#38792: — 09/05  at  07:25 AM
Old Earth Creationists believe in cavemen.

Check out Rana and Ross' new book, Who Was Adam?:A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576835774/qid=1125926693/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1491353-8092901?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

#38803: — 09/05  at  08:48 AM
If you find yourself in need of a distracting smile and laugh today, there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster flash game you can play here -

http://www.venganza.org/games/index.htm

It's pretty fun.

#38806: Ben — 09/05  at  09:07 AM
The fancy layout of that book cover makes the title look like "Who Adam?", which is probably a good representation of the sum total of intellectual inquiry Hugh Ross has ever contributed to science.

#38816: — 09/05  at  10:26 AM
Ben wrote:

The fancy layout of that book cover makes the title look like "Who Adam?", which is probably a good representation of the sum total of intellectual inquiry Hugh Ross has ever contributed to science.

Ben:

You are, of course, under no obligation to evaluate and respond to the arguments made in Who Was Adam? However, your comments are nothing more than a personal attack on Hugh Ross. He does have a PhD in Astronomy and was a post doc at Cal Tech for about 5 years. Its hard to believe that he has made no contributions to science given his background.

In my experience, personal attacks are a sure sign that one has nothing substantive to say about his/her "opponent's" position and must resort to name calling as a tactic.

I think it's only fair to ask, Ben, what contributions have you made to science?

#38820: — 09/05  at  10:42 AM
Its hard to believe that he has made no contributions to science given his background.

Surely, then, you could direct us to some of Hugh Ross' work in the peer-reviewed journals.

#38821: — 09/05  at  10:44 AM
While a PhD in astronomy from Cal Tech is certainly an amazing achievement as an astronomer, and I have no doubt that he is right in the middle of some of the best astronomical research in the country, what with JPL right there, I really fail to see how a PhD in Astronomy is a qualification to write a book on the origins of humans. I have a degree in political science, does this qualify me to perform open heart surgery?

Look, if he'd written a book on the cosmological constant by measuring the doppler shift of various galaxies, that would be well within his field. This book, however, is not. This does not mean that he is necessarily wrong, after all, I comment on biological matters on this blog without a degree in biology, but it does mean that his degree in astronomy does not serve as a qualification or make him an authority on this particular matter.

#38853: Zeno — 09/05  at  01:02 PM
Hugh Ross is a discouraging case. He shows how powerfully scientific inquiry can be skewed or filtered through a sectarian world view. All of us have to try to be aware of our prejudices in analyzing evidence before us, but it's not always easy to follow wherever the evidence takes us. When I went to Caltech (no Ph.D., though!) I still went to church. One of my classmates always wore a big wooden cross around his neck and later became an astronomer (not Hugh Ross, though). If your preconvictions are strong enough (e.g., the Bible must be true!), you can squeeze everything you see into that framework. Dr. Ross is better equipped than most to do it creatively.

By the way, Ross was a research fellow at Caltech after getting his doctorate from the University of Toronto.

#38857: — 09/05  at  01:23 PM

I really fail to see how a PhD in Astronomy is a qualification to write a book on the origins of humans. I have a degree in political science, does this qualify me to perform open heart surgery?

Look, if he'd written a book on the cosmological constant by measuring the doppler shift of various galaxies, that would be well within his field. This book, however, is not. This does not mean that he is necessarily wrong, after all, I comment on biological matters on this blog without a degree in biology, but it does mean that his degree in astronomy does not serve as a qualification or make him an authority on this particular matter.

Hyperion,

This is a fair point.

The fact that Hugh Ross is an astronomer (and that Fazale Rana, his co-author, is a biochemist) means their pronouncements on human origins should not be taken as necessarily authoritative, at least to the same degree that one would take statements by Richard Klein or Christopher Stringer, let's say.

But it doesn't mean that these two scientists can't: 1) develop a mastery of anthropology, 2) become familar with the scientific literature in anthroplogy, and 3) appreciate the debates that take place at the cutting edge of the discipline sufficiently to write a book about how the latest scientific advances in anthropology correlate with Christian theology. By the way Fazale Rana is a biochemist and the discipline of anthropology is becoming (at least in some areas) more and more molecular.

Given their lack of formal training in the anthropolgy does not disqualify these two men from writing a book on human origins. It just means that one should approach the book with some level of scepticism. But is that really any different than how one should approach any scientific claim regardless of the expertise of the individual making the claim. If Ross and Rana provide references to the original scientific literature to back up their case, then they are well within their rights to write about human origins. They have provided the means to evaluate their claims and arguments.

