Talk:Hugh Ross (creationist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Comments:

Contents

[edit] Title

I think the page should label him as an astronomer and not a creationist. Though clearly a creationist in his belief system, the use of such a value-laden term puts the NPOV in jeopardy. We don't label Stephen Jay Gould as an evolutionist, we give him the respect he deserves and label him a scientist. Hugh Ross deserves the same distinction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.217.195 (talk • contribs).

Ross has done no real astronomy work since the 1970s AFAIK and is in any event far better known as a creationist than as an astronomer. He runs a ministry, not an observatory. JoshuaZ 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Flex 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In which case, he should be referred to as a Christian Apologist, as he talks about far more than just creationism on his site and his ministry. --69.70.217.195

I think it could go either way. Ross is certainly best known for his views on creationism, though that is not all he and Reasons To Believe talk about. It's the same with others. For instance, Jonathan Edwards is best known as a preacher during the Great Awakening, but he was also a philosopher, president of Princeton, a missionary to Native Americans, and a naturalist who wrote significantly on scientific topics. If there were multiple notable people with the same name, should he be listed as "Jonathan Edwards (preacher)" "Jonathan Edwards (missionary)", "Jonathan Edwards (Princeton)", "Jonathan Edwards (philosopher)", "Jonathan Edwards (naturalist)", or something else? It's hard to say, but I think "preacher" would probably be best. --Flex 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:JoshuaZ, he is most notable because he is a creationist. Bejnar 16:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Precedent has it that on such topics links are given to a wide variety of viewpoints. Ross promotes nonsense, YECs get really wound up about him because they think he is compromisng the issue. The link illustrates that. Dunc|☺ 15:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

could you point us to some of the precedents you refer to? Eclipsed 16:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Kent Hovind is probably the best because it gives Hovind's sites, YEC criticism, mainstream criticism etc. Ross is a little less well known. Dunc|☺ 17:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] severe criticism

I suggest that the wording "severe criticism" is not NPOV. There is nothing in the article, currently, to show that YAC's criticize Mr. ross more nor less then they criticize others. Eclipsed 16:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, they (especially AiG), which styles itself as "mainstream creationism", don't like splitters at all (cue seen from The Life of Brian), even occasionally less than the "real enemy" of secular humanism. Dunc|☺ 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, but judging the level of their criticism is, so far, a subjective thing. But their act of criticism is a fact. That's my reasoning for removing the word "severe". Eclipsed 22:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic style

There are a couple of phrases that are still in the article that read less like an encyclopedia and more like a promotional piece. Listed:

  • In Biography: “maintains an active speaking schedule”;
  • In Thought “adopts the common view” this is not cited, is it indeed a “common view”?, there are many who dispute the equality of nature and holy scripture, others consider nature to be an illusion (veil of Maya);
  • In Thought “they are publishing a series of sixteen books” editors don’t forecast, NPOV focuses on deeds not hopes;
  • In Creationism “conventional models” is not cited or properly referenced;
  • In Bibliography, the listing without authors suggests (despite the disclaimers) that Hugh Ross is more highly published than he is. For example, Why I Am a Christian becomes “Why I believe in the Miracle of Divine Creation” in Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, editors, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (2001), pp. 125-146.

and The Genesis Debate becomes “The Day-Age View” by Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer in The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation -- edited by David G. Hagopian, Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press (2001) pp. 67-82, 123-164, 189-216, 269-278.

Could the authors address these? Bejnar 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of psuedoscience

The line in the intro: "...he nevertheless rejects evolution with pseudoscience" - is unsupported in the article. Dr. Ross appears to appeal to accepted current scientific undertanding - if this is not the case, examples of his use of psuedoscience need to be given.

