Customer Reviews

The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (New Edition)

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

I was stunned by reading the other reviews of this book. It appears that the purported reviewers don't even pretend to actually review the thing; they are merely using the pages as springboards to launch off on their own hobby horse, be it Flood theology, end times theology, atheism, or whatever. I see virtually no correlation between the reviews posted here, and the actual content of the book. Those that do actually refer to chapters of the book seem not to have actually _READ_ it, but only scanned it to find something to justify posting their own flawed theology.

There oughtta be a law against posting reviews as a way of having one's say. These reviews can affect the sales of a book. But I guess the reviewers either never thought of that, or don't care. Some Christian attitude.

Well, I _HAVE_ read the book. It was my first discovery of Dr. Ross, and I thought it was wonderful. For those who actually care about its contents, let's get something very straight: Dr. Ross is an _ASTRONOMER_, not a theologian. His book is not about apologetics, no matter what you may have read to the contrary. He has one purpose, which he very clearly states: To point out that there is no need for a war between science and religion, much less a war between different factions within Christianity. As Dr. Ross carefully points out, there have been _NO_ -- that's no, as in zero -- scientific discoveries in recent years that are not consistent with the Bible's depiction of Creation. Quite the contrary, all modern discoveries -- the Big Bang being one obvious example -- point to a creation much like that described so perfectly in Genesis.

Therefore, says Ross, let's bury the hatchet. Let's stop fighting amongst ourselves, let's stop the bickering between scientists and believers, let's stop the bickering between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, let's stop the bickering between Evolutionists and Creationists, and for a change, let's just look at the evidence of God's nature, left for us both in His Word, and in His Creation.

A novel idea, wouldn't you say? A pity no one posting here was paying attention, or bothered to read and comprehend Ross's message. They would, it would seem, much prefer to bicker.

Ross, an astrophysicist, deals with cosmology using the physical, theological and sometimes the philosophical sciences in a well documented book.

The first part of the book deals with the ancient cosmologies, the Greek and medieval philosophers, and the rise of astronomy/physics in the 16-17th centuries. Then Ross explains the consequences of Kant's deism, in particular his view of the universe as uncreated and infinite. The first part ends with the recent physical observations at the end of the 19th century (refuting Kant's view); and special and general relativity, with their theological consequences due to the singularity (begin of time and space.) Ross does a good job, but is sometimes weak (e. g. about the modern rejection of theistic arguments: he never mentions the real problem: the rise of nominalism and skepticism.)

The second part deals with 20th century physical cosmologies and how all alternatives to the Big Bang had to be empirically rejected and how much the awesome evidence for the Big Bang accumulated. Here Ross is at his best. He also points out the atheistic motivations of those who tried to avoid the Big Bang. Most of this is excellent, he has also good insights on Quantum physics. However a few passages are unsatisfying, as his simple dismissal of Tipler's anthropic principles or his arguments against quantum originations of the universe (my impression is that he lacks philosophical depth, and this is problematic when he deals with design or quantum cosmology.) Those interested in apologetics will have to find complements in the writings of William L. Craig, Chris Isham, etc.

The third and last part deals with theology, I found it excellent. Ross defends a concordist position, and refutes also both fundamentalism (Young Earth Creationism) and liberal theology. His chapter on evil has many insights. His "gospel acccording to the creation" seems however naive, it seems obvious that there are many humans in many cultures who never come to such conclusions by simply thinking about nature.

I highly recommend this book. Those who may find it difficult can read Ross' more popular book Creator and Cosmos, which has less structure and is easier to read. To those who, on the contrary, want a more advanced book (dealing with physics and philosophy) I can recommend Craig's Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology.

I found this to be an excellent book. I am a physician and believe science supports more than a mere materialistic existence. This book draws on biology, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and physics arguments very convincingly and insightfully. There are not pat cliches for the uneducated, but reasoned argument. The other reviewer does not seem to like this book because it allows that 'to God, a thousand years is like a day' and does not stick to some peoples view of how God should have created the earth.

