THE DUBIOUS
APOLOGETICS OF HUGH ROSS
Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, volume 13, number
2, pp. 52-60, 1999.
*Additional resources
are available at the bottom of this article.
The astronomer Hugh
Ross has had a great impact on many churches and individuals in recent
years. His organization, Reasons to Believe, coordinates his many
speaking engagements and publishes a newsletter called Facts and Faith.
He has written six popular level books on the Bible, science, and apologetics.1,2,3,4,5,6 The secret of
Ross’s appeal is that he claims that modern science has confirmed many things
about the origin and history of the world that the Bible had previously told
us. This gives some believers spiritual encouragement and a great deal of
intellectual satisfaction.
To accomplish this
harmonization of the Bible and science, Ross has embraced much of what modern
science has to say about origins. In short, Ross supports the big bang
theory, the 4.6 Ga (1 Ga =
109 years) age of the earth, and virtually all of what establishment
paleontology claims about the history of life on earth including the order of
appearance of different groups. In fairness to Ross, it should be
emphasized that he does reject the concept of biological evolution, opting instead
for progressive creation.
Ross argues that
science alone can drive men to the correct understanding of our origin and
hence see the necessity of a Creator. But this assumes that fallible men
using a man-made (and hence fallible) methodology (science—in particular
origins science7) with an incorrect
postulate (atheism) can come to the truth about God. It would be most
unexpected and illogical for a system of thought to reach a conclusion that is
in contradiction to one of the basic postulates of that system.
This paradox
underscores Ross’s greatest misconception of how modern science works vis-à-vis
the question of origins. As Johnson has pointed out, modern science, even
origins science, by its very nature starts with the assumption of materialism.
8 This assumption
excludes consideration of any metaphysical reality, and leads to such quotes as
those of the late Carl Sagan, ‘The cosmos is all
that is or ever was or ever will be.’9 This
assumption is blatantly atheistic. That does not mean that all, or even
most, scientists are atheists. It merely means that the total exclusion
of any possibility of a Deity makes most of modern science an atheistic
enterprise, at least tacitly.
Ross brings the
question of a Deity into the discussion rather late, which makes God an ad
hoc insertion. This also fails to correctly estimate the true
atheistic nature of science as practised today.
This is best illustrated by Ross’s use of the big bang model as a large part of
his apologetic, which will be explored later.
Van Bebber and Taylor have reported on the questionable
biblical teachings of Ross.10 While this work
has alerted some to Ross’s theological problems, many in the church resist that
message, primarily because they are convinced that Ross has overpowering
scientific arguments for an old earth and universe to which the Bible must be
accommodated. Of course, accommodating the Bible to science is the exact
opposite of what many intend, but this is what I have observed. Most
theologians, pastors, and laymen lack the expertise to adequately evaluate Ross’s
scientific claims. Most critiques of Ross have taken the approach of
attacking his theological position, because this is obviously the root of his
problem. But are the scientific arguments of Ross as powerful as many
seem to think?
This paper will
examine some of the scientific claims of Hugh Ross, particularly in his
discipline of astronomy. While science is the primary emphasis here, it
is important to mention a few theological issues as well. It will be
shown that in both science and theology, Ross often grossly overstates his case
and handles information incorrectly.
Biblical Issues
General and Special
Revelation
Psalm 19:1-4
and Romans 1:19-20
state that the world around us indicates that there is a Creator. This
limited information of God that the physical world impresses upon the minds of
men is often called general revelation, as opposed to the special
revelation of the Bible. Both reveal some information about God, but Ross
elevates what the physical world reveals nearly to the level of Scripture
itself. This is called the dual revelation theory. It is
argued that since God is the author of both books, the Bible and the book of
nature, the two must necessarily agree. Ross has expanded the dual
revelation theory to the point of likening nature to the sixty-seventh book of
the Bible.11
There are several
problems with this approach. First, the Bible never makes such a claim
for nature. While the two passages mentioned above state that God’s
existence can be inferred from nature, they hardly elevate nature to the level
to which Ross insists it must be raised. Ross lists a number of other
biblical texts that supposedly support his position on dual revelation.12 An examination
of all of those verses reveals that they do no such thing: they generally
give fewer specifics than Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The equation of nature
as the 67th book of the Bible is an inference that Ross has
made. Any systematic study of Scripture involves inferences, but those
inferences must be continually compared to other passages to check their
legitimacy. This is particularly sobering in light of the warning of Revelation 22:18
against adding to the words of the Bible. Such a major expansion of God’s
revelation should be very carefully scrutinized. Ross has overstated his
argument for the dual revelation theory, and the many passages used to
allegedly make his case illustrate his attempt to win the reader’s support with
a blizzard of citations.
The second problem is
the specific attributes of God that Ross claims can be deduced from general
revelation. Ross has given a list of seven such attributes.13 The first
attribute claimed, that God exists, comes straight out
of Romans 1. Romans 1 also states that God’s mighty power may be inferred
from nature, which appears to be part of Ross’s attribute number two.
While Romans 1 only mentions these two attributes, Ross continues with four or
five more, including such items as God’s perfection, justice, love, and
mercy. Since neither Romans 1 nor Psalm 19 in any way mention those
attributes in the context of general revelation, Ross must have gleaned them
from elsewhere. The most obvious source is the rest of the book of Romans
and the Bible, which illustrates the gross inadequacy of general
revelation. General revelation is sufficient to draw man’s mind to the
thoughts of a creator; but to really know God, one
must turn to special revelation.
This inadequacy of
general revelation is clearly illustrated by the entire Psalm 19. The
first four verses discuss the declaration of God’s glory by the heavens, and
the next two expand on the sun’s role in the heavens. Verse three is
translated in the KJV (and similarly in the NIV) as, ‘There is no speech
nor language, where their voice is not heard,’ which is usually
understood to refer to the universality of their message. Three of those
words are in italics in the KJV, indicating that they are not in the original
Hebrew. It is possible that verse three actually should read, ‘no
speech nor language, their voice is not heard.’ This is the sense of
the translation of the NASB, NJB, and NRSV. In other words, what may be
emphasized here is that the message of the heavens is non-verbal and
unwritten. Such communication is quite limited, which is why the
remainder of the Psalm is so important. The final seven verses delineate
what the Law and the Prophets can do. The seventh verse alone states, ‘The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.’ Notice that
this is far more specific and powerful than any claim made for general
revelation.
The truly important
things about God that one must know can be found only in Scripture. Ross
obviously knows these things from Scripture, and he attempts to imprint them
onto general revelation. Scripture does not support this. Indeed,
it appears contrary to clear teaching of Scripture— if Ross were right, there
would be no need for missionary activity, contrary to
A third problem for
the dual revelation theory is the question of what constitutes data in either
case. If the facts of nature and the facts of the Bible must agree, then
what are the facts of either domain? We can agree that the 66 canonical
books of the Bible are the facts of special revelation, but what are the facts
of nature? Ross would have us accept the interpretations of the
majority of scientists as the ‘facts’ of science or nature. But new
‘facts’ or interpretations of science are discovered every day, while old
‘facts’ are just as often discarded. The history of science is littered
with the wrecks of ideas that were at one time considered to be ‘true’, but
have long since fallen out of favour. Elevating
this body of knowledge with its changing character to the same level as the
Bible should alarm all Christians who are committed to the authority of
Scripture.
A fourth problem is
Ross’s slick exchange of science for nature. Ross argues as
follows. There are two books: the book of nature and the Bible. God
is the author of both, so both must agree. So far this seems
reasonable. Then Ross subtly equates science for nature, from which one
could infer that science and the Bible should be equated in authority.
Most of Ross’s intended audience would have abandoned him had he made such a
claim, because this is precisely the sort of equation that most liberals have
made. Science is the (man-made) way that we have to study nature.
If Ross wants to make the correct analogy, it should be to exegesis, which is the
(man-made) way of studying the Bible. It is not clear whether Ross
consciously made this slippery switch. More likely, this swap escaped his
notice. If that is so, then such a logical fallacy would cast doubt on
his competence.
Fifth, Scripture
teaches that the creation is cursed (Gen. 3:17-19,
Rom. 8:20-22),
but Scripture itself is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:15-17). So how can a cursed creation interpreted by a
fallible methodology of sinful humans determine how we interpret the perfect, unfallen Word of God? As the systematic theologian
Louis Berkhof pointed out:
‘...Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather
true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in
the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God’s original
self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of sin, are
republished, corrected, and interpreted. ...
Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a
second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature can
come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.’14
Christless Creationism?
