HUGH ROSS, ICR, AND FACTS OF SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 218
February 1996
by James S. Stambaugh, M.L.S., M.Div.*
Last
month we discussed the Biblical and theological differences between ICR's position and that of the Hugh Ross organization, Reasons
to Believe. The differences do not stop there, of course. These very
significant theological differences necessarily lead to many other differences
as we interpret God's world in the scientific record. We trust that our readers
are already aware of ICR's scientific position
regarding the age of the earth, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the fossil
record, etc. The need here, then, is an understanding of what Dr. Ross actually
teaches. As the reader sees what Dr. Ross believes, he then should be able to
discern the similarities and differences between the two ministries.
Days of Creation
Dr. Ross, as the last
article stated, accepts the idea that the "days" of Genesis 1 are
long periods of time, yet, he also maintains that these creative days overlap. God
would create one kind of animal over two or three of those "long"
days.
To
insist that the creation event of Genesis must be specifically limited to the
creation days in which they are mentioned is to read too much in to the text.
It can more reasonably be stated that each event or life-form was primarily
introduced on the creation day indicated and that each creation day was
preeminently one of the introduction of the event or life-form(s) described.
For example, though most of the lower vertebrates were introduced on the fifth
day, a few may have been introduced on the fourth and sixth days.[1]
One can see that Dr.
Ross, for example, has plants being created from Day Three possibly through Day
Five. Stars could be created through all six or seven days. To compare this
idea with the literal view of the creation period, see the ICR book, Scientific
Creationism, pp. 203-255. Or, for that matter, just read Genesis 1, and
assume God meant what He said!
Age of the Earth and Universe
The topic of the age of
the earth and universe came up on a popular radio program on which Dr. Ross was
a recent guest speaker. This is the dialogue that took place between the
interviewer and Dr. Ross:
Interviewer: "Not all Christians agree that the earth is
three-and-a-half to four-billion years old. You do, I do, in an unqualified
way. Explain why you believe that?"
Ross: "Well, it's
because of the strength of the scientific evidence. I mean, it's really
impossible to interpret the universe without accepting a creation date billions
of years ago. But I'd also like to look at the Bible and say that I want to
have a consistent interpretation of what the Bible is saying about the moment
of creation, whereby Hebrews and Psalms and other chapters of the Bible do not
contradict what's in Genesis. But I have to accept the long-day interpretation;
not the short-day interpretation. This is not an important doctrine. What's
essential for the Christian faith is who creates, and how He creates. When is
immaterial."[2]
We would agree with
Dr. Ross that the "who" and "how" are essential. Yet when
one understands that God created by fiat miracle, and not through long natural
processes, the "when" is part of the "how."
Stellar and Planetary Formation
Dr. Ross accepts the
standard evolutionary view of the origin of the universe -- namely, that there
was a "Big Bang" at the start of both time and space.
This is the typical
explanation, using naturalistic means, to explain the origin of the universe.
However, this does not bring either stars or planets into existence. He thus
summarizes the stages bringing into existence the solar system:
The initial evolution of the solar system. The solar system
began as a giant interstellar cloud. Then it collapsed into a flattened disk.
Then separated into a series of concentric rings that eventually coalesced into
proto planets.[3] caption of an illustration
So we see that Dr.
Ross is content to let the stars and planets evolve by a naturalistic means.
Fossil Record and Biological Evolution
Dr. Ross accepts the
current evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record known as punctuated
equilibrium. He believes that some animal species have appeared suddenly at
various times throughout the earth's billions of years when God directly
intervened to create the "higher animals." He leaves open the
possibility that God used evolution to create the "lower animals."
