http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/

(the Origins forum seems to have vanished, as planned, so I guess we're back to discussing this kind of stuff here... but if the mods want to move it elsewhere that's fine too)

Interesting guy but reading the interview really makes one pity him. He really tells a sad story. I am glad I came into the church when I did. A lot of people's faith was shaken because they were taught to believe Ellen White was something she wasn't and they ended up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Thanks for the pointer.

It is interesting to see how parallel his and my experiences were -

a childhood where we believed that we knew a truth that the evolutionists didn't, then

an awareness that the evidence for evolution was much more extensive and much stronger than we had been previously aware, combined with a realization that the recent creation models were inadequate

followed by an honest attempt to be true to both Christianity and the evidence

/Bevin

I think it's interesting (and great, of course) that you've managed to hold onto your faith in God where he hasn't.

One of the biggest steps for me was the realisation that a God powerful enough to create the universe would actually have enough 'cpu-power' available to be able to sift through the stars/planets for interesting things and to find life interesting.

It led to a mind-set change from one of

life on Earth is a tiny insignificant part of the universe

to

life is a fascinating local phenomona, in many ways much more interesting than two galaxies colliding

and then to the realisation that, perhaps, God created this whole complex universe in order to create something interesting and unpredictable to interact with.

Because I separated belief in God from a belief in a specific interpretation of specific documents, I was able to re-evaluate how I understood the documents without having to change my view of an immensely powerful God.

Personally, I don't see why an such a God would want people standing around Him singing "Holy Holy Holy" - instead He would want them off and doing interesting and unpredictable things, ...

I suspect God Himself does not yet know all the things that can be done within this complex physical universe He has made.

/Bevin

Ronald Numbers was not able to hang on to any type of faith in God and describes himself as agnostic. Quite the sad commentary. He does, however maintain more respect for anti-evolutionists than we are accostumed to seeing in this forum. He does not call them unscientific and explains that they are quite to contrary - they love science. They simply allow thier religion to choose the scientific model they believe in.

When one is more convinced of the inspiration of their scriptures than their ability to understand and interpret the natural evidence around them, it is only logical to let their religion choose the scientific model they believe in. However if they have reason to doubt their scriptures, then they have reason to place more trust in what they can see and feel. That is where many Adventists that were led to believe Ellen White was infallible found themselves.

I doubt Dr. Numbers is alone in his loss of faith. It is a good reason why Adventist fundamentalists shouldn't try to make Ellen White into something she never claimed to be.

I agree that its a sad story in many ways. I was suprised that he had lost his faith in a personal God. I feel that soon there is going to be a shaking (not meant in the typical SDA sense) over these issues.

I grew up with the notion that EGW was infallible. I remember sitting in science classes stoically rejecting everything that had to do with origins of this world that was not mentioned in scripture.

When I started ministry I had the blessing of inviting a couple of SDA scientists to my church who gave me a more rounded view of science and the Bible.

I healther approach to these topics would be to teach our children and our church members what we believe to be truth and what some of the other opinions are.

A group here at Andrews invited Ron to speak ... There was such an outcry that he was then not allowed to speak on campus and had to go to a Non SDA church.

I think it is a real shame that we as Adventists can't be open enough to hear anothers view on Creation.

I appreciate the questions and views of a wide variety of beliefs here on C/A.

Thank you guys.

Thanks, Redwood.

That's an interesting point, actually: we're usually very keen on making sure creationism is included as one of a range of positions on origins... but how careful are we to make sure evolution is included, and done justice to, as one of a range of positions in Adventist schools? The logic is basically the same, but my experience was similar to those described here: all we knew was mockery and rejection of any other views.

Hmmm. I never realized Ron Numbers is no longer an Adventist.
It's nice to know he's accepted as an expert by both the creationists and the evolutionists.

This article looks interesting. I'll have to join Salon so I can read it.

You can read it on a free 'day pass' after watching an ad if you don't want to subscribe.

A better compromise may have been to allow him to speak at Village church. It was probally wise not to let him speak at the univeristy. With the Adventist fundamentalists and conservative alumni the university really had nothing to gain by allowing that.

That said, if Dr. Numbers were willing to debate one of Andrews science professors, that is something that the university may be more open to happening on campus.

I spoke to a professor who attended Ron's lecture at this nonSDA church a few weeks ago . He felt that Ron didn't say anything controversial. He felt there was no reason that he couldn't have held the lecture on creationism at Andrews .

Don't classify all AU alumni in one box! I happily claim AU as my alma mater and I'm conservative only in my fundamental SDA beliefs [which do not include being afraid of new ideas].

In fact, the university students should definitely be exposed to varieties of thought on every topic. That's the age at which they begin to form their own belief system, leaving the nest of their parents and beginning to try their own wings. For many students, their individual belief system becomes stronger than that of their parents. For others, theirs becomes a larger view -- i.e., e.g., understanding that sin began in heaven, not in Eden.

We cannot expect to control our children after they become adults. They must of necessity learn to think for themselves, or we'll end up with a community of invalids.

Remember, even God lost a third of His unfallen angels. They chose to follow Lucifer. We cannot, must not, try to control the thinking of our university students except as we expose them to the beliefs we hold dear and warn them against predators. (And those teachings should have been started when they were toddlers, continuing on throughout their adolescence.)

Thanks, Bravus.

Will do.

I suspect there is liberal, moderate and conservtive alumni. I was only making a point that the conservative alumni would have a problem with it. And of course, those that would make the biggest fuss are the ones that wouldn't have attended and would be completely uninformed about what was said.

I do believe we ought to teach what to think instead of how to think. From what I read, Dr. Numbers seems like exactly the type of person that could particiapte in a debate or discussion about orgins without turning it into a dog fight. I would think our universities could find a way of inviting him to our campuses without too much controversy but the conservative element of the church needs to be considered.

Did you really mean that, or is it a typo?

/Bevin

Looks like I got that reversed.

In the issue of creationism, public schools in the US teach kids what to think and not how to think. That could change with philosophy of science classes. Christian schools are probbally just as guilty of this as well.

Glad you corrected that Shane I was beginning to wonder about you.

Very interesting.