Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hugh Ross on created kinds: baramin = species
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 2 (69970)
11-29-2003 9:40 PM


I checked on Hugh Ross's site, Reasons to Believe, and I could not find his position on whether a baramin or "created kind" is always a species or whether a baramin can contain several species. So I've had to look at what others have had to say about his views.
http://www.trueorigin.org/lerner_resp.asp is mostly a response to Lawrence S. Lerner's book Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, but it briefly mentions Hugh Ross's views:
Lerner also mocked, much the same way as the compromising apologist Hugh Ross:
‘In order to avoid overcrowding Noah’s Ark, some creationists adhere to the Biblical term kinds rather than species as the limiting barrier to evolution.’ ....
One sad thing is seeing self-professed Christian apologists like Hugh Ross parrot these atheistic attacks on a global Flood and Ark, and resorting to the long-disproven notion of fixity of species to maintain his old-earth compromisesee Expos of Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question.
The link is to a rather negative review of that book, accusing him of uniformitarianism and twisted Bible interpretations; another such review is at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross01.asp
By comparison, many YEC's believe in multi-species baramins, meaning that Noah has had to take only some baramin representatives, rather than some species representatives, on his Ark, lessening his workload. The Flood is then followed by a period of what Ross calls "hyperevolution" that has produced the species we find today.
From the theistic-evolution side is Glenn Morton's review at
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rossrev.htm
He also agrees that Hugh Ross believes in only single-species baramins, and he notes that Ross believes that speciation has stopped happening in historical times.
Applied to humanity's ancestry, Ross believes that Neanderthals were nonhuman, while most other creationists put Neanderthals in the human baramin:
Comparison of all skulls
And this article on the Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu):
Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)
notes about creationist responses that:
Answers in Genesis argues, quite reasonably, that these fossils are so similar to modern humans that they don't constitute any problem for creationists - or, at least, to their own position. Reasons To Believe, an old-earth creationist ministry founded by Hugh Ross, takes the more surprising position that these fossils are of soulless animals that merely look like humans, and has accused AIG of "factual errors and distortions", to which AIG has responded energetically. RTB's position seems untenable to me: it's hard to see how anyone can credibly claim that fossils so remarkably similar to modern humans are animals. RTB appears to have a strategy that by definition excludes any possibility of transitional fossils: if scientists put a fossil in anything other than Homo sapiens sapiens, it is "not a modern human" and hence is an animal (no matter how trivial the differences); if they do put it in H. sapiens sapiens, of course, it's also not evidence for human evolution. Heads I win, tails you lose.
So to Hugh Ross, the human baramin only includes Homo sapiens sapiens.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 11-30-2003 12:08 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 2 (70062)
11-30-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
11-29-2003 9:40 PM


Thanks,
It turns out that I have solved all of my personal c/e issues and problems and I will be writing extensively on Gould's notion of A and Not A interms of "EVOLUTIONARY" homology vs homoplasy. I will find all of my issues of "polarization in c/e" as due to failure to read through modern evo-devo that still the Greekpost Synthesis veiw is not scholarized. This may not be other poster's here boy toy but for me it is a Christmas present. Croizat did some work on relating abbreviations(UK USA), signs (=), and symbols "or" but more on that latter. The issue of the older generation will be for me about doing baraminology of poly--->apo AND mono---->holo. I will solve the evolutionary issues of Gould morphospace by using notions in math of cardinals and ordnials in his stauts of convergence within the parralelization that was hard to orthogonalize when not kinematicize.
This does not mean that I will demand KNOWLEDGE of the limits of variation as Provine thought to Johnson but bit by bit I will explain it relative to Gould's symphony of evo-devo. Thanks again for looking it up on Ross.
As to 'Baramin representatives' it would appear to me that Mendel's garden vs country can be "construed" to associate a non-moral interpretation of Rosskinds see
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 11-29-2003 9:40 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024