|
Post by element771 on Jul 31, 2008 21:14:22 GMT
Hi,
I have run across a couple of articles and lectures by Hugh Ross. I have also read some critiques by of his findings by Mark Perakh...some of which I have found seriously lacking.
How credible do you find Hugh Ross to be? Perakh says some pretty mean stuff regarding Ross and just wanted to know if he was merely trying to poison the well.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Aug 1, 2008 16:14:13 GMT
Hi there,
I've read one of Ross's books and browsed his website.
He knows something of the science behind what he says but he is not in the business of explaining science. His interest is apologetics through and through. There is nothing wrong with that, but I fear he cherry picks science to an extent I find borders on the unacceptable. If you want to use science for apologetics you have to take it as it comes, rather than just the bits that appeal.
Thus, I'd say Ross doesn't have the credibility he'd have if he took the science as seriously as he takes the Bible.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Aug 1, 2008 20:29:03 GMT
That is what I was afraid of.
Would you say that he is sloppy or merely trying to only report on the findings that support the Bible?
Some of the critics seem to imply that he mishandles the data. I think there is a huge difference in only reporting facts that correspond with the Bible (if they are legit) and slanting research / only reporting certain facts in order to shoehorn them into the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by TheistusMaximus on Aug 4, 2008 9:35:56 GMT
Ross and Reasons to believe are fine, though some of their anti-evolution material is pretty annoying. They have some interesting stuff on fine-tuning, theology, the claims and evidence for Jesus (though it's not exactly new revolutionary stuff), etc. etc.
Perakh in 'Unintelligent Design' lays out a convincing case against ID and Ross, but his ad hominem form of argumentation detracts from the entire book, and his disdain of theism was somewhat offensive. Ken Miller is a far better read in both "Finding Darwins' God" and "Only A Theory."
|
|
|
Post by element771 on Aug 4, 2008 14:35:50 GMT
I found the same thing with regarding their anti-evolution material....unfortunately this led me to be skeptical of their other material.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Wragg on Oct 20, 2008 7:47:30 GMT
I have only read one of Ross' books. I cannot remember the name of it. He concentrated a lot on the fine tuned universe stuff. He is a physicist so why not?
But I have trouble with his interpretation of the bible. To me it was far too anachronistic. He reads modern scientific ideas into an ancient Hebrew text. For instance, this is from my recollections, he sees stuff like the big bang and cosmic expansion in texts like "He stretches forth the heavens like a tent".
People may come to the text with these sorts of scientific questions in mind today, but I sincerely doubt that people in the Ancient Near East were thinking about these things.
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Oct 20, 2008 8:21:12 GMT
I like Hugh Ross, and I think RTB has a lot to offer, but I also think they sometimes read too much into the Bible. I'm skeptical of his interpretation of Gen. 1, although I think he makes some very good points. He works hard to show consonance between the Bible and science, but, as James wrote, he seems to cherry-pick certain things. I think The Creator and the Cosmos is quite good, but when he steps outside of astronomy and cosmology he's much shakier.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 3, 2008 14:51:07 GMT
I had a listen to one of his talks here. static.veritas.org/media/files/A95MICH08.mp3Some of it is interesting but you can find far better stuff on the Faraday Institute site regarding Genesis. I like his 'university course' analogy towards the problem of evil. Once he gets on to subjects like Noah's flood and 'where did Cain's wife come from?' he begins to sounds utterly crazy. When he tried to argue that lifespans in ancient Sumeria could have been as long as 1000 years due to a supernova, a point he mercifully did not develop, I decided to switch off. Overall its a very mixed bag. I think in these matters it is best to be mindful of the words of Origen: 'Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual event'
|
|