Danny,

YOU ASKED FOR IT!

At your insistence I have commented on your paper "The dubious
apologetics of Hugh Ross". Since you are the author of that article,
I have included the entire text (minus references) and my comments
interspersed throughout as per e-mail style.

I want to state at the outset - I do not believe everything that Hugh
says... I don't believe everything anybody says. Neither do I agree
with anyone on everything. I hope that by my defense of him against
some of your prior attacks I did not give the impression I am a blind
follower that would allow him to lead me anywhere (not that he
would).

I continue to think for myself and evaluate all data - no matter
what it's source! I wish all Christians would.

-VR


[DF]
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.

[VR]
I agree with all the above...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I agree with all this as well...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Ok, we have some disagreement here... I agree with Hugh that the
beautiful and wonderful creation can lead one to acknowledge a
"creator". I think this is why all world cultures have religions...
it is self evident (to honest men) that there MUST be someone
responsible for the this wonderful creation... greater than man
himself.

I disagree with you regarding the capabilities of fallible men. Just
how fallible and incompetent or stupid do you want men to be? Or in
other words how far the fall (original sin)? Maybe we just think we
know how to be astronomers, engineers, programmers, etc. Maybe we are
incapable of any perception of reality... maybe we cannot comprehend
the message of the Bible... maybe all pastors and theologians are
fallible incompetent men - who cannot be trusted - just how far do
you want to carry this reasoning?

I also would point out that science does not have a postulate of
atheism. Science has it's roots in Christianity. This mostly
creationist view of science and scientists is a modern phenomena...
Christians have abandoned science - Mark Noll's book "The Scandal of
the Evangelical Mind"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802841805/002-7140801-
5968064) does a good job of documenting this. True science is
simply going where the evidence leads you.

Incidentally origins science has been at a loss to provide evidence
that life was self starting. I think this is one area where modern
science can actually point toward God.

[DF]
This paradox underscores Ross's greatest misconception of how
modern
science works vis-ΰ-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.

[VR]
Same comments as above.

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Regarding bringing a "deity" into the discussion late... Would you
recommend starting a conversation with a lost sinner by discussing
how much money he should give to the church? Ross's audience by
definition are science buffs! Of course he is going to start them out
in discussions of science and gradually bring God into it!

As far as the big bang... I see this as the GREATEST of YEC ironies.
forgive me Danny, but I'm going to rant on the BB... I'm going to
state some of the obvious here, ask ironic questions, and give
background that I know you don't need but will probably be applicable
to others here on the list.

Many Biblical fundamentalists hold the belief that Science is at odds
with the Bible when it comes to the origins of the Universe. In fact
the two have been drawing together heavily since the theory of the
"Big Bang" emerged. Did you know that the term "Big Bang" was a
derogatory name assigned to the theory at the time by other
scientists (namely Hoyle)? Well it is. You see the prevailing (and
atheistic) theory at the time was the "Steady State" theory - which
basically said the universe always was, and always will be what it
is. The "Steady State" crowd was making fun of this new theory that
had the whole of the universe expanding from a common point - they
said what do you call that... a "Big Bang"? The name has stuck ever
since!

Current theory holds that all the matter in the universe originated
at the same spot. In my opinion, in layman's terms if all the matter
of the universe was compressed into a single spot (a singularity as
it is called in mathematical terms) of infinite density of non
measurably incredibly small size - does not this equate to all the
matter in the universe simply springing into existence out of
nothing? Is not this a perfect description of creating the universe
where there was nothing? It just "exploded" into existence (the Big
Bang)!

One of sciences key rules is that for every effect there is a cause.
Quite possibly you have heard of the law of "cause and effect". So if
there was a Big Bang (effect) - there had to be a cause
(causator/creator/God)! It demands a creator who is outside/external
to our universe. This creator would transcend our constraints of
space and time - just how the Bible describes God. As you can now see
Big Bang cosmology is the Christians ally - not enemy. Science's own
rules now demand a creator. The Steady State crowd is still opposed
to this new theory because by definition the Big Bang needs an
initiator. It renders science as merely the study of God's Creation.