(I am reposting this review, because the email address was wrong and it did not show up on my review page.)

Ross, an astrophysicist, deals with cosmology using the physical, theological and sometimes the philosophical sciences in a well documented book. The first part of the book deals with the ancient cosmologies, the Greek and medieval philosophers, and the rise of astronomy/physics in the 16-17th centuries. Then Ross explains the consequences of Kant's deism, in particular his view of the universe as uncreated and infinite. The first part ends with the recent physical observations at the end of the 19th century (refuting Kant's view); and special and general relativity, with their theological consequences due to the singularity (begin of time and space.) Ross does a good job, but is sometimes weak (e. g. about the modern rejection of theistic arguments: he never mentions the real problem: the rise of nominalism and skepticism.)

The second part deals with 20th century physical cosmologies and how all alternatives to the Big Bang had to be empirically rejected and how much the awesome evidence for the Big Bang accumulated. Here Ross is at his best. He also points out the atheistic motivations of those who tried to avoid the Big Bang. Most of this is excellent, he has also good insights on Quantum physics. However a few passages are unsatisfying, as his simple dismissal of Tipler's anthropic principles or his arguments against quantum originations of the universe (my impression is that he lacks philosophical depth, and this is problematic when he deals with design or quantum cosmology.) Those interested in apologetics will have to find complements in the writings of William L. Craig, Chris Isham, etc.

The third and last part deals with theology, I found it excellent. Ross defends a concordist position, and refutes also both fundamentalism (Young Earth Creationism) and liberal theology. His chapter on evil has many insights. His "gospel acccording to the creation" seems however naive, it seems obvious that there are many humans in many cultures who never come to such conclusions by simply thinking about nature.

I highly recommend this book. Those who may find it difficult can read Ross' more popular book Creator and Cosmos, which has less structure and is easier to read. To those who, on the contrary, want a more advanced book (dealing with physics and philosophy) I can recommend Craig's Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology.

Its funny, If you believe that a God (or intelligent force) created the universe you are called religious. Yet if you believe the Theory of evolution (micro evolution) you are called scientific, even though it is not proven or even a theory by the scientific definition (Read God and The Astronomers by Robert Jastrow an agnostic if you don't believe micro evolution is a religion). To be a theory it must be testable and it is not. I think Dr. Ross does a terrific job of showing how science can be reconciled with the Genesis account of creation. Without losing ones credentials as a scientists. Also this book though highly scientific is written in a way that is very easy to read and understandable for the non scientists out there like me. I would hope that everyone who has doubts and questions about the Genesis creation account would have an open mind and give "The Fingerprint of God" a read.

In reading the reviews for this book, I was delighted to see that Dr. Ross managed to rattle the cages of both the religious fundamentalists as well as the fundamental materialists. There is something here to debunk both Richard Dawkins and the likes of Henry Morris and Ken Ham as well. Bravo! As a candidate for the Episcopal priesthood as well as a lifelong amateur astonomer and science enthusiast I heartily recommend this book. It is high time that both theologians and scientists bury the centuries-old hatchet and seek a consensus. Dr. Ross's outstanding book is a giant leap in that direction.

I just bought the new printing and reread the book after reading a borrowed copy several years ago. I say that the premise of most of the book is that the expanding universe and big bang theories point to the existence of God because they point to a beginning that required a "prime mover," and cosmologists with antitheistic beliefs have tried repeatedly to disprove the expanding universe theory because a beginning to the universe would be "philosophically repugnant" (Arthur Eddington). As a result, scientists made ad hoc modifications to otherwise elegant equations describing the universe. For example, Einstein arbitrarily added a cosmological constant to his equations derived from general relativity solely to counteract the fact that his equations showed the universe to expand without end. Later in life, he said that the addition of this constant was "gravely detrimental to the formal beauty of the theory" and stated that its addition was "the greatest mistake of his life." If Ross is presenting correct data, the argument for the continuously expanding universe seems well-made.