You can see his FAQ at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution in which he denies a major part of scientific knowledge with the standard creationist arguments, in addition to his complete mangling of theology/apologetics with science. — Dunc|☺ 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly standard creationist pseudoscience albeit without the creationist pseudogeology [1] — Dunc|☺ 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but unless we have a source which calls his arguments pseudoscience that might constitute OR? Can me maybe mention specific arguments and then cite those as being pseudoscience? JoshuaZ 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Replacing "with pseudoscientific arguments" with "with standard creationist arguments" seems to be clear without being OR. The link Duncharris provided obviously lacks knowledge of Hebrew (even the simplistic task of transliteration; cf. Strong's entry for yom) but feels free to criticize Ross on that point. Seems like the author is trying so hard to discredit Ross that he overstepped his bounds. Even though I agree with some of the other criticism therein, it doesn't strike me as a reliable source (it has been "posted", but apparently not published or peer-reviewed). --Flex 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you would think it didn't meet WP:RS and I don't see what the issue with the hebrew is either. The critique of his transliteration seems valid (this may come as a shock but many people do not consider Strong's to be the be-all and end-all that so many protestants seem to). JoshuaZ 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that there are various conventions for transliterating Hebrew (cf. Hebrew alphabet#Name and transliteration), but the author is obviously ignorant of this fact. In one case, Ross is using a transliteration from a well-known and reasonably respected resource that does in fact have a "w" in the transliteration of "yom". It may not be the current convention, but it is certainly not "for unknown reasons" or "for unfathomable reasons" (emphasis mine). The author is charging Ross with error when he claims "Ross converted the word 'yom' (in Hebrew three letters, yud, vav, mem) into the four letter word 'yowm' with a letter 'w' mysteriously appearing out of thin air." Please. Sounds to me like the guy is looking for faults, thought he found one, and jumped on it. Unfortunately, in doing so, he exposed his own ignorance of the subject matter at hand. This is not to say anything for or against Ross' knowledge of the language or his interpretations. It merely is to say that the author of that link is not entirely credible IMHO because he seems more interested in discrediting Ross than in dealing with his arguments on their merits. --Flex 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually to me it is pretty unfathomable why you would use a transliteration system designed to aide in pronounciation (and even then useless unless the person knows the system in detail) when you are talking about a translational issue. It would be accurate to say that as far as I am aware real scholards just don't do that. So at most the complaint could be that the talkreason article should have noted that was a transliteration within a system designed for pronounciation. This seems to me to be a minor nitpick. JoshuaZ 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The author also dislikes his alternate transliteration as yôm. The point is that this guy doesn't know diddly about Hebrew transliteration if he calls such well-established (but not universal) conventions unfathomable, unknown, or mysterious, and since he seems so confident in his point when he is obviously ignorant of the facts, he is not credible (even though, again, I agree with some of his other points). I'm just asking for a more reliable source that makes some of the same points. --Flex 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ's recent edit is fine by me, but I'd still like a citation from a better source. --Flex 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why am I reminded of the Bible code BS? Yep, definitely pseudoscientific. •Jim62sch• 12:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Old-Earth creationism is itself tagged as "pseudoscience" (admittedly I tagged it, but Young-Earth creationism and "Intelligent Design" were already tagged as pseudoscience). Advocates of such beliefs generally carry the "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientist" tag too (some rationalization is needed there). --Robert Stevens 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've added the Pseudoscience category to the foot of the page. As he's advocating a set of beliefs that contradict the scientific consensus regarding speciation and common descent, this seem appropriate, and it makes Ross consistent with other creationists, ID-advocates etc. His rejection of (some) pseudoscience is commendable, but it's not exactly unusual for creationists to claim that the science they personally reject is "not valid science" and therefore doesn't count. --Robert Stevens 09:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that because at the very least it should be Category:Pseudoscientists rather than Category:Pseudoscience, but the former is redundant since he is already categorized as a Creationist. See WP:SUBCAT. --Flex 12:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV statements about Ross' publications

User:General Nolledge has accused me of whitewashing this page with this edit (and the two similar versions before it). This is untrue. On the contrary, I was doing two things:

  1. Making the reference style consistent. General Nolledge converted one reference to the <:ref> style, and I merely converted the others. This should be entirely uncontroversial and should have been left intact even if the other part were truly whitewashing.
  2. I was attempting to make the page more neutral according the official policy.

In particular, General Nolledge seems to be thinking of this sentence which s/he added to the biography section:

Ross likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers[1][2][3], a singularly authored paper[4], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary[5] to a paper by M.A. Stull[6].

where the references give citations for Ross' papers. As I expressed in my edit summaries and on General Nolledge's talk page, this evaluation of Ross' papers does not let the facts speak for themselves. Additionally, it makes the unsupported claim that "Ross likes to give the impression that...." That is unsubstantiated original research plain and simple. For these reasons, I proposed we restore the text to my version which located the citations for these papers in Ross' bibliography where they belong and which removed the biased, unsupported statements about them. --Flex 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a blatant whitewash, trying to minimise facts that are inconvenient to the creationist Flex. This is exactly letting facts speak for themselves. Look at any other biography and it starts with by describing their career, what positions they held, for example. Ross holds no positions, if I had wanted to attack him I could say "Ross has held no important academic positions" But I do not, Ross's publications are simply described. Those are the facts, period.
The other section on the other hand is complete reparroting of creationist BS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs).

