review and analysis of "more than a theory" 201004

Review and Critical Analysis:More than a Theory (2009) by Hugh Ross

Presented by Mark Tabladillo Ph.D.Atlanta, GAApril 29, 2010

About Hugh Ross

Physics and Astronomy trainingResearched quasi-stellar objects (“quasars”) at CaltechFounded science-faith think tank Reasons to Believe in 1986Loves the outdoors, hiking, trail running and photographyWife is Kathy, and has two sons

Hugh Ross’ Philosophy

God’s revelations in Scripture and nature do not, will not, and cannot contradictMotivated to communicate this message as broadly and clearly as possibleLeverages books, articles, podcasts, interviews, debates, and presentations to communicate his messageTreats comments and questions with respect

William Lane Craig on Ross’ Theology

Critique of Beyond the CosmosRetrieved April 27, 2010 fromhttp://ldolphin.org/craig/index.html (version with Craig’s diagrams intact)

Response and ResolutionRetrieved April 27, 2010 fromhttp://www.reasons.org/physics/constants-physics/philosophia-christi

Extradimensional God

Hugh Ross Reader William Lane Craig

I recently read Dr. Hugh Ross' books, The Creator and the Cosmos, and Beyond the Cosmos. He explains much of God's interactions with humanity and our spiritual decisions through an extradimensionalframework.

You can find my critique of Hugh’s views in “Hugh Ross’s Extra-Dimensional Deity,” Philosophia Christi21 (1998): 17-32; “Hugh Ross’s Extra-Dimensional Deity: A Review Article,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 (1999): 293-304; and in Time and Eternity (Crossway, 2001). Yes, I find it very problematic.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8045

About Christians in Science

Based in England”In spite of Ross' skepticism towards

evolution, the success of his old earth advocacy amongst evangelicals has made him the bête noire of the YECS [young-earth creation science] community”

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/links/yecs-links

How I came to read More than a Theory

Officer Training Course

marktab

Text Box

This book is the current key text required for the RTB local chapter (or network) Officer Training Course. I had previously not heard of Hugh Ross or RTB until I had attended a local RTB group meeting in Fall 2009. However, the conclusions of old-earth creationism match my own conclusions on 1) the age of the universe, which in the 1980s, I came to believe as being that age, and 2) my skepticism with macroevolution, as I have (for example) interacted with authors of articles in American Scientist (since I am a full life member of Sigma Xi). These previous life experiences make my personal conclusions more in line with the RTB creation model as contrasted with the other three positions mentioned in More than a Theory.

After Critical Analysis:Personal Resolution

Sign the RTB Statement of Faith and support the local chapterEncourage the local chapter to promote education on both science and Christian theologyPromote the concept of “Missional Basis for Science”

marktab

Text Box

I decided to provide the conclusion at the beginning, because the slides in this presentation might cause some mental discomfort.

Outline

Descriptive Review of

More than a Theory

Applying the Dual

Revelation Model

Responses from RTB

Competitors

RTB Creation Model

ComprehensiveFlexible and Self-CorrectingOngoing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No Not sure/Decline to answer

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not? (Harris Poll)

March 1994June 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No Not sure/Decline to answer

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not? (Harris Poll)

March 1994

June 2005

Scoring the Models (Chapters 2, 16)Position Voice

Naturalism Richard Dawkins

Young-Earth Institute for Creation ResearchAnswers in Genesis (Creation Museum)

Theistic Evolution BioLogos Foundation

RTB Creation Reasons to Believe

See http://www.reasons.org/resources/predictions

marktab

Text Box

Individuals in each of the last three rows could believe in the inerrant and infallible Bible, and could subscribe to God's dual revelation in nature and the Bible, and still promote a different creation model.

Testing the First Amendment

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)McLean v. Arkansas (1981)Aguillard v. Treen (1983)Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

marktab

Text Box

Only young-earth creationism has lost in court (in the United States).