Ross’s general
sloppiness in handling Scripture was greatly demonstrated by an address that he
recently gave at Dallas Theological Seminary. In that address he stated:
‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of
John 3:16, if you’ll permit—“For God so loved the human race that He went to
the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped
and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time
we could all have a nice place to live.”’ 15
Anyone even remotely
familiar with John 3:16
is struck by the glaring omissions of this paraphrase. No mention is made
of such important terms as ‘only begotten (Greek monogenes
= unique, special)’ ‘Son,’ ‘believe,’ ‘not perish,’ and ‘everlasting
life.’ This is either blasphemy to the point of heresy or gross
carelessness of the first rank.
It is almost inconceivable
that Ross really believes this, so one must conclude that he was shooting from
the hip. Assuming that that is the case, then it
appears that Ross is guilty of dealing with Scripture in a cavalier manner,
which is precisely my point. Ross has received a virtual free ride from
many pastors and apologists despite these sorts of outrageous views, primarily
because these Christian leaders have been intimidated by his scientific
pronouncements. But his science is full of errors, contrary to what many
believe. His sloppy handling of Scripture and manner of gross
overstatement are unfortunately his method of operation in science as well.
Problems with the
‘Day-Age’ Theory
Most of Ross’s
intended audience know little about science, so they
will accept his pronouncements on scientific issues without much
question. This deference to the supposed impressive science permits him
to play loosely with biblical texts. Like any other ‘day-age’ proponent,
Ross believes that the days of the creation week were long periods of
time. Of course, there are numerous textual problems with the day-age
theory that are discussed elsewhere.17,18
Another major problem
is that the ordering of the events of Genesis does not even agree with the
pronouncements of modern science, with which day-age theorists are so eager to harmonise. To answer this difficulty, Ross appeals to
overlapping days.19 For instance,
the creation of plants was on the third day, before the creation of animals on
days five and six. But the plants that are specifically mentioned as
being created on day three are flowering plants, plants that according to most
scientists appeared very recently. This would seem to place these plants
during day six when creeping things were created. Ross explains this by
claiming that it is the first appearance of plants that is important, hence
their mention so early on day three. On the other hand, Ross claims that
birds and fish are mentioned on day five, despite the fact that this makes no
sense in terms of the usual order that modern science claims. Does Ross
reject modern science on this? No, he argues that day five overlaps
partly with days three and four, and probably six as well. It is
interesting that the details of Ross’s teaching on this are not found in
references 2-5. His latest book contains some details,20 but the greatest
details are found in his audio tapes and pamphlets, which enjoy far less circulation
and publicity than his books.
Ross repeatedly
shuffles the events of creation to claim that those events that occurred on
different days did not, while those events that occurred on the same day
actually happened at different times. Under such contrived rules of
interpretation the motif of a six-day creation, if you will, begins to
collapse. What would have happened to the ancient Hebrews if they would
have applied this reasoning to their week (Exodus 20:8-11)?
They could have concluded that if they rested during some of the first six days
of the week, then they could have worked on the Sabbath. After all, the
Lord had overlapped his actions during the days of the creation week, so why
could not they? It is obvious that such an attitude would have been an
affront to the Lord of Creation. In like fashion, so is Ross’s
‘overlapping days’ notion.
Ross’s pronouncement
that the book of nature (science) is akin to the 67th book of the
Bible is frightening enough. Yet the manner in which he cavalierly
reinterprets Scripture to match what ‘science’ says, clearly demonstrates that
he really holds ‘science’ in higher esteem, contrary to Berkhof’s
wise admonition.14
Equally frustrating
is Ross’s claim that modern (uniformitarian) science
has borne out the claims of the Bible about origins. Both of these
practices amount to deceptive advertising. When one really examines his
claims, it is obvious that Ross can only achieve the harmonization he desires
by conducting surgery on the biblical account of creation. Unfortunately,
most people in his intended audience never grasp what he has done. In
retailing, this sort of practice is known as ‘bait and switch.’
Looseness with
Lexicons
Ross’s poor
scholarship extends to biblical studies as well. For instance, Van Bebber and Taylor have shown that Ross has cited lexicons
and word books to support his claims to meanings of Hebrew words, when in
reality those references say exactly the opposite of what Ross claims.21 From this one
can only conclude that either Ross is dishonest or that he is a careless and
incompetent researcher. Neither possibility should be palatable to those
who rely upon his apologetics. The biggest puzzle is why so many
Christian leaders and seminary professors have not abandoned him already.
