Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Why did Hugh Ross agree to have Kent Hovind to debate? Ankerberg Converts to OEC
- We have long pointed out the blatantly partisan way in which John
Ankerberg 'moderated' the Ross-Hovind debate. Frequently he made
gratuitous points for Ross, even admitted that he kept on butting
into Hovind. He also knocked down straw men about what YECs believe,
e.g. claiming that it was news to YECs that yom CAN mean other than
an ordinary day (we have ALWAYS pointed out that the CONTEXT of
Genesis 1 NARROWS the semantic range of yom to an ordinary day).
Also, as pointed out, the selection of a lone-wolf YEC who hasn't any
science qualification further stacked the deck in the OEC favor, as
if 2 against 1 wasn't bad enough! All this is plain in this
transcript and analysis (which also takes Fuz to task about some
Despite this, Fuz claimed that Ankerberg was YEC. So I wrote and
obtained a letter from one of his own staffers admitting that he was
an OEC, as if that wasn't obvious from the debate. But Fuz then
asserts that he converted to OEC at some time in the past (without
giving any reasons why anyone should). His main 'evidence' was:
""Unfortunately, it would seem that at least for its critics, the big
bang theory is not credible either. Despite the latest advances in
our knowledge of this theory, the words of Hoyle will, in all
probability, remain true or at least suggestive: "Although the highly
complicated theoretical investigations of the past fifteen years have
drawn heavily on powerful new knowledge in basic physics, results of
worthwhile significance seem to be elusive...I have little hesitation
in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang
Wow, if questioning the BB makes one a YEC, then Hoyle must have been
--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...> wrote:
> Thank you for finding this out.
> It seems that John Ankerberg has converted to OEC from YEC. Hugh
> that he was moving in that direction after the debate with
> Ankerberg approached Hugh, he was squarely in the YE camp. It is
> that prior to this debate Ankerberg was a YEC.
> Since it is common practice for you and others on this discussion
> question our integrity at RTB, I have taken the following quote
> appendix to the book, The Creation Hypothesis, edited by J.P.
> appendix, entitled "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific
Data: Are New
> Horizons Emerging?", was written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.
> The quote:
> "Unfortunately, it would seem that at least for its critics, the
> theory is not credible either. Despite the latest advances in our
> of this theory, the words of Hoyle will, in all probability, remain
> at least suggestive: "Although the highly complicated theoretical
> investigations of the past fifteen years have drawn heavily on
> knowledge in basic physics, results of worthwhile significance seem
> elusive...I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a
> now hangs over the big bang theory.""
> This was written prior to 1994 (the publication date of this
> quote clearly demonstrates that at one time Ankerberg's position
> "generally agree" with Hugh Ross'. Ankerberg, in print, has in the
> questioned big bang cosmology.
> It seems that he has converted to an OEC from a view more that was
> line with YEC. I guess when presented with the facts an open
> will recognize the truth. If the evidence, both biblical and
> so compelling for a YE interpretation, why would someone of
> caliber (he has an M.A., M.Div and a D.Min.) abandoned this view
> The email you posted doesn't reflect lack of credibility on my
> Ankerberg's movement toward the OE camp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kurt_streutker [mailto:kurt_streutker@y...]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 12:25 PM
> To: RTB_Discussion_Group@y...
> Subject: Re: [RTB Discussion Group] Why did Hugh Ross agree to have
> Hovind to debate?
> Fuz claimed: "Ankerberg is a YEC."
> I thought I would ask Dr. Ankerberg if he really is a YEC.
> Here is the reply from one of his staffers:
> "Concerning Dr. Ankerberg's position, he would be in general
> agreement with the views expressed by Dr. Ross in his writings.
> Here is the complete email:
> Dear Kurt,
> Several months ago, Dr. Ankerberg hosted a debate between Dr. Hugh
> Ross ("old earth" advocate) and Kent Hovind ("young earth"
> advocate). They discussed the topic: "Are the Universe and the
> Billions of Years Old or Thousands of Years Old?" The subject
> of "death before sin" was also discussed during the course of the
> If you would be interested in obtaining the series, just go to our
> website at www.johnankerberg.org or call 1-800-805-3030 for
> Concerning Dr. Ankerberg's position, he would be in general
> with the views expressed by Dr. Ross in his writings.
> Thanks for writing.
> Lynda, ATRI Staff
> --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Fazale Rana" <frana@r...>
> > Just some general comments and then I am through with this
> > 1) Ankerberg is a YEC. Read his article in J.P. Moreland's
> > Hypothesis if you doubt me. He writes against the Big Bang.
> > 2) You need to contact Ankerberg regarding his reluctance to
> involve AiG in
> > the debate with Hugh. I can't or won't attempt to defend his
> > 3) All I read are excuses as to why AiG and Ken Ham would not
> interact with
> > Hugh and RTB. The opportunities have been there and it is
> Ken Ham
> > and AiG that back out. We have attempted to initiate
> to no
> > avail. I am unaware of an invitation from AiG to Hugh or RTB.
> Ken Ham
> > extends an invitation to RTB, someone from RTB will meet with
> If not
> > Hugh, than I will.
> > 4) Hugh and RTB do critique the Young Earth view, but seldom, if
> ever, do we
> > mention individuals by name, nor do we rarely, if ever, impune
> > character or motives.
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Question the Assumptions of Naturalism which are foundational
> to OEC at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]