Model Testing

Give a wider and more detailed viewMake better sense of established dataProvide a more reasonable and consistent explanationResult in fewer unexpected anomalies and gapsProve more successful in anticipating or predicting future findings

Biblical Structure of RTB Model

Dual Revelation

Creation Purposes

Creation Chronology

Detectability of the Divine

RTB: Simple Sciences FirstSimple = Phenomena well defined by mathematical equationsDefined by causal relationshipsTherefore – “philosophical and theological conclusions may be more easily drawn from the simple sciences than from the complex” (Page 68)

marktab

Text Box

Discussion Question for People at Round Tables: What do you think about this statement? In the interactive responses, some both agreed and disagreed with this statement. My partial disagreement is that the theology of the Bible is not typically argued through mathematics. My later question on good theology surfaced that we need a broader discussion of the how God builds arguments both in the Bible and our personal lives too. The term "argument" is central to this organization since it promotes reasons to believe in Christianity.

marktab

Callout

I used fireworks graphics for the discussion questions because fireworks are both explosive and beautiful.

RTB Model ElementsCosmos (Chapter 7)Galaxies, Stars and Planets (Chapter 8)Life’s Beginning and Extraterrestrial Homes (Chapter 9)Life’s History (Chapter 10)Advanced Life (Chapter 11)Origin and History of Humanity (Chapter 12)The “Why” Question Test (Chapter 13)

RTB Major Science Claims

Anthropic Principle (Chapter 7)Uniqueness of the Milky Way (Chapter 8)God prepared the Earth (Chapters 9, 10)Not all animals purely physical (Chapter 11)People are intellectual (Chapter 12)Naturalistic rationale for destruction and catastrophe (Chapter 13)

Outline


More than a Theory

Applying the Dual

Revelation Model

Responses from RTB

Competitors

Dual Revelation Model

Nature Bible

Supporting Nature as Revelation

Jeremiah 23:24; 33:25Psalm 19:1-4; 50:6; 97:6Romans 1:18-23

Dual Revelation Model

Nature

Science

Bible

Theology

marktab

Text Box

"Revelation" simply means what God made to be revealed. I agree that both nature and the Bible are revelations from God. Though, in theological context, one of the most historically debated books of the Bible is "Revelation". We should be therefore cautious in separating speculation from fact.

What is “science”?

ModelsDifference between science and advocacy?

marktab

Text Box

Discussion Question for People at each Round Table: What is good science? I believe the audience had the best overall clarity of expression on this question.

marktab

Callout

Represented by the four models Ross contrasts in More than a Theory.

marktab

Callout

Science differs from advocacy. Advocacy is a statement. Science asks a question, where we could be genuinely surprised by the answer. Some people assume they are doing science (or research) but in fact are doing advocacy. I do not believe there is anything inherently immoral or unethical with advocacy, but we should clarify the difference.

Ross on Scientific Method

“While the scientific method doesn’t guarantee objectivity and accuracy, it does minimize the effects of oversight, personal bias, and presuppositions… The need for ongoing adjustment and refinement never ends.” (Page 51)

Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that 'peer review works well as it is.' (Chubinand Hackett, 1990; p.192)

Chubin, D. R. and Hackett E. J., 1990, Peerless Science, Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy; New York, State University of New York Press.

"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001)

Horrobin, D., 2001, "Something Rotten at the Core of Science?" Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 2, February 2001. Also at http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sci.html and http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev4.htm (both Web pages were accessed on February 1, 2010

What is “theology”?

ModelsDifference between theology and advocacy?

marktab

Text Box

The "models" of theology are represented by the various denominations (for example) within orthodox Christianity. We see this diversity in the people who participate with RTB.

marktab

Text Box

Discussion question for People at each Round Table: What is good theology? After giving people a chance to discuss this question, I allowed each table shared with everyone. Some concluded that they did not have clarity on how to express this issue, and many concluded that a lot of what they personally do is advocate rather than study (or research) theology. I encouraged people to study this topic further on their own. As an easy segue, I believe we can answer this question based on our own personal testimony. Specifically, I encouraged studying two concepts: miracles and the Holy Spirit. I don't think we had any Pentecostals in the audience, but the Holy Spirit in my mind is the living connection we have with the now ancient creeds. We can research how (for example) the Bible came to be canonized and reach the same conclusion.

marktab

Callout

What is the difference between researching theology and the Bible and advocating a denominational position?

Staying out of the Conflict

American Scientific Affiliation“the ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue.”

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/faithASA.html

Staying out of the ConflictRavi Zacharias Ministries“RZIM does not have an official ministry position on the age of the earth. The focus of RZIM is apologetics and evangelism, and thus we do not address particular questions about creation, though we are committed to defending theism against naturalism.”

