Rating: 
Summary: Taking the battle to the Young Earth Creationists
Review: For decades, Young Earth creationists have made the same claims over and over. These claims include:* The speed of light has been slowing down. * The dust on the moon proves the Earth is young. * The Earth's magnetic field proves the Earth is young. While peddling these erroneous claims, YEC teachers have raised generations of Christians to believe that anyone who doesn't believe the Earth is a mere 10,000 years old is a wolf in sheep's clothing. People who don't agree with every tenant of the YEC position are to be barred from the Church until they repent and agree that dinosaurs went extinct from Noah's flood. To even consider that the scientific evidence points in another direction than Recent Creation is to doubt God's Word, and make the doubter guilty of a grave sin. No matter what the evidence says, God's Word says that the Earth is Young, and to doubt it is dangerously close to imperiling one's salvation. Hugh Ross takes the battle to the Creationists. He points out that these false teachers lie and continue to use the same discredited arguments even when science has proven them wrong. He points out that Christians in the first-millennium were generally skeptical of a literal reading of Genesis (so much for the YEC claim that theirs is the "traditional" reading of Scripture), and that YEC teachings drive people away from Christ. (I was raised an independent fundamental Baptist with direct ties to Ken Hamm and Duane Gish, and I never once heard a YEC recount how anyone ever came to faith as a result of their "ministries.") Best of all, Ross does it with more grace and aplomb than I can do in the limited space of this review, despite the slanders that Young Earth Creationists have directed toward him (a good sampling can be found among the YEC reviews here). I don't agree with all of Ross's ideas (the bit about "soulish animals" seems like a pointless digression), and advances in science may force a revision in the way Ross has wed modern cosmology to the "day-age" theory Ross proposes. Ross also could have spent more time demolishing the one big objection YEC's have to old-earth theories - namely, YEC's have misinterpreted the Bible's teaching about "death" and "sin" to extend these concepts to animals. Because YECs falsely believe that the Bible forbids the death of animals prior to the Fall, they remain unable to accept an Old Earth, and resort to the "matrix" argument to preserve their belief in a young earth. (The "matrix" argument is derived from the movie "The Matrix," in which a computer programmer realizes that the entire world is an illusion generated by a computer, and that all the evidences of a real physical world are just illusions generated by a machine. The Matrix argument is by definitiion irrefutable, because there is no logical way it can be shown that the physical world has a genuine existence if one disputes it.) Ross devotes to much of the argument to the problems posed to the Christian worldview by the Matrix argument - namely, how can we trust a God who makes a world look old when it really isn't? - when he should have focused more on the basis of the argument, the problem of pre-Fall animal death. Animals simply don't "die." They don't have souls and they don't "sin." They are meat bags, period. God is not such a sniveling whimp that he's distressed by a bird eating a worm - that's what worms are for! Once we demolish the mis-notion that all physical death results from the Fall, the Young Earth argument really collapses into the puddle of nonsense it is. (Why aren't YECs distressed by plant death? The Bible is plain that "death" is spiritual death, not physical death, and that applies to HUMANS only.) But Ross is surely right to look at how modern science has re-discovered, to its own dismay, that God and Design are really the best explanations, and not turn away at disgust simply because one's pet theory of how to interpret Genesis 1 is offended. The average YEC believer is simply deceived; but YEC leaders have knowingly spread lies. It is time to treat them as liars. Ross' constribution is an excellent starting point, and the furious denunciations by YECs who can't believe in a God who lets spiders eat mosquitos only solidifies Ross' case.