In like manner, I don't think that your lack of formal training in biology renders you incompetent to offer commentary. The validity of your statements should rise and fall on their own merits, not on your educational qualifications.

#38869: — 09/05  at  02:49 PM
Harvey Birdman had scintillating commentary on this very issue last night. Anyone watch?

Trackback: About right, methinks Tracked on: stranger fruit (129.219.245.62) at 2005 09 05 10:40:29
Via Pharyngula ... can't find a larger version though :(

#38870: — 09/05  at  02:58 PM

... Fazale Rana, his co-author, is a biochemist...

Why do you understate what your own publicity agent puts so clearly?
"Fuz" is not just "a biochemist" - he has the Olympic Bronze Medal in origins-of-life biochemistry!

Leading Biochemist Calls Embryonic Stem Cell Research 'Sloppy Science' -- Recent Scientific Discoveries Support President's Ban on Funds for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"The most recent scientific evidence shows the use of human embryos for therapeutic stem cell research to be ineffective and unnecessary," says Dr. Fazale Rana, one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research.

To: National Desk
Contact: Kathleen Campbell of Campbell Public Relations, 877-540-6022

News Advisory, May 26 /<http://www.christianwireservice.com>Christian Wire Service/ -- Internationally respected biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana calls embryonic stem cell research "sloppy science" and says that the most recent origin of life research shows stem cells derived from alternative sources hold more promise than those taken from human embryos...

According to Dr. Rana and a host of other scientists, alternative sources such as adult stem cells, are highly preferable for therapeutic stem cell research and do not raise the ethical and moral concerns that surround the destruction of human embryos. Dr. Rana's research reveals:

-- Why the use of human embryos is unnecessary and ineffective
-- The most recent bio-chemical research that shows stem cells are ineffective in the treatment of Alzheimer's and related diseases
-- Why ethical alternatives that do not involve the destruction of human embryos are far better for therapeutic research
-- Why the best avenues of research do not raise morality issues.

Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana is one of the world's leading experts in the field of origins of life research and author of the new book, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off. Find out the answers to these and a host of other questions surrounding this heated controversy.

"There are better alternatives that do not involve the use of human embryos," says Dr. Rana. "When scientific research is conducted properly it does not raise morality issues."

Fazale Rana, Ph.D. is the vice president for science apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Dr. Rana earned his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Biology and Biochemistry at West Virginia State College and his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Ohio University. He was twice winner of the Clippinger Research Award at Ohio University. Dr. Rana worked for seven years as a senior scientist in product development for Procter & Gamble before joining Reasons To Believe. He has published more than fifteen articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and delivered more than twenty presentations at international scientific conferences. Dr. Rana is the co-author of the chapter on Anti Microbial Peptides for Biological and Synthetic Membranes in addition to contributing numerous feature articles to Facts for Faith magazine. "Origins of Life" is Dr. Rana's first book. His newest title, "Who Was Adam?" is due to release in September '05. For more information visit the Reasons To Believe website at <http://www.reasons.org>www.reasons.org
# # #
______________________________________________
The preceding was forwarded to you by the Christian Communication Network.
You can always find the latest press releases at <http://www.christianwireservice.com>www.ChristianWireService.com

#38911: Johnny Vector — 09/05  at  05:46 PM

Surely, then, you could direct us to some of Hugh Ross' work in the peer-reviewed journals.

I'll save him the trouble. According to the Astrophysics Data System, there are 8 hits (all between 1970 and 1977) for Ross, H. N.:

An article in Nature, with zero citations. (Still, hitting Nature while still in school is pretty sweet.)

His thesis (two citations)

Two publications in "unknown" journals, with no citations.

One in the Monthly Notices, with one citation.

One in Ap. J., with one citation.

And finally, two articles in Ap. J. about the radio source (black hole) at the galactic center, with 30 citations total.

So, of his total output, only two articles have any significant number of citations (which is the standard measure for scientific impact, at least in astronomy). On those two articles he was the last author (and the authors are not in alphabetical order, so it's not just that his name is last). Furthermore, those were written 28 years ago.

Total output since 1977: zero.

So, more than just "Who Adam"? Assuredly. Respected practicing astronomer? Not so much.

#38927: Ben — 09/05  at  06:47 PM
However, your comments are nothing more than a personal attack on Hugh Ross.

Ya think?

