So...what do you think? Does Hugh Ross have to be right? Does Hugh Ross have to be wrong? It's not good enough to say, "We don't know" and leave it at that. Truth exists and it can be pursued. WHY does Hugh Ross have to be right? WHY does Hugh Ross have to be wrong? Don't just speak from your heart - your heart doesn't know much, but it may be useful in emphasizing a valid point about something you DO know.
For the concrete thinkers: Compare and contrast Ross's views with McDougal's views and with Martin Luther's views, and give the advantages to each. This will require a little bit of research on your own to insure you can properly represent each. Unless you're giving a direct quote from each, you may be out on your own and only THINK that they believe what you've said they do. Educate yourself to the point that you can speak with authority and confidence without fear. This assignment will be due Tuesday by 11:59:59pm. For those of you who have had the patience to read to this point, prove it by including two exclamation points and one question mark in your writing without giving away that that is somehow important.
Love ya. Good luck.
11 comments:
Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist. He doesn’t believe that in days in Genesis were not actual 24- hour periods in time equal to the length they are now. Hugh Ross believes that the religion and science are not only compatible but are also complementary. He rejects the young earth ideas of the earth being under 10,000 years old. He does believe that Noah’s Flood did kill all humans except for the ones on the ark, but he does not believe that the flood was global but that it was more local. Ross says that the probability of all the complications and life on earth is to improbable to be at random chance. He insists that there must be a creator outside of space and time to have done this!
McDougal’s views on how the earth began are a little bit different. McDougal says that when the earth was created its surface was to look much like the modern surface of the moon. It is so hard to find the beliefs of Martin Luther! Why did you make this so difficult?
The advantages to OEC (old earth creationism) are it easier for people to accept that than that the earth is only 10,000 years old or less. Another good thing about Ross is that he believes that the Bible and nature are the only two things that are revelations from God that can both offer actual knowledge and can correct misunderstandings of the other. He does argue that the Bible is the only religious book that can accurately interpret science. Hugh Ross is also criticized by the YEC ( young earth creationism) community for some of his belief’s. I think that overall Hugh Ross is right about most of the stuff he says or proposes because it seems to make sense but I am not that knowledgeable of the scientific community so my opinion is invalid to a certain point.
- MaRqUeZe
COMPARISON
After reading this text, I have come to conclude that Hugh Ross explored outside of the Bible. He didn’t like to stay in the parameters of the Bible. He didn’t take the Bible literally. He knew that God created a complex and wonderful universe, and that he was to explore it and interpret it as best he could.
Now on the other hand, Martin Luther did take the Bible literally. He didn’t give any regard to science if it contradicted the literal taking of the Bible. For example, the argument with Copernicus about the Sun being the center of our galaxy and other planets revolving around it. He was frustrated with the notion that anyone would even suggest such a theory. But the problem with Luther is that he didn’t understand that the Bible was not intended for our knowledge of the God’s creation, but, rather, for our knowledge in understanding how to glorify God.
Therefore, in conclusion, both examples, Hugh Ross and Martin Luther, took science to different contrasts. One, Ross, interpreted science as it is, without use of the Bible. And the other, Luther, took the Bible to the extreme by using it to analyze sciences. He applied the Bible to all the theories given him, instead of letting the scientists explore without the limitations of the literal translation of the Bible.
HUGH ROSS
“Hugh Ross received a B.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in astronomy at the University of Toronto, and then worked at Caltech for a few years as a postdoc. This was during the sixties. More recently, his primary occupation has been to argue that modern discoveries in astronomy and physics not only prove the existence of God, but also verify the creation account given in the first chapter of Genesis. He has written several books, and has formed an organization, Reasons to Believe, and has attracted a number of scientists to work with him and spread the message.
“Ross's claims fall under two categories. First, he argues that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and that this implies a creator who designed the universe for life, because if there were no intent to form life, the likelihood of getting such a fine-tuned universe would be so tiny as to be effectively zero. Second, the first chapter of Genesis accurately describes what modern astronomy, physics, and cosmology have learned about the origin of the Universe.”
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/About-Ross.html
“Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.
“Ross was born in Montreal and raised in Vancouver, Canada. He earned a BSc in physics from the University of British Columbia and an MSc and PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto; and he was a postdoctoral research fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Ross was the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society, and before starting Reasons to Believe, he was on the staff of Sierra Madre Congregational Church. In addition to apologetics writing, Ross speaks regularly in academic venues and churches, as well as hosting a weekly podcast Creation Update, and another podcast "Science News Flash". He is scheduled to speak at the Skeptics Society' "Origins Conference" at California Institute of Technology alongside Nancey Murphy, Victor Stenger, and Leonard Susskind.