Rating: 
Summary: The Cosmos must have been created
Review: For many years I have believed that Scripture contradicts what is found in science. For this reason, I believed that scientists who do not believe in God, and vehemently oppose the concept of a God, must question the validity of findings that point to an origin for the universe. I'll summarize for all of his books here, because I don't remember which is which. They all sort of support each other. I would like to point out that Ross's primary goal with this book (and his others) is the demonstrate that our universe did, indeed, have a beginning. Einstein's theories have been proven beyond an inkling of a doubt, and those theories troubled Einstein himself. The origin of the universe. The concept is now a century old, and new research is only reinforcing the theory so that it is now, for all practical purposes, a proven fact. Another theory, that there are an infinite number of universes, and that our actions dictate our presence in one universe or another (as fantasized by sci-fi stories), has been proven wrong. It is now fairly well established that there is just one universe. This further erodes the chances for spontaneous life, because in the infinite universe theory, when infinity is involved, anything and everything will happen. Our universe had a beginning in the not-so distant past! It is not infinite, but expanding. COBE has measured the edges of the universe. Therefore, given the amount of time estimated for life to emerge, this universe--our universe--the only universe that physics points to--could not have evolved life spontaneously. Ross effectively teaches these concepts for the layman. The goal, of helping the reader to understand not ultimately how all the little details were worked out, but only that the universe had a beginning. That single concept is paramount! Without a beginning, there is no creator. With a beginning, there is a creator. Who knows what God really is? Who knows, really? The Bible was written by human beings. Anyone who has based their religion on the Bible must agree that the Bible is significant. How could so many individuals over so many centuries write such with such consistency? Do away with all biases toward your own religious beliefs--or lack thereof--and consider the value of the Bible for establishing values in life and as a historical text. Consider the age of it, and then compare modern scientific discoveries with the stories in the Bible. You will find no discrepancies. Take it at face value. We know that the universe and the earth is more than a few thousand years old. Therefore, what does Genesis really teach? How could ancient Hebrews have understood the concept of a billion, when their numbers did not go that high? The Old Testament Bible was written long ago, and is not a science text. We therefore should read it in that light. What does Genesis 1:2 really mean? For those who believe in God: Suffice it to say, Ross doesn't have all the answers, doesn't explain the meaning of the universe. But what he does do is help you to accept modern science and the teachings of our origins in the Bible. Ross's main point, and the one that I found most compelling is this: God does not lie. He created the universe as is. What we see is the real deal. God inspired the text in the Bible. Therefore, science must agree with the Bible. Accept the age of fossils and the apparently contradictory evidence that violent death happened before Adam and Eve, and that the world was full of life even while the two lived in the Garden of Eden. Do you really believe, as a good little Christian, that Noah ushered in behemoth dinosaurs onto the Ark? COME ON! The dinos were long gone by the time Adam and Eve came along. Within, the Garden was a haven. Outside Eden--the world was a harsh place. Death is a part of life. Lower lifeforms serve the higher lifeforms. That is just how the world works. Another of Ross's revelations is that of perspective--point of view. Genesis 1 and 2 take place inside the Garden. That which is described in those chapters is how life was inside the garden. Just like the 7 creation days are described from the point of view of the Spirit, near the surface of the earth. Not in space (as we might imagine the scene while reading it). From the surface of the Earth, as the atmosphere changed, the Sun, Moon, and stars appeared. How? Plant life and single-celled lifeforms, producing oxygen, clearing up the primordial atmosphere. Make no mistake!! Life could not have lived for even a single day without the sun! The temperature would have been hundreds of degrees below zero. Yes, even in that short amount of time. Why would God do it apparently backwards, creating Earth first, a frozen ball of ice, and then the Sun? No way. The oceans would have frozen over in an instant. Genesis is not contradictory. It clearly explains that God said "Let there be light!" He didn't say "Let there be the sun!" No. The sun was already there. What God did, at that point, was to say "Let the light shine through!" So let's just be practical, okay? God created the sun, moon, and stars long before the plants and animals. Perspective, which is a key aspect of the scientific method. Read Genesis 1 again, with this in mind, and you will see it is clear and wonderful. Ross clearly explains this. You will love this book! It's an eye opener.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent way to open the debate
Review: He spends the majority of his time doing a very careful exegesis of the Bible. While his point in this book isn't to try to convince you that "old Earth creation" is correct (he has other books to do that), he does an excellent job at showing that "All truth is God's truth;" that it is dangerous to maintain that what is true in science is not true in faith, and vice-versa.
Rating: 
Summary: Ross's erroneous teaching deceives the lay person.
