Many people write me and ask if Dr. Ross has ever replied to my letter to him written in 1989. He has not. The following additional notes are offered, from a posting to CRSNet on 3/20/99:
Back in 1988 I met Hugh Ross because we were both guests on
a Christian TV talk show in Concord, California on creation. At
that time I mentioned Barry Setterfield's cDK work to Dr. Ross.
He immediately said (on the spot) that it was impossible for the
velocity of light to have changed because it would make the universe
unstable. I replied that the universe would not be unstable if
more than one "constant" was not fixed. He thought such
a theory was ridiculous and said so to my face.
Next I sent him Barry's 1987 report which he agreed to read. He also agreed to look at the statistics and comment back to me. He never responded. I seriously doubt he has read any of the relevant reports, ever. His "official" 1990 position (at least as one finds it on his web site) is that the poor accuracy of the early measurements is the reason the velocity of light can not be proven to have changed. This is patently false. Alan Montgomery's two separate studies of the data clearly show that the size of the error bars does not affect the conclusion that c has in fact decreased during the past 300 years. Neither does the decade the measurements were made, or the method used for measuring c affect the conclusion that c is non-constant.
In 1989 I wrote Dr. Ross a long letter (http://ldolphin.org/Ross.shtml) after reading all his papers and listening to all his tape cassettes. The last time I saw him in person about March 1989 I brought up my letter. He said I would find all the answers in to my concerns in his published writings, which is untrue. With a wave of the hand he dismissed what I had to say as if it were all trivial and irrelevant. He showed only disdain for my young-earth beliefs, there was never any professional courtesy, let alone Christian good will that I could detect coming from him. He was right and I was wrong and misguided--case closed.
I am now quite convinced this man does not answer his critics, and in many cases is unable to do so. Naturally he will violently oppose any evidence for a recent creation because he is apparently married to the Big Bang theory and an old universe. See the recent remarks by Dr. Russ Humphreys.
March 20, 1999