What bothers me is why are there so many Christian leaders like those listed above that are apparently not believing this??
(Fred) That is a difficult question to answer, because it is hard to judge the intentions of one's heart. My guess is at least two fold:
First, the majority of Hugh Ross supporters tend toward a classic, evidentialist approach to apologetics. They have a set of foundational assumptions that drive their thinking. For instance, these evidentialists seem to operate from the notion that the heart and reason of men are separated into two categories. The issue for Christian belief is for a sinner to honestly take their reason (which is understood to be not necessarily affected by sin) and apply it to the heart in order for the person to believe the gospel and be saved. The problem, however, is that the Bible never makes those category distinctions between man's reasoning and his heart. Out of his sinful heart flows sinful reasoning. The two are co-related.
Also, the evidentialist apologetics of progressive creationists assume that nature and science are neutral, so that any person can study these things and discover the truth about them. Because science produces truth, all truth is considered God's truth, so according to Ross, big bang cosmologists see the universe as billions of years old, objective "science" cannot be wrong because it is God's truth, and it is concluded that these scientists reached that number for the age of the universe from researching, neutrally true evidence. The problem with Ross's acceptance of this approach, however, is the fact that much of the "science" he depends upon to feed his progressive creationism is theoritical in nature. It really isn't based upon objective, true science. These so-called scientists have to interpret what they are observing, and they will interpret such evidence from a sinful heart that shapes their darkened reason that helps them to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. Ross erroneously believes these guys are telling us the truth about their science because science is assumed to be near infallible.
Secondly, I believe these Progressive Creationist/ Hugh Ross supporters suffer from embarrassment with regards to classic fundamentalist Christians who have approached the issue of evolution/creation and science with an attitude of ignorance. In some respects, I agree with them. I am equally embarrassed by the way Christians have handled themselves regarding this debate, because they respond with buffoonish ignorance that only dishonors Christ. The progressive creationist views the position of a young earth creationist with contempt, because it is considered unsophisticated; one that is a left over from the dominance of fundamentalists who strained the boundaries of credulity in their desperation to explain away the science that is showing the idea of a 6, 24 hour creation week as being an unrealistic interpretation of scripture. In fact, Ross's newest book "It is just a matter of days" addresses this idea.
Have you ever heard a good debate on this issue?? If so could you tell me if there is a resource available somewhere??
(Fred) I am not aware of any major debates. Back in 2001, Ross contacted my pastor, John MacArthur, to see if he would be willing to moderate a debate between his supporters and the AiG folks. Ross wrongly assumed John didn't have an opinion on the book of Genesis and was surprised to learn that John was a biblical 6 literal days creationist when one of the associate pastors wrote him back. The associate further explained that John disagreed with Ross's beliefs and found them to be unbiblical. Ross, in his typical "woe is me I am being persecuted" fashion, went to print with a newsletter or supporter letter telling how John is going around calling him a false teacher. Though John would agree that he teaches false things about Genesis, it has never been a campaign on the part of GTY or Grace Church to attack Ross in such a manner. He was exaggerating the facts, which is something he is notorious for doing. In fact, any disagreement with his position is taken as a full assault on his Christian character. Ross is under the opinion that his viewpoint is just an alternative take on the book of Genesis, and should not be a point of contention between believers. Progressive creationism falls into one of those categories like the question of whether it was really the spirit of Samuel that came back from the dead in 1 Sam. 28, or whether it was a demon impersonating Samuel. I don't see it as that simple. Ross's viewpoint totally disrupts any meaningful understanding of God's word. He brings to bear upon it an erroneous, outside hermeneutic that reinterprets the Bible. That is something that Christians just cannot "debate vigorously, but not divide over" to quote the BAM man, Hank Hanegraff (A supposed YEC, but friendly support of Ross).
As to why Ken Ham or Jonathan Sarfati won't debate, I don't know their reasoning. I sort of wish they would. However, this is taken from one of Sarfati's responses to the question:
Why don't you set up a debate in an appropriate neutral forum such as the Ankerberg program or James Dobson's program?
Well, if such a rare species as a neutral forum can be found, I hope that it's preserved for posterity. Ankerberg and Dobson are hardly neutral but blatantly pro-Ross. I have demonstrated Ankerberg's constant partiality in my analysis of the Ross-Hovind debate on his show that was aired in October it was more of a Ross+Ankerberg tag team against Hovind. Dobson has also often hosted Ross on his show, but his producers call Ken Ham "divisive and dogmatic," and thus will not have him on the program. Neither did Ankerberg bother to contact AiG although it is one of the leading creationist organisations in the world. And for what it's worth, AiG USA is in negotiations with Dr. Ross about a possible forum.
Anyway, I can't understand the huge attraction of debates. As I pointed out, AiG has frequently dealt with Ross's public statements, while Ross generally ignores what we say and keeps on misrepresenting our arguments. The propositions taught by both sides are what's important, not whether they are made face-to-face. Debates tend to emphasize personalities more than the issues.
Fred
