"The big bang strongly implies there was a beginning to the universe, therefore the universe was created. The Creator logically must exist beyond the universe, must necessarily be beyond the limits of space and time, and is therefore a non-corporeal and timeless entity. Is that not a basic description of God? A person doesn’t need a degree in physics or fluency in Hebrew to understand the profoundest truth about God and His creation."
I agree with the general point made here. However, the extended reference to Kent Hovind raises questions. What exactly is he intended to represent here? A little research on him will show that he is apparently not only intellectually dishonest, he is criminally so. He certainly is not an expert at anything. So to that extent, he makes a good whipping boy for your argument.
But then why contrast Hovind with Hugh Ross? Hovind v Ross is obviously a “young earth v old earth” debate. Hovind is a terrible representative of literal six-day creation position. This undermines your point by making it look like a “straw man” / ad hominem attack on the accuracy of the Bible.
In my experience, Ross is just about as ignorant about the Bible as Hovind is about science. Moreover, many are questioning whether modern physics has become so politicized that a complete overhaul is needed. That may undermine Ross’ position.
I wholeheartedly support the fervent pursuit of both knowledge of God and knowledge of science. It is my belief based on longstanding experience that that these will not lead to inconsistent results. Rather, both will lead to greater appreciation of the literal accuracy of the Bible in all respects. It is our ignorance that renders us susceptible to the canard that modern science has in any way discounted the simple, literal accuracy of the Word of God.
"The big bang strongly implies there was a beginning to the universe, therefore the universe was created. The Creator logically must exist beyond the universe, must necessarily be beyond the limits of space and time, and is therefore a non-corporeal and timeless entity. Is that not a basic description of God? A person doesn’t need a degree in physics or fluency in Hebrew to understand the profoundest truth about God and His creation."
Yes.
I agree with the general point made here. However, the extended reference to Kent Hovind raises questions. What exactly is he intended to represent here? A little research on him will show that he is apparently not only intellectually dishonest, he is criminally so. He certainly is not an expert at anything. So to that extent, he makes a good whipping boy for your argument.
But then why contrast Hovind with Hugh Ross? Hovind v Ross is obviously a “young earth v old earth” debate. Hovind is a terrible representative of literal six-day creation position. This undermines your point by making it look like a “straw man” / ad hominem attack on the accuracy of the Bible.
In my experience, Ross is just about as ignorant about the Bible as Hovind is about science. Moreover, many are questioning whether modern physics has become so politicized that a complete overhaul is needed. That may undermine Ross’ position.
I wholeheartedly support the fervent pursuit of both knowledge of God and knowledge of science. It is my belief based on longstanding experience that that these will not lead to inconsistent results. Rather, both will lead to greater appreciation of the literal accuracy of the Bible in all respects. It is our ignorance that renders us susceptible to the canard that modern science has in any way discounted the simple, literal accuracy of the Word of God.