|
|
Post by Josh on May 19, 2008 15:40:27 GMT -8
I just found out Dr. Hugh Ross is speaking at Lake Grove Presbyterian Church Saturday night June 7th at 7:00 PM. The topic will be: "Harnessing the Power of Science for Evangelism". He's a PHD in astro-physics and head of the apologetics organization Reasons to Believe.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Ross several times and I have a lot of respect for him- both as an apologist and as a human being. I'm sure any of you who are interested in apologetics would find one of his lectures invigorating, even if you found some disagreements.
Let me know if you want to go. I'd love to get a group to attend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 3, 2008 18:46:21 GMT -8
Chris, Robin, Sonlyte, and others interested,
I have numerous cds by Dr. Hugh Ross if you're ever interested in getting his take on science and faith. I support his ministry and receive a cd each month. Recently he did a two-part series on the age of the earth- part I from a biblical perspective and part II from a scientific one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2008 21:27:39 GMT -8
We weren't disappointed tonight, as usual. Good stuff. If any of you can make it to see him in the future, it's well worth it.
I picked up a book for the church library (Jeremy's starting with it first) as well as some kids books that Justus and I are going to read through. If you're interested in what old-earth progressive creation kids materials would look like, let me know and you can borrow them.
Oh, and I just realized I never got to posting about why I think the age of the earth is an important apologetic issue. I have some renewed energy for the topic, so hopefully I'll get to that soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 9, 2008 8:55:48 GMT -8
I started the book Josh purchased ("Creation as Science") this weekend. (I just realized the meaning of the title late yesterday). The subtitle of the book is something like A Testable Model to End the Creation/Evolution Debate. This seems to be the main thrust of the book (i'm just starting chapter 4). Dr. Ross (an astrophysist/pastor) along with Reasons To Believe (RTB) team is proposing a model of the cosmos and earth's history and humanity that can be tested (verified or falsified) that best matches the leading edge research in the scientific community as well as what the Bible tells us about the world. The model must address over 85 specific questions (the age of universe at 13.7b yrs, the age of the earth 4.5b, plus many other scientific AND spiritual issues). Ross notes that proposing such a model encourages the world to propose other models that can be tested scientifically (as Paul says to the Thessalonians "Test everything. Hold onto the good"). As with the scientific method the RTB model Ross is proposing, predicts what we will find in future scientific discoveries. If a model is a good one, it should make good predictions. And as good science goes, you hold on the best ideas, until a better one comes along that better fits the data. As for the debate aspect: The young-earth (~10k yrs old) teaching that young-earthers would like in schools has been rejected in the courts not for religious reasons, but because it lacks a scientifically credible model. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement was a poor response to this rejection. ID's goal has been to remove the religious from the movement, maybe in hopes that it will be readily more acceptable. The problem though is that the courts rejected teaching of creation because young earth "science" is based on poor science. The world easily sees through the attempts of the ID movement as just a "young-earth" in a sheep's clothing, since primary financial support for the ID movement comes from young-earthers. Ross says that new information advances from graduate, undergraduate, secondary and finally elementary school in that order. By the time it reaches, elementary the theory is generally well-accepted. (In 1916, there was no secondary teaching or below (haha) for general relativity, but in my HS physics and college classes (1997), relativity has whole chapter allotments). I haven't got into the guts of the book chp 4-9 (the actual RTB model presentation) but i'm excited to start. Okay i have to get back to work.  Jeremy |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2008 16:00:33 GMT -8
Thanks, Jer. Nice synopsis so far on the key ideas. Keep it coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 9, 2008 16:05:57 GMT -8
Hello all you Hugh Ross fans,
I would like to respond to a couple things that Jeremy wrote, and hopefully I will not offend any of you who hold Dr. Ross in high esteem.