Scientific Issues
Ross’s Big Bang
Apologetic
Before turning to
scientific issues, it would be good to briefly discuss the biblical issues
surrounding one of the main thrusts of Hugh Ross’s apologetics, the big
bang. His argument has some similarity to that of Robert Jastrow more than two decades ago in his book, God and
the Astronomers.16 Jastrow pointed out that throughout time,
most people have believed that the universe had always existed. Only in
the 20th century and with the rise of the big bang model have most people come
to believe that the universe had a beginning. Of course this one point is
in agreement with what Christian theologians have supposedly said all along,
which is the whole point of Jastrow’s book.
While Jastrow is an agnostic, he found it fascinating
that modern science has grudgingly come into agreement with the Bible on that
one issue. Ross goes beyond Jastrow and argues
that the big bang model is in perfect agreement with the biblical account of
creation.
Ross makes much use
of the principle of causality in conjunction with the big bang to argue for
God’s existence. Causality means that any event that occurs (an effect)
has some cause. Let A be a cause, and B be its effect. Then
logically one can say that A causes B. All effects in turn become causes
of new effects, and so forth. At any time there are countless chains of
cause and effect that are parallel and intertwined with one another.
Conversely every effect must have a cause. Logicians and philosophers
have long recognized that in the distant past there may have been an ‘uncaused
cause.’ That is, there was a cause that was not the effect of an earlier
cause, and from which all subsequent cause and effect relationships
descended. There are philosophical debates on causality that cannot be
covered here.
Of course many would
identify the uncaused cause as God. However, in an eternal universe there
would be no need of an uncaused cause, because cause and effect would have been
operating over all time. This avoidance of an uncaused cause may have
been the appeal that the eternal universe had in Western thought. As Jastrow and Ross point out, the big bang theory posits that
the universe had a beginning, so that an infinite chain of cause and effect
relationships is no longer tenable. Jastrow and
Ross disagree on the identity of the uncaused cause. Ross certainly
identifies it as the God of the Bible. Jastrow
would insist that the big bang was the uncaused cause. He is not alone:
many other scientists share this assessment, as shown below.
Ross also claims that
many astronomers have been led to a belief in a personal Creator because of the
big bang model, but he fails to mention any names. To the contrary, the
biggest names in cosmology today could be described as agnostics or pantheists
at best. Most are avowed atheists, so for Ross to mislead people in this
way is unconscionable. Much speculation and theoretical research has been
expended in developing a way in which the universe could come into existence
strictly by natural processes consistent with the physical laws operating in
the universe. The majority agrees that the most promising mechanism is
the view that the universe arose as a quantum fluctuation, with no supernatural
agent involved.
The quantum
fluctuation theory of the big bang will not be elaborated here. Suffice
it to say that following the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum
mechanics, there can be trifling violations of the law of conservation of
energy, provided that the violations exist for very short periods of
time. The smaller an energy violation, the longer that
the violation can last. In this view, the total energy of the
universe is precisely zero, so the violation (the universe) could exist
forever. Astrophysicists must very cleverly devise ways in which the
total energy of the universe can be zero. While this idea is not
universally accepted, and there are major logical problems with it,22 it is the obvious
trend of current research.
There are other
non-theistic possibilities that leading big bang cosmologists have
explored. The inflationary model of the universe is a related
topic. Alan Guth, the author of this idea, has
stated that ‘In the context of inflationary cosmology, it is fair to say
that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.’23 Some models
postulate a number of inflationary universes. These seem to suggest that
the universe has a ‘frothy’ structure so that new (potential) universes pop
into existence through quantum fluctuations. Most of these cease to exist
very quickly, but occasionally some undergo rapid expansion (inflation), and in
the process separate from our universe. Just as our universe gives birth
to new universes, ours was birthed by an earlier one (without the need of a
deistic midwife). This obviously becomes a metaphysical exercise, but the
theory does allow our finite universe to be a small link in an eternal chain,
so that a Creator is again unnecessary.
Any read of the
plethora of popular books about the big bang reveals just how out of step Ross
is on the point of theism and the big bang theory. It is very clear that
in God and the Astronomers, Jastrow does not
endorse theism but only comments that Christian and Jewish theologians were
apparently right all along on the question of whether our universe had an
origin. While Hawking24 and Davies25 frequently use the
word ‘God’, it is quite obvious that they have an entirely different definition
of the word than Christians do. Their God (or more properly, god) is
identical to how Einstein used the term. All three use ‘god’ to mean some
order imposed upon the physical universe. No matter what Ross claims,
their views are completely contrary to the personal God of the Bible.
Many other scientists who have written on the topic, such as Weinberg26 and Rees27 pretty much remain silent
about the topic of a deity. The obvious implication is that most of these
researchers and writers view a Creator as totally unnecessary.
