Re: Letter from Reasons to Believe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: 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.

I.e., while Hugh is certainly a competent astronomer, that competence
doesn't extend to the way he tries to read modern astronomy (& a fortiori,
other areas of science) into the Bible.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu May 25 07:46:16 2006