The first ten chapters are basically a history of the development of cosmological theories. Even though I consider this the main premise of the book, there are additional chapters on "Bibical Evidence for Long Creation Days" and on the antropic principle. I kind of glazed over at reading the first section, "Roots of Cosmology." I felt that Ross used philosophical terminology that required some familiarization with the field, and it could have been explained better. On the other hand, I felt that the scientific discussions were over-simplified, and I would have liked to have seen more "meat," but then, I am an engineering Ph.D.

I felt that Ross started out well arguing Biblical evidence for long creation days, but as he went on, the arguments became less convincing, and it tainted the whole point. (But I have heard equally weak arguments, in my opinion, elsewhere for literal creation days.)

I found the typesetting of the book to be odd and distracting. I had hoped that this newer printing, in a larger format, would take care of that, but the comically large print was just made larger to fill the space. Section titles are all lower-case, and the "tables" are poorly formatted and difficult to differentiate from the text. The figures are oversimplified and the equations poorly typeset (they couldn't extend a radical over the part of the equation that it should cover? e.g., eqn. 5.1).

I think I found this book initially interesting because there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among many of my fellow Christians for the wholesale rejection of the big bang theory, and the faith of this author is encouraged because those against the idea of an intelligent creator have conspired to disprove this theory.

Writing about origins can be a touchy subject - even just a book review. I think this book is certainly worth reading by someone studying origins, but encourage such a student to not accept this book at face value in a vacuum, but to continue to study all of the other resources available.

This expansive book covers the theories and works from the very beginning of astronomy. All Christians and skeptics should take a good look at the arguments in this book, they will find it hard to disagree. The facts are solid, both science and biblical. A must read for all. One of the best apologetics books in recent history.