This is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the big bang model (philosophy) that Ross and other
Christian apologists who embrace the big bang have. The big bang is the
ultimate atheistic, purely physical, totally naturalistic explanation.
Russell Humphreys has pointed out a very important popular misunderstanding of
the big bang by Ross and other popular writers. The ‘big bang’ is
actually based on a non-scientific assumption called the cosmological
principle, which states that an observer’s view of the universe depends
neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. That is,
the earth is nowhere special.28
Biological evolution
is an attempt to explain life apart from a creator, and Ross rightly rejects
this, though his alternative of progressive creation is fraught with
problems. Geological evolution does the same for the earth, and Ross
seems to accept all of it, although it is intimately related to biological
evolution. The big bang model is an attempt to explain the origin of the
universe apart from a Creator, though Ross and others fail to see this.
Contrary to what Ross claims, nearly all big bang cosmologists are not theists
and are very vocal about their beliefs (or disbeliefs). Most would view
the introduction of a Creator at some point as an ad hoc assumption.
For Ross to mislead his readers by claiming that they have accepted a personal
Creator is inexcusable.
String theory in the
Bible?
When presenting an
argument, Hugh Ross frequently overstates his case. A good example can be
found in his fourth book, Beyond the Cosmos. Some of my
observations on the work have been previously published in a book review.29 In this book,
Ross uses a very current idea called string theory to explain a number of
theological problems. String theory postulates that there are six
dimensions of space in addition to the normal three dimensions. These
extra six dimensions are not directly observable today, but according to the
theory they do have effects upon the interaction of elementary particles and
the structure of the universe. The theory was devised to explain some
features of the universe. The problem is that there is as yet no
confirming evidence that this theory is true. The theory is
controversial, and there are competing theories. The highly speculative
nature of the theory would not be grasped by most people who read Ross’s book,
because Ross presents it as if it is well established.
Assuming that string
theory is true, Ross concludes that God must work in these extra
dimensions. Ross further argues that there must be at least one extra
time dimension in which God works, for a total of at least eleven dimensions at
God’s disposal. This extra-dimensionality becomes the thesis of Beyond
the Cosmos. Since God is working in extra dimensions and especially
the extra time dimension, God has an infinite amount of time during each
instant to accomplish His many tasks. This supposedly enables God to hear
the prayers of millions of believers simultaneously and for Jesus to have
suffered for each person individually during His crucifixion. Ross also
claims that this extra-dimensionality explains other difficult topics such as
the Trinity, omnipresence, and predestination.
Besides the
questionable status of string theory, there are several problems with Ross’s
approach here. It seems presumptuous to the point of arrogance to suggest
that only in the latter twentieth century have we learned enough to finally
grasp some of the theological issues raised and supposedly answered by
Ross. Ross argues that Augustine made a mistake and took nearly everyone
afterwards with him in concluding that God operates outside of space and
time. Instead, Ross insists that God must operate within space and time,
which necessitates the additional dimensions. Ross’s claims
on this matter seems to suggest that God is somehow confined by
time. Of course God can operate in or out of time as He chooses, so why
would He confine Himself to operate within one of His own creations? Even
a self-described Ross-supporter, the philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig,
has severely criticised Ross’s teachings on this:
‘... I have been mystified by evangelicals’ apparently
uncritical acquiescence to some of the positions advocated in this book [Ref. 4].
‘... I find his attempt to construe God as existing in hyperdimensions of time and space and to interpret
Christian doctrines in that light to be both philosophically and theologically
unacceptable.’ 30
Misunderstanding
General Relativity
Beyond the Cosmos also contains some
scientific errors that illustrate how poorly Hugh Ross handles scientific
issues. For instance, Ross states that general relativity (GR) does not
allow for any absolute reference frame with which to measure velocities.31 This is
probably one of the most common incorrect but popular beliefs about GR.
Mach’s principle, which is one of the basic assumptions of GR, states that the
velocity of an object may be measured unambiguously with respect to the sum of
the rest of the material in the universe. Thus this frame of reference
constitutes the preferred frame for the universe. Classically, this
preferred frame of reference has been distant stars or galaxies. With
today’s understanding of cosmology, it is believed that the 3 K cosmic
background radiation (CBR) represents the preferred frame of Mach’s
principle. Anisotropy in the CBR has enabled us to measure our speed
through space with respect to this frame. It is quite surprising that
Ross does not realize this.
