This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.217.195 ( talk • contribs)
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)
I strongly question the use of "Creationist" in the title of this article next to Hugh Ross's name. A quick wikipedia search of Napoleon, Victor Stenger, and Dawkins, the latter two unapologetic atheists, reveals that none of these entries have descriptors in parentheses. This raises the question of bias. Zachary 20:243, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.66.204 ( talk)
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)
In looking at link [15] there is no reference to Hugh Ross in the text of that reference. How can it be a reference to "Hugh Ross has been criticized by ... anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[15]"? I recommend the text about criticism by Eugenie Scott be removed because it is unsubstanciated by the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 ( talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's very interesting that the title refers to Hugh Ross as a creationist instead of an astronomer, and the reason cited is that he has not done any real field work for decades, yet Richard Dawkins who also has not done any field work for decades and has dedicated the last many years of his life as an atheist apologetic, author and anti religious advocate, is referred to as a (British ethologist, evolutionary biologist) and not an atheist. I think the same can be said for the way Eugenie Scott is represented in Wikipedia. Again, very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
User:General Nolledge has accused me of whitewashing this page with this (and the two similar versions before it). This is untrue. On the contrary, I was doing two things:
In particular, General Nolledge seems to be thinking of this sentence which s/he added to the biography section:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
What specific WP:NPOV problems are there? -- Flex 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Myers counts as a reliable source. Guettarda 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [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].
Ross published several scientific papers, mostly before entering full-time ministry:
Ross has written many articles and over 50 creationist apologetics articles, and he has written or collaborated on the following books:
Additionally, he has contributed to the following volumes:
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)
"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)
Do people have any thoughts about the page being unprotected? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Fl e x ( 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)
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.
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]):
Guettarda 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The current text (with the approval of Guettarda) reads:
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. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
References
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)
Removed the criticism attributed to Perakh in the "Ross' critics",
Perakh has criticized Ross for stating that "under adiabatic expansion the temperature will drop due to the expansion alone without loss of heat from the system,"[citation needed] whereas adiabatic expansion is isothermal.
because it lacks citation along with being incorrect. Regardless of whether Ross is correct or not about his theory, when an adiabatic expansion occurs, temperature does drop due to systemic expansion, and thus rapidly decreasing systemic pressure, alone without systemic heat loss. The very nature of an adiabatic system is that it is isolated from heat transfere, positive or negative, with an outside system due to the thermally insulative qualities of the system or due to the rapidity of transformation within the system itself. An isothermal system is the extreme opposite of an adiabatic system, whereby the thermodynamic transformation of the system with its surroundings is either slow enough that positive or negative heat transfer from outside the system constantly equilibrates the system or the system boundaries are so thermally non-insulated that maximal heat transfer occurs with the system's surroundings, leaving it in thermal stasis. I haven't read Ross, nor Perakh's criticism of Ross, so I am not saying that the point Ross makes is valid or invalid and the same with Perakh's criticism, having no context of either. I simply suggest that before the criticism is inserted, it should be cited and Perakh's criticism should be correctly related, as I am certain that whatever his criticism was, that was not it. 70.114.231.223 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)mdh
The article refers to Ross as a Progressive creationist, but then goes on immediately to discuss the Day-Age Creationist 'Yom' argument. Eugenie C. Scott calls him a progressive creationist here, but in Tower of Babel (p20) Robert T. Pennock refers to him as "defending the day-age in great detail" in a book he wrote. I would tend to consider Pennock the more authoritative of the two. Any further evidence or contrary opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on "Genesis 1" should be reorganized or incorporated into the previous section. The listing of what happens each "day" seems to imply Ross is a young-earth creationist.
The following sentence seems to suggest that Hugh Ross accepts "other religious" concepts:
"Ross and his associates are formally engaged in proposing what they state is an alternate, scientifically testable model for the formation of the universe, earth, and life itself that accounts for both scientific and religious (particularly Christian) explanations for each."
I would like to see a reference for this claim. Hugh Ross believes exclusively in Christian explanations and rejects all other religions as far as I know. Desoto10 ( talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is this notable chemist quoted in support of Hugh Ross' book? "Concerning Creation as Science, Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel prize winner in chemistry, said, "Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow."[6]"
He may be notable, but I don't think that he could be considered an expert on evolution. Desoto10 ( talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The following paragraph is troubling:
Many notable Christians also agree with, endorse, or at least are open to a creation of great age as presented by Ross. A few of them are Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser, Francis Schaefer, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis; and also a number of Christian universities, evangelical organizations and churches holding to a Biblical old creation.[citation needed]
Besides the fact that there are no references for these alleged endorsements, the first sentence is worded such that it only excludes YECs. "agree with, endorse, or at least are open to" is really meaningless. If we must have a seperate Endorsements section then it should contain real endorsements, with references to their specific endorsement of Hugh Ross, not OEC in general. Until this is done I am going to delete this section. It will be easy to put back with the appropriate references. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
He is more strictly an Astrophysicist from what I am reading so if anything, we should replace his title with that. Considering the term "creationism" has been getting a bad rap nowadays, it seems like the title is a blatent attempt of smearing people's initial opinions about him before actually reading on him. This is especially the case since his form of creationism is somewhat diffierent from that of young earth creationism, so best the article explain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.60.103 ( talk) 00:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the claim that Ross has a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto to actually reflecting the source's claims:
If Ross does indeed possess a Ph.D., find a source that explicitly says so and feel free to revert.