When
we examine the fossil record, we see a growing proliferation of life forms
through time. Though biologists describe various species as
"transitional," we still find no evidence for one life form
transforming itself into a distinctly different life form. A species suddenly
appears, exists for a relatively long period of time with no significant
changes, goes extinct, and much later is replaced with one or more distinctly
different species. In the animal kingdom, at least, no evidence for any natural
process or means of replacement exists. Likewise, in the Bible, God declares,
that for the higher animals He directly intervenes in the natural order to
create new species, and that these new life forms reproduce "after their
kind." In the book of Psalms, God speaks of His creating life forms to
replace those that have died off.[4]
A more consistent
creationist view can be found in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record by Dr. Duane Gish.**
Dr. Ross also teaches
that there were many catastrophes that caused extinctions. These catastrophes
may have been floods, earthquakes, or meteors striking the earth. However, he
rejects the Noahic flood as worldwide; it was only
one of many local floods. Dr. Ross says:
The
earth's geological history and biological history have been shaped by these
events as well as by other natural processes. Both the Bible and geology speak
of probability-defying, life-supportive surface conditions for planet earth, of
the miraculous appearance of living things in greater and greater complexity
through millennia of life-disrupting catastrophes, of a flood that was
disastrous to mankind, to the land he occupied, and to the animals associated
with him.[5]
The Genesis Flood, by Henry Morris
and John Whitcomb, provides a good contrast to Dr. Ross's multiple/local
catastrophe view.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of
Thermodynamics is a fundamental principle in modern science. Dr. Ross comments
on the origin and usefulness of this law:
Moreover,
the Second Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with man's sin. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is good for us. That's the law that says that things tend
towards decay, from order to disorder, and we look at that as bad. But without
the Second Law, organisms couldn't possibly exist. It would be far more chaotic
if the Second Law of Thermodynamics were not in operation, and it would be far
worse for the planet, if animals and plants did not die.[6]
Compare the statement
by Dr. Ross to the one by Dr. Henry Morris,
of ICR. It is important to observe the difference between the two. Dr. Morris
says of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
In
the primeval creation, however, even though what we might call
"decay" processes certainly existed (e.g., digestion, friction, water
erosion, wave attenuation, etc.), they must all have balanced precisely with
"growth" processes elsewhere whether within the individual systems,
or perhaps more commonly, in an adjacent system, so that the entropy of the
world as a whole would stay constant.[7]
Dr. Morris states
that before sin entered the world, there would have been no net deteriorating
effects of the Second Law. Yet once Adam sinned, God cursed the world and all
that is in it. Thus the "decay" that we see today is a result of
man's sin (note Romans
Hominids and "Spirit Man"
Dr. Ross teaches that
there were man-like creatures on the earth prior to Adam's creation. The
distinction between the two groups is that Adam and his descendants "are
aware of God and capable of forming relationships with Him." He says:
Clearly,
as man's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, one discovers that what
makes him different is a quality called "spirit." Man is unique among
all species of life. By "spirit" the Bible means aware of God and
capable of forming a relationship with Him. Evidence of man's spiritual dimension
would include divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars, and temples.
From the Bible's perspective, painting, burial of dead, or use of tools would
not qualify as conclusive evidence of the spirit. Moreover, non-spirit beings
such as bower birds, elephants, and chimpanzees are observed to engage in these
activities.
While bipedal,
tool-using, large-brained hominids roamed the earth at least as long ago as one
million years, evidence for religious relics and altars dates back only 8,000
to 24,000 years. Thus, the secular anthropological date for the first spirit
creatures is in complete agreement with the biblical date.[8]
Dr. Ross goes on to
say that he believes Adam was not physically related to these hominids. He
believes that they suffered a catastrophic extinction sometime before
"spirit" man was created.
Conclusion
We trust that our
readers have observed the wide differences in scientific interpretation between
Reasons to Believe and the Institute for Creation Research. These differences
stem from our Biblical/theological interpretation, yet they strongly influence
how each organization approaches science and the interpretation of the
scientific data. We recognize that Dr. Ross accepts many fundamental truths of
Christianity, such as the deity and virgin birth of Christ, Christ's vicarious
atonement, and salvation by faith. The purpose of this article, however is to
point out that there are, nevertheless, very important differences between Dr.
Ross's teachings and the accurate Biblical/scientific approach to the key
question of origins, at least as we here at ICR understand it.
References
1. [1] Hugh Ross, Genesis
1: A Scientific Perspective, p. 12. Note especially the illustration used to
support this idea. One should also compare Dr. Ross' drawing to Davis Young's
in Creation and The Flood (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1977), p. 117.
2. [2] Focus On The
Family,
3. [3] Ross, Genesis
1: A Scientific Perspective, p. 4.
4. [4]Hugh Ross, 90
second radio news spot, Reasons to Believe #50 (10th spot for February
1991).
5. [5] Hugh and Kathy
Ross, Uniformitarianism Friend or Foe?
"Facts and Faith" 2 (Fall 1988): 3.
6. [6] Focus On The
Family,
7. [7] Henry Morris,
Biblical Basis For Modern Science,
8. [8] Hugh Ross, Fingerprint
of God,
*James Stambaugh, Librarian, ICR Research Library **Evolution:
The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Dr. Duane Gish has been updated and republished as Evolution:
The Fossils Still Say No!.