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.
This is the historic, orthodox belief of Christianity. For Dolphin to question it is absurd which is why he has been waiting "decades."
"So whatever happened before the completion of creation is simply undeterminable by the natural sciences."
That is also absurd. If we can't explore nature and determine things, then how can anyone assert any creation position? It's similar to when I've heard Ken Ham assert we cannot know the past. Really? Then there can't be geology, archaeology and astronomy.
"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"
Another absurdity. Ross never, and I repeat never, claims God was "working" under the laws of nature. All of your comments about Ross are what YECs have claimed he thinks or writes, but reality is completely opposite. For example, Ross doesn't assert the universe must billions of years because of assumptions or theories, but because of empirical evidence. Thus, if YECism is the "literal" interpretation, the Bible is wrong.
The comments about Ross by YECs are bewildering to anyone who actually reads what he actually writes. The YECs' interjecting of things Ross never wrote or meant proves the shaky foundations of their theory.
" would not ever deign to accuse Hugh Ross of being dishonest."
And yet you and many other YECs continuously misrepresent what he says becasue he has so effectively answered YECism. If you're going to talk about Ross, instead of relying on the same recycled comments about him, many which date back "decades" like Dolphin, try reading is recent books. Or better yet, call him up on his radio program and ask him himself.