Comets
In his book Creation
and Time, Ross commits other blunders that call into question his
competence. He discusses the claim that the existence of comets is an
argument for a recent origin for the solar system32 (an issue I have
recently reviewed33). Amazingly,
Ross dismisses this argument by insisting that comets have an interstellar
origin. That is, comets are not part of the solar system but merely pass
through the inner solar system from time to time. Interstellar comets
would enter the solar system with hyperbolic orbits and speeds exceeding the
escape velocity, but this is not observed. Therefore while this answer
has been entertained in the past, virtually no astronomers accept it
today. Nearly all astronomers believe that comets come from either the
hypothetical Oort cloud or from the Kuiper belt. It is almost inconceivable that an
astronomer would not know this. Since Ross places so much
store in the consensus view of astronomers, it would behove
him to better understand that view before attacking recent creationists.
MACHOs
The Creator and the
Cosmos
contains several obvious errors or misstatements, despite having undergone
revision in 1995. For instance, Ross garbled the discussion of
observational evidence (via gravitational lensing)
that dark matter may consist of MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects).34 First, Ross has
the first 10-m Keck telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) playing key
roles in this discovery. In fact, most of the work was done with much
smaller telescopes wholly dedicated to the study. The largest telescopes
in the world cannot be tied up in time-consuming programs such as this
one. Second, Ross stated that MACHOs were
detected in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a
satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. In reality, the MACHOs
were believed to be in the Milky Way or between the Milky Way and the
LMC. What confused Ross was the fact that the objects that were lensed were stars in the LMC. If Ross had carefully
read just the titles of the articles that he referenced on this topic, he
should have been able to figure this out.
Fine-tuning of the
Universe—Ross’s Overstatements
In discussing how
finely balanced the expansion of the universe must be to permit the existence
of life, Ross states that the expansion rate ‘... cannot differ by
more than one part in 1055 from the actual rate.’ 35 Ross gives no
reference for this figure, so one is left to guess where he got this
nonsense. In the 1990s, there has been a major debate on the value of the
Hubble constant, H0, which measures the expansion rate of the
universe. For a while it appeared that we might not know H0
within a factor of two, though the situation appears to have improved a
bit. Still, it would seem that if it were thought that the expansion rate
could not vary by over one part in 1055 for life to exist, we would
have to know the expansion rate with that precision. The value of H0
continues to be revised by amounts far larger than one in 1055.
The stakes in the
controversy over the value of H0 have been high, because an
increased Hubble constant leads to a younger universe. For a while it
appeared that globular star clusters were older than the universe. In The
Creator and the Cosmos, Ross ignores the astronomers who have presented
evidence of higher values of H0. Teams led by Wendy Freedman
and Michael Pierce have given strong cases for this. Yet in discussing
new measurements of H0, Ross does not mention these, but opts
instead to rely solely upon his good friend Allan Sandage,36 who is one of the
leading figures arguing for a lower value of H0. Such gross
oversimplification and overstatement of his case is all too common with
Ross. Another example is his handling of COBE (COsmic
Background Explorer) data.37 Ross states
that the observed inhomogeneities in the cosmic
background radiation (CBR) found ‘... were just what astrophysicists
thought they would find.’ The truth is that the COBE was designed to detect
the temperature fluctuations that astrophysicists expected, but that the
original COBE data showed a perfectly smooth distribution. It was not
until some very high-powered statistical techniques were applied to the data
that much lower than originally expected fluctuations were found. At that
point, big bang models were recalculated to ‘predict’ the data. How this
shows perfect harmony with theory and observation as Ross claims is a mystery.
Earth-Moon Lunacy
In discussing the
moon, Ross states that the moon at 4.25 Ga is younger
than the earth at 4.59 Ga,38 hence they could not
have formed at the same time. But this confuses several things. The
oldest accepted radiometric ages for lunar rocks are about 4.25 Ga, but the oldest accepted terrestrial rocks have ages of
about 3.95
On the next page,
Ross briefly discusses the currently accepted scenario for the origin of the
moon.39 This theory
suggests that the earth formed as a single body, but that early in its history
the earth suffered a collision with another body that was a significant
fraction of its own size, possibly twice the mass of Mars.40 The earth
absorbed most of the colliding body, while the remaining debris was blasted
into orbit to eventually coalesce into the moon. Ross states that this
was a ‘head-on’ collision. In physics, a head-on collision is one in which
the paths of the centers of mass of the bodies intersect. Alternatively,
the angle of incidence for the incoming body is perpendicular to the surface of
the impacted body. Ross is wrong: this scenario requires that the
impacting body approach the earth at a glancing angle. Only for a
glancing collision is enough material ejected with the proper trajectory to
form the moon (although there are still unsolved problems with excess angular
momentum40). One must ask
whether Ross merely misunderstood the origin scenario or if he does not know
what a head-on collision is. The former possibility suggests sloppiness;
the latter suggests incompetence.
