Future of Christianity in US

[Esquilax]

rexbeccarox and others: I should have pointed out that the best material, I think, from RTB is in Hugh Ross' book called More Than a Theory where he outlines a testable creation model. Since it is testable, of course it isnt all right, but it is the most thoughtful origins study I have seen out there. There is a long list of claims made there.

Well, I took a look at that too. I didn't buy the book, but I did check out a summarized review of it by the National Center for Science Education, and only by reading their summary of Ross' claims within the book, I am troubled. Here's the review, if you're interested, but I didn't have to go far to find something objectionable. Twice in Ross' list of claims for naturalism, he argues from fine tuning, which is quite simply incredibly fallacious. Arguments from fine tuning assume their conclusion that there actually is fine tuning; without doing so the meat of the claim falls away. If the universe as it is is not a "success" state for which there could be potential "failure" states- which is what fine tuning attempts to demonstrate- then there is no argument there; the universe just is how it happened to be. Without demonstrating that this specific universe was being aimed for, fine tuning is simply a circular argument.

If the rest of the book features the same kind of fallacies, I see no reason to take it seriously. Further reading indicates that it does, but I also take issue with the language in the title: "More than a theory"? If he means to imply that there are terms in science superior to a theory, then he is mistaken. If he means to go to the old creationist well of "evolution is just a theory!" then... well, he's kinda done already, because that is ridiculous.