I have once again removed claims that Ross has a Ph.D. This time it was clearly outright wrong, as the Ph.D. was now claimed to be from the University of Toronto - whereas the source clearly states that Ross only obtained his "graduate degrees" there. Also, neither Toronto, nor Caltech's Ph.D. thesis search engines turn up any theses by a Hugh Ross, so please: If you want to maintain that Ross has a Ph.D.; find a source that explicitly says so. Mojowiha ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
He is not a progressive creationist. Hugh is alive and well living in California. Why doesn't 'wikipedia' notify Hugh and get his opinion. |
Substituted at 04:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is focused upon Dr. Ross’s religious apologetics. He is, after all, an astrophysicist. How about some mention of any professorships he might have held at universities and any contributions he might have made within his field?
By way of passing, debates among editors on this page as to whether Dr. Ross is espousing “pseudoscience” begs the question of existential origins; i.e., not just the origins of the reality that we live within, our perceived universe, but the origin of existence itself. I only know of two possibilities: an infinite regress, a position that I don’t know of a single serious scientist or philosopher holding, or that someone or something exists eternally and timelessly within a logic unfathomable to the human intellect. (Does anyone have a third alternative?) So why is it “pseudoscience" to theorize that this eternally and timelessly existing entity upon which the existence of all else is contingent is sentient and intelligent but not so to theorize that the entity is nonsentient and somehow “just is”? I fail to see how the latter theory is more logical than the former which at the very least renders both suppositions equally viable. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is this individual in Category:Founders of new religious movements? The article doesn't describe any movement that he founded. Doesn't seem to be a correct Cat to include him in. -- 71.223.61.234 ( talk) 22:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just edited this article to remove the significant amount of repetition, and to improve its alignment with WP:NOT, WP:NOTCV, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTABILITY, and the standard WP presentation of material about academics/scholars. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.217.195 ( talk • contribs)
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)
I strongly question the use of "Creationist" in the title of this article next to Hugh Ross's name. A quick wikipedia search of Napoleon, Victor Stenger, and Dawkins, the latter two unapologetic atheists, reveals that none of these entries have descriptors in parentheses. This raises the question of bias. Zachary 20:243, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.66.204 ( talk)
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)
In looking at link [15] there is no reference to Hugh Ross in the text of that reference. How can it be a reference to "Hugh Ross has been criticized by ... anthropologist Eugenie Scott.[15]"? I recommend the text about criticism by Eugenie Scott be removed because it is unsubstanciated by the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 ( talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's very interesting that the title refers to Hugh Ross as a creationist instead of an astronomer, and the reason cited is that he has not done any real field work for decades, yet Richard Dawkins who also has not done any field work for decades and has dedicated the last many years of his life as an atheist apologetic, author and anti religious advocate, is referred to as a (British ethologist, evolutionary biologist) and not an atheist. I think the same can be said for the way Eugenie Scott is represented in Wikipedia. Again, very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
User:General Nolledge has accused me of whitewashing this page with this (and the two similar versions before it). This is untrue. On the contrary, I was doing two things:
In particular, General Nolledge seems to be thinking of this sentence which s/he added to the biography section:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
What specific WP:NPOV problems are there? -- Flex 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Myers counts as a reliable source. Guettarda 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 [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].
Ross published several scientific papers, mostly before entering full-time ministry:
Ross has written many articles and over 50 creationist apologetics articles, and he has written or collaborated on the following books:
Additionally, he has contributed to the following volumes:
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)
"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)
Do people have any thoughts about the page being unprotected? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Fl e x ( 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)
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.
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]):
Guettarda 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The current text (with the approval of Guettarda) reads:
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. -- Fl e x ( talk| contribs) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
References
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)
Removed the criticism attributed to Perakh in the "Ross' critics",
Perakh has criticized Ross for stating that "under adiabatic expansion the temperature will drop due to the expansion alone without loss of heat from the system,"[citation needed] whereas adiabatic expansion is isothermal.