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/171/cbmoduleid/1561/default.aspx

Staying out of the ConflictRavi Zacharias MinistriesAjoyVarghese, Asst. Director (Ministries), India – report from Atlanta visit“Two scientists thanked me for opening their eyes to the richness of God’s word. One of them had doubts about the creation/evolution debate. After discussing some basic aspects of the issue, I directed him to the writings of JP Moreland, Hugh Ross etc.”

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/156/cbmoduleid/1480/default.aspx

Outline


More than a Theory

Applying the Dual

Revelation Model

Responses from RTB

Competitors

Websites analyzing Hugh Ross or Reasons to BelieveOrganization Category URL

American ScientificAffiliation

Noncommittal http://asa3.org/

Answers in Genesis Young-Earth http://answersingenesis.org

Apologetics 315 Sympathetic to RTB http://apologetics315.blogspot.com

BioLogos Foundation Theistic Evolution http://biologos.org

ChristianAnswers.net Young-Earth http://christiananswers.net

Creation Science Evangelism

Young-Earth http://drdino.org

Institute for Creation Research

Young-Earth http://icr.org

The Young Earth Creation Club

Young-Earth http://creationists.org

Earth’s Orbit

Hugh Ross Critiques

"If the Earth were one half of one percent closer to the sun, water on Earth would boil off. If the Earth were one half of one percent farther from the sun, all the water would freeze."

Because the Earth's orbit is ELLIPTICAL, its distance from the sun varies by quite a bit more than one half of one per cent, yet it is NOT the case that all the water either boils off or freezes.

The distance varies by over 3% in a given year, yet waters don't boil or freeze. The distance between Earth and Sun is near 92 million miles. The change in distance due to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is around 3 million miles.

marktab

Text Box

This chart represents a sample critique of the science -- I commented that I do not have severe concern about this specific Ross claim because I accept the entire body of evidence supporting the anthropic principle.

About BioLogos Foundation

Theistic EvolutionProvides links and resources to major organizations

Dialogue between RTB and BioLogos (January 2010)

Clarify for each other our beliefs about and positions on various aspects of creation and evolution. We wanted to establish areas of agreement on science, theology, and philosophy of ministry as well as major differences with the understanding that secondary differences would require additional discussion at a later date.Outline the means by which at least some of the more significant differences between us could potentially be resolved.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://theangrygnome.posterous.com/report-on-biologos-reasons-to-believe-dialogu

Dialogue between RTB and BioLogos (January 2010)

Set up public forums that will allow both Christians and non-Christians to learn about our respective positions on specific creation and evolution issues, observe our dialogue, and then engage in conversation with us. We agreed that the emphasis in these events must be on education and discussion, but this does not rule out sincere debate.Consider how our interactions with one another might model for the Christian community at large how to approach differences of perspective and interpretation.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://theangrygnome.posterous.com/report-on-biologos-reasons-to-believe-dialogu

BioLogos Critique of Hugh RossRetrieved April 27, 2010 from http://biologos.org/resources/hugh-ross/

BioLogos Critique of Hugh RossStrong concordists, of which old-earth creationists are the best example, believe that God placed modern scientific ideas in the Bible, sometimes using secret language that could not be understood by the original audience and even the actual writers of the texts. BioLogos rejects this viewpoint because we believe that God worked within the worldview, culture and language of the Biblical authors and since they would not have known, for example, about heliocentricity or the Big Bang, we do not think that God encoded those ideas in the scripture.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://biologos.org/resources/leading-figures

About Answers in Genesis (AIG)

Young-Earth CreationismProduced the Creation MuseumNoah’s Ark Problem:Supports rapid subspeciation (as opposed to unrestricted speciation) based on “Kind” in Genesis (Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp)

Dialogue between RTB and AIG (and other young-earthers)

RTB has met AIG in Dallas area seminaries 4-5 times annually“Ultimately, no significant progress was made because the young-earthers are committed to the supreme authority of Scripture, whereas the old-earthers are committed to the authority of the views of the current majority of scientists.”

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/03/01/when-compromise-meets-compromise/

Dialogue between RTB and AIG (and other young-earthers)

“The young-earthers wanted to discuss the assumptions used to interpret the scientific evidence, whereas the old-earthers wanted to avoid that discussion, especially in relation to geology and astronomy and the question of the age of the creation.” “For these reasons these young-earth/old-earth discussions finally stalled in 2008.”