First, what "facts" am I trying to minimize? I'm talking only about your unsourced assertions and non-neutral verbiage. Second, you didn't explain why you keep reverting my changes to the reference style. --Flex 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1) I dont know what you mean by reference style. that is standard referece Wikipaedia style.
2) Unsourced assertions is BS. The papers come from ross' own CV!!! You can find proof of their existence in NASA ADS database *and* PubMed. Peer-reviewed scientific publications are important to one's career. Ross's publications are important to Ross's career. Let the facts speak for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs).

Re #1: You converted the link to the first citation from the inline citation style (like this[2]) to footnote reference style, but you did not convert the inline citations in the rest of the article. I did. Please stop reverting them.

Re #2: The papers still appear in my version in the Bibliography section where they belong. The unsourced statements and biased verbiage I am talking about are your words about those papers that are quoted above. --Flex 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1) The references can still be formatted, if you added anything worthwhile with one hand, you certianly removed it with the other. The references can be redone - i suggest you improve my version.
2) The bibliography should contain his apologetics works, but these should be referenced and summarized too.
3) It is cleary that Ross is mainly engaged in apologetics, and has been only engaged in apologetics works since c. 1980. An older version of this webpage claimed he was doing "research"; it is clear that his lack of scientific publications is a bit of an embarrassment ot supporters such as Flex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs).
This section is about Ross's publication history - NPOV problems generally are with the #Thought section, not with this one, which is factual. It is not helpful to have a badly-titled discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by General Nolledge (talk • contribs).

Please start obeying the talk page guidelines and WP:CIVIL. Regarding the title, I've added a new section for your concerns about the Thought section below. As I said in my edit summary, I have links elsewhere that point to this section. This section is about the neutrality of your edits, so the title is not inaccurate. I'll respond to your 3 points later. --Flex 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ross likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials" is not a NPOV statement. His Astronomy journal articles should be listed in "bibliography" along with the rest of his writings. The dates plainly show that he has no recent work in astronomy journals. I added a separate section for critics of Ross, which at this point shows only one single individual, because only one single individual is cited. Anyone can add to this section as per Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone is pushing an agenda here, it is the writer of this statement. 211.114.56.130 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While General Nolledge and I were blocked (n.b., User:211.114.56.130 is not me or anyone with any connection to me), it seems that the other editors agreed with me and deleted/approved of deleting the non-neutral statement. I proceeded to reconvert the references (for the last time, I hope!). The article is the better for all of that. --Flex 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on Thought section

What specific WP:NPOV problems are there? --Flex 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There were none, so I removed them.211.114.56.130 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream???

Clicking on the article for mainstream shows that there is NOTHING there that relates to science, scienists, or cosmology. Please modify "mainstream" article before referencing it elsewhere.211.114.56.130 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing?

