Re: Kerkut

"Drsyme" wrote:

>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.

If anyone finds "blunders" on my web site, I'll correct them, that's where
Ross and I differ. How do we decide what constitutes a blunder? Simple,
we use data and evidence - the stuff of science. For example, I contend we
share common ancestors with creatures more hairy. Ross says we don't. I
have biological and genetic evidence. He has zilch.

Now, if a Bible scholar, such as John MacArthur or Rev. Falwell, wants to
deny mutual, shared common ancestry on the basis of how they read their
Bibles, we can excuse their ignorance because they aren't in a position to
know, or even to know how to evaluate scientific evidence. Ah, but one who
has a doctorate in science is supposed to know, or at least is presumed to
know how to weigh scientific evidence.

>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?

Hugh Ross advocates everything that ICR and AIG do with one caveat, the
universe is old and the earth is old. One small step for a man, not much
closer to a workable solution.

> How do I know that Dick's ideas are not the ones that are filled with
> bias and less than perfect scrutiny?

Ask me :>). Okay, I don't know how to set up a real test, but I can do a
hypothetical test. Imagine that you have three conferences of scientists
with, say, 1,000 scientists at each conference. And the disciplines are
cosmology, biology, and genetics. Hugh presents his view of cosmology and
gets a 95+% approval. I follow and say, "I agree with Hugh." My approval
rating is the same. Now we go to the other two conferences where Hugh
wouldn't get five percent agreement in either. I would just say I agree
with Ken Miller and Francis Collins. I get cheers, he gets boos.

The idea that man is disconnected from the phyletic tree of life won't wash
with those who have degrees in those areas of science. Essentially, that's
the difference. Give experts their due. Don't make a habit of disagreeing
with people who know more about a particular subject than you do. You are
quite likely to be wrong.

Now, are there those who disagree with me theologically? Yes, but I have a
masters degree in theology and corroborate my beliefs with historical
evidence. Sure, I could be wrong, we all can be wrong. But we are less
likely to be wrong if side with those who make their living knowing those
things instead of acting as if we know more than they do in their own area
of expertise!

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Thu Feb 5 21:00:18 2004