“Ross' overall philosophy is that science and religion are not only compatible but complementary and, with Thomas Torrance, that the scientific method itself springs from the Reformation and the Bible. He adopts the view that there are two "books" of revelation from God – the Bible and nature – which both offer accurate knowledge and each of which can correct misunderstanding of the other. Moreover, he argues that the Bible is the only scientifically accurate religious text when interpreted consistently.
“Ross and his associates are formally engaged in proposing an alternate, scientifically testable model for the formation of the universe, earth, and life itself that accounts for both scientific and religious (particularly Christian) explanations for each. The model he proposes makes certain predictions about the shape of future discoveries in cosmology, biology, and related sciences, and Ross wants his model to be judged alongside other models in its predictive success. He has not published this model in peer-reviewed scientific literature, but he outlines the basic components of the model and provides associated predictions for future scientific research in his book Origins of Life (2005, coauthored with Fazale Rana) and Creation as Science (Navpress, 2006). Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, said of the former book, "Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow." PZ Myers criticized predictions in an online summary of the model as "sublimely silly, trivial, vaguely stated, or perfectly compatible with actual evolutionary biology."
“The primary apologetical method used by Ross and Reasons to Believe is evidentialist in nature and attempts to show that the probability of the universe forming in such a way as to allow it to generate life as we know it is too improbable to be due to random chance. Thus, he posits a creator outside spacetime who purposefully controlled and directed the creation of the universe and created life. (Cosmology has traditionally dealt with the idea that the universe has finely tuned parameters which cannot be significantly altered without destroying the possibility of life under the rubric of the anthropic principle.)
“Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different life forms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. He agrees with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience, and finds any version of intelligent design inadequate that doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions.
“Ross is criticized by YECs for his acceptance of uniformitarian geology and astronomy over what they see as a plain reading of Genesis and for promoting "fixity of species", which denies speciation. YECs use speciation to explain how present biodiversity could have arisen from the small number of "kinds" after Noah's Flood. Ross holds that Noah's Flood was local yet believes it killed all humans except for those on the ark, whereas YECs generally hold that Noah's Flood was global. He and his team have also said that intelligent design is not science and agree that it should not be taught as science in the class room.
“Some of Ross' ideas – particularly his criticism of evolution – are faulted by the scientific community as being little different from YEC, but Ross states his work provides a better fit for the data than either the YEC or the conventional models.
“Ross is a critic of young Earth creationist attempts, in particular Russell Humphreys, to argue against the Starlight problem.”
http://sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Hugh_Ross_(creationist)&Itemid=99
MARTIN LUTHER
“Luther taught that there were two doctrines essential to Christianity: (1) the doctrine of justification by faith through grace (sola gratia ) and (2) the Scripture as the sole norm of faith and sole authority for doctrine (sola scriptura ). All else was nonessential (adiaphora ). This character of tolerance and the international character of Lutheranism has led to a diversity of stances taken by different bodies within the movement in terms of theology, polity, liturgical practices, and positions on social issues.”
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Lutharanism.htm
“For many years after the publication of Copernicus' book De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium in 1543, his ideas remained within the mathematical astronomy community. The more popular books on astronomy and cosmology either were unaware of his work or chose to ignore them. But there were a few non-astronomers such as poets who were aware of his work and they ridiculed it for advocating a moving Earth, not because of any ideas of heresy. It was though the poets and other popularizing writers of that time that Copernicus' ideas became more widely known.
“It is interesting that the earliest objections to Copernican ideas on religious grounds came from Protestant groups, who are usually missing in the popular folk history which features the dispute as being between Copernicus and the Catholic Church. Thomas Kuhn in his book The Copernican Revolution suggests that this was because the people of the Reformation (led by Martin Luther in his break with the Catholic Church) were emphasizing Biblical authority, viewing "the Bible as the single fundamental source of Christian knowledge" as opposed to the Catholic Church which focused more on doctrinal issues that allowed it more flexibility in dealing with science. And there were clear contradictions between the Bible and Copernicus.
“Martin Luther spoke out against Copernican ideas in 1539 saying that the idea of a moving Earth going around a stationary Sun clearly went against the book of Joshua [10:13] that said that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still. Luther's main lieutenant Melanchthon followed up by finding other Biblical versus that suggested that the Earth was stationary. This was followed up by other Protestant leaders such as Calvin (Kuhn 191-193).
“Pretty soon the Bible became the main weapon used against Copernican ideas and clergymen in the seventeenth century started going through the Bible line by line, looking for arguments.