This is exactly why so many scientists attack the BB. Stephen Hawking
in his book set out (and stated) at the outset that he was trying to
avoid a beginning. He fully exploits the mystery an lack of grasp on
most peoples part of quantum mechanics to avoid a creator. The fact
that the BB is theistic totally escapes the attention of the YEC
community! There is also a popular misconception that the BB is at
the edge of collapse (Danny, I have read your paper where you refute
this). Most do not recognize that the BB actually encompasses an
entire class of theories. The fact that we are in an expanding
universe is as reliable as GR... if the universe is expanding merely
running the clock backwards will lead you to the BB/creation event.

I can remember the pastor of my Church making fun of the Big Bang.
The notion that all of creation with its incredible exotic states
(the chemical elements, life, diversity of life, the incredible but
simple laws of nature) being the result of a large explosion (usually
a destructive force) was laughable at my Church. I went along with
that (ass a child) - wasn't it like setting a bomb on a pile of
debris and expecting a fine Italian sports car to emerge after the
smoke cleared? I now believe we were making fun of God's moment of
creation.

This is not to say that we were all guilty of heresy, or will pay for
not understanding His "true" method of creation - my pastor had no
evil intent. I'm not even saying that the Big Bang is the way it had
to be. But I think we part company with a lot of educated people when
we refute all science and say, "man knows nothing" when in actuality
"we" (the Christian trying to convert or lay a foundation for
witnessing to someone)... know nothing (or at least very little where
science is concerned). Or in other words we dismiss what we don't
understand, and they in turn dismiss us as ignorant and even
arrogant. Are we to only be able to witness to the uneducated, never
a chance to win over anyone within the scientific community? And what
of the Christian child who is subsequently exposed to powerful
scientific reasoning on such matters as Astronomy (Big Bang, age of
the universe), paleontology, biology, geology etc. - could he not
begin to doubt his faith? I think this is what the fundamentalists
are trying to avoid - they see it as a slippery slope to non-belief.
This is completely avoidable if we had properly addressed these
difficult issues up-front. By taking the ostrich approach - we set
ourselves up for ultimate failure. We should start addressing these
questions head on and stop dodging them! By ignoring these areas - we
ignore a percentage of the population and at the same time announce
we don't have any of the answers. And if we can't provide the
answers... they WILL be sought elsewhere. This is EXACTLY why
integrating science with the Bible is SO important for modern day
Christians.

I won't reiterate all the biblical passages that confirm an expanding
universe - Ross has covered this well. I will add this comment:

There is abundant scripture referring to the "spreading out" of the
heavens. The Bible is VERY consistent with this description. The key
word in Hebrew here is "raquia". Young's concordance defines "raquia"
as "expanse" and "raqa" as "spread out or over". The Bible could have
just said only "created the heavens" would this not be adequate? Why
the need for "stretch out"? He didn't "stretch out" man. Granted it
could simply be a reference to its expanse. But at it's best it's a
confirmation of our expanding universe, and at its worst it cannot be
used to argue against it!

Some have questioned me "What will you do when the big bang is
refuted"? Well, that's a valid criticism... My answer is that it's
the prevailing theory, It was predicted by Einstein's theory of
relativity (yes it was, he latter modified it to fit the steady state
model - which he later called his greatest mistake), the background
radiation was predicted by it before it was discovered, confirmations
of the big bang are continuing to come in, and again many of the so
called "alternate" theories are still based on a form of an expanding
universe - which is really still a big bang model. There are
alternate non "Big Bang" theories out there, but they have little
support and no predictions that have come about. My personal belief
is that the Big Bang (expanding universe) is very safe.

I would challenge you (especially if you are a young Earth advocate)
what you will/would do if a very old Earth and universe was proven
beyond all reasonable doubt. Or what you will do when/if the Big Bang
type beginning is similarly proven? I would encourage you not to
place God in a box.

[DF]
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?

[VR]
The book these guys wrote should be an embarrassment! I did not
convince me of anything. How many do you think have purchased this
book believing it to be Hugh's book? You just got done telling me
that you do not agree with others claiming Hugh to be a heretic and
believe Hugh's "correct on the essential doctrines of Christianity"
but refer and imply that what these guys have in this book is correct
- Which is it!


[DF]
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.

[VR]
No comment (yet)..


Biblical issues

General and special revelation

[DF]
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

[VR]
I agree with all the above. Do you think science and the bible should
disagree. Most Christian theologians do recognize dual revelation.
The Bible teaches this itself!