WOW! He is going to end the debate? What an undertaking. Hugh Ross is either the most intelligent person to walk on the face of the earth, or he believes he is. I am not apposed to someone wanting to defend their position, and maintain that their own position is the only logical one (whether correct or not). However confident he is, I suspect that the debate will rage on long ofter Dr. Ross is finished with his work. By the way, I would have the same reaction if Dr. Jason Lisle (a young earth astrophysicist) made the same claim. I'm all for debate, but I think a humble acknowledgment of ones ability to end, or not end, but only effect the debate is in order.
If what you say is true (and I don't suspect you to be misleading), then we have a problem with Judges (who are not scientists) determining where science can lead. Would we not be better off allowing the scientific evidence on both sides of the argument to be presented, challenged, and refuted or accepted? If this is true, it can hardly be stated that we are teaching our children to seek the best scientific answers to difficult questions. If the old earthers are so confident in their position, then it is imperative that the debate be allowed to rage on in schools at all levels. If they are correct, then the young eathers and the science behind them will be laughed out of the classroom. However I suspect that many in the scientific community have an agenda, and nothing will get in their way. Not even science. It would be my view that Dr. Ross and those who hold his view would be well served by encouraging this debate in the classroom. If I am confident in any position I hold, then I invited debate, in order to show the fallacy in my opponents position.
I would like to say more but I must run.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2008 16:16:06 GMT -8
Robin, thanks for joining in. The idea here is not that Dr. Ross is by sheer force of personality going to end the debate. The idea is that the only way out of the deadlock is through all sides coming up with testable models.
Scientific theories only pass into accepted fact by a continued, ongoing process of passing tests (taking for granted that they must make falsifiable claims), fulfilling predictions, etc..
There was a time when heliocentric theory might have been considered beyond the realm of provability, but only through the scientific method has it moved beyond the realm of theory to fact. Likewise, we can test claims about the age of the earth and continuously refine cosmological models... if they are at least testable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2008 16:42:21 GMT -8
If what you say is true (and I don't suspect you to be misleading), then we have a problem with Judges (who are not scientists) determining where science can lead. Would we not be better off allowing the scientific evidence on both sides of the argument to be presented, challenged, and refuted or accepted?
The reason the young-earth position doesn't get into textbooks is simply that it almost totally relies upon attacking other positions and not putting forth a testable model.
So, I agree with you that challenges to any model should be discussed in classroom, and if they are significant enough, might be mentioned even in textbooks, but I agree with the idea that if there is no good science to back up a positive claim (such as that the earth is merely 6,000-10,000 years old) then that claim shouldn't be in textbooks.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 9, 2008 20:16:08 GMT -8
Hate to barge in, but a few things come to mind as I'm reading here.
Josh wrote:
The question I would have is: How do we reduce a singular historic event to a "testable model"? Miracles are not a matter of science, but history are they not?
I think I would both agree and disagree here. I would argue that the bible is a textbook of sorts and is legitimate to be used in some classrooms (like ours at home and other private schools). But I also agree that it shouldn't be imposed in the public classrooms. However, I would also apply that same standard to the flimsy theory (if it can even be called a theory) of Darwinian macro-evolution, which is based more on speculation than observation IMO.
In our house, both sides of the YEC and OEC argument will be served, as well as Darwinian evolution, with a heaping side dish of discernment skills.
I'm still not decided on the issue and I'd love to have a look at some of Ross's stuff. Or better yet, maybe a listen would be more realistic for my time budget at the present (Didn't you say you had some CD's?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2008 21:45:38 GMT -8
In astrophysics, you can directly observe the past... in fact, everything you are observing/ testing is history. We can see pictures of the universe at various stages in its formative history-- for instance, the cosmic microwave background radiation image gives us a snapshot of the universe at a mere 400,000 years old:  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 10, 2008 8:50:52 GMT -8
Let me rephrase my question with an example from a miracle of Jesus.
Jesus' first recorded miracle was at a wedding in Cana, turning water into wine.
If someone were to run a lab analysis on the wine, they would very logically and reasonably conclude that the stuff came from grapes. But we know it didn't because we have information the lab doesn't...namely a revelatory testimony that it was a miraculous change from H2O to fermented fruit. That's the difference. The lab guy can stick to his data and say the revelation is false, but he would be wrong. ?No?