“The conflicts between the Bible and Copernicanism did not stop just with verses that dealt with the Earth's motion. Recall that acceptance of Copernicanism implied acceptance of a whole range of associated physics ideas and these raised profound theological issues. As Kuhn points out (p. 193):
When it was taken seriously, Copernicus' proposal raised many gigantic problems for the believing Christian. If, for example, the earth were merely one of six planets, how were the stories of the Fall and of the Salvation, with their immense bearing on Christian life, to be preserved? If there were other bodies essentially like the earth, God's goodness would surely necessitate that they, too, be inhabited. But if there were men on other planets, how could they be descendents of Adam and Eve, and how could they have inherited the original sin, which explains man's otherwise incomprehensible travail on an earth made for him by a good and omnipotent deity? Again, how could men on other planets know of the Savior who opened to them the possibility of eternal life? Or, if the earth is a planet and therefore a celestial body located away from the center of the universe, what becomes of man's intermediate but focal position between the devils and the angels? If the earth, as a planet, participates in the nature of celestial bodies, it cannot be a sink of iniquity from which man will long to escape to the divine purity of the heavens. Nor can the heavens be a suitable abode for God if they participate in the evils and imperfections so clearly visible on a planetary earth. Worst of all, if the universe is infinite, as many of the later Copernicans thought, where can God's Throne be located? In an infinite universe, how is man to find God or God man?
“It was clear that Copernicus's ideas were seriously discomfiting for Christians, especially the Biblical literalists that were dominant in the new Protestant movement, which provided the first institutionalized opposition. People started calling the Copernicans 'infidels' and 'atheists' and urging their repression. But the Protestant churches did not have the powers of enforcement that the Catholics had.
“Kuhn argues that it was probably due to the pressure from the burgeoning Protestant church that caused the Catholic Church in 1616 to abruptly switch its policy from tolerance of Copernican ideas to repression. "Copernican doctrines were, in fact, condemned during the Counter Reformation, just when the Church was most convulsed by internal reforms designed to meet Protestant criticism. Anti-Copernicanism seems, at least in part, one of these reforms, Another cause of the Church's increased sensitivity to Copernicanism after 1610 may well have been a delayed awakening to the fuller theological implications of the earth's motions. In the sixteenth century those implications had rarely been made explicit."
“In an earlier posting we showed that the idea of a moving Earth being considered a demotion for human beings is something that arose only in the late 17th century. It may be that this idea was developed from around 1650 onwards when religious bodies were fighting what was essentially a propaganda war against heliocentric ideas, the scientific battle being essentially already lost. It may have served as part of the effort to rally non-scientific (but religious) people to turn against Copernican ideas by appealing to their pride.
“What is ironic is that after being the possible impetus for the Catholic Church turning against Copernicanism, the Protestant churches fairly quickly abandoned their opposition to these ideas when it became clear that the evidence in favor of a Sun-centered system was overwhelming. But the Catholic Church, being a much larger and more tradition-bound and bureaucratic operation, was left clinging to its anti-Copernican views for a long time afterwards. The Church ban on Copernican ideas remained until 1822 and his book remained on the list of forbidden books until 1835. In fact it was only as recently as 1992 that Pope John Paul II lifted its edict of Inquisition against Galileo. Thus the Catholic Church is now the religious institution identified with perhaps the most notorious anti-science episode in history.
“This ends the series of postings on the myths surrounding the Copernican revolution. Another interesting feature about the whole Copernican story is the parallel with Darwinian evolution and the opposition to it, right up to the present so-called intelligent design movement. These questions will be examined in a later posting.”
http://blog.case.edu/singham/2005/04/26/the_role_of_protestant_opposition_to_copernicus
!!?
Compare and Contrast
Martin Luther started reading and analyzing the Bible at a young age. He could never find that inner peace with God that he wanted. He was a young earther believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and not the billions others say.
Hugh Ross is an old earther believing that things have taken billions of years to evolve over time. He believes that there was just a big bang where everything just…became.
Mcdougal Littell says that there was a cloud that became so compacted that it just “exploded!”. It also believes in the billions of years theory.
To the Christians the billions of years doesn’t seem possible. Because we believe each day of creation was a literal day.
We discussed in class one time that if you compromise the truth to say “O well maybe they weren’t actual days?” then you will start to compromise a lot more that is in the Bible. And soon you will just say “O well the only real thing in there is God!”
ITS saRRa
Well, here’s the thing. Martin Luther took everything the Bible said literally, but McDougal wants us to believe that there is no God, and that the Bible is just anther book. And then there’s Hugh Ross. He believes that God used “Progressive Creationism” to create the universe. Now, I think that his intentions were good, but it might not be the most effective way to go about it. I know that he is a well educated, smart guy, but I also think that what he his doing may cause other Christians to stumble! The Bible says that God created the universe in SIX days! Yet, he says that God didn’t create the universe in 6 literal days, but over millions of years. Why not just go all the way and say that the Bible is just anther book? Because once you compromise on the little things, it becomes harder and harder not to compromise on the big things.
It might be easier to say that Hugh Ross is completely wrong and side with Martin Luther... but then we seem like the dumb Christians. See, no human was there, so most people go with the “Smart” people and believe what they say. Or it might be easier to side with people like McDougal who believe that we came from the “Big Bang,” that way, we seem smart like them. Personally, I think that Hugh Ross is wrong, but that doesn’t make him, and all the other “Non-young Earthers” unintelligent.