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Actually I am somewhat torn on this issue. I do believe Ross is
basically correct (according to the Bible) - but I have a hard time
believing it. The Romans passage states

"...For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful..."

Now in my Sunday school class (at a Baptist church) this verse has
been called up to answer the question "What about people in extremely
remote areas of the earth who have not heard the gospel... how can
they be sent to hell or enter heaven if they have never been exposed
to the gospel message"? While I must admit this passage seems to
indicate "all are without excuse" how can you get the message of
salvation from nature? And if you can't - the fictitious (well I
have actually heard it several times) question becomes valid again.
How do you reconcile this?

There are some other verses worth mentioning:

Psalm 85:11
Could this be a reference to the fossil record...
"Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look
down from heaven."

Psalm 98:2-3
"The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he
openly showed in the sight of the heathen. He hath remembered his
mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the
earth have seen the salvation of our God."

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Fair enough, it does not say that science is 67th book. But it does
say "all are without excuse" again I personally have trouble with
this but it IS biblically founded.

On another note, where does it say that Genesis is the first book, or
that Revelation is the last? Where does it say there are 66 books in
the Bible? Does not the Church today posses Bibles with differing
numbers of verses and even BOOKS? Did not the church decide what
books were included in the Bible (prior to the complete canon)? Could
not this equate to adding or deleting from the Bible? Where was our
Bible prior to 1611? I have studied the history of the Bible to a
fair degree, and time does not permit a full discussion here - but
the Bible has changed over time already. The orthodox Jews nor the
early Christians even possessed a "Bible" - it did not exist (as we
know it).

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I "basically" agree with you here. however in Ross's defense I would
state that he did not claim that those attributes had to be spelled
out in those verses (must be YOUR assumption) - but from nature. Can
you not see the "law" in nature? Can one not look about and see love?
We have all seen mercy - do you suppose it comes from Satan?

On the issue of the law/justice etc here is a relevant verse:
Romans 2:14-15
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Again I basically agree - but then how can "all men be without
excuse"?

[DF]
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 Rom. 10:13 ff. In his zeal to make a
strong case, Ross has grossly overstated this argument. At best, this
is sloppy logic and exegesis, and his equation of general and special
revelation is seriously flawed.

[VR]
No comment other than what I have already stated.

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I see your main point - and I admit that science changes more than
the Bible... but the church is not without change - even on
theological issues. If everything was so abundantly clear there would
not be different denominations! As far as arguments over
"interpretations" this is hardly unique to science either!

[DF]
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.

[VR]
You aim at shooting off your own foot here. Is science worthless? If
so you must not be worth very much and what you do SCU Lancaster is
worthless. I ask you is science knowledgeable or not? You state that
you accept the size of the universe - I assume you look at it as
fact, I know I do... How do we know this... SCIENCE!

Now I admit that peoples interpretations of scientific data can be
wrong - just as their interpretations of scripture can be wrong.

[DF]
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

[VR]
Again, how far the fall. I recently heard you admit that you do not
believe (as many YEC do) that the 2nd law of thermodynamics began
after the fall. That being the case, I would infer that all the laws
are the same since the creation. That being the case not much has
changed since the creation. Only man's relationship with God.

I don't think God would have perverted the creation to keep us from
discovering the truth. This would be an OBVIOUS contradiction with
those dual revelation verses already discussed.

Christless creationism?

[DF]
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 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.

[VR]
I agree removing Christ from this passage was a definite mistake! I
would have to agree with you here.

I would only add that I would like to hear this in it's broader
context... I am sure this was somewhat tongue in cheek as I think I
know Ross better than for him to claim this is what this passage
actually says.


Problems with the `day-age' theory

[DF]
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

[VR]
I disagree that his audience knows little about science. He
especially appeals to people who have an interest in scientific
matters. My experience is that his listeners are science buffs -
based on discussions with others, callers to his radio shows, e-mails
he answers etc.

I also don't agree with your characterization of Hugh "playing
loosely with biblical texts". This implies he has views contrary to
other Biblical scholars. There are many respected dignified
theologians and grammatical / linguistic scholars that agree with his
interpretations... not the least of which is Gleason Archer - who
has taught most theologians who learned much about Hebrew from
seminary school.


[DF]
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 harmonize. 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.