It's the same thing when atheists deny the truth claims of the gospels. They're really simply doubting the honesty of the eye-witnesses when it comes down to it.
Likewise, if we simply say the only valid admissible evidence is a "testable model" of creation, we leave ourselves with incomplete data do we not?
In my mind, history of miraculous events (like say...creating a universe) is very much dependent upon special revelation by the creator.
I don't deny the usefulness of science to discover things about this universe. However, how do we know that God means for us to discover it's age by means of scientific method? Maybe He just wants us to take His word for it, like in the case of the wine. I'm not sure how we would know for sure unless He decides to reveal that.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 10, 2008 11:13:16 GMT -8
Hi Christopher,
I agree with you. The plain reading of scripture gives the impression that the world was created in six literal day, and I am completely unconvinced that Genesis one is written poetically. This is where the rub is, I am unconvinced by the scientific data and methods for aging the earth that have been used by old earthers. Their methods don't hold up to scrutiny, which is one of the reasons schools don't want both sides taught in that class rooms. It would be devastating to their attempt to indoctrinate our children. Josh says "The reason the young-earth position doesn't get into textbooks is simply that it almost totally relies upon attacking other positions and not putting forth a testable model. " Well if your hypothesis cannot withstand scrutiny, you should find a new one. That is how science works. Until then, because if the revealed word of God, and what I find to be at least supporting evidence of a young earth, I will continue to stay in the young earth camp.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 10, 2008 16:34:30 GMT -8
I'm not advocating the Genesis 1 is "written poetically". I am advocating that we read the text literally. If you'd like to discuss that further, please respond to the "How Long Were the Creation Days/ Yom Controversy" Christopher: if we could look back with a videocamera/microscope frame by frame on the water turning to wine we might be able to make all sorts of valid claims about "how God did it". We might see it change from water to wine in freeze-framed steps, or we might see the wine suddenly appear fully formed. But we are unable to do that, so we must rely on eyewitness claims. But with the early stages of creation, we have both direct observational evidence plus God's special revelation. We can see the creation/formation of the universe step by step. We don't see it popping into existence fully formed, looking old. We see it getting older and changing. So we have observational evidence and God's revelation. And... lo and behold, they are in agreement. Part of the puzzle here is that I don't think the text has to be tortured to show how it comports with an old earth and scientific discoveries about the early earth. And as to dating methods, that probably deserves its own post. How much research have you guys done on the validity of dating methods outside of young-earth sources? It seems to me that it must be either a) the dating methods are flawed and better dating methods would show something younger or b) the dating methods are accurate, but there God created the universe with an appearance of age. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Post by sonlyte on Jun 29, 2008 8:37:40 GMT -8
Couple of points to factor in (or not if you don't want to)
Starting with the assumption that the bible is true, and using that lense to interpret science has caused tremendous problems in the church and world at large throughout history. Many of the worst atrocities of man were driven by religious conviction coming from a misunderstanding of content or intent of the bible.
Not subjecting the bible to the same scrutiny as any other truth is a form of favoritism. I think the bible holds its own without us having to give it an unfair advantage. I have as yet not heard a compelling argument for young earth that doesn't start with essentially the idea:
The bible says the earth is young and here is how science works with it.
or
Here is some uncertainty which pokes holes in the scientific methods which are proving the universe to be old.
I must say at this point I guess I have been somewhat turned away by well-intentioned young earth "scientists" who so quickly publish any findings of young earth science before those findings have a chance to be scrutinized by the scientific community.
If the findings of young earth are so compelling, why are they so hard to verify scientifically?
Well, take all this as you will. It is where I am at.
By the way, I don't have a lot of time to read, but if any one has any idea of some real scientifically verifiable young earth type of findings, I would love to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 30, 2008 13:38:24 GMT -8
Sonlyte, I totally resonate (as I've indicated elsewhere) with these thoughts. In general, it's why I've never been too fond of presuppositional apologetics (and favor evidential apologetics).
BTW, are you familiar with Hugh Ross?
|
|