This article is about Hugh Ross, so even though most scientists may think that ANY kind of creationism is psuedoscience, any scientist referenced in this article about Hugh Ross must deal specifically with him and his arguments. Therefore, the citation of one or two scientists would not constitute all "scientists" or even "most" scientists. The strongest modal you can use in that situation would be "some". I myself added Eugenie Scott as a critic, and will be happy to add anyone else whom I KNOW to be a critic of Ross or his specific arguments. I also added his critics from the YEC camp. Whitewashing? I think not.211.114.56.130 05:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ross promotes views which are rejected by a clear majority of scientists, even though relatively few of them have addressed Ross directly. His rejection of evolution and common descent puts him at odds with virtually all biologists, for example. "Some" implies a minority, and is inappropriate. --Robert Stevens 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Ross' views on evolution, I concur with Robert Stevens. We don't need to specifically critique Ross' progressive creationism here in order to say that he is out of step with the current consensus since it is apparent that he rejects the evolutionary model. Ross' views on cosmology, however, are generally in-step with the current consensus, and so any criticism of them should be directly about those views, like 211.114.56.130 says above. --Flex 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ross' views on cosmology may not be as out of step with the cosmology community as his views on biology certainly are with that community, but he doesn't appear to have published anything on them in the peer-reviewed scientific press. The article neither cites any such publications (there are some from the 1970s, but these don't appear to concern creationism) nor draws attention to the lack of them. In an article about a scientist the latter point is significant, so the article should clarify here. As an aside, the article's currently a bit vague on what his views actually are, and would benefit also from some explanation of them (and their deviation from those of the scientific community). Cheers, --Plumbago 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Plumbago's current wording works well. It bypasses the whole some/many/most issue, not trying to quantify the number of scientists involved: but nevertheless making it clear that Ross is, shall we say, not exactly mainstream. --Robert Stevens 14:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I still contend that in any article about a specific person, the criticism should be directed at the specific person's belief and statments, not his/her general beliefs. If "Ross' arguments against evolution are not supported by the scientific community, and his views on the age of the Earth have also been criticised by theologians." Then somewhere in the article shold show what his arguments are, and who refutes those arguements. I am not against the current wording of the article, however I think it could use some specification. Hopefully, there won't be any more silly revert wars perpetuated by one misguided individual.211.114.56.130 04:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Myers counts as a reliable source. Guettarda 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We are instructed to be generally wary of self-published sources such as blogs that aren't subject to fact checking. It may be (not is) acceptable to cite blogs in some circumstances, but surely you can find a review of the actual book in a known reliable source that would be beyond dispute. --Flex 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for reference (given recent changes) when it comes to original research in science books are not considered as reliable as peer-reviewed papers in journals (for examples, look at just about any published paper). To a working scientist, that Ross has not published his ideas in the scientific press is much more significant fact than the appearance of his ideas in a book (let alone one published by a religious publisher). The article's current counterbalancing of books and the scientific press is misleading in this regard. Regarding Myers, I'd be much happier if he'd published his summary of Ross' work in a more formal venue (which may not be easy as Ross' ideas might be laughed out of consideration by any scientific journal), and if possible would prefer such a source. Have his books been reviewed anywhere for instance? Anyway, just a few observations. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Your points are well-taken. I did not intend to make it look counter-balanced, but the blog entry that is cited only reviews the online summary (which is much older), not the actual book which is (presumably) updated and more detailed. Thus, I moved that reference before the book next to the citation of the text Myers reviewed. --Flex 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Myers is a reliable source. More relibale than inserting Flex's bizarre pseudoscientific opinions as fact. How come Felx wants to include Ross's books but not his peer-reviewed papers? General Nolledge 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Myers may be reliable, but he shot down a model based on a layman's summary, so his refutation was essentially of a strawman model. The model is still under development, which may be why Ross hasn't published it yet in any journals. Therefore I think the claim about Myers debunking the "model" should be removed, or restated to be NPOV. Plumbago, I seem to recall Creation as Science receiving a favorable review in the journal Science, although the writer disagreed with Ross's conclusions, but I could be mistaken on where it appeared. chrisw10 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope, not in Science apparently. Guettarda 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
General Nolledge, what "bizarre pseudoscientific opinions" are you thinking of exactly? Please supply quotations and/or diffs. --Flex 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre claim about peer-reviewed papers

I cannot understand why General Nolledege says above: "How come Felx [sic] wants to include Ross's books but not his peer-reviewed papers?" S/he has made this same claim several times elsewhere. For the record, I fully agree the papers should be listed, and in fact, after General Nolledge added them, I simply moved them from the "References" section to the "Bibliography" section so they were listed with the rest of his publications. Why do you persist in claiming that I deleted them and don't want them listed? Clearly that is not the case. --Flex 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Liar. You tried to hide the text and removed the important note that his article in Nature (journal) wasn't a research paper but a commentary on another paper. See also whitewash. His output would be fairly typical for a PhD student/postdoc, but he hasn't published any research since the late 1970s, yet he claims on his website to be a scientist and doing research. Sound familiar? He is a liar like you. Those are the facts, and you sought to minimize those facts, Mr Flex. General Nolledge 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please stop the personal attacks and start assuming good faith. These are mandated policies, not optional guidelines. Besides, pragmatically speaking, if we talk things out calmly and without personal attacks, we can more quickly acheive the desired end (viz. a neutral and high-quality article). Second, I didn't try to hide anything (at least not intentionally -- remember that part about assuming good faith?). I copy-n-pasted the papers from Ross' CV rather than converting your footnotes into plain bibliographic references, and I apologize that I didn't notice you had added a note on that one paper. This change was entirely unintentional. You'll notice in this diff that I left that text in when I did notice that you had modified the CV's bibliography. Finally, I'm pleased to see that you have abandoned your previous, baseless claim that I didn't want these papers included at all. --Flex 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Ross' claim to be doing research, I haven't read that (do you have a link?), but prima facie, I don't think it is a "lie" to say that he is a researcher. The issue I think you are getting at is that (1) he has changed his primary domain of research from astronomy to the area of overlap between science and theology, and (2) he hasn't published his research in peer-reviewed journals. The former shouldn't be a major issue, but the change should be noted in the article (as I tried to do with "Before he entered into full-time ministry..." in the Bibliography section). The latter means that he lacks credibility with the scientific establishment, and that should be (and is!) noted also. Of course, any reliable source documenting interaction between the scientific establishment and Ross' ideas should also be noted. Or have I misunderstood your complaint in this regard? --Flex 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing, not reverting

Neither version is really neutral. Can be discuss how best to improve the article and how to work in into shape, instead of reverting? Guettarda 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GN's insertion

Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers[7][8][9], a singularly authored paper[10], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary[11] to a paper by M.A. Stull[12].