[VR]
You were recently proven wrong on this issue and it should be
CORRECTED!

[DF]
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

[VR]
Boy you sure like to drive home that 67 book thing. This is
repetitive.

[DF]
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'.

[VR]
You imply he cannot harmonize science and the Bible? This is the one
thing he ABSOLUTELY has done! The BB is a very good description of
creation ex nihlo. Again you seem proud to trounce on your very
occupation. If "uniformitarian" science is sooo bad... why do you
practice it?


Looseness with lexicons

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Since when are these guys the final word on lexicons!!! This borders
on humor - I think I'd rather listen to Dr. Gleason Archer if you
don't mind....

Scientific issues
Ross's big bang apologetic

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I defer to my BB rant above...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
And your point? Other than making Ross's...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
And again - your point? Other than making Ross's...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I agree Ross makes a big claim here with nothing to back it up...
maybe those scientists don't want to be identified for fear of
ridicule by their piers.

You make the same mistake he does. You make the claim that most are
avowed atheists - I don't see it that way, I would say the best
claim you could make for the majority would be agnostic - not
atheist. I also doubt that most blindly accept the quantum
fluctuation model. Most of these posit an infinite regression of
universes... this is not possible as there would have to be an
increase in entropy - that will not allow an infinite regression.
This is also a fairly new model most popularized by Hawking to avoid
a beginning and hence a beginner.

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Tying this idea to Ross is highly misleading! He does not subscribe
to this belief! Further, as you point out this is not currently
accepted. And you are correct... those violations have to be
vanishingly small durations of time. To propose that our universe
(with all it's OBVIOUS energy) to be existing for billions of years
is absurd! The universe is OBVIOUSLY heading from a very hot
(energetic) state to a very cool (less energetic) state. This whole
concept revolves around the 2nd law of thermodynamics if it is true,
we are in a state of losing energy!

[DF]
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
#145;In the context of inflationary cosmology, it is fair to say that
the universe is the ultimate free lunch.#146;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.

[VR]
This theory is not widely accepted either. And it has the infinite
regression problem. All it does is keep pushing the original cause
further back - like the OOL research that says life was planted here
(panspermia) all these theories just push the problem further away -
it does not eliminate it.

[DF]
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.

[VR]
For one thing popular books are not on the cutting edge of science.
Theism and the BB have a LONG recognized relationship - YECers are
just oblivious to it! Why do so many scientists fight it? Why does
Hawking have problems with it? Why are they jumping through quantum
hoops? TO AVOID THE BEGINNING THE BIG BANG IMPLIES!!!

And although some scientists use the word God in such a way that does
not point to the Bible, recognizing the fact that there is a force
(intelligent designer, order, etc) is a big step. If science is
recognizing this fact, it can well be a stepping stone to THE God.

[DF]
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

[VR]
I almost feel sorry for you - for your view of the BB. I don't think
you could be MORE WRONG. Our universe simply popping into existence
all by itself is the most unathiestic thing I can think of!

I'm going to give you a little history lesson that you are probably
aware of but is not clear to your readers. The "cosmological
principle" harkens back to the days the church believed in
geocentricism. It was originally called the "Copernican principle"
and is a reference to us not being at the center of the universe!
Indeed as you know we are not at the center of the universe - we are
not at the center of our solar system, nor at the center of our
galaxy. The idea of the earth not being at a unique position is
therefore NOT entirely an assumption! Surely you agree.

This cosmological principle assumption you speak of comes from
Russell Humphreys work/theory... - I understood you to disagree with
it??? Why are you quoting him? Here is my opinion of his white hole
theory that claims to make a young earth possible.

Many have pointed out errors in the theory. It's couched in highly
technical terms - I think this is used as a ploy to sound
sophisticated and authoritative. Most Christians are not capable of
following the highly technical arguments for and against - so I think
it's best to concentrate on what it claims. When you boil it down it
basically accepts all of the standard Big Bang model. The initial
singularity of the big bang is replaced with a white hole from which
the entire universe is spewed. We are further claimed to be in a
privileged position (close to where the white hole was). The result
is the universe is as old as the rest of secular science believes it
is, but allows for a 6,000 year old earth. Ironically it's a
cosmological theory with only terrestrial consequences! Further, to
get this model to harmonize with Genesis, requires them to employ a
'literal reading' of Genesis in a manner that the old Earther's
receive tremendous criticism for! This is how far some are willing to
go to 'prove' the young earth. It should be noted that his theory
totally relies on clocks (all types of clocks) running many orders of
magnitude slower on Earth than in the rest of the universe. It is
therefore very damaging that he fails to explain how so many "clocks"
on Earth still show an incredible passage of time... Such as
radiometric decay which takes over a billion years to transpire!


