We know it part, but when that which is perfect is come then we shall know even as we are known.
When I first read Hugh Ross' book, I thought it was a wonderful attempt to reconcile science and scripture. But he is dead wrong when he attempts to claim that there is a Dual Revelation available to us, equating scientific discoveries and conclusions with the scripture. While science has the capability of teaching us truths about Nature (as it exists right now), the only source of absolute truth is the word of God.
In a public and as yet unanswered open letter to Hugh Ross, Physicist Lambert Dolphin wrote the following:
The Danger of Reductionalism---There remains Great Mystery in Creation: God's dialogues with Job show that Job hasn't figured out how God created things, and can't! Job does has a good amount of knowledge about God derived from nature. He also has a personal relationship with God and some years' experience in matters of faith. Yet when God finally speaks to Job, the LORD's response shows that man is unable to probe the mysteries of creation to any depth! This is confirmed by Solomon who says: "He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man's mind, yet so that he (man) cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) Isaiah records: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts". (Isaiah 55:7-9) The passage in Ecclesiastes seems to indicate that the mystery of time can not be unraveled by man because God has hidden it. This may mean that we can not establish once and for all whether or not the universe is old or young. I believe that as history moves forward science and the Bible must come into closer agreement, otherwise we are drawing incorrect conclusions from our observations of nature. However we must not insist that God did things in a certain way unless we are given that information in Scripture. This is the difference between naturalism and supernaturalism. A supernatural view of the universe is not the same as a magical or mythical view, however. "Theistic evolution comes in two varieties: the first says that God is the First Cause who built all the necessary things into the original very low entropy of the universe and allowed all the details to unfold naturally after t=0. The second view is that the universe runs mostly by natural processes, but that God intervenes occasionally to bring about exceedingly improbable events such as the origin of life and transitions between species (punctuated equilibrium, for example). Biblical creation takes neither of these views. You claim not to believe in theistic evolution, but you don't appear to me to depart too far from the premises of the second type of theistic evolution."
It does appear to me that the OEC's that have posted here belong to the second group of theistic evolutionists. They may believe that God intervened at various points in history to create macro-species, but that micro-speciation was the work of Nature. The problem that we have with that view is simply that the evolutionist will point to the gradual evolution of ape to human and point out all the similarities as evidence that man was not, in fact, a special creation, but was simply a walking talking ape.
If we accept that science is equal to scripture in giving us a revelation of God, then we are elevating science (which is the study of God's creation) to the level of scripture (which is the revelation of God).
"Since the fall, however, man has sought to act independently of his Creator. As one writer observes, 'Since the fall the human mind has been wholly pagan.' The pagan mind resists submitting results of its reason against Scripture as a check. It even desires to stand as a judge of Scripture. There are just two ways to approach issues. Either we view everything through the Bible, or we view the Bible through man's autonomous ideas." (Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, Multnomah Press, Portland, 1984-
All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that has been made.
In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
And the light shined in the darkness; and the darkness did not understand it.
He most certaintly does not do this.
Excerpt from, A Matter of Days, p. 89:
The Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation [He lists 26 passages, p. 255 plus an additional 187 passages on creation pp. 253-254]. Just as readers rightfully expect valid interpretation of Isaiah to be consistent with that of Mark, they can expect accurate interpretation of the facts of nature to be consistent with the message of Genesis and the rest of Scripture...
This consistency does not mean, however, that the record of nature is as complete and specific as the message of the Bible or even that it speaks on all important matters...the central truths of Christianity...[Trinity, etc]...cannot be gleaned from a study of nature...on these subjects...the Bible is our sole reliable source of information.
On other subjects, nature’s record provides out sole reliable source of information. The pyhiscal properties of quarks, the rotation rates of galaxies...
Truth, be definition, is information free of contradiction and error. One revelation of God’s truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another. It can be different, just as the content of Ezra is distinct from that of Romans, but truth cannot be better or worse. Thus, when science appears to conflict with theology, we have no reason to reject either the facts of nature or the Bible’s words. Rather, we have reason to reexamine our interpretations, because the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree.
"They may believe that God intervened at various points in history to create macro-species, but that micro-speciation was the work of Nature."
Micro-speciation, or microevolution, is accepted by virtually all creationists, including YECs. If you equate it with theistic evolution, then you don't know what it is. Mircoevolution is change within a species, its ability to adapt. Such changes are caused be existing codes in the genetics. Such changes aren't necessarily permanent, nor do they ever compound to form entirely new life forms (macroeveolution). Microevolution can be seen in all life, including humans.
Dolphin's comments reveal he hasn't bothered to see what OEC's or Ross actually say or as ignored it. At least that's what I have to assume because the only other option is that he is being decietful. And one can't help to wonder that because reading any of Ross' works show Dolphin's comments are completely off the mark.