  1. ^ Ross, Hugh N., and E. R. Seaquist. "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 170 (January 1975): pp. 115-119. NASA ADS
  2. ^ Lo, K. Y., R. T. Schilizzi, M. H. Cohen, and H. N. Ross. "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." The Astrophysical Journal 202 (1 December 1975): pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS
  3. ^ Lo, K. Y., M. H. Cohen, R. T. Schilizzi, and H. N. Ross. "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." The Astrophysical Journal 218 (15 December 1977): pp. 668-670. NASA ADS
  4. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." The Astrophysical Journal 200 (15 September 1975): pp. 790-802. NASA ADS
  5. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature 226 (2 May 1970): p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed
  6. ^ Stull, M.A., 1970, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed
  7. ^ Ross, Hugh N., and E. R. Seaquist. "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 170 (January 1975): pp. 115-119. NASA ADS
  8. ^ Lo, K. Y., R. T. Schilizzi, M. H. Cohen, and H. N. Ross. "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." The Astrophysical Journal 202 (1 December 1975): pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS
  9. ^ Lo, K. Y., M. H. Cohen, R. T. Schilizzi, and H. N. Ross. "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." The Astrophysical Journal 218 (15 December 1977): pp. 668-670. NASA ADS
  10. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." The Astrophysical Journal 200 (15 September 1975): pp. 790-802. NASA ADS
  11. ^ Ross, Hugh N. "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature 226 (2 May 1970): p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed
  12. ^ Stull, M.A., 1970, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed

[edit] Discussion

  • "likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials"
    • This is, obviously, a less than desirable tone. If Ross trades on his credentials, can we find a source which discusses this?
  • "his entire scientific output consists of..."
    • Again, I don't see the information as a problem so much as the way it is presented. Can we find a way to convey these ideas without having to spell things out like this? Guettarda 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the references section here is including the references from a different section of the talk page above. --Flex 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GN's deletion

Ross published several scientific papers, mostly before entering full-time ministry:

  • "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09." Nature, 262 (1970), p. 431. NASA ADS, PubMed (This is a commentary on the paper by M. A. Stull, "PK 0048-09: a possible radio variable galaxy." Nature. 1970 Feb 28;225(5235):832-3. PubMed)
  • with E. R. Seaquist, "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 170 (1975), pp. 115-119. NASA ADS
  • "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc." Astrophysical Journal, 200 (Sept. 15, 1975), pp. 790-802. NASA ADS
  • with K. Y. Lo, R. T. Schilizzi, and M. H. Cohen, "VLBI Observations of the Compact Radio Source in the Center of the Galaxy." Astrophysical Journal, 202 (Dec. 1. 1975), pp. L63-L65. NASA ADS
  • with K. Y. Lo, M. H. Cohen, and R. T. Schilizzi, "An Angular Size for the Compact Radio Source at the Galactic Center." Astrophysical Journal, 218 (Dec. 15, 1977), pp. 668-670. NASA ADS
  • with David L. Block, "Unser Universum: Zufall oder Absicht?" Die Sterne, 68 (1992), pp. 325-339.

Ross has written many articles and over 50 creationist apologetics articles, and he has written or collaborated on the following books:

  • The Creator and the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993, 2nd ed., 1995, 3rd ed. 2001
  • The Fingerprint of God. Orange, Calif.: Promise Publishing, 1989, 2nd ed. 1991, 3rd ed. 2005
  • Creation and Time. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994
  • Beyond the Cosmos. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996, 2nd ed. 1999
  • The Genesis Question, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998, 2nd ed. 2001
  • Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002
  • A Matter of Days, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004
  • Creation and Science, Colorado Springs, NavPress, 2006
  • The Genesis Debate, Mission Viejo, CA: Crux, 2002. (with five other authors)
  • The Origins of Life, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004. (with Fuz Rana)
  • Who Was Adam? Colorado Springs, NavPress, 2005 (with Fuz Rana)

Additionally, he has contributed to the following volumes:

  • The Creation Hypothesis, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994
  • Mere Creation, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998
  • Why I Am a Christian, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000
  • The Day I Met God, Sisters, OR: Multnomah 2001