Review: Hugh is the president of an organization called Reason's to Believe. It has a gained quite a bit of popularity within the Christian community with its approach to Christian apologetics. Though they claim their position, often called progressive creation or day-age theorists, is completely compatible with a plain literal reading of the biblical text any careful observer should easily be able to see how it is impossible to take this interpretation seriously and its just another attempt to try to force billions of years into Genesis 1. Without a doubt the main argument against the 24-hour interpretation that Ross uses in his interpretation of science. Ross accepts the big bang, which is basically a materialistic theory where God is only invoked at the beginning to get the process started and billions of years are then required to form galaxies, stars and planets all through natural processes. Ross accepted the Big Bang before he was a Christian. Since the Bible speaks of a beginning he became a Christian and theorized the days in Genesis must be long periods of time to be consistent with his view of nature. So in other words he approached the Bible with pre-conceived ideas of the past so its no surprise he came up with the interpretation he did. Ross gains much of his popularity by using tactics that have no place in Christian apologetics that can easily deceive the lay person. One of his most common tactics is argument from authority. Since Ross sides with the popular accepted view of astronomy and geology in the scientific community, who the vast majority are atheistic or agnostic, its common to hear him make statements like 'there is no way all these scientist can be wrong'. In the introduction it states 'are scientists involved in a grand conspiracy?' and 'more than 99% of scientists reject young earth creation' without any reference to where he gets this 99%. Also on page 45 it states' does the word day in Genesis represent a contradiction between scripture and science?' Since Ross thinks the argument from authority is so persuasive why isn't he more consistent and apply it to evolution as well? The vast majority of biologists accept evolution so why doesn't he? Or perhaps he fails to realize the same biases and prejudices that cause people to believe in evolution also effect how they interpret astronomy and geology? Another common tactic is the straw man. Ross wants to give the impression to his readers that young-earth creationists have no scientific case and are incompetent. He often uses big words like calling young earth creation ridiculous and nonsense. Yet so often he shows that he is completely ignorant of what creationists actually teach or he is deliberately creating a straw man that he can easily knock down because he really is incapable of refuting the creationist's real position. To this day Ross continues to misrepresent to his followers that creationists believe in evolution just like evolutionists. On page 73 he says "That many species (referring to those descendant from the ark) of today are presumed to have arisen through biological evolution...!" Creationists do not believe these have arisen from information adding mutations that particles to people evolution requires but from recombination's from animals with a high genetic potential. Though it is a kind of 'evolution', this has nothing to do with particles to people evolution and billions of years won't help. Because of his willful ignorance of the creationist variation/speciation model in claiming this kind of change is the same as particles to people evolution he claims creationists are afraid of an old Earth because evolution would then happen. Based on his ignorance he creates another straw man. I know of no leading creationist who believes an old Earth would make evolution possible. This book was written in 1994 and to this day Ross continues to make this claim over TV, radio and articles when attacking creationists. He seems to have no interest in the truth. Another straw man he creates is on page 123. He claims 'According to young-earth creationists all these things must be illusions, and our "knowing" anything apart from the words of the Bible cannot be trusted. All of science must have lead humankind astray'. Of course creationists don't deny that stars exist billions of light years away and that radioactive decay has occurred but rather we interpret the data differently. Creationists start with the literal interpretation of the Bible and use this data to interpret the evidence from nature but with *assumptions* different than uniformitarians. Of course creationists don't claim to have all the answers but that's the nature of science. But whenever there is conflict with an observation in nature and the Bible we don't quickly reinterpret clear scriptural teachings to preserve Bible inerrancy. Bible inerrancy has no meaning if the text can be interpreted so loosely that it can accommodate nearly any observation in nature which basically what he is implying by canonizing nature as the `67th book'. Ross tries to defend his position from criticism that billions of years contradicts God's omnipotence. He tries to turn this around and use it against creationists as well but in doing so sticks his foot in his mouth. He claims 6 days is much too much time as well for an omnipotent God to create the universe. But Ross fails to realize the significance of the 6 days was for us as God points out in Exodus 20:11 and further emphasizes how ridiculous his position is with respect to this passage. God could have created the universe in 6 nanoseconds but he took the time he did for our Sabbath workweek. His position has no answers as to why an omnipotent God would sit back and watch for billions of years as stars and galaxys formed and then when the Earth finally formed for a couple billion years created nothing but bacteria than after millions of years finally got to his purpose humans. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in this book that I would like to cover in this review but space prevents me. Fortunately, an entire book was written refuting the numerous errors in theology that Ross makes called Creation and Time by Van Bebber and Taylor. This is a must read for anyone how really wants to know the truth about what the Bible really says and the truth of what the early church leaders really believed.
Rating:
Summary: Ross's erroneous teaching deceives the lay person.