because it lacks citation along with being incorrect. Regardless of whether Ross is correct or not about his theory, when an adiabatic expansion occurs, temperature does drop due to systemic expansion, and thus rapidly decreasing systemic pressure, alone without systemic heat loss. The very nature of an adiabatic system is that it is isolated from heat transfere, positive or negative, with an outside system due to the thermally insulative qualities of the system or due to the rapidity of transformation within the system itself. An isothermal system is the extreme opposite of an adiabatic system, whereby the thermodynamic transformation of the system with its surroundings is either slow enough that positive or negative heat transfer from outside the system constantly equilibrates the system or the system boundaries are so thermally non-insulated that maximal heat transfer occurs with the system's surroundings, leaving it in thermal stasis. I haven't read Ross, nor Perakh's criticism of Ross, so I am not saying that the point Ross makes is valid or invalid and the same with Perakh's criticism, having no context of either. I simply suggest that before the criticism is inserted, it should be cited and Perakh's criticism should be correctly related, as I am certain that whatever his criticism was, that was not it. 70.114.231.223 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)mdh
The article refers to Ross as a Progressive creationist, but then goes on immediately to discuss the Day-Age Creationist 'Yom' argument. Eugenie C. Scott calls him a progressive creationist here, but in Tower of Babel (p20) Robert T. Pennock refers to him as "defending the day-age in great detail" in a book he wrote. I would tend to consider Pennock the more authoritative of the two. Any further evidence or contrary opinions? Hrafn Talk Stalk 09:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on "Genesis 1" should be reorganized or incorporated into the previous section. The listing of what happens each "day" seems to imply Ross is a young-earth creationist.
The following sentence seems to suggest that Hugh Ross accepts "other religious" concepts:
"Ross and his associates are formally engaged in proposing what they state is an alternate, scientifically testable model for the formation of the universe, earth, and life itself that accounts for both scientific and religious (particularly Christian) explanations for each."
I would like to see a reference for this claim. Hugh Ross believes exclusively in Christian explanations and rejects all other religions as far as I know. Desoto10 ( talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is this notable chemist quoted in support of Hugh Ross' book? "Concerning Creation as Science, Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel prize winner in chemistry, said, "Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow."[6]"
He may be notable, but I don't think that he could be considered an expert on evolution. Desoto10 ( talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The following paragraph is troubling:
Many notable Christians also agree with, endorse, or at least are open to a creation of great age as presented by Ross. A few of them are Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser, Francis Schaefer, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis; and also a number of Christian universities, evangelical organizations and churches holding to a Biblical old creation.[citation needed]
Besides the fact that there are no references for these alleged endorsements, the first sentence is worded such that it only excludes YECs. "agree with, endorse, or at least are open to" is really meaningless. If we must have a seperate Endorsements section then it should contain real endorsements, with references to their specific endorsement of Hugh Ross, not OEC in general. Until this is done I am going to delete this section. It will be easy to put back with the appropriate references. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
He is more strictly an Astrophysicist from what I am reading so if anything, we should replace his title with that. Considering the term "creationism" has been getting a bad rap nowadays, it seems like the title is a blatent attempt of smearing people's initial opinions about him before actually reading on him. This is especially the case since his form of creationism is somewhat diffierent from that of young earth creationism, so best the article explain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.60.103 ( talk) 00:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the claim that Ross has a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto to actually reflecting the source's claims:
If Ross does indeed possess a Ph.D., find a source that explicitly says so and feel free to revert.
I have once again removed claims that Ross has a Ph.D. This time it was clearly outright wrong, as the Ph.D. was now claimed to be from the University of Toronto - whereas the source clearly states that Ross only obtained his "graduate degrees" there. Also, neither Toronto, nor Caltech's Ph.D. thesis search engines turn up any theses by a Hugh Ross, so please: If you want to maintain that Ross has a Ph.D.; find a source that explicitly says so. Mojowiha ( talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
He is not a progressive creationist. Hugh is alive and well living in California. Why doesn't 'wikipedia' notify Hugh and get his opinion. |
Substituted at 04:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is focused upon Dr. Ross’s religious apologetics. He is, after all, an astrophysicist. How about some mention of any professorships he might have held at universities and any contributions he might have made within his field?
By way of passing, debates among editors on this page as to whether Dr. Ross is espousing “pseudoscience” begs the question of existential origins; i.e., not just the origins of the reality that we live within, our perceived universe, but the origin of existence itself. I only know of two possibilities: an infinite regress, a position that I don’t know of a single serious scientist or philosopher holding, or that someone or something exists eternally and timelessly within a logic unfathomable to the human intellect. (Does anyone have a third alternative?) So why is it “pseudoscience" to theorize that this eternally and timelessly existing entity upon which the existence of all else is contingent is sentient and intelligent but not so to theorize that the entity is nonsentient and somehow “just is”? I fail to see how the latter theory is more logical than the former which at the very least renders both suppositions equally viable. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is this individual in Category:Founders of new religious movements? The article doesn't describe any movement that he founded. Doesn't seem to be a correct Cat to include him in. -- 71.223.61.234 ( talk) 22:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just edited this article to remove the significant amount of repetition, and to improve its alignment with WP:NOT, WP:NOTCV, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTABILITY, and the standard WP presentation of material about academics/scholars. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)