Customer Reviews

Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

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.

Dr. Ross rescues the Christian church from the dubious error of maintaining a militant stance regarding the age of the earth. While Gallup reports that nearly half the adults in the United States believe that the earth was created in the last 10,000 years, 99% of America's practicing scientists disagree. Dr. Ross adeptly closes that gap with a lucid presentation of the scientific evidence for an old earth presented from a thoroughly orthodox Christian worldview. More than just a compelling contribution to the age-of-the-earth issue, Creation and Time is a definitive work.

With his PhD in Astronomy, Dr. Ross applies scintallating logic to skillfully discern between accurate scientific arguments and those with faulty presuppositions, leaving the reader with overwhelming evidence for an earth that is billions of years old. Then, with all gentleness, he harmonizes this data with a conservative Christian theology which maintains the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, including Genesis Chapter 1. Although Ross himself is a Christian, reviewers have failed to recognize that his compassionate reconciliation of Genesis and science is equally suitable reading for the three largest religions of the world: Jewish, Muslim, and Christian.

If you have ever wondered how it all started this is the first book you should read.

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.

This book is the one "young-earth" people don't want you to read. It is filled with scientific and theological facts on the old age of the universe. Also reveals the roots of the "conflict" and some of the questionable tactics of young-earth "crusaders." Great read!!

This book illustrates perfectly how science and the Bible agree when it comes to the creation account of our universe. When people shed their preconceived notions of religion and science it opens their mind to truly objectively studying the origin of the universe. This book brings together ideas I used to think contadicted each other. The Bible and science truly do coincide.

The Bible uses allegory, figures of speech and other literary devices on occasion. Often this is obvious, but occasionally scholars disagree on whether a passage is literal or symbolic. But is this the case in Genesis 1-11? The answer is a resounding "no". There is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what the fresh-faced child, picking it up for the first time without preconceptions, has always seen as obvious.

What do the Hebrew grammarians, lexicographers and linguists have to say about the various attempts to reinterpret the clear meaning of scripture to fit in with the popular philosophies of the day?

The following is an extract from a letter written to David C.C. Watson on April 23, 1984, by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.

Professor Barr said,

"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example.

But the above makes it clear that it is hardly likely to be the text itself that leads them to this conclusion. Rather, it is almost certainly the desire to accommodate and harmonize opinions and world views (in this case, the idea of long geological ages) which arise from outside Scripture.

Of course, arising from outside Scripture does not necessarily make anything wrong; but in this case, the clear, unmistakable teaching of the scriptural text is completely incompatible with, even opposed to, the extra-biblical viewpoint we are considering. It is, therefore, completely unacceptable to claim that Scripture may actually be teaching this view!

Faced with such a unanimous consensus of scholarly linguistic opinion (backed by the common sense understanding of countless millions of Christians through the ages), it is no longer intellectually honest to say that the issue of the time and mode of creation (or the related issue of global versus local flood) is in the same category as disagreements over mode of baptism, church government, or prophecy. Disagreements over these latter issues arise from different understandings of Scripture itself, not from seeking to accommodate (or to defuse debate over) a world view that directly opposes a teaching of Scripture which is unanimously declared by experts to be the plain meaning of the text!

I suggest that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.

To disbelieve it brings the following problems:

1. How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well--that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity?

2. What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us 'true truth' about historical characters and events?

3. What happens to the very basis of the Gospel - that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Saviour shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)? Those who insist that the days could be millions of years often forget that these "millions of years", in the popular view, are represented by layers of fossils which are interpreted not as the results of the biblical Flood, but as creatures having lived (with struggle/pain/bloodshed) and died before anyone called Adam could have appeared.

To put it simply, there were Genesis "days" before man appeared and if you read the days as "ages" (remember that these "ages" are said to be shown by layers containing dead things called fossils) you've just put death and bloodshed before Adam!

If the reader is by now feeling despair, the answer to the dilemma is to look again at the modern world view you may have been trying to harmonize with Scripture. It is not--it cannot by definition be--based on the scientific method (repeatable testing and observation). It is based on faith in the opinions of men who were not there at the beginning, and who are part of a humanity in rebellion against its Maker.

Finally, there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood. To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including large numbers of highly qualified scientists, have accepted.

For additional information, I recommend visiting the "Answers in Genesis", "Institute for Creation Research" and "True Origin" websites.

Also, I'd recommend picking up a copy of books like, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Steve Austin, "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by John Woodmorappe and "The Revised Quote Book" (available from the Answers in Genesis online book store).

Dr Ross hits it right on the money once again!

As a lifelong Christian with a fairly strong scientific background (Bachelor's degrees in both Astronomy and Physics), I strongly recommend reading this book. Many on the anti-science side (the "young-Earth creationists") have been attempting to refute the evidence of the scientific community (often with "bad science" of their own - in particular, check out Answers In Creation's archives for information regarding the Grand Canyon, the Genesis flood, and sandstone deposits), while many on the anti-God side (the "atheistic scientists") have been trying to demonstrate how God isn't even necessary to explain the existence of the universe (evolution and chance are sufficient to explain our existence).

Both sides fall short of being convincing, upon in-depth study.

Dr Ross is able to demonstrate how the middle ground ("old-Earth creationism") is the most consistent with both the observed scientific facts and the words of God in the Bible.

Even more importantly, he stresses that as far as the young-Earth/old-Earth argument goes, the most important point is that what really matters is salvation through Jesus Christ - whether you believe that the Earth is thousands of years old, or billions of years old has no bearing on Salvation.

For those who have already read this book, I would like to note that Dr Paul Davies (mentioned briefly in Chapter 12, where Dr Ross talks about the relationship between science and old-Earth creationism) won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion the year after this book was published. (Now you've got to order the book here to understand this point...!)

Far from painting a bleak picture, Dr Ross is able to look with optimism towards the future. I can vouch for the prevalence of Christianity among scientists (at least when I was in college, it was apparent that Christians are more common than in the general population - with reason!) - for those who wonder why, read this book and you'll find out.

* Is this book well written and easy to understand?

Yes. It is a readable introduction to the topic.

* What is the author's perspective?

Dr. Ross is a progressive creationist. He believes that biblical "days" are long ages. However, he distances himself from other day-age theories (in particular, theistic evolution).

This book was not written to present multiple interpretations of Genesis; it is not intended to present the pros and cons of several viewpoints. Rather, this book seeks to persuade the reader that Dr. Ross's progressive-creation, day-age beliefs can completely reconcile science and Scripture.

* What is the tone/approach of the book?

The book is nontechnical, somewhat informal, and persuasive.

While it is fair to say that Dr. Ross disagrees with many approaches for interpreting Genesis (for example, theistic evolution, gap theory, allegory, poetry, and "mythology"), much of this book was written to criticize one specific group: young-universe creationists (YUCs).

With regard to YUCs, the book is surprisingly inconsistent in its tone. In some passages, Dr. Ross cautions against denouncing YUCs [pgs. 164-165]. Further, he pleads for a council--a meeting of minds--to discuss the important issues of our day with regard to creation. But elsewhere he refers to YUCs as deniers of physical reality [159-160], driven by fear [72], dividers of the church [162], distorters of the gospel [162], who know in their hearts that there is no scientific support for their theories [118]. Ouch!

* Does Dr. Ross sweep thorny doctrinal issues under the rug?

No. One of the difficult doctrinal issues of progressive creationism is this: it seems to require that God's *original* design for the world--before the Fall--included death, decay, pain, disease, and catastrophe. I find that some day-agers tend to ignore this issue. Dr. Ross, in contrast, is open and honest: he does not hide his view that physical death, carnivorism, disease, and decay are part of God's original creation.

* What about the merits of Dr. Ross's arguments?

Here is the book's weakness. The reason I rate it as merely two stars is simply this: If the foundation isn't right, the whole structure can't be trusted. In particular, in regard to the important topic of interpreting Hebrew words, Dr. Ross frequently misrepresents the very sources that he cites. This is crucial, because demonstrating the harmony of the words of Scripture with the facts of science is the crux of this book.

The Van Bebber/Taylor book, see below, carefully documents many of Dr. Ross's errors. However, I shall obey amazon.com's exhortation to be brief, and give only one example: Ross cites--but misrepresents--the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) with regard to the word "toledot." You may verify this for yourself by comparing Point 7 on pg. 52 of Ross's book with pg. 380 of the TWOT.

* What other books would I recommend?

Factual errors in Dr. Ross's book are demonstrated in "Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross," authored by Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor. When I last checked, amazon.com did not offer this book, but an Internet search for its ISBN number (1877775029) will help you locate a seller.

A counterpoint to Dr. Ross's teaching on general revelation (that it is the equal of special revelation) [56-57] may be found in the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology." See the entry under "General Revelation."

Some people today (like Mr. Ross) are claiming that Noah's flood did not cover the entire Earth nor all the mountains of the day. Further, they claim that Noah and the animals floated on a shallow, temporary inland sea caused by the flood, somehow covering only the Mesopotamian region. Thus, they must claim that the Earth's entire human population was limited to this area, or that not all humans were killed in the flood. Is there really biblical evidence for claims of this nature?

Keep in mind that local Noah's flood/old earth advocates postulate the earth before the flood as essentially identical to today's earth.

1. The Depth and Duration of the Flood. The flood waters covered the mountains to a depth of at least the draft of Noah's Ark (Genesis 7:19,20). Today's mountains in the Ararat region include Mount Ararat which rises to 17,000 feet in elevation. The flood lasted for a year, peaking 150 days after it started (7:11, 8:3,4), then it began to abate. A year-long mountain-covering flood is not a local flood.

Noah was in the ark for more than a year, not just 40 days (Genesis 8:14). 53 weeks is absurdly long to stay in the ark for a local flood since dry land would have been just over the horizon. After the flood waters had been going down for 4 months, the dove could still find no suitable ground (Genesis 8:9). This does not seem to fit the circumstances for a local flood in which the dove could fly to dry land. However, these situations are consistent if the Flood was global.

Note that the Bible [Psalms 104:6-9, NIV] talks about mountains rising (in connection with God's rainbow promise, so after the Flood). Everest has marine fossils at its peak. Therefore, the mountains before the Flood are not those of today. There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered.

2. The Physical Causes for the Flood. The Bible explains that the breaking open of "all the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven" (7:11) were the primary causes. The "deep" is the ocean; thus the "great deep" could hardly be the cause of a limited local flood. The "windows" seem to refer to the "waters above the (atmospheric) firmament" (1:7). These were global causes, producing a global effect.

3. The Need for an Ark. Noah was given many years of warning, long enough to walk anywhere on earth. The animals also would have lived globally and so could have migrated anywhere. There was no need for an Ark if the flood was local.

The Ark's size, big enough to carry two (or seven for some) of each land-dwelling, air-breathing animal, testifies for a global flood. Building such a huge ship for a local flood for which there was ample warning would be ludicrous.

4. Destruction of All Mankind. The flood's primary purpose was to destroy sinful mankind. While the earth's preflood population is not given, reasonable assumptions based on Biblical data for average family size, life spans, and age of parent at time of first-born yield a population far in excess of the maximum mesopotamian population. The earth was "filled with violence" (6:11-13), and while this may have included animal violence, it certainly included human violence. An earth filled with violence would necessitate an earth filled with people. Only a global flood could accomplish its primary purpose.

Not only were violent inhabitants under condemnation, the earth itself was to be destroyed (6:13). The word for "earth" was the same word as used in the creation account (1:1). Surely it means the planet, not just a local area.

It boggles the mind to believe that after 16 centuries, no-one would have migrated to other parts outside of Mesopotamia. Or that people living on the periphery of such a local Flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned.

5. A "Cataclysm," Not a Mere Flood. Both Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) use words to describe Noah's flood which are different than the ordinary words for flood. In this way, Noah's flood was represented as a totally unique occurrence. [Hebrew--"Mabbool", Greek--"Kataklusmos" (cataclysm)]."

6. Promise of No More Floods. At the end of the flood, God promised that there would never again be such a flood (9:15). But there have been many floods, even regional floods, especially in mesopotamia, since Noah's day. If this was merely a local flood, then God broke His promise, and the rainbow covenant means nothing.

7. The Testimony of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ compared the days immediately prior to His second coming to the days prior to the flood. He reminded us that "the flood came and destroyed them all" (Luke 17:27). The coming judgment will be similarly extensive. If the flood in Noah's day was local, people living outside the area survived, even though they, too, were sinners. This gives great hope to end-time sinners. Will they be able to escape the coming fiery judgment on sin?

8. The Testimony of Peter. Peter also wrote of the coming judgment of the entire heavens and earth (II Peter 3:10-12). He based his argument on the historical facts that the creation was of the entire earth (v.5) and that the flood overflowed the entire earth (v.6), causing it to perish. If the flood was only local, does this imply that only a portion of the earth will "melt with fervent heat" (v.10)?

Furthermore, the entire creation will be fully renewed, replaced by "a new heavens and a new earth" (v.13). The local flood idea produces theological nonsense.

Recommended reading: "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe.

This book is more about theology than science. His other books cover science. This one is important because it debunks the errors that flawed men's minds have introduced into christianity by not referncing original languages. It's coverage of Biblical language is a good starting place for study of the historically orthodox claims of the Bible; it counters the notions of Christian Mysticism and puts Christianity back on firm ground for those who have "sound minds".