tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post9017119639586114241..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Hugh Ross' shocking fairy taleStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-74654738477064540912008-05-12T20:53:00.000-07:002008-05-12T20:53:00.000-07:00David--a) Here's the link to the Amazon page for t...David--<BR/>a) <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576835782" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> the link to the Amazon page for the book. It was written by Hugh Ross. If that section wasn't written by Ross, then he's guilty of another type of misconduct. Ick.<BR/>b) An ignoramus who writes on topics about which he is ignorant, with the casual confidence of Ross, is irresponsible and untrustworthy. This was my point.<BR/>c) The topic of whether Ross is "lying" has been dealt with extensively in <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-folk-science-and-lies-back-to-basics.html" REL="nofollow">subsequent discussion on this blog</A> and on <A HREF="http://holyskinandbone.blogspot.com/2008/03/honest-when-youre-telling-lie.html" REL="nofollow">Kevin Corcoran's blog</A>. Maybe you'll feel differently when you've read more. I've disavowed using the word 'lie' to describe Ross' disturbingly irresponsible behavior, but absent an apology and/or a significant effort to actually learn a little about biology, I maintain that Hugh Ross is an utterly untrustworthy source of information on genetics, biological evolution, or any related topic.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-15846383867267978042008-05-12T14:58:00.000-07:002008-05-12T14:58:00.000-07:00Steve -- could it be that (a) Ross didn't personal...Steve -- could it be that (a) Ross didn't personally write that section of the book; (b) the person who wrote it wasn't well informed; and (c) the result is an embarrassing mess, but not a deliberate lie? <BR/><BR/>I have a hard time reading and crediting your stuff with all these accusations of intent flying around. It starts to sound like some kind of personal vendetta.dopderbeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464721595750013279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-85544514790306350202008-03-14T22:28:00.000-07:002008-03-14T22:28:00.000-07:00Like jsbangs, Hugh Ross was an author I read a num...Like jsbangs, Hugh Ross was an author I read a number of years ago and he critiqued the insistance on a young earth as damaging to the gospel. The book I read (I don't remember which) said that he Gen. account was from the perspective of the earth, so light is coming in through the gas, etc.<BR/><BR/>At the time I didn't know anything else and like you say, it's a raft of sorts. I wonder if Hugh Ross later sort of got sucked in to the point where he now writes these sorts of books like you describe. <BR/><BR/>One thought is that even 15 years ago, which maybe was around the time I read his book, there weren't blogs and things like that where people could easily get information. There weren't too many books around either (except that it always amazes me to realize that <I>The Christian View of Science and Scripture</I> by Bernard Ramm was published in something like 1959, and it was all there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-57256588283375709382008-03-10T20:13:00.000-07:002008-03-10T20:13:00.000-07:00Hi jsbangs--I'm glad you brought this up, because ...Hi jsbangs--<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you brought this up, because I do think that RTB's old-earth creationism can be enormously helpful to those who know that the young-earth position is hurting them. This is what I was trying to get at in my parable in the <A HREF="http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2007/12/de-bunking-not-debunking.html" REL="nofollow">post on de-bunking</A>. Basically, I see RTB as a potentially useful raft on which one might escape from the destructive wasteland of Ham et al. (with an important exception granted to high-integrity YECs like the neocreationists of the BSG). Maybe a more apt metaphor is one in which RTB's old-earth position is an intermediate form between primitive creationism and full-grown evolutionary creationism. :-)<BR/><BR/>This is why I'm trying to make it clear that my first and most important objection to RTB's folk science is <I>not</I> an objection to their exegesis (which is pathetic, actually) or to their views on the supernatural. My objection is to their dishonesty and misconduct in the presentation of biology.<BR/><BR/>As near as I can tell, Ross gets the basics of astronomy and cosmology right. His work on biology, on the other hand, is so laughably bad that it threatens to erase any credit that he might otherwise have earned from real scientists, believing or not.<BR/><BR/>So, to reiterate my point from the parable of "The New Bicycles," while I can see the utility of a bicycle that gets you to a better place, I do want to urge Christians to avoid the bikes at RTB, at least until their dangerous flaws are fixed. And I still think the better choice is to skip the bike altogether, and walk.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-33730972211174230742008-03-10T08:45:00.000-07:002008-03-10T08:45:00.000-07:00I find this series about Hugh Ross interesting and...I find this series about Hugh Ross interesting and a little disappointing. Ross's _The Creator and the Cosmos_ was instrumental in converting me away from young-earth creationism, as in that book he's blatantly old-earth and accepts the standard cosmological accounts. What impressed me was the idea that you don't have to be a 6-day creationist in order to believe that God is the creator and that creation declares his glory. Giving me "permission" to believe this was what I needed in order to get away from the Ken Hamm crowd.<BR/><BR/>IIRC Ross is an astronomer, not a biologist. I haven't found significant fault with his astronomy, but maybe his biology is shoddier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-55565153113500880712008-03-08T14:04:00.000-07:002008-03-08T14:04:00.000-07:00Thanks John! The RTB people aren't affiliated at ...Thanks John! The RTB people aren't affiliated at all with the DI, as far as I know. But Ross and Rana strongly recommend ID books and materials, and they sell them on their site.<BR/>Pete, I haven't heard anything from RTB at all, though I only monitor their "blog" and don't listen to their audio shows, so I could easily miss a rejoinder. I contacted them, twice, in the early days of the blog, and told them I was as interested in dialogue as they claim to be. (They openly declared this at a by-invitation event at Calvin last year.) Sad to say, I don't believe they want dialogue at all; their folk science is not meant to advance scientific understanding, and they are careful to avoid serious interaction with real scientists. Like most Christian folk science, their work has purely apologetic aims.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-36582300527063046582008-03-08T00:12:00.000-07:002008-03-08T00:12:00.000-07:00Steve,Do you ever receive any correspondence from ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Do you ever receive any correspondence from members of Reasons to Believe? Keep us informed especially if they respond to this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-51318994903178880612008-03-07T11:05:00.000-07:002008-03-07T11:05:00.000-07:00This one's a beaut, Steve. I wonder what 'institut...This one's a beaut, Steve. I wonder what 'institutes' Ross is affiliated with....John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.com