#38975: — 09/05  at  10:49 PM

I'll save him the trouble. According to the Astrophysics Data System, there are 8 hits (all between 1970 and 1977) for Ross, H. N.:

An article in Nature, with zero citations. (Still, hitting Nature while still in school is pretty sweet.)

His thesis (two citations)

Two publications in "unknown" journals, with no citations.

One in the Monthly Notices, with one citation.

One in Ap. J., with one citation.

And finally, two articles in Ap. J. about the radio source (black hole) at the galactic center, with 30 citations total.

So, of his total output, only two articles have any significant number of citations (which is the standard measure for scientific impact, at least in astronomy). On those two articles he was the last author (and the authors are not in alphabetical order, so it's not just that his name is last). Furthermore, those were written 28 years ago.

Total output since 1977: zero.

So, more than just "Who Adam"? Assuredly. Respected practicing astronomer? Not so much.

The question on the table was not what has Hugh Ross' output been since 1977. The question was has he ever made any contribution to science. As I see it, and as you have detailed, he has.

In 1977, Hugh Ross' focus became the integration between science and Christian theology. He has been unquestioningly productive in this endeavor.

Is Hugh Ross actively engaged in scientific research now? No, but because he chooses to pursue other interests, does that negate his past accomplishments, or the respect that he should receive because of his previous work?

#38976: — 09/05  at  10:56 PM
<blockquote> All of us have to try to be aware of our prejudices in analyzing evidence before us, but it's not always easy to follow wherever the evidence takes us. If your preconvictions are strong enough (e.g., the Bible must be true!), you can squeeze everything you see into that framework. /blockquote>

Tony B,

I agree. But doesn't the same standard apply to the "other side". I could accuse atheists of not following the evidence where it leads. There are many atheists I have encountered that have pretty strong preconvictions themselves.

Are they squeezing the scientific evidence at hand into a strictly materialistic framework? I wonder in light of the implications of Big Bang Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, the Rare Earth Hypothesis, the inability to explain life's origin, biochemical and biological design....

#38980: Zeno — 09/06  at  12:01 AM

Are they squeezing the scientific evidence at hand into a strictly materialistic framework?

"Squeezing"? That would imply it's a tight fit. However, science is a naturally materialistic endeavor. There are two good reasons for this: (1) a very impressive track record and (2) the barrenness of a "God did it!" explanation (which is really no explanation at all). The current fuss over "intelligent design" is just the latest attempt to jam deity into science by claiming there are gaps science cannot explain, whereas in truth science has merely not explained them yet. Dembski has claimed he can prove the inadequacy of naturalistic explanations in some instances, but he has yet to persuade anyone not already singing in his choir. By their fruits you shall know them, which is why the smart money is on natural science, not supernatural science (an oxymoron to the highest degree).

#38996: Johnny Vector — 09/06  at  06:35 AM

Is Hugh Ross actively engaged in scientific research now? No, but because he chooses to pursue other interests, does that negate his past accomplishments, or the respect that he should receive because of his previous work?

Hey, you're the one who brought up scientific accomplishments. And as for respect, from me pretty much no. I can't say for sure, but based on my experience with author lists in astronomy I'm guessing his name is on those last two papers because he was on the team when they started the work. The remainder, on which he was first or sole author, have a grand total of four citations over the course of 3 decades. Sorry, but that is not a respectable output. Sure, it's a contribution to science, but it's minimal.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just let's not claim he's a "respected astronomer". Hell, Brian May has more citations (9) than that. (And 8 of those 9 are in refereed journals.)

#39006: — 09/06  at  07:25 AM

I agree. But doesn't the same standard apply to the "other side". I could accuse atheists of not following the evidence where it leads. There are many atheists I have encountered that have pretty strong preconvictions themselves.

And what possible evidence can lead to the conclusion that there must be a God? Name one piece of physical evidence that we have that should lead to such a conclusion?

Science attempts to fit evidence into a materialistic model because that is the only way science can work. As soon as you add in a factor that does not follow any natural laws, then it can no longer be described by science. Therefore, God cannot fit into science, and science cannot speak to the existence or nature of God. That is the realm of philisophy and theology.

When it comes to creationism, theology got itself into trouble when it claimed to know the answer to God, the universe, and everything. The scientific method led people (eventually) to discard the most popular, most widely accepted models of the age of the Earth, the structure of the solar system and the galaxy, and other important questions about the physical realm. So your idea that science is paralyzed by bias is simply untrue--in the long run, science has historically rewarded the person with the correct answer, not the popular one.