I must admit some discomfort with the views of George and Dick. I am sure varous experts in many different areas can go on Dick's website and point out "obvious blunders". I have trouble with the idea that Dick wants to discredit Ross' entire view because he is weak in the biology area. And similarly, as you point out Gordon, even though many would be quick to cricized Ross' exegesis, as George seems to do, I am sure that experts could poke holes in his ideas as well.
So, where do we draw the line between well intentioned christian
scientists looking for truth, and those who are using less than rigorous
science to support their biased view? For example: personally, I have
a lot of trouble with, and can see the weak science in many of the AIG and
ICR reports, but is Hugh Ross the same? How do I know that Dick's
ideas are not the ones that are filled with bias and less than perfect
scrutiny?
------- Original Message --------
From: "gordon
brown"
To: "asa@calvin.edu"
CC:
Subject: Re: Kerkut
Date:
05/02/04
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, George Murphy wrote:
>
Dick Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Good. Maybe he'll answer a
question for you that you can pass to this
> > group. Why is it
that the professional, scholarly, scientific expertise
> > that he
applies meticulously to astrophysics are totally abandoned when he
>
> ventures into biology, genetics and anthropology? If he professes
no
> > expertise in these sciences, that's fine, why doesn't he
just say that and
> > keep his mouth shut?
> >
>
> Because he does have genuine scientific credentials in the area
of
> > astrophysics, it is often overlooked that he has no training
in the other
> > sciences. But nevertheless, he continues to
comment in the other areas of
> > science as if his training in
astrophysics qualifies him. Why doesn't he
> > either opt out from
making comments in those fields of science where he has
> >
continually demonstrated his lack of expertise, or consult with some
>
> honest, qualified scientists who can keep him from making obvious
blunders
> > in these areas.
> >
>
> & I
would add that I don't know whether or not he has any training in biblical
studies
> &/or theology. I know that this is a somewhat sensitive
point, since many protestants
> think that the priesthood of all
believers means that any Christian can open an English
> translation
of the Bible and interpret scripture with as much authority as a
Christian
> who does have some training in these areas. It
doesn't.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
Since Hugh
Ross now has an associate, Fazala Rana, who is supposed to be a
biologist
and presumably influences Ross, perhaps determining Rana's areas
of
expertise would be relevant in assessing the credibility of
Ross's
statements in the areas that Dick mentions.
I have heard
that Hugh Ross has studied Hebrew (maybe on his own (?)), but
as far as I
know, he has not had any formal theological training. I don't
believe
that a layman should always defer to a trained clergyman. Some
have been
led astray by doing that. The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were
commended for
checking out Paul's statements. I believe that all believers
should seek
to be educated theologically, but that doesn't necessarily
mean a formal
education with degrees. I perceive that many laymen on this
list are
theologically knowledgeable, and I respect their contributions to
the
discussions of the theological aspects of the issues discussed here.
Of
course, I also respect the contributions of those with
theological
degrees and am happy to learn from them what we laymen have
missed.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of
Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 05 2004 - 17:14:30 EST