“In-House” Recent Debate

Reasons to Believe vs. Answers in Genesis

See http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/04/hugh-ross-vs-jason-lisle-debate.html

Answers in Genesis (Feb 2010)We have repeatedly stated in books, on this website, and in videos that holding to the young-earth view is not a requirement for the free gift of salvation offered to us through Jesus’s sacrificial death on the cross. We certainly believe that a person can be a Christian and hold to the Reasons to Believe model (progressive creationism), the framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, or any other harmonistic view out there.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/26/feedback-which-is-worse

Answers in Genesis Critique of Reasons to Believe (Feb 2010)

However, our concern is that a person who does this is being completely arbitrary in their hermeneutic (method of interpretation).Dr. Lisle’s statement does not mean that Dr. Ross or Dr. Kaiser are unbelievers, but demonstrates that the big bang is entirely inconsistent with the words of Scripture.

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/26/feedback-which-is-worse

Ken Ham (AIG) critiques RTB and BioLogos

“Compromise God’s Word in Genesis with the secular beliefs of the day (e.g., big bang, billions of years, death and disease before man, no global Flood, etc.)”“They both feel that young-earth creationists are a serious problem in the church and our views are a huge barrier to effective evangelism”“Their combined efforts will continue to lead Christians astray, especially professors in seminaries and Christian universities”


Millard Erickson Makes Peace

(Two anecdotes along the way)Exercise caution when working in another fieldEach discipline can learn from the othersWriting benefits from reviewsApologetics, however, requires a team approach

Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.reasons.org/physics/constants-physics/philosophia-christi

MarkTab Recommendation

RTB (2001) MarkTab

5. The Bible is primarily organized around a central theological purpose:God communicates His plan for human redemption from a fallen nature through His Son, Jesus Christ. Likewise, the universe is designed for a central purpose, namely the benefit of humans.

5. The Bible is primarily organized around a central theological purpose:God communicates His plan for human redemption from a fallen nature through His Son, Jesus Christ. Likewise, the universe is designed for a central purpose, namely the glory of God.Isaiah 43:7Psalm 19:1-2Revelation 4:11

marktab

Text Box

I believe this issue is important and directly aligns with a missional framework.

MarkTab Analysis and ViewpointStudy and Prioritize IdeasSpeculation versus FactPrice of LeadershipBiblical Permission versus PromotionPhilosophy (World View) Matters in ScienceWhy Christianity accepts DiversityMissional Basis for Science◦ Apologetics reaches maximum effectiveness

when we Christians work together as a TEAM

marktab

Callout

We should decide what science and theology ideas are more or less important.

marktab

Callout

When communicating science or theology, we need to be clear what is speculation and what is considered fact (and why, when possible).

marktab

Callout

Public communicators have a higher clarity standard because their work outruns and outlives them. People evaluating media work are not just evaluating the author(s) but also are weighing the consequences of how the work would be received by a general audience.

marktab

Callout

Scientists are affected by worldview, theology matters, and motives underlie how people apply the scientific method.

marktab

Callout

I recently shared with an atheist that diversity is not the fatal blow to Christianity, because of unity in Jesus Christ.

marktab

Callout

We do not have a church of God with a mission in the world -- we have a God of mission, with the church in the world. Christians are called for more than just advocating a model of theology or science, but the somewhat mystical advocacy through the Holy Spirit. Proper teaching on missions provides a framework encompassing all public and private revelations from God.

marktab

Callout

Apologetics is part of God's mission to the world. As Millard Erickson advised, Christians should work as a TEAM!

marktab

Callout

Because the Bible allows or permits a specific scientific or theological idea does NOT mean it is promoting it. Keep in mind how wise scholars have historically provided various interpretations the book of Revelation.

After Critical Analysis:Personal Resolution

Sign the RTB Statement of Faith and support the local chapterEncourage the local chapter to promote education on both science and Christian theologyPromote the concept of “Missional Basis for Science”

Conclusion

More than a Theory connects four distinct theories with specific testable models:◦ Naturalism◦ Young-Earth◦ Theistic Evolution◦ RTB Model

RTB has proven its desire for interactive dialogue by talking with both BioLogos and AIG (and other groups)

marktab

Text Box

At the end of the presentation, I gave away three copies of a book which was not targeted at either science or theology: A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston. I mentor doctoral students at the University of Phoenix and have recommended this book for them for doing their leadership and management research. The book is relatively inexpensive, and provides a good foundational overview of classic logic and argumentation.

review and analysis of "more than a theory" 201004

Education