Archives for posts with tag: Dr. Hugh Ross

This is another item I wrote on Facebook, and decided I wanted on my blog as well.

My beautiful and intelligent wife happened upon this article (, and she commented to me that she thought is was sad that people base their faith on something other than their relationship with God. That is, setting your faith in anything but God Himself is idolatry. There are people who hold the bible as idol, and there are people who hold science as idol. There are also people who hold science as their entire religion, but that is another (and sad) matter.

Mary also took exception to Dr. Ross’ take on Hebrews 11:6 (one of my favorite scriptures).

I very much appreciated Brother Hugh’s example of “knowing” his wife exists, but I agree with Mary that Dr. Ross overreached with his version of the scripture. ESV translates “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” ( for plenty to study.) Dr. Ross interpreted that to say if we would diligently seek out evidence for God, we would find it. I don’t accept that thinking. That is not consistent with my own experience nor our understanding of history. God governs in the affairs of men, but he does so with hiddenness. ( “I think it more suitably functions as a proof of the fittingness of revelation.”) God leaves us with the option of thinking we did it ourselves, or that we just got lucky.

It seems only fair to me.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews tells us plainly that it is impossible to please God without faith, and we MUST believe in order to come to Him at all. Like it or not, understand it or not, this is the way it is. While I hold there is evidence for God, it is only evidence, and it can always be explained other ways.

The “Standard Model” is a bit out of context in my title, but so is Dr. Ross’ headline here:

Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana assert that recent analysis of herpes provides an independent line of evidence in support of the modern evolutionary model of humanity in the “out of Africa” version currently held as the most explanatory of our lineage over the last hundred thousand years or so. Dr. Ross and his organization are dedicated to finding truth, and they are zealously convinced that scripture and science will agree if we understand both correctly. I agree in principle. I will hold to truth first, though, rather than to my interpretation of the scripture.

Accordingly, it is reasonable for Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana to assert that the out-of-Africa model is consistent with their current understanding of the biblical account of human origins. (Note that Dr. Ross points to several scriptures, not just the first few chapters of Genesis. He makes a good case, but not necessarily convincing.)

Still, the references pointed to in the article provide several independent lines of evidence in support of biological evolution in both humans and pests (including disease).

I’ll point to Howard Van Till again, and I’ll say I still find “the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground” more consistent with the modern understanding of biological evolution than with a caricature of God as Michelangelo creating David. It just doesn’t set right with me to suppose God breathing on an Adamic statue, and it becoming flesh and alive a la Hollywood and CGI.

So, while I applaud, and I think they provide a lot of good, I’m not comfortable with their headline.

%d bloggers like this: