<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book
Review: After reading this book, I find myself believing that there is a very good case for the idea of a creator, and at the very least must accept the idea that there is something beyond the realm of what we can physically interact with that created our universe.I do not, however, find myself any closer in believing the ideas of Judeo-Christianity. The author seems to use the passages that agree with science, while disregarding the others. At best he does manage to show that Christianity is the religion that comes the closest. I do not find the Bible as divinely inspired as he does, nor do I find it as well written as many works created by non-divinely inspired mortals, such as Shakespeare. The author does a very good job of answering typical questions that many atheists use as boiler-plate arguments, e.g. "If God created the Universe, how was God created?" (He theorizes that time is 2 dimensional, and that the creator exists in a time-line that goes in 2 directions instead of 1, of which does not intersect our own time-line) and "If God created the Universe just for humans, why did he create thousands upon millions of other galaxies?" (the other galaxies are a byproduct of many of the requirements for life in the universe) However, he raises some other questions. For example, if time really is 2-dimensional, it seems unreasonable to expect that only the creator line, and our own exist. If we are going to put the creator line outside our own understanding, it also seems reasonable to put the infinite universes that he attempts to discredit alongside our own instead, possibly all unintelligibly created somehow, giving room for the possibility that it was all created by chance (Admittedly, this is stretching things a little). Also, if He created the Universe, why did he set things up so that the thousands upon millions of galaxies had to be created? If he truly controlled everything, that would seem to be overkill, He could just change the laws of physics so that that would be unneeded. All in all, however, it is a very interesting read.
Rating: 
Summary: Critics Pitch Rocks At A Straw Man
Review: I have noticed a consistent flaw in critiques of this and other books defending the intellectual veracity of the Christian faith. Inevitably some self-proclaimed "free thinker" (who thinks exactly what every other "free thinker" thinks) creates a straw man of the book's arguments, or of Christianity in general, then proceeds to tear their weakened caricature down. The last review is a classic example. "Elk" assembles a barrage of partial passages to support his/her/it's view that the Bible predicts doom and gloom for all who don't accept God. In doing so he/she/it yanks them out of context, pays no attention to insights from the original languages, etc. In addition, it is obvious that he/she/it has not read such great works as the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis, where the author takes the issue head on. Nor has he/she/it even bothered to review an elementary work like "Four Views Of Hell" to learn the widely divergent opinions of conservative scholars on the subject. If you want to criticize Christianity, fine. But at least take the time to learn something about what it is you're attacking. Otherwise you'll simply display your ignorance, just as the often referred to "he/she/it" has, with remarkable clarity.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Wonderful!
Review: No need to write a million word review on this book... I highly reccomend you read it for yourself. As a Bible Major in college faced with a world of science, I was excited to get to read this book in my college's Astronomy class. For some it may be hard to understand all Ross' scientific reasoning, but in the end, it's the conclusion that matters. He knows what he's talking about. He's an amazing person that God has used in many many ways.
Rating: 
Summary: The problem of Hugh Ross
Review: No one questions the integrity and intelligence of Hugh Ross. However, when the assumptions are wrong from the begining neither integrity nor intelligence will save one from reaching the wrong conclusions. That's the main problem with Hugh Ross. What's wrong with the assumptions of Hugh Ross? Basically, I see two problems: 1) equating science and the Bible as autonomous sources of revelation, which is problematic in the light of the words of Jesus according to which the heavens and earth will pass away but God's word endures forever; what's more, the universe has been cursed and men are fallible; 2)equating atheistic and naturalistic uniformitiarian interpretations of the facts with the facts themselves. It is mainly due to these faulty assumptions, and not so much to lack of knowledge, integrity or intelligence, that Hugh Ross reaches conclusions (v.g. death and suffering before sin; the garden of Eden as a big graveyard)that are totally inconsistent with the plain teaching of the Bible. What's more, Hugh Ross misses the point that the plain meaning of the Bible is totally consistent with the plain meaning of our truly scientific empirical observations (v.g. appereance of design; irreducible complexity of molecular machines; fine tuning of the Universe; lack of transitional forms in the fossil record; evidence of catastrophism in geology). When one desperately tries to fit the interpretations naturalistic atheistic science with a supernaturalistic theistic Bible, one ot the other will have to cede at some point. For Hugh Ross, it is the Bible that will need to be reinterpreted so as to fit science. Too bad for him.
Rating:
Summary: How they amuse me!
Review: This book is an outstanding work, one of a series of recent works(last 10-15years) which have revealed the fatal cracks in materialism as a viable philosophy. One can gauge its impact by how it has offended the anti-religious faith of many of the other reviewers. Against all logic they demand that the Strong Anthropic Principle in no way points to the existence of a Creator God. This is patent nonsense, a violation of the most basic principles of science: first observe, and then derive a reasonable theory to explain what you observe. They love to quote Occam's Razor when the facts seem to support them. But, when the evidence turns against them, they abandon Occam and come up with all sorts of complex and highly imaginative explanations for the nature of the Universe. They do this in order to avoid the simplest explanation there is: God did it. BTW, many of the so-called objections of the past reviewers have been handily answereed by Dr. Rodd already at his web sites. The reviewer who thought he had caught the doctor when Ross talks about the trillions of stars that exist, and then goes on to say that God creates only as much as necessary, is in for a huge disappointment. Dr. Ross shines as a brilliant intellect, and this book is one of his finest works.
<< 1 >>
| 
