Re: Letter from Reasons to Believe

I agree with Wayne that Hugh Ross is strong on astronomy (as one would
expect given his backgound) but week on biology and related sciences..
As I see it, this is related to the fact that Ross interprets the Bible
in as literal a manner as possible given that his training in astronomy
prevents him from adopting a YEC view. Even such poetic expressions as
God stretching out the heavens are related by Ross to scientific
phenomena -- in this instance the modern view of an expanding universe.
Such an approach is bound to get him into trouble with inconsistencies
at some stage.
Don

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

>
> Putting the long disputed matter of concordance aside for
> a moment..., when Hugh Ross talks about astronomy, he
> basically knows what he's talking about. I remember
> my initial impression of him was, "finally some evangelicals
> are starting to talk some sense again."
>
> But then I found out how he managed the issue of Adam,
> and I sunk back into a hole somewhere. I can't figure
> out why he is so rock stuck on this issue. Maybe it is
> the same bit as the creationists on humans being a
> "unique creation". Yet since God is the alpha and the
> omega, knower and creator of all things visible and
> invisible, we already are, no matter _how_ we came about.
>
> Evidently, this is generating a spin on Hugh's treatment of
> fossil man.
>
> His self confidence with astronomy issues has probably
> paid off on a few occasions, but biology is far less clean
> and clear. It seems much safer to say "we don't know what
> this means", and not draw too much inference on it's
> implications until we have a lot more to go on.
>
> Maybe biologist learn to live with a very hard-to-do
> research; where the possibilities are manifold. On
> the other hand, biochemists may deal with problems
> similar to those of physicists; where the possible
> set of scenarios are few.
>
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
Received on Wed May 24 21:34:19 2006