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.
That is exactly what Dolphin questioned Ross about. BTW if Dolphin is so wrong about what Hugh Ross wrote, why don't you tell him to post an answer to Dolphin's open letter. He's been waiting decades to hear from him.
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...
Not necessarily. The problem is that when God works, he works by miracles and those would be outside the laws of nature, but when nature acts, it acts in accordance with the laws of nature set up by God. So whatever happened before the completion of creation is simply undeterminable by the natural sciences. You may be able to explain what happened subsequent to the completion of creation (provided that God has not interfered with the laws of nature, but to extrapolate what happened during creation with what we know about nature is not possible. God did not use nature, he created it.
What Ross is trying to do is to look at nature and how things work now and assume that the creation was the work of God working under the laws of nature and then when he does that he must extrapolate that since the earth shows evidence of being billions of years old, that therefore it must be billions of years old and therefore scripture has been misinterpreted for 4000 years and that we must now look for a new interpretation that is consistent with what we know about nature.
It is naturalistic theology. In order to come to Ross' scriptural interpretation, you must first assume that what we know about nature is clearer than what God revealed through scripture. You can't do that. Whatever happened during creation was not natural. In that sense it is unmeasurable. Therefore if God says he did it in 6 days and the clear intent of the language is to convey that in fact he did it in 6 days, then the believer is duty bound to believe it or reject the scripture in favor of naturalism.
This is, IMO, where Ross jumps the shark. He is so convinced that the natural laws speak truth as much as the scriptures that he is willing to test the scriptures by what he knows about nature rather than test what he knows about nature against the scriptures.
That was Dolphin's concern and Ross has to this day, never responded to that concern. Perhaps, since you are so close to the Reasons people, you could have Hugh provide a written response to the concerns raised by Dolphin.
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.
I would not ever deign to accuse Hugh Ross of being dishonest. Deceived, perhaps, but not dishonest. Wrong, yes, but not dishonest. I think your insinuation that Lambert Dolphin is dishonest is not worthy of comment. So I won't.