[DF]
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.

[VR]
Progressive creation does not have near the problems as does your 24
hour 6 day creation! This is at the heart of our disagreement.

Let me get this straight... you claim that because the geology of the
earth changes - this is INTIMATELY related to biological evolution?
his sounds like our recent discussion of how most YEC equate stellar
evolution to biological evolution. You agreed with me they were 2
separate issues.

Moreover, Ross rejects evolution - you do not! What of YOUR
evolution? Please explain to me your model of evolution, which
creatures were on the ark, post flood speciation, kinds, etc.

Here is another gaffe. For the record, those scientists that mention
God... even though they may not recognize that God is THE God of the
Bible - they are STILL theists. Acknowledging ANY God makes you a
theist.

[See also What about the `big bang'? - Ed.]

String theory in the Bible?


[DF]
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.

[VR]
I agree with you here.

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I basically agree with you here.

Ross however defends himself on this topic here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/philchristi.html#heading6

[DF]
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




[VR]
I sort of agree with you here

Ross however answers William Lane Craig as well here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/philchristi.html#heading6


Misunderstanding general relativity

[DF]
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.

[VR]
This is much ado about nothing! While in a HIGHLY technical sense you
may be correct. In practice he is basically correct. I'll prove my
point... At this very moment you are reading this tell me the
absolute direction and speed with which you are traveling taking into
consideration all motions of the earth, solar system, galaxy, etc.
(and don't forget angular motions) as it relates to the expanding
universe at large... I'm waiting... I thought so!!!


Comets

[DF]
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.

[VR]
If I recall correctly, Ross stated some comets could enter in this
manner - but did not claim this was the main source of comets.
Realize that this scenario would allow an interstellar body to be
"nudged" into our space just as those from the Oort cloud or Kuiper
belt - it would further take time for these to possibly gain the
speeds you speak of.

What of the last comet to visit us Hale Bopp? Here is an article
talking about it containing material that predates the Sun itself!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/komwater.html
Further it's orbital period has been calculated into the thousands of
years!!! Not a very comforting thought for someone who believes this
to be the age of the earth!


MACHOs

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Did the Keck and Hubble have NOTHING to do with it? If they played a
role - your point is MOOT!

Again I think Ross was probably using the LMC as a location reference
as astronomers frequently do such as the Leonids, a planet being "in"
a constellation etc. Further these MACHOS were between us and the LMC
and the LMC itself is associated with our galaxy - it's a satellite
galaxy of ours!

Fine-tuning of the universe - Ross's overstatements

[DF]
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 10 55.

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.

[VR]
If this is accurate would agree. What does Ross currently say on
this? did you check with him?

[DF]
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.

[VR]
The detected measurements DID come out in very good agreement with
predictions. The truth of the matter is the calculations/expectations
were in flux while COBE was being deployed. I have had arguments with
YECs quoting you on this topic and they think the CBR/background
radiation itself was not predicted (the 3 k background) and was
adjusted to fit what was discovered. The 3k is an impressive
prediction... there are others too, too many to list and get into
here.

Do you deny that the universe is expanding?


Earth-moon lunacy

[DF]
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 Ga. How is
this explained? Both bodies are thought to have undergone geological
activity, so that no primordial rocks exist on either one. The earth
is obviously more geologically active, so its oldest rocks are
expected to be younger than the moon's oldest rocks. Therefore
the
correct raw numbers as accepted by most scientists indicate just the
opposite of what Ross concludes. If there are no primordial rocks on
the earth, whence comes the 4.59 Ga age for the earth? That age comes
from radiometric dates of a certain class of meteorites, from which
the age of the solar system, and most of the bodies in it, has been
inferred. So Ross has mixed two very different figures here. The
facts have been so garbled that it questions his competence.

[VR]
Are you insinuating that the moon is older than the earth? Or that
current science doubts that the moon is younger? The nit picky
details are meaningless!