[edit] Discussion

  • The bibliography feels like a bit of a text dump. It isn't common to list every work that a person has ever published. Which are his most important works, which ones have made an impact? We should figure out what really needs to be there, and trim the rest. Guettarda 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that GN's concern is to list Ross's entire scientific output to show that he's no longer a research scientist. That's certainly worth pointing out, but I thought the way GN did it was a violation of BLP (which everyone but GN seems to agree on). I proposed elsewhere that we list the papers in the bibliography section to let the let the facts speak for themselves. However, you make a good case against that approach here, and I'm certainly open to other alternatives so long as they are in conformity with BLP. --Flex 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding his scientific publications, unless they're particularly important, they can probably be thinned to his first-author papers (if someone's feeling particularly enthusiastic, a check on the citation indices for his papers might help here). For his books, perhaps the two or three most important/recent titles (possibly those we can find the most reviews/third party commentary/links for). Regarding Ross' current research status, as far as I'm concerned that he's no longer primarily a research scientist is neither here nor there - there are such things as amateur scientists. My concern is that he has not published any of his ideas in the scientific literature. As a published scientist, Ross knows that this is the proper route for adoption by the scientific community, so he's either tried and failed or never tried at all. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Contrary to GN's claims, nowhere on on his ministries website does he claim to currently be a research scientist. The closest thing I could find to his spurious claim is the following: "In fact, Hugh Ross has been active for more than two decades in researching and communicating the most compelling evidences for God's supernatural fingerprint in creation." His primary focus is on changing the philosophy of science from a purely naturalistic paradigm, to one that acknowleges the existence of a spiritual reality. That kind of research would not be published in research science journals. He has, however, published in Philosophia Christi, a peer reviewed philosophy journal.211.114.56.130 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment : stuff and nonsense 211.114.56.130. He is claiming to be making a scientific model of what actually happened on the Earth. This is well within the remit of science (not least because we have lots of evidence of what's happened on the Earth in the past), so he should be publishing in scientific journals. If he were just interested in advancing "spirituality", he'd do what the Catholic Church does and accept the mechanisms we see operating in the world as "God's tools" (which, in part, he does). However, on biological subjects, he doesn't - he is suggesting alternatives to the scientific consensus but, unlike the consensus models, he's not letting his ideas be judged on their merits, askewing the scientific literature in favour of religious publishers. --Plumbago 07:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that the claim that God is the ultimate cause of the design in the universe and biological systems a scientific (according to the consensus of the scientific community at this point in history) one? Isn't, by definition, any claim to the supernatural NOT scientific (again, according to modern consensus)? So, how in the world can he publish in scientific journals if any claim to the supernatural isn't scientific? If you were at all familiar with his ministry and his works, you would realize that all he does is re-interpret the findings presented in the science journals to a non-naturalistic, namely Chrstian, paradigm. As it was already said, he is not currently a research scientist, nor does he claim to be, therefore, his works would not qualify being in research journals, now would they?211.114.56.130 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you two may be talking around each other a bit. Ross' primary interest since he left astronomy and entered the ministry has been to do what 211.114.56.130 suggests – viz. examining research published by scientists and providing an interpretation that is congruent with his understanding of the Bible. However, in the past year or two, he and his cohorts have apparently begun more formal work to propose an alternate model by synthesizing existing research. This latter activity (unlike the former, IMHO) could be considered research because it is an "active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising facts." Even so, Ross has only published the outline of their alternate model (as far as I'm aware) in his latest book. --Flex 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be "research", but it is NOT the kind of research that would qualifiy it to be in science journals becuase any reference to God is not considred science. I know that some components of his model were published in Philosophia Christi, but that was a few years ago when I was still in university. I can't say he has published it in more detail in Philosophia Christi as of late.211.114.56.130 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, it's not reference to a god that's the problem, its the acceptance of any unnecessary and uncharacterised elements (e.g. a god, but it could be an invisible pink unicorn). If you're going to try to replace a widely accepted scientific theory, you can't simply include elements that equate to "waving a magic wand" without explaining why a) a magic wand is necessary (i.e. why the extant theory is wrong; why other things we can see and measure can't fill its place), and b) why the magic wand you specify (i.e. your God) is preferable to another magic wand (e.g. an invisible pink unicorn). Anyway, returning to the subject at hand, Ross (and creationism in general) is only interesting because he is attempting to provide some alternative to the mainstream scientific model of the universe. Hence all of the article's discussion about him accepting parts of the model, but rejecting other parts. If he simply said he didn't believe some portions but offered nothing in response to them, he wouldn't be interesting (and wouldn't be different from millions of other people). However, in a rambling sort of way, he has constructed an alternative explanation (which is ostensibly in fine-tuning mode at the moment). This is what makes him interesting (and notable for WP). However, for such an explanation to be taken seriously (which presumably he intends it to be; otherwise why invest all that effort), it needs to be subjected to scientific scrutiny because it is a model of the universe (or, at least, part of it). Saying its simply theology, and therefore exempt from this sort of investigation, does Ross a disservice. It amounts to ignoring all of his efforts to accommodate his model with the known scientific evidence. As well as being unfair to Ross, it's a singularly armchair way of waving off criticism. Just my two cents (probably four given the length of the above). --Plumbago 09:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected the page because of the reverting and the BLP issues. GN, I reverted your last edit before protecting because it was arguably a violation of WP:BLP; I'm not familiar with the issues, but writing in that tone about a living person is inappropriate. As people seem to be saying that neither version is NPOV, I hope you'll use this time to discuss the issues and reach agreements. Please let me know when you're ready to start editing again, or leave a note on WP:RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