Ross’s Oral Oversights
Ross’s books are
generally well polished and have obviously been edited. However, his
pronouncements in public addresses and on-air presentations are much less
guarded. Davidheiser41 and
On a number of
occasions Ross has stated that DNA is either made of proteins or is itself a
protein. This error appeared in the first edition of The Fingerprint
of God, but was corrected in the second edition.
Ross has completely
botched the story of the peppered moths of
Ross has said that
average human eyesight is three times better than it was 2,000 years ago.
This is another example of an absurd and unfounded claim made entirely without
documentation.
Ross also claimed
that the
Both Davidheiser and
Ross’s Book Blunders
While Ross’s biggest
blunders occur in public addresses, even his books contain some careless
errors. For instance, his most recent book places the Scopes trial in
1927,45 not correctly in
1925. Subtler, but equally troubling examples, of bungling abound.
For instance, Ross recently claimed that the current 71 to 29 percent ratio of
water-to-land surface on the earth ‘... has been theoretically and
observationally demonstrated to provide the maximum possible diversity and
complexity of life.’46 No reference
was given for this statement, so it is impossible to determine where Ross
discovered this ‘fact’ or if indeed he incorrectly handled it as well.
Given the many variables involved in determining such a thing, it is difficult
to conceive that one could reach such a conclusion theoretically. But
even more troubling is the assertion that this has been ‘observationally demonstrated’.
Short of observing a large number of earth-like worlds with various
water-to-land ratios and counting the flora and fauna on each, just how could
such a thing be demonstrated observationally? In the same book Ross
writes that ‘ ... theory and
observations both confirm that all planets start with opaque atmospheres.’47 Again, no
references were given, but short of directly observing the birth and development
of a large number of planets, how could this be observationally tested?
To some these may seem like petty objections, but these sorts of misstatements
are common in Ross’s works.
Ross’s Personal Testimony
Ross’s testimony is
contained in nearly all of his books. The elements are essentially
this. Ross was raised in a moral, but not Christian, or even religious,
family. As a teenager, he became very interested in science. At the
age of 15, he concluded that the big bang must be true, and that the existence
of the world demanded that there be a Creator, so he began a study of
religions. He decided that the one true religion should be
self-consistent and that it should agree with the natural world. He began
reading the Bible, starting with Genesis, and he saw that it alone met the
requirements of being the one true religion. He found that the Bible
contained no errors or contradictions, which led him to salvation through the
blood of Jesus.
This story reflects
the statements of Romans 1 regarding what is called natural revelation, and we
can rejoice in his salvation. But Ross claims that as a teenager he was
struck with how well the Genesis account agreed with what he knew that science
had revealed about the origin of the world. That is difficult to
believe. Nearly everyone who reads the Genesis creation account for the
first time comes away with the strong impression that the Bible and ‘science’
have serious disagreements about origins. That is why there are so many
different ways in which harmonization is attempted.
Much of Ross’s
harmonization is very similar to that of the late Peter Stoner, who had a
popular level book that enjoyed broad readership about the time
that Ross was a teenager.48 Could it be
that Stoner influenced Ross? If so, why does Ross fail to acknowledge
this? Interestingly, Hugh Ross wrote the foreword to the progressive
creationist book by Stoner’s grandson, which echoes Ross’s scientific
sloppiness, egregious eisegesis, and general Scriptura sub scientia
approach.49 Ross clearly implies
that he came to his understanding of Genesis solely by his own reading of the
passage. If there were any other influences that guided him, then his
repeated omissions go far beyond merely misleading.
Conclusion
Just a few of the incorrect
and untrue statements of Hugh Ross have been explored. The concentration
here has been on scientific issues. Others, such as Van Bebber and Taylor,10 and Kelly,18 have documented many
of Ross’s outrageous biblical assertions, which demonstrate that Ross’s poor
scholarship extends to biblical studies as well.