Another worthy recent science/religion book is The Fingerprint of God, 2d., rev. ed. (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co., c. 1991), by Hugh Ross. After receiving his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and doing post-doctoral work as a fellow at the California Institute of Technology, Ross shifted directions and joined the staff of the Sierra Madre Congregational Church, developing a ministry in apologetics, recently establishing "Reasons To Believe," a research institute dedicated to demonstrating the harmony between God's revelation in Scripture and Creation.
The Fingerprint of God has three parts: "roots of cosmology," "scientific cosmology," and "biblical cosmology." The main issue in cosmology (as in Darwinian evolution) is the question of "origins--is a supreme being (God) responsible for the universe we observe or are random processes responsible for it" (p. 3)? First, Ross provides a simple summary of past cosmological theories, stressing their interpretations of cosmic origins. In part two, "scientific cosmology," Ross turns to contemporary viewpoints, explaining and evaluat¬ing the most recent astronomical data and hypotheses. (Though he writes for the general reader, Ross insists the reader know a bit of math and science, understand equations and graphs.)
As a result of accumulating evidence, forcing even Einstein to revise some of his most cherished views, most contemporary cosmologists believe the universe is constantly expanding. Consequently, Newton's second law of thermodynamics (energy dis¬sipates, sucking everything, the universe included, toward entropy), astronomical data, and Einstein's theory of general relativity join hands to portray "the maturing of the universe--a maturation with obvious reference to a beginning point and to fin¬ite spatial limits" (p. 57). Almost unwillingly, Albert Einstein felt compelled to admit to "'the necessity for a beginning' and, eventually, to 'the presence of a superior reason¬ing power,'" though, Ross laments, the great physi¬cist never accepted "the doctrine of a personal God" (p.59).
The expanding universe theory has, it seemed, conclusively triumphed over rival cosmologies, such as "cosmic hesitation," "steady state," and "oscillating universe" theories. Ross explains the deficiencies of such theories (both of which fit more neatly with an eternal rather than a created cos¬mos). Quite simply, accumulating data from in¬credibly sophisticated telescopes and com¬puters demand they be discarded. "There is now no question that the universe expands" (p.83), Ross says. Virtually everything points toward "a primo¬rdial cosmic explosion" (p.85), from which the entire universe has unfurled. To illustrate this, consider the fact that "galaxies are all middle-aged." None are "newly-formed" and none are "extinct." Galaxy formation must have taken place at only one time in the history of our universe. Therefore, the universe cannot be steady state .... " (p.93).
Such astronomical certainties have led many cosmologists to conclude that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, "much too young for evolutionary processes to generate anything akin to life." Theologically, Ross says, "It seems only rational to conclude that God, not ran¬dom chance, must be responsible for creating both" (p. 96). Indeed, some astronomers and cos¬mologists have proposed a "design and anthropic principle," arguing the cosmos bears every mark of intelligent design--and the design seems almost singularly established to facilitate human life on planet earth. John Wheeler, an American physicist, declared: "'A life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world'" (120).
Deftly fleshing out the argument, Ross lists 17 remarkable "coincidences" which, blended together, support the "design and anthropic prin¬ciple." One astronomer, George Greenstein, though personally embracing a pantheistic perspective, writes: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insis¬tently arises that some supernatural agency--or, rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of a Su¬preme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so provi¬dentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (128). On a more limited scale, Ross examines 20 necessary "parameters" which, taken together, sug¬gests "the design of the sun-earth-moon system." He lists such things as the birth date, distance from galaxy center, and color of the parent star; the oxygen to nitrogen ratio and ozone presence in the atmosphere. Weighing all 20 factors, mathematical calculations force one to acknowledge "that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life." Since there are "only about a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life" (132).
Having developed his argument for an ex¬panding universe which points to a Designer, Ross turns, in part three, to "biblical cosmology." After referring to the fact that many early church theologians (Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine) understood the "days" in Genesis to extended time periods, he explains how Archbishop Ussher's chronol¬ogy (providing the 4004 B.C. date for creation) slipped into the mar¬ginal notes of many King James Version Bibles. Consequently, the fundamentalist movement early locked into the notion that biblical inerrancy dictated literal 24 hour days of creation and an extremely young earth and cosmos. Though strongly committed to a fully inspired, authorita¬tive, inerrant Scripture, Ross does not think that pushes one into the fundamentalist "creationism" which often rejects the astronomical data and cos¬mological theories he himself accepts. Indeed he labels, as "bogus evidences for a young universe," the views of Gary North and Henry Morris, polemical "scientific creationists" who cling to the 24-hour creation position.
On the other hand, he finds biblical scholars, especially "the 'higher critics' of the last two centuries have badly misinterpreted the first two chapters of Genesis, and by their error have led many astray" (161). Deciding that biblical data (especially where it dealt with the natural world) could not be taken as "objective," they dismissed scripture's historicity and reduced Chri¬stian "faith" to a subjective personal response to win¬some ideas about God. Reacting against the "higher critics," fun¬damen¬talists tended to deny "God's revelation of truth via nature" and clung tenaciously to "the Bible, as the only reliable revelation of truth. Ironically, their definition of faith resembled that of their opponents, the higher critics. In both cases faith in God lost its factual footing, it was removed from the reach of testing by scientific and historical data" (164).
Ross, however, sets forth 11 creation events, as they appear in Genesis 1, and asserts they mesh, marvelously, with current cosmological views. From the creation of the physical universe to the creation of man, biblical descriptions square with scientific data. That such ancient theological beliefs may be harmonized with sophisticated scientific data leads Ross to confidently declare his conviction that the Bible is fully inspired by the Creator God.
# # #

Just like a solid argument Hugh Ross has assembled information in a concise format to convince even a intelectual reader that more than just words can prove God's existance. His information is both solid as well as convincing a very good read indeed!