"God" vs. "a god" Ross clearly states that, "...the God of the Bible is the only possible explanation as to why the universe has this incredibly high measure of design in it." (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/ Listen to the first 30 seconds of any webcast there. Ross is the second person speaking. Emphasis mine.) To change someones belief to say "a god" instead of what he plainly said is a violation of NPOV.211.114.56.130 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Having been published in these astronomical journals, having been a research fellow at CalTech, and also having been the youngest person to direct Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society apparently doesn't impress user GN as to Ross' academic credentials. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one has the right to express their opinions as facts in Wikipedia. As for me, knowing that Nobel Prize winning chemist Richard Smalley was impressed enough to endorse Ross and Fuz Rana's book "The Origins of Life," and also knowing that Ross was instrumental in Smalley's conversion to Christianity is enough for me to opine that his credentials are superb. GN must feel his position so weak that he must try to sway the reader to his mere opinion instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. Also, nowhere in his website does he claim to be currently "doing research" in astronomy.

Also, Myers' disapproval better fits in the "Ross' critics" section.211.114.56.130 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Do people have any thoughts about the page being unprotected? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I'm going to unprotect. I'll keep the page on my watchlist in case the problems start up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violations

User:General Nolledge has again reverted to a version of the page that everyone else seems to agree is in violation of WP:BLP. I have reverted it again in accordance with the directive in that policy, but I'd request that all parties please state their opinion here regarding that action. While there are still non-trivial questions in play (where and how many of Ross' scientific papers should be listed, etc.) I believe we have acheived consensus that GN's text as it stands ("Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials.") is clearly not the way to go. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear that User:General Nolledge is not interested in nuetrality. He continually asserts that Ross "likes to give the impression..." but fails to show any evidence of this. He is the one who is in fact perpetuating bias. If anything, I'd say the bias is leaning AGAINST Ross because his critics are listed, but not his supporters, of which there are significant scientists (e.g. the late Richard Smalley and Francis Collins (though not in his anti-evolution views.)) and theologians (e.g. Dallas Willard and J.P. Moreland) who are. As it stands, I really can't see anything that isn't nuetral. So to those who charge that it isn't nuetral, please enlighten me as to what SPECIFICALLY isn't nuetral about it.211.114.56.130 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What rubbish from two Rossfans. These creationists are clearly not interested in "nuetrality". Collins, btw, demolished ID theory in his book. Ross's Friends are few and far between. His scientific credentials speak for themselves and should be mentioned. General Nolledge 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
General, I've reverted you again. The article clearly needs improvement but it is simply unnacceptable to say someone likes to give some sort of impression without a source. The entire thing reeks of WP:BLP problems. I dislike Ross and even I can see that. JoshuaZ 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
GN, you know nothing about my views on creationism. Ross does not advocate ID in it's current form. Collins supports the work of Ross' ministry, with the exception of Ross' anti-evolution views. Collins stated that he believes in some form of "intelligent design" in cosmology, If you doubt the last two statements, listen to Collin's interview on Ross' webcast. His credentials should be stated, but without the anti-Ross slant that you demand. You've still not answered questions. I suspect you will not because neutrality is not your concern.221.154.11.149 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

  1. Hugh Ross (creationist) likes to give the impression that he has impressive scientific credentials. However, his entire scientific output consists of three co-authored astronomy papers[13][14][15], a singularly authored paper[16], all published between 1975 and 1977 plus a 1970 commentary[17] to a paper by M.A. Stull[18].
  2. This "model" was later debunked by PZ Myers who termed the model's predictions "sublimely silly, trivial, vaguely stated, or perfectly compatible with actual evolutionary biology".[19]
  3. List of publications

As far as I can tell, only #1 could possibly be considered a BLP violation. So why don't we work on replacing it with language which doesn't violate BLP, because as far as I can tell, it isn't the underlying idea so much as it is how it is phrased. Guettarda 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This [3] from Mark Perakh seems to be somewhat along these lines.