Review: Hugh is the president of an organization called Reason's to Believe. It has a gained quite a bit of popularity within the Christian community with its approach to Christian apologetics. Though they claim their position, often called progressive creation or day-age theorists, is completely compatible with a plain literal reading of the biblical text any careful observer should easily be able to see how it is impossible to take this interpretation seriously and its just another attempt to try to force billions of years into Genesis 1. Without a doubt the main argument against the 24-hour interpretation that Ross uses in his interpretation of science. Ross accepts the big bang, which is basically a materialistic theory where God is only invoked at the beginning to get the process started and billions of years are then required to form galaxies, stars and planets all through natural processes. Ross accepted the Big Bang before he was a Christian. Since the Bible speaks of a beginning he became a Christian and theorized the days in Genesis must be long periods of time to be consistent with his view of nature. So in other words he approached the Bible with pre-conceived ideas of the past so its no surprise he came up with the interpretation he did. Ross gains much of his popularity by using tactics that have no place in Christian apologetics that can easily deceive the lay person. One of his most common tactics is argument from authority. Since Ross sides with the popular accepted view of astronomy and geology in the scientific community, who the vast majority are atheistic or agnostic, its common to hear him make statements like 'there is no way all these scientist can be wrong'. In the introduction it states 'are scientists involved in a grand conspiracy?' and 'more than 99% of scientists reject young earth creation' without any reference to where he gets this 99%. Also on page 45 it states' does the word day in Genesis represent a contradiction between scripture and science?' Since Ross thinks the argument from authority is so persuasive why isn't he more consistent and apply it to evolution as well? The vast majority of biologists accept evolution so why doesn't he? Or perhaps he fails to realize the same biases and prejudices that cause people to believe in evolution also effect how they interpret astronomy and geology? Another common tactic is the straw man. Ross wants to give the impression to his readers that young-earth creationists have no scientific case and are incompetent. He often uses big words like calling young earth creation ridiculous and nonsense. Yet so often he shows that he is completely ignorant of what creationists actually teach or he is deliberately creating a straw man that he can easily knock down because he really is incapable of refuting the creationist's real position. To this day Ross continues to misrepresent to his followers that creationists believe in evolution just like evolutionists. On page 73 he says "That many species (referring to those descendant from the ark) of today are presumed to have arisen through biological evolution...!" Creationists do not believe these have arisen from information adding mutations that particles to people evolution requires but from recombination's from animals with a high genetic potential. Though it is a kind of 'evolution', this has nothing to do with particles to people evolution and billions of years won't help. Because of his willful ignorance of the creationist variation/speciation model in claiming this kind of change is the same as particles to people evolution he claims creationists are afraid of an old Earth because evolution would then happen. Based on his ignorance he creates another straw man. I know of no leading creationist who believes an old Earth would make evolution possible. This book was written in 1994 and to this day Ross continues to make this claim over TV, radio and articles when attacking creationists. He seems to have no interest in the truth. Another straw man he creates is on page 123. He claims 'According to young-earth creationists all these things must be illusions, and our "knowing" anything apart from the words of the Bible cannot be trusted. All of science must have lead humankind astray'. Of course creationists don't deny that stars exist billions of light years away and that radioactive decay has occurred but rather we interpret the data differently. Creationists start with the literal interpretation of the Bible and use this data to interpret the evidence from nature but with *assumptions* different than uniformitarians. Of course creationists don't claim to have all the answers but that's the nature of science. But whenever there is conflict with an observation in nature and the Bible we don't quickly reinterpret clear scriptural teachings to preserve Bible inerrancy. Bible inerrancy has no meaning if the text can be interpreted so loosely that it can accommodate nearly any observation in nature which basically what he is implying by canonizing nature as the '67th book'. Ross tries to defend his position from criticism that billions of years contradicts God's omnipotence. He tries to turn this around and use it against creationists as well but in doing so sticks his foot in his mouth. He claims 6 days is much too much time as well for an omnipotent God to create the universe. But Ross fails to realize the significance of the 6 days was for us as God points out in Exodus 20:11 and further emphasizes how ridiculous his position is with respect to this passage. God could have created the universe in 6 nanoseconds but he took the time he did for our Sabbath workweek. His position has no answers as to why an omnipotent God would sit back and watch for billions of years as stars and galaxys formed and then when the Earth finally formed for a couple billion years created nothing but bacteria than after millions of years finally got to his purpose humans. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in this book that I would like to cover in this review but space prevents me. Fortunately, an entire book was written refuting the numerous errors in theology that Ross makes called Creation and Time by Van Bebber and Taylor. This is a must read for anyone how really wants to know the truth about what the Bible really says and the truth of what the early church leaders really believed.
Rating:
Summary: Ross: Scientist who is a Christian¿but not a Theologian!