Dishonesty
or incompetence? It is difficult to say. While I cannot decide which
explanation best characterizes Ross, I am very concerned with his inability to
correctly handle factual information. On many occasions Ross has greatly
bungled information. On other occasions he has appeared to have a total
disregard for the truth. Some have found that when Ross is informed of
his gaffes, he blithely goes on as if he never heard the criticism. There
seems to be no accountability. Ross frequently overstates his arguments.
There are very serious problems with his biblical studies and questions about
his scientific competence. I hope that the issues raised here will cause
those who entertain Ross’s teachings to re-examine his pronouncements.
Contrary to what many believe, Ross’s case is riddled with errors. Those
who agree with his approach to Genesis should be embarrassed with the extent of
his sloppy work.
References
1.
Ross, H., Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, Wiseman
Productions, Sierra
2.
Ross, H.N., The Fingerprint
of God, Promise Publishing,
3.
Ross, H.N., Creation and Time, Navpress,
4.
Ross, H.N., The Creator and
the Cosmos,
5.
Ross, H.N., Beyond the Cosmos, Navpress,
6.
Ross, H.N., The Genesis
Question, Navpress,
7.
The science of origins—unrepeated events (singularities) of the
past—is contrasted with operation science—repeatable regularities in the
present—in more detail in Normal, L., Geisler,
N.L. and Anderson, J.K., Origin Science: A Proposal for the
Creation-Evolution Controversy, Baker books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987. Return to Text.
8.
Johnson, P.E., Reason in the Balance, InterVarsity
Press,
9.
Sagan, C., Cosmos, Random House,
10.
Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S.,
Creation and Time: A
report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, Eden
Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994. Return to Text.
11.
Ross, Ref. 3, p. 56. Return to Text.
12.
Ross, Ref. 3, p. 57. Return to Text.
13.
Ross, Ref. 1, pp. 181-182. Return to Text.
14.
Berkhof, L., Introductory volume to
Systematic Theology, pp. 60, 96. Return to Text.
15.
Ross, H.N.,
16.
Jastrow, R., God and the Astronomers,
Norton, 1978. Return to Text.
17.
Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref.
10. Return to Text.
18.
Kelly, D.F., Creation and
Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the light of changing scientific paradigms,
Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), Ross-shire, UK, 1997; see review by Wieland, C., CEN Tech. J. 12(2):152-154,
1998. Return to Text.
19.
Ross, Ref. 1, p. 12. Return to Text.
20.
Ross, Ref. 6, pp. 38-53. Return to Text.
21.
Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 10,
pp. 84-91. Return to Text.
22.
Sarfati, J.D., If God Created the Universe,
then Who Created God? CEN Tech. J. 12(1)20-22,
1998. Return to Text.
23.
Guth, A.H., The
Inflationary Universe, Addison-Wesley,
24.
Hawking, S., A Brief History of Time, Bantam,
25.
Davies, P., The Mind of God,
Simon and
26.
Weinberg, S., The First Three
Minutes, Basic Books,
27.
Rees, M., Before the Beginning, Addison Wesley,
28.
Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time, Master
Books,
29.
Faulkner D.R., Book review of Beyond the Cosmos, by Hugh
Ross, CRSQ 34:242-243, 1988. Return to Text.
30.
Craig, W.L., Hugh Ross’ extra-dimensional deity: a review
article, J. Evang.
Theol. Soc. 42(2):293-304, 1999;
quotes on pp. 193,304. Amazingly, Craig
calls Ross ‘evangelicalism’s most important scientific apologist’,
which, as shown here, is hardly flattering about Craig’s own scientific
competence. Return to Text.
31.
Ross, Ref. 5, 35. Return to Text.
32.
Ross, Ref. 3, pp. 116-117. Return to Text.
33.
Faulkner D.R., Comets and the Age of the Solar System, CEN
Tech. J. 11(3):264-273, 1997. Return to Text.
34.
Ross, Ref. 4, pp. 37-38. Return to Text.
35.
Ross, Ref. 4, p. 116. Return to Text.
36.
Ross, Ref. 4, pp. 42-43. Return to Text.
37.
Ross, Ref. 4, pp. 24-26. Return to Text.
38.
Ross, Ref. 6, p. 31. Return to Text.
39.
Johnson, Ref. 8, p. 32. Return to Text.
40.
41.
Davidheiser, B., Creation,
Time, and Dr. Hugh Ross, self-published,
42.
Sparks, B., Pers. comm.,
1999. Return to Text.
43.
See Wieland, C., Goodbye, peppered
moths: A classic evolutionary story unstuck, Creation 21(3):56,
1999. Return to Text.
44.
Text of the Focus on the Family radio broadcast on