[DF]
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.

[VR]
If I remember correctly he says "nearly" head on. And it would be
closer to that than a slight glancing blow... the proof being you
would not get the earth absorbing most of the colliding body's mass
unless its near head on! What's your point?


Ross's oral oversights

[DF]
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 Sparks42 have
documented a number of scientific blunders made by Ross in these
other venues. Those blunders will not be overly elaborated here, but
a few must be mentioned. Sparks demonstrated numerous and monstrous
errors of math and values of exponentials.

[VR]
No comment...

[DF]
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.

[VR]
So much for your theory that he refuses to make corrections! Gasp!
Have you never seen an error make it to a book!

[DF]
Ross has completely botched the story of the peppered moths of
England. He has called them butterflies, and said that they were
green. The latter gaffe is apparently because he misunderstands the
nature of the moths' alleged evolutionary advantage, thinking that
the moths were supposed to be found on foliage rather than trunks of
trees. It is common for evolutionists to blow the story of the
peppered moths,43 but Ross has exceeded them all.

[VR]
As established in Icons Of Evolution - they are not usually found on
the trunks of trees - those pictures are made with pined or glued
moths. There is no advantage. As you state mistakes on this one -
are VERY common. he's an astronomer not a biologist... I answer this
oral miscue with a big SO WHAT!

[DF]
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.

[VR]
I would like to know the reference. I CAN tell you that I have read
ancient accounts of tests of eyesight that are extremely easy to
pass... One being the optical double in the handle of the big dipper!
I don't know that he's right - can you prove him wrong? Did you even
ask him or anyone associated with him about this?

[DF]
Ross also claimed that the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar left from
when the moon was formed by separation from the earth. That is a very
old idea that was discarded decades ago. Today, the Pacific Ocean
basin is explained entirely by plate tectonics. These blunders and
outdated ideas are inexcusable for a scientist. That is ironic,
because Ross often dismisses his creationist critics for supposedly
not having the credentials to adequately understand science

[VR]
I tend to agree with you here. I remember doubting this when I read
it in his book. I don't know that he currently ascribes to this now.

[DF]
Both Davidheiser and Sparks show the sloppy manner in which Ross
approaches science and facts in general. One illustration dealing
with astronomy will demonstrate this. A few years ago, Hugh Ross and
Duane Gish were guests on James Dobson's popular radio program, Focus
on the Family. During the discussion, the question of star formation
came up. Gish questioned the possibility and observations of star
formation today. In his response Ross, blithely stated that `…we
see
star formation in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out
tonight and watch it. It's actually happening.'44 That is a
blatantly
false statement that no other astronomer would endorse. Perhaps what
Ross meant to say was that with a pair of binoculars anyone could see
regions in space where stars are thought to be forming now. Most
astronomers today would consider that statement to be true. However,
that is not what Ross said. He was either being very sloppy or
incompetent. In either case his statement certainly misled many
people.

[VR]
We recently argued about this very point - and you seemed to indicate
that you do not rule out star formation in Orion. That being the case
you can look at Orion and see stars forming - Ross never claimed you
could watch it's entire life cycle. Can you see time passing by
watching a clock? The answer is yes and no while you can see the
hands technically move... all but the second hand are too small for
you to perceive - that does not mean that you cannot see time move or
stars form. If someone had been lucky enough to be looking at the
right spot in the sky in 1987 they could have witnessed a star
explode!


Ross's book blunders

[DF]
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.

[VR]
If you have doubts... If you want a reference ask for it!

Ross's personal testimony

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Oh no! Not this topic again... I think we have beat this enough. You
make a different and weaker claim here though. You imply you can read
Hugh's mind - and call him a liar! This is a GIANT leap here! This is
totally unChristian in my opinion.

Conclusion

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Again you say he is "correct on the essential doctrines of
Christianity" so why the harsh language here???

[DF]
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.

[VR]
Has Ross made mistakes.. Yes. Has Danny Faulkner mad mistakes...
Yes. Do I make mistakes... yes. does he make more than us... I don't
know - I do not write or speak nearly as much as him. I have made
countless mistakes in this response that I have had to correct. did I
miss some... very probably.

When dealing with a brother in Christ can we go about it in a kinder,
gentler, more effective, more Christian, and more biblical way...
MOST DEFINITELY!

-VR