Review: I appreciate Dr. Hugh Ross for writing this book, first because there are not many books out addressing this issue of creation and time. Second, it helps us to rethink and strengthen our position on the creation and evolution debate. I believe, this book was primarily written to address the debate between young-earth and old-earth (or universe) creationists. However, this book does more than just address the issues. It is more of a plea for Christian to be more peaceful and Christ-like on the matter. Here, Ross is hardly a compromiser-he is an old-earth advocate, and attempts to justify his beliefs all throughout this book. There are several "good" things Hugh Ross says. First, he reminds us that one is NOT weak in his or her faith just because he or she might believe in the evolutionary process of Creation. Belief in "how" or the mechanism God took to create the universe is silent enough to take a hard dogmatic stance. Therefore, Christians should not condemn each other, rather carefully study the issues and share their convictions to be more in line with the truth. Second, he teaches us that taking a stance on scientific age of the universe does not imply evolution by natural means. Even if one negates God, evolutionism is still ludicrous. Sound scientific evidence points to an age (although not in line with young-earth view) that make it virtually impossible for all life as we know it to evolve out of random events. In fact, the age of the universe and many beautiful scientific discoveries points to a God. For this reason, Chapter 7 of this book, I believe, is one of his stronger chapters. There are many things that also troubled me. Primarily, I did not appreciate Dr. Ross' caustic dismissal of Presuppositionalism. Gary North and Cornelius Van Til's position is not as simplistic as Ross put it to be. This is where I disagree with Dr. Ross. His underlining message is that truth of science and truth of Scripture should NEVER contradict. Reasoning is that "Truth" is the authority over science and scripture. If science says one thing is true, then there should be an analogous claim in the Bible. So science should shape Christianity and Christianity should shape science. It is not my purpose here to explain why I disagree with the first half this claim (please read Van Til's Apolgoetics by Greg L. Bahnsen); rather, I question Dr. Ross' priority in standards of truth. Even on the most fundamental standards as reasoning and logic, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley "would say `gallows with reason,' that we not miss the kingdom." (see Classical Apologetics) What more should we say about scientific claims? Also Ross has some problems in his exegesis. Many biblical scholars have problems with his interpretation of Genesis. However, I forgive Dr. Ross, because I see him more as a Scientist and a Christian brother who is struggling to love our Lord with all his mind. I admire Dr. Ross' efforts. For more than one reasons, I have respected and admired Dr. Ross since I first read this book in high school. This book is informative and very helpful for a well-balanced view on the issue. I only encourage Dr. Ross and his followers (the "Rossists") to re-examine their pressuppositions. I also recommend: Three Views on Creation and Evolution by J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds.
Rating:
Summary: An Intelligent Literal Interpretation of the Bible
Review: I don't understand how someone can honestly say that Dr. Ross loosely interprets the Bible in this book. I am a very conservative Christian that takes a literal interpretation of the Bible and there is nothing in Dr. Ross' interpretation that runs counter to my interpretation. He is not loose. People can disagree with him, but to attack this book solely on the basis of the age of the universe is unscholarly, uneducated, and just plain foolish. God gave us a mind; use it! God gave us all of nature and told us it tells about Him; listen to nature and you will see it agrees with the Bible.
Rating:
Summary: Confidence in Old Earth
Review: I have for years believed in an old earth, that God is not a deciever. Not wanting to create a controversy, I have always kept quiet about this among my Christian family where the central thought is a young earth. I believed it was not a major issue to cause conflict. Not only did Hugh Ross confirm my own rational and studies, he also offered additional evidence of an old earth. Further, he shows reasoning why this issue needs to be resolved if Christianity is to have credibility.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: I think this book is very-well-written! I have noticed one interesting feature of the other reviews - all of the "young-Earth" reviews have an overwhelming number of "this review was helpful" votes, and by reading them, it appears almost as if they were written by the same person! (a general feeling, based on sentence structure and length, words used, phrasing... a similar analysis was used to disprove the Beale ciphers, for those who care to look it up). Also, all of the pro-Ross reviews are "not helpful"... Can the ICR folks be "stuffing" the ballot box? Another reviewer made a similar observation... Go ahead and check out Institute For Creation Research, Answers In Genesis, and so on - but also make sure you stop by Answers In Creation, Reasons To Believe, Godandscience.org, and so on - and in addition to the arguments, pay attention to the attitudes... (at least AIG has been honest enough to back off their arguments on moon dust and thermodynamics - but note that they lump old-Earth creationists in with evolutionists in many cases...)
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: I think this book is very-well-written! I have noticed one interesting feature of the other reviews - all of the "young-Earth" reviews have an overwhelming number of "this review was helpful" votes, and by reading them, it appears almost as if they were written by the same person! (a general feeling, based on sentence structure and length, words used, phrasing... a similar analysis was used to disprove the Beale ciphers, for those who care to look it up). Also, all of the pro-Ross reviews are "not helpful"... Can the ICR folks be "stuffing" the ballot box? Another reviewer made a similar observation... Go ahead and check out Institute For Creation Research, Answers In Genesis, and so on - but also make sure you stop by Answers In Creation, Reasons To Believe, Godandscience.org, and so on - and in addition to the arguments, pay attention to the attitudes... (at least AIG has been honest enough to back off their arguments on moon dust and thermodynamics - but note that they lump old-Earth creationists in with evolutionists in many cases...)
| 
