I checked on Hugh Ross's site,
Reasons to Believe, and I could not find his position on whether a baramin or "created kind" is always a species or whether a baramin can contain several species. So I've had to look at what others have had to say about his views.
http://www.trueorigin.org/lerner_resp.asp is mostly a response to Lawrence S. Lerner's book
Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, but it briefly mentions Hugh Ross's views:
Lerner also mocked, much the same way as the compromising apologist Hugh Ross:
‘In order to avoid overcrowding Noah’s Ark, some creationists adhere to the Biblical term kinds rather than species as the limiting barrier to evolution.’ ....
One sad thing is seeing self-professed Christian apologists like Hugh Ross parrot these atheistic attacks on a global Flood and Ark, and resorting to the long-disproven notion of fixity of species to maintain his old-earth compromisesee
Expos of Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question.
The link is to a rather negative review of that book, accusing him of uniformitarianism and twisted Bible interpretations; another such review is at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross01.asp
By comparison, many YEC's believe in multi-species baramins, meaning that Noah has had to take only some baramin representatives, rather than some species representatives, on his Ark, lessening his workload. The Flood is then followed by a period of what Ross calls "hyperevolution" that has produced the species we find today.
From the theistic-evolution side is Glenn Morton's review at
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rossrev.htm
He also agrees that Hugh Ross believes in only single-species baramins, and he notes that Ross believes that speciation has stopped happening in historical times.
Applied to humanity's ancestry, Ross believes that Neanderthals were nonhuman, while most other creationists put Neanderthals in the human baramin:
Comparison of all skulls
And this article on the Herto skulls (
Homo sapiens idaltu):
Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)
notes about creationist responses that:
Answers in Genesis argues, quite reasonably, that these fossils are so similar to modern humans that they don't constitute any problem for creationists - or, at least, to their own position. Reasons To Believe, an old-earth creationist ministry founded by Hugh Ross,
takes the more surprising position that these fossils are of soulless animals that merely look like humans, and has accused AIG of "factual errors and distortions", to which
AIG has responded energetically. RTB's position seems untenable to me: it's hard to see how anyone can credibly claim that fossils so remarkably similar to modern humans are animals. RTB appears to have a strategy that by definition excludes any possibility of transitional fossils: if scientists put a fossil in anything other than
Homo sapiens sapiens, it is "not a modern human" and hence is an animal (no matter how trivial the differences); if they do put it in
H. sapiens sapiens, of course, it's also not evidence for human evolution. Heads I win, tails you lose.
So to Hugh Ross, the human baramin only includes
Homo sapiens sapiens.
™ Version 4.2