When I went door to door I think I met at least two men who were SDA. I think that because when I met them on a Saturday they both asked me which day do I observe the Sabbath. They probably incorrectly thought I was profiting financially as a literal salesperson for the WT literature and thus breaking the Sabbath while in field service, instead acting purely as a minister/evangelist.
Regarding the idea of SDA letting down students in their school, at leas tin regards to evolution verses special creationism, see https://adventist.news/news/wilson-no-room-for-evolution-as-truth-in-adventist-schools . Regarding whether non-evolutionary creationism is compatible with scientific knowledge, the following except from the web page is interesting.
'Arthur V. Chadwick, a geologist and professor at Southwestern
Adventist University, said scientists have to rely on faith no matter
whether they support creation or evolution.
“As we evaluate the
data, we see things that are problems for creationists and we see things
that are problems for evolutionists,” he said by phone ahead of the
conference. “No one can claim that they believe one more than the other
because it is not transparent, it leaves the possibility of choice.”
Chadwick
has devoted his entire career to finding scientific evidence that
supports creationism and has published more than 50 research articles in
mainstream journals. He was to present some of his latest findings at
the conference.'
I don't agree that my conviction in evolution (and what I call evolutionism, namely the sum of cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution, and cultural evolution) requires faith, at least not in the sense in which I define the word "faith". But, I do admit there are difficulties with evolution. For example there are many gaps in the known fossil record which prevent us from seeing all of the transitional stages in human evolution and in the evolution of other "kinds" of life. In my studying of scientific literature pertaining to evolution I don't see a clear path from the genus Australopithecus (nor any other genus other than the genus Homo) to the species Homo sapiens. Some of the fossils that were thought for years to belong in the genus Homo and/or to belong to a species which was an actual ancestral species (often called a direct ancestor) of Homo sapiens, no longer are considered such. For example Homo habilis is now considered to have led to dead end and the fossil ER-1470 now appears to belong to the genus Kenyanthropus rather than Homo. Recent fossils of upper and lower jaws and teeth, which are a perfect match for the face of ER-1470, have a rectangular jaw and thus have a very apelike jaw. Also some recent reconstructions of the numerous fragments of the skull of ER-1470 result in a considerably reduced cranial volume and/or vault for ER-1470 than the original reconstruction. I thus no longer believe that ER-1470 belonged to a species in the genus Homo nor a species ancestral to the genus Homo. That is very disappointing to me.
The fossil ER-1470 was once considered so important that it is shown on the front cover of the dust jacket of the 1977 anthropology book called ORIGINS: What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species and its Possible Future, by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin.
Correction of major typos in my first post: Where I wrote "... the WT such have learned ..." I should have wrote "the WT should have learned ...". Where I said "In video Ellen ... must stop spreading their teaches or leave ... Ellen's dad they will not stop ... This video has the someone apparently acting the role ... is done in a "modern times" ... I don't which year ..." I should have said "In the video Ellen ... must stop spreading their teachings or leave ... Ellen's dad said they will not stop ... This video has someone apparently acting the role ... is done in "modern times" ... I don't know which year ...".
In my second post where I wrote "of it when a came across ..." I should have wrote "of it when I came across ...".