the readers of Ross' books are advised that he has a Ph.D. degree in astronomy from the University of Toronto and that he had been a post-doctoral fellow at Caltech, studying quasars and galaxies. Indeed, in his Curriculum Vitae [1] we find a list of only five published papers on certain astrophysical matters in which Ross is either the author (in two of them) or a co-author (the last such publication dated 1977)

Guettarda 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Ross's "scientific credentials" are at least perceived as something he touts, this time from a creationist source (Danny Faulkner at True.Origins[4]):

These blunders and outdated ideas are inexcusable for a scientist. That is ironic, because Ross often dismisses his creationist critics for supposedly not having the credentials to adequately understand science

Guettarda 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When Ross dismisses creationists critics for "not having the credentials..." it is because those people have degrees from diploma mills, or some other completely non science related degree. Ross on the other hand, has real science degrees from widely recognized universities. Just list his credentials and his papers, and let the readers decide if he is "touting" something that he is lacking in.221.154.11.149 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the approach I suggested previously: let the facts speak for themseleves. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any point to adding analysis of his degrees or papers since they're not really in dispute except to say that he's not active in researching astronomy, which is already abundantly clear from his list of publications, IMHO. I think we could list them at the end of his publication list so as not to give them extra weight and add a prefacing sentence (e.g., "Before entering into full-time ministry, Ross published several technical papers:"). --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PZ Meyers and the debunking

The current text (with the approval of Guettarda) reads:

Ross has not published the alternative model in peer-reviewed scientific literature, but he outlines the basic components of the model and provides associated predictions for future scientific research in his book Creation and Science (Navpress: 2006). This model was later debunked by PZ Myers who termed the its predictions "sublimely silly, trivial, vaguely stated, or perfectly compatible with actual evolutionary biology".

But 211.114.56.130 has suggested the second sentence should begin, "An outline of this model was later criticized by PZ Myers...." because Myers only critiqued a summary outline on Ross' website from 2000, not the model presented in the book from this year. Now I have not read the book (and don't plan to), but I do think 211.114.56.130's text is the more neutral because the model certainly receives fuller treatment in the book and may be updated or changed from what was published several years ago. Meyers didn't read the book either and explicitly says he doesn't know anything about it, so it doesn't seem fair to apply his criticism of an online article to the content of a book he didn't read. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. "Debunked" sounds somewhat POV, and rather definitive, which doesn't seem supported given that Myers' article only deals with a "provisional" model, and is a short item rather than a comprehensive analysis. That said, the points he does make are fairly damning, and I can't foresee any way that Ross' final model will be anything other than bunk (unless a return to the drawing board is in the offing; and even then ...). So "criticised" is, to me, rather weak, almost implying that, if Ross can just tidy up some details, his model might float. "Comprehensively criticised" might be better, but again is probably too definitive. Anyway, to summarise my ramblings, "debunked" seems inappropriate to me, but Myers' criticisms are serious ("seriously criticised" anyone?) regardless of the final form of Ross' model. Cheers, --Plumbago 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God / a god

I reverted the change from he believes a god created life on earth and that it did not develop by natural forces alone to he believes God created life on earth and that it did not develop by natural forces alone.

This paragraph describes his position as a progressive creationist - if we use "God" rather than "a god" (or "a deity") we endorse a position on "God". If we use "a god" we are not endorsing a position. Flex pointed out that higher up in the article we use the wording He adopts the view that there are two "books" of revelation from God, apparently suggesting that if it's ok up there it should be ok everywhere. While I do not agree with this (POV text in one part of the article does not justify POV text elsewhere), this is a direct statement of what Ross says he believes, so using the wording there is less of an endorsement of the position than it is lower down. Not perfect, but it makes the article more readable. That isn't the case lower down, because we are describing progressive creationism, not reporting on Ross's broad position. Guettarda 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was suggesting that since "God" is rightly used (cf. WP:MOS#Religions,_deities,_philosophies,_doctrines,_and_their_adherents) and wikilinked elsewhere in the article, more information can easily be found for the variant understandings of the word. Moreover, we're talking here about a man arguing exclusively for the Christian God, not a deistic prime mover or vague theism (see here and here -- n.b. the scare quotes). Indeed, he rejects, e.g., Islamic explanations that could also be called progressive creationism, so while his brand of creationism does fall under the umbrella term "progressive creationism," Ross only accepts one specific version of it. In other words, he does not advocate progressive creationism in general, but one progressive creationist view in particular. So I think it is inaccurate and imprecise to say "He believes a god created..." since he really only believes that the Christian God did or could do any creating. I don't think this is pushing a POV since we're talking about a Christian theologian and specifically about what he believes, not what is fact. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/g/Talk%7EHugh_Ross_%28creationist%29_5771.html"