TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.
Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.
First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.
TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.
If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.
TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?
Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.
How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.
First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.
TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.
Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.