 1-3, above, and evaluated on the basis of six foundational premises. To be valid, these premises must be biblical. To be 1This is a pre-publication draft of an article, “Science, Controversial Statements,” The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, forthcoming).2relevant to the argument, they must also be consistent with the broad principles of Ellen White’s thinking. For these reasons it is necessary that each of these principles be grounded both in Scripture and in the writings of Ellen White. The first major premise is that Scripture portrays an infallible God speaking through fallible prophets, whom God would correct when necessary to protect His truth (Gen 20:7; 2 Sam 7:3-13). The wide variety of style and expression among the biblical writers supports the view that God revealed concepts to the prophets, but that the prophets’ human individuality played a part in the choice of specific words by which the divinely-revealed concepts were expressed. For a biblical exposition of this topic, see Peter van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 22-57. Ellen White’s position is that inspiration is not dictational, except on rare occasions, but rather results from “a union of the divine and the human” in such a way that the message from God “is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language” (GC v-vii). Thus the written word expresses the human individuality of the prophet, but is protected from errors that would hinder the divine purpose. A second major premise is that human knowledge in all fields is incomplete, but increasing (1Cor 8:2; 13:9-12). In White’s terms, “human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect” (GC 522), and “knowledge is progressive” (GC 677-678). In revelation, Ellen White held that new truth amplifies old truth, but does not contradict it. “That which was truth in the beginning is truth now. Although new and important truths appropriate for succeeding generations have been opened to the understanding, the present3revealings do not contradict those of the past. Every new truth understood only makes more significant the old” (RH, March 2, 1886; cf. GC 297). Individual religious experience is also “progressive” (CT 281, Ev 355, FW 85), as education must also be (CSW 103, EV 105). Because human understanding is always limited, in both science and revelation, improved understanding can correct previous misunderstandings. Both science and revelation, therefore, must be read in historical context. For example, since 1930 when Pluto was discovered, there were nine known planets in our solar system. That number changed with the discovery of Xena, a planet-like object slightly larger than Pluto. Rather than recognize 12 or more planets of diminishing size, the International Astronomical Union wrote a formal definition of “planet” that leaves only eight. Pluto and several similar-sized objects are now called dwarf planets (J. Adler, Newsweek, September 4, 2006, 44-50). A corollary to the premise that knowledge is progressive, is that in all fields of specialization, specialists attach more precise, technical meanings to words that nonspecialists use in more general ways. Furthermore, both technical and common terminology change over time. The best guide to an author’s intended meaning is how the same author uses the same term in other places, while recognizing that even within one author’s work, terms may not always be used in identical ways. A third premise is that the messages of the biblical prophets were not esoteric utterances disconnected from the issues of real life (1 Cor 14:6-9), but were given for the guidance of all people (1 Kings 8:43), in all situations of life (Deut 6:6-9; 2 Chron 20:20). They were given for “practical purposes” (1SM 20). Accordingly, Ellen White makes frequent appeals to “common sense” in matters of health, religion, and all of life (CT 258, Ed 220, Ev 540). “The Bible with its4precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone. On the contrary, it was designed for the common people; and the interpretation given by the common people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Jesus” (5T 331, emphasis supplied). This suggests that to assume a technical meaning where none was intended may lead to a misunderstanding of the prophetic message. A fourth premise builds on the third: because the messages are given for practical purposes, both the instruction and the explanation are tailored to the historical context of the people to whom it is addressed. For example, in the regulations about clean and unclean flesh foods in Lev 11, the instruction is clear: “You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud