Critique of the introductory chapter of Hugh Ross’ book A Matter of Days:
Resolving a Creation Controversy1
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of Refuting Compromise: A biblical and scientific
refutation of ‘progressive creationism’ (billions of years) as popularized
by astronomer Hugh Ross
31 May 2004
This month, Dr Hugh Ross is releasing his latest book trying to add millions of
years to the Bible. He has posted the introductory part on his website, so what
follows is a detailed critique. [This article is intended as a substantive critique
of the introductory chapter of Dr Ross’ new book, and in order to accomplish
this it is necessary to quote large portions of the chapter. All quoted portions
of the book are indented in color and all of Dr Sarfati’s responses are in
black.]
As usual, Ross adopts the stance of ‘taking the moral high ground’ as
a peacemaker and plays the role of the persecuted martyr. It’s a clever ploy,
placing young-earth creationists (YECs) in a dilemma: if we say nothing, he wins
by default; if we counterattack, he and his devotees will say, ‘see, he’s
right’. So we intend simply to point out the facts in response to what we
will demonstrate are misleading half-truths.
Note that even in this ‘peaceable’ document, he can’t resist firing
shots against YECs. It seems most incongruous to call for peace while spraying bullets
at ‘the enemy’.
As will be seen, a good many points are covered in my new book
Refuting Compromise (RC), so I will often refer to the appropriate
sections.
The book’s foreword
The once-biblical Navigators organization has long published Hugh Ross’s books.
For a long time, they sent a form letter which tried to dance around the obvious
fact that they have ‘taken sides’ on an old earth. For example:
Why is NavPress publishing only one side of the creation debate?
- NavPress has chosen not to publish the young-earth position because it is so adequately
represented by several other reputable Christian publishers.
This foreword by their President, Dr Jerry White, to this latest book by Ross should
show beyond any doubt that Navigators has departed from sound exegesis of the Bible
in favour of long-age ‘science’.
This criticism, however, doesn’t apply to all Navigators groups in the world.
The Navigators in New Zealand affirmed that they intend to stay committed to the
Bible, and informed the then editor of Creation magazine, Robert Doolan
that ‘NavPress New Zealand has decided not to promote further Creation and
Time by Dr Hugh Ross, following protests from some New Zealand Navigator
staff that the book was speculative, and departed from the Bible.’
[Begin excerpt of Dr White’s foreword]
As a scientist and a Christian leader, I desire above all the proclamation of the
Gospel, and I support the honest study of both science and the Scriptures.
As a scientist and a Christian leader, I can affirm this as a worthy goal, and it
is in fact exactly what CMI promotes.
Indeed, I have been saddened by the rhetoric in many of the debates of the last
century among evangelical believers. Heated argument over such issues as inerrancy,
eschatology, politics, and science have diminished the loving communication of the
Gospel to a lost world. Both science and the Scriptures have too frequently been
twisted by some whose presuppositions have prevented honest research.
That’s so true—far too many in the church have adopted the presuppositions
of the materialists. CMI’s aim is to show how science makes sense when the
correct biblical presuppositions are adopted. That’s why the first chapter
of Refuting Compromise
is about authority: will it be God’s written Word or the fallible opinions
of long-age scientists?
Yet biblical truth has nothing to fear from honest science.
Of course not. But Ross and White conflate ‘honest science’ with ‘scientific
interpretations based on long-age presuppositions’. I explain the key role
of presuppositions in interpreting scientific data in Refuting Compromise
in chapter 1 as well as Refuting Evolution chapter 1,
Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias. Another
helpful article is Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’
This shows that if a Christian agrees to ‘leave the Bible out of it’,
then he has already conceded the non-Christian’s worldview, i.e. that the
arbiter of truth is autonomous human reasoning rather than God’s revelation.
Discussion and debate are important and healthy. But love and respect must permeate
the discussion.
Indeed so—I explain what this entails in the Introduction
to my RC book. It’s also a shame that White implicitly condones the unfair
attacks by Ross against YECs, as will be elaborated below (and documented in RC
pp. 23 ff. and 127 ff.).
Often, I have found disagreement easier in the secular context than in the religious
world. Sadly, anger and hostility tend to emerge when believers debate difficult
issues, and this destroys fellowship. As believers we should never fear truth that
emerges from scientific discoveries. We cannot return to the days when religious
leaders condemned such developments as manned space exploration or barcodes, basing
their fear on a particular interpretation of the Scriptures.
Indeed we cannot. But nor should we kowtow so much to long-age science that we can’t
defend what Scripture teaches, as determined by the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.
In endorsing this work by Hugh Ross, I do so in the firm belief that all scientific
data should be considered and that we have nothing to fear in what we discover.
What White fails to realise is that scientific data must always be interpreted according
to a framework. White’s and Ross’s trouble is that they interpret the
data by a faulty framework. As a result they interpret God’s infallible word
by their faulty theories, instead of interpreting the data according to a biblical
framework.
I am deeply committed to the authority of the Scriptures and their inspiration by
God.
A strange way, I believe, of showing commitment to the authority of the Scriptures—whenever
long-age ‘science’ disagrees, we change Scripture to fit!
I do not condemn those who prefer a young-earth interpretation of Genesis,
So do we see from White a firm rebuke by White to Ross for saying, “YEC views
‘encourage a form of Gnosticism.’ (Charisma, pp. 38–44,
June 2003—see Shame on Charisma!)”,
or comparing us to the Judaizing heretics Paul anathematized in Galatians (Creation
and Time, p. 162), or even mocking the saintly scholar Archbishop
Ussher? No, unfortunately not. There appear to be double standards here.
Indeed, Ross’s Sydney, Australia representative, a nurse called Damien Spillane
(who actually rejects Ross’ day-age view, but all that matters to them is
that they reject a straightforward reading of the Bible, even if they can’t
agree on what the Bible does mean), even called CMI ‘distasteful
and deceitful’, as if it was our fault that Ross published mocking cartoons—see
our response, to him as well as to
Ross himself and his cartoonist who also tried
to justify themselves.
… just as I would not condemn those who see an old earth solution in the
data. We are all searching for understanding. We must give space for the interplay
of varied views. Hugh is an evangelist, deeply committed to the Scriptures and the
wonderful truth of the Gospel. He is working to honestly address the data in his
scientific field as new information becomes available. Therefore, I endorse and
support Hugh’s work. Let us be believers who seek truth in every realm of
life, fully confident that it will never conflict with God’s truth.
Endorsements
“Dr. Ross endeavors to literally interpret Scriptures and the latest scientific
data to show how they are in agreement. Even if you disagree with his conclusions,
you will benefit from reading this book. I highly recommend it.”—DR.
JOHN ANKERBERG, host, The John Ankerberg Show
Not surprising. Ankerberg has long been a Ross supporter, and treated YECs shabbily
as Dr David Menton documents in this letter to Ankerberg
(1992). Of course, no recommendation for a YEC book ‘even if you disagree
with the conclusions’. Ankerberg, like Ross, is using the word ‘literally’
most non-literally.
Then follow some astronomer endorsements. But to match his ‘argument from
authority’, a Ph.D. candidate in astrophysics and an astronomy full professor
at a secular university checked my big bang chapter.
On to the book proper:
The Dawn of a New Day
Two passions motivate the writing of this book: the study of God’s word (the
Bible) and the study of His creation (science).
Alas, even though these are in the right order of priority in the sentence, in his
utterances Ross continually gets these in the wrong order. Since creation is cursed
and man is fallible, we should interpret the data of creation in the light of the
uncursed revelation in Scripture, not the other way around.
Sadly, even though zeal for motivating others toward these lifelong endeavors consumes
most of my time and energy, I’ve met unimaginable and disheartening opposition
along the way.
YECs could say the same. So the problem is not opposition per se, but whether
this opposition is justified.
Debates over the age of the universe and earth and the duration of the Genesis creation
days have for the past several decades deeply divided the evangelical Christian
community.
Longer than that. But there was no debate in Christendom for the first 1800 years
of its existence. From the Bible alone, it strongly affirmed that the earth was
thousands of years old. It was only after the rise of long-age ideas in
‘science’ that conservative exegetes tried to make Genesis fit; hence
the rise of ideas like the days were long ages,
the gap theory, framework
hypothesis and theistic evolution. These
were unheard of throughout the church age, because they are not in the Bible! I
document this in RC chapter 3, and there is much information on our site at
Did Jesus, the early Church leaders and reformers believe the literal creation account
given in Genesis?
But instead of dissipating with each new discovery, the confusion and conflict increase.
This impediment to Christian unity appears to be heightening into a storm of ferocious
fury. One might suppose the worst resistance to an evangelical scientific message
would come from non-Christian scientists. Regrettably, such is not the case. The
most stinging attacks come from within the body of Christ, from God-loving members
of the church who suppose that the facts of nature cannot possibly line up with
the truths of Scripture.
I can’t imagine who these could be. But note that here we have the first of
Ross’s ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics. He equates ‘facts of nature’
with his fallible long-age interpretation of these facts. There is not a single
fact from an evolutionist that we dispute. E.g. we don’t dispute that a certain
rock has a certain ratio of isotopes; we certainly dispute the interpretation that
this ratio is the result of billions of years of radioactive decay.
For this reason they call me a compromiser and, worse, a heretic. That anyone could
take such a charge seriously breaks my heart. So does the accusation that I don’t
care about the salvation of unbelievers.
Where are these accusations? Yes, we use the word ‘compromiser’, which
is a fair description of someone who compromises the Word of God to fit the theories
of fallible humans. But the rest is just playing the martyr, as well as guilt by
association (i.e. there may be people who say these things, and Ross is trying to
tar all his critics with that brush).
What could generate such tension and divisiveness? One simple word: “day”.
For some Christians (young-earth adherents), a “day” of creation means
a literal 24-hour day. The creation week described in Genesis is interpreted by
them to consist of six days—a total of 144 hours.
Yes, for very sound exegetical reasons, as I explain in RC chapter 2. That’s
why Josephus, most church fathers and nearly all Reformers taught this, as I document
in RC chapter 3.
For other Christians (old-earth proponents), “day” equates to six long
periods of time—ages or epochs that encompass thousands or millions of years
each.
A view unheard of in the Church before the perceived need to fit in with old-earth
geology.
Note also, ‘young’ and ‘old’ are relative terms. By ‘young’,
we just mean in relation to the alleged billions of years bandied about so often.
In reality, 6000 years is extremely old. Beware when Ross uses old-age terms in
the Bible, then plays bait-and-switch and uses them to denounce the ‘young-earth’
view. See The earth: how old does it look? and RC chapter
10.
Because of my concern for those who cannot reconcile the young-earth concept with
their scientific observations, I founded the evangelistic organization Reasons To
Believe.
So, here we see the source of the conflict. By his own admission, Ross founded his
ministry to oppose the young-earth view. Yet he repeatedly lays the blame for the
conflict on the YECs he started a ministry to oppose!
So who is being ‘divisive’? Certainly not YECs, since Paul used the
word to refer to those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles’ (Romans 16:17),
as I explain in the introduction to RC.
It is partly for them that I write this book—to show how science supports
Scripture and how the Bible validates science. Powerful evidence exists that can
draw thinking people toward a relationship with the Creator and Sustainer of the
universe, Jesus Christ.
Actually, according to
Romans 1:18–32, the evidence is not just for ‘thinking people’;
the evidence is so plain that not a single person is without excuse. However, this
evidence is sufficient only to condemn, not to save. For that, we need the special
revelation about Jesus (Romans
10:13 ff.). I explain this further in RC pp. 59 ff. in the section about
general and special revelation. Also, it is folly to try to base one’s faith
on the latest exciting ‘evidence’, a warning for YECs as well.
This book reveals much of that evidence, giving intellectually satisfying reasons
to believe. Many Christians will want to read this book in order to develop an effective
and comprehensive set of biblical and scientific tools to help them deal with objections
to the faith.
Many Christians will want to read Refuting Compromise for these exact reasons!
However, RC also shows how to interpret data in a biblical framework. Therefore
readers should be able to apply these principles to any new data the evolutionists
throw at us. But if people come to a vague sort of ‘faith’ because of,
say, Ross’s alleged evidence for the big bang,
then what happens if the scientific community rejects this theory— as
33 leading secular scientists have done in an open letter?
But there is perhaps a greater reason to read this book, and it is my main purpose
for writing and speaking on this topic so often—to bring reconciliation, as
much as possible, to the Church.
By ‘reconciliation’, Ross means unconditional surrender to long-age
ideas, make no mistake. That’s why he is able to preach ‘reconciliation’
while aiming at YECs—even though he’s shooting blanks without realising
it.
For too many years this storm of controversy over the length of the creation days
has raged within the body of believers. Though belief about the age of creation
or the length of a day has little bearing on the essential teachings about God’s
redemptive provision for repentant human beings, divisiveness hinders the Christian
example of love for one another (1
