As you can see from the foregoing, Ross is a true curiosity in the creationist world. Ross is featured in an article at the National Center for Science Education website: Old Earth Creationism. That same website has an extensive review of a Ross book, Creation as Science. The review is respectful, but ultimately dismissive. It’s well worth reading if you find Ross as fascinating as we do.
All of that should give you enough background to appreciate an article by Ross, which appears in the Christian Examiner. The title is Creation will be viable science as believers develop testable models. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Perhaps you’ve already observed that “evolution bashing” tends to backfire. Claims that creation or intelligent design must be right because of flaws and shortcomings in the evolution scenario typically go nowhere, and for good reason. Scientists freely acknowledge that no theory comes forth perfect and complete. The investigation of flaws and weaknesses is the process that propels science forward toward more precise understandings of the natural world.
What’s more, researchers and theoreticians interpret such complaints as a smoke screen, an attempt to cover up a lack of tangible, valid evidence for creation or, equally bad, an attempt to shield the biblical creation scenario from any meaningful evaluation and critique.
This is an amazing start to a creationist article. Let’s read on:
To gain a voice in the public arena, we cannot and need not stay “religiously neutral.” We cannot ask for recognition of an unidentified intelligent designer who played an undefined role in bringing about the observable history of life on Earth. This lack of definition will prevent us from being taken seriously as scientists.
The way forward requires development of comprehensive creation “models” (explanatory scenarios or theories). These are the core of the scientific enterprise. Creation can be and will be considered as a credible alternative to evolution only if and when we creationists put forth our own testable models to describe and explain the origin and history of the universe and life.
When creationists propose specific details of what took place “in the beginning,” creation can be scientifically tested. By providing the means to either verify or falsify (through observations and experiments) creation, we can effectively demonstrate that “creation is science.”
This is the sort of thing we routinely tell creationists, but here they’re being told the same thing by one of their own. We continue:
It’s important to remember that a shift in scientific thinking occurs only as the most talented and well-trained scientists become convinced of the need for change, not as students and politicians clamor for it. Eventually, new developments at the top research level trickle down to the classroom and the broader culture.
At this point you’ve got to be wondering — If Ross sees things this clearly, why is he a creationist? Bear with us:
For more than 20 years, my colleagues and I have been developing a radically different tactic to counter barriers to belief in creation. This strategy is not new. We simply returned to the biblically derived scientific method, the same one that sparked the scientific revolution.
Okay. Now he’s sounding more like a creationist. Let’s see where this is taking us:
Applying that method to the rapidly emerging discoveries in both the physical and life sciences has brought forth an astounding weight of evidence in favor of biblical creation.
We like to keep an open mind, but at this point we’re not aware of Ross’s evidence. Frankly, we doubt that such evidence exists. It’s possible, however, that we’ve overlooked it. It’s also possible — quite likely, in our opinion — that Ross is just another creationist with impossible dreams.
We have no way of knowing whether Ross has found happiness with his unique combination of beliefs, or whether he’s living each day in the throes of what we called The Agony of Evolution vs. Creationism — being scientifically educated, yet emotionally unable to fully accept what he knows.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.