Is this thing on?
Hugh Ross believes in the progressive creationism, or old earth creationist, which believes that the earth is billions and billions of years old. Knowing this, he believes 'life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different life forms in progressive stages'. Thus, he is against the Young Earth Creationist, which believes the earth is younger than 10,000 years old. His theory and belief’s on the 24-hour periods (or days) in Genesis is that they were not in fact 24-hour periods in length, or in equal lengths.
Martin Luther believes that the Bible ‘is the only infallible source of authority’. He also believes that Christ is the only righteous one, and that it only comes from him. ‘“That is why faith alone makes some one just and fulfills the law,” he wrote. “Faith is that which brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ.”’ Complete opposite of Hugh Ross, he is a young earth believer.
McDougal’s beliefs are somewhat similar to Ross’, but still different. Thus he believes in the old earth theory, but just believes that the earth sort of just happened by explosion…so like the big bang.
Although no one Christian or non-believer was there the day earth and all of life was created, Christians have the explanation set in their mind ‘that this happened this way because God made it to happen this way, so…everyone should just believe it like it is…’, which is true, God is the only one who allows anything to happen, but there is also theories and scientific evidence for the way things happen. We just need to be able to make everything we know from the Bible and God seem rather intelligent, and be able to explain things better for others, than look like stupid people who know nothing about what we believe in or are talking about when we are asked smart questions. We need to not comprimise with the truth.!!?
Well, Hugh Ross is really outgoing in his theories, and I do agree with him. It is sometimes ok to say we don’t know because we don’t know a lot of things because we are human and humans don’t know everything. Well, everyone has his or her opinion or speculation on whether or not Hugh Ross is right or wrong and I think we all have the right to think whether or not Hugh Ross is right or wrong.
Hugh Ross is right in his own mind, but maybe not in others, just like Martin Luther. He was rejected among most people. Hugh Ross has the right idea when it comes to creationism, but like I said, it is all about the different opinions of other individuals. Martin Luther was right in his own mind and he had truth to back him up, but it was other peoples opinion which dominated for the time being.
Oh, and McDougal's theory can be related to Hugh Ross through the fact that thay both believe in the multi-million years theory when it comes to the age of the earth and the universe. We don't know how old the earth is and we don't know if God used the big bang to create the universe, we will know when God tells us (If He does) in heaven, but we will not be on the earth and that information that He gave to us will not be relevant. Oh, for future reference, this is Nathan Lilly. Ok. Good to know.
Hugh Ross believes in progressive creationism which most Christians would oppose. He actually uses the Hebrew translation of the Bible to back up his fight for his theory apposing that the earth was created in only 6 days. In the original Hebrew translation it uses the word "yom" for what we translate as "day" (as in 24 hours) but in fact it has more meanings. It can mean "period of light" or "a general vague 'time'" or "a point of time" or "a year (in the plural form)." These forms are not only used for translation but are used in these forms of translations in the Bible itself. In 67 verses in the Old Testament the word "yom" is translated into the word "time" an example of this is in Genesis 4:3 which says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." This verse is referring to the growing season which probably took much longer than a day. Also in Isaiah 30:8, which says "Now go, write before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." This verse the word "yom" can be understood as equaling "forever." These verses originally used the word "yom" which as one can see, was translated into "time" instead of "day." The word "yom" can also be translated into "age" as seen in Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2 which say "stricken in age ."
Maybe Hugh Ross isn't against the Bible at all; maybe we've just been reading it wrong. If we have been reading it wrong and Hugh Ross is right then this still proves that everything in the Bible is still 100% correct.
Martin Luther was a monk who studied straight from God's word and always originally based everything on it. Hugh Ross, as I have stated in the paragraph above, does the exact same. He originally based his research on the Bible (the first chapter of Genesis) which would make him not much different than Martin Luther.
The ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.
This is that Dr.hugh ross said ‘But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.
Martin Luther was the opposite of hugh ross in that he took every thing in the bible literally.
Martin Luther viewed the Bible as the only infallible source of religious authority.
McDougal views the Bible as a Book with words in it.
Luther takes the Bible completely serious, word for word.
McDougal does not believe in God or anything in the Word.
Luther believes that the earth is young do to the genealogical information in the Bible and Believes that the Almighty God created all there is to be.
McDougal believes the earth is billions and billions of years old and that the Earth was created by a “Progressive Creation" that somehow propelled the universe into motion (or in other words made the world go round).
Christians believe in a 6 day creation and we take this literally. But these might 6 days of creation might as well have been 6 seconds or months or years or A BAGILLION YEARS!! We have no idea how long it took to create the whole universe and we never will know because we can’t go back in time to the point of creation.
Post a Comment