Evidence for God from Science

I was hoping for some clarification on something I heard regarding Dr. Hugh Ross. I was listening to a radio program the other day were you can call in and inquire about topics related to the bible. One caller brought up the subject of Dr. Hugh Ross and asked what the hosts thought of him and his ministries (by the way the caller was a supporter of Dr. Ross). Needless to say they did not give a resounding approval towards his beliefs or the progressive creation stance. But they said something that was unclear to me, they stated that Hugh Ross was a theistic evolutionist. I was under the impression that Hugh Ross and progressive creationism stated that humans were created in their present form, no evolution required. Can someone clarify this for me.

On a side note, I was rather saddened by the response of the radio hosts. They have relegated Dr. Ross beneath less deserving ministries, solely based on his creation stance. Why does this have to be such a political issue. I always like to point out that God is the creator and regardless of your position we all agree to that. "In the beginning God created..."

This may help...

http://www.reasons.org/theistic-evoluti ... -evolution

rodyshusband wrote:This may help...

http://www.reasons.org/theistic-evoluti ... -evolution

Hey Rody, I think the OP particularly wants to know Dr. Ross's position on OEC/TE, and this article merely explains *what* TE is...

DannyM wrote:Hey Rody, I think the OP particulary wants to know Dr. Ross's position on OEC/TE, and this article merely explains *what* TE is...

Bingo! Well I suppose I can get my rear into gear and search the Reasons To Believe website. Okay here goes nothing, wish me luck, I'll let you know how I do.

Dazed and Confused wrote:

DannyM wrote:Hey Rody, I think the OP particulary wants to know Dr. Ross's position on OEC/TE, and this article merely explains *what* TE is...

Bingo! Well I suppose I can get my rear into gear and search the Reasons To Believe website. Okay here goes nothing, wish me luck, I'll let you know how I do.

I tried a brief look myself but to no avail. I'm pretty sure Dr. Ross is OEC. Hit me back Jack when you get there

DannyM wrote:

Dazed and Confused wrote:

DannyM wrote:Hey Rody, I think the OP particulary wants to know Dr. Ross's position on OEC/TE, and this article merely explains *what* TE is...

Bingo! Well I suppose I can get my rear into gear and search the Reasons To Believe website. Okay here goes nothing, wish me luck, I'll let you know how I do.

I tried a brief look myself but to no avail. I'm pretty sure Dr. Ross is OEC. Hit me back Jack when you get there

Argh! Still searching for a solid morsel to sink me teeth into. Really everything I could find on Reasons website seems to indicate that Hugh Ross isn't a Theistic Evolutionist, but still looking for a positive confirmation.

Everything I have read or seen of Ross, says he is a OEC. he himself has stated that he is not a theistic evolutionist. Whatever you heard, may fall into the same category as some YECs who thought Ross was an evolutionist without actually listening to Ross or reading his books.

As a follower of Reasons to Believe for about 15 years I can tell you that they are not theistic evolutionsits. I have most every book they've written and talked to them in person. They hold to the OEC view called Dayage.

Theistic Evolution on a broad definition can fall under a category of Old Earth Creationism.

Hugh Ross is regularly called a theistic evolutionist by young earth creationists. It's a "guilt by association" type argument on their part I believe. If they can tie the word "evolutionist" to him then they translate things from a debate on facts to one of emotional issues in my opinion.

Ross is not a theistic evolutionist. He is a progressive creationist. I've read most of his books and while it's been a while since I read them.

Examples of Theistic Evolutionists would be Francis Collins, Allister McGrath and some put C.S. Lewis in that category as well.

I just read page 32 of ross' book "More than a Theory". Ross also may consider himself a Concordist. "Concordism is the view that the scientific record and the biblical message of creation extensively overlap. In that overlap concordist's see complete harmony and consistency between the biblical account and nature's record. Any conflict or discordance between the two sets of data arises from incomplete understanding or faulty interpretation. Concordists express confidence that ongoing scientific and theological research will always resolve any perceived contradictions. Distinct from framework thorists and most theistic evolutionists, concordists draw considerable scientific detail from the biblical creation texts. They believe the descriptions offer a dependable depiction of the origin and history of the universe, Earth, and earth's life. Moreover, they believe the Bible presents those events in a specified chronological sequence and frequently designates the manner in which God brings them about. Concordists accept the historic Christian creed that the record of nature serves as a second "book" of God's revalation to humanity." In this section of his book, Ross lists the major participants in the controversy. A.evolutionists, B. Young-Earth Creationists, C. Intelligent Design Movement, D. Old-Earth Creationists, E. Theistic Evolutionists, F. Framework Theorists, G. Progressive Creationists, and H. Concordists.

Dazed and Confused wrote:I was hoping for some clarification on something I heard regarding Dr. Hugh Ross. I was listening to a radio program the other day were you can call in and inquire about topics related to the bible. One caller brought up the subject of Dr. Hugh Ross and asked what the hosts thought of him and his ministries (by the way the caller was a supporter of Dr. Ross). Needless to say they did not give a resounding approval towards his beliefs or the progressive creation stance. But they said something that was unclear to me, they stated that Hugh Ross was a theistic evolutionist. I was under the impression that Hugh Ross and progressive creationism stated that humans were created in their present form, no evolution required. Can someone clarify this for me.

On a side note, I was rather saddened by the response of the radio hosts. They have relegated Dr. Ross beneath less deserving ministries, solely based on his creation stance. Why does this have to be such a political issue. I always like to point out that God is the creator and regardless of your position we all agree to that. "In the beginning God created..."

A lot of YECs hold to their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible when it comes to their Creation beliefs. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are two that have been discussed many times in this forum. If you find out why this is such a "political" issue, please let me know. I would like to know what motivates these people's dogmatic views.

I would like to know what motivates these people's dogmatic views.

The same thing that motivates Ross' and his supporters' dogmatic views: fidelity to Scripture. You have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches OEC. We have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches YEC.

Why would you think our motivation is any different from yours?

RickD wrote:A lot of YECs hold to their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible when it comes to their Creation beliefs. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are two that have been discussed many times in this forum. If you find out why this is such a "political" issue, please let me know. I would like to know what motivates these people's dogmatic views.

I think when it comes to Ken & Kent a definite motive is money. Ken spoke at my church back when and he started with an impressive presentation of all the various AIG packages I could purchase at the end of the service. For $250 I could get the complete AIG package. Would Jesus be tossing temple tables about now? I'm not sure. And then there is Kent and well, that's were I'll leave it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Jac3510 wrote:

I would like to know what motivates these people's dogmatic views.

The same thing that motivates Ross' and his supporters' dogmatic views: fidelity to Scripture. You have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches OEC. We have studied the text and have come to the firm conclusion that the Bible teaches YEC.

Why would you think our motivation is any different from yours?

"These people" as were used in the post directly were referencing Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind. At least as far as Kent Hovind is concerned, there's ample evidence based on his business dealings, multiple convictions and current residence in the federal penitentiary system that other motives may have been involved.

That doesn't impugn all young earth creationists anymore than such a guilt by association would if such an event were to occur with a prominent OEC representative. It's certainly fair to point out however, given that the "these people" you're answering to explicitly included him as one of the two parties involved.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Theistic Evolution on a broad definition can fall under a category of Old Earth Creationism.
Hugh Ross is regularly called a theistic evolutionist by young earth creationists. It's a "guilt by association" type argument on their part I believe. If they can tie the word "evolutionist" to him then they translate things from a debate on facts to one of emotional issues in my opinion.

This is still messing with my head for I have a great amount of respect for the gentlemen who made the reference. Thanks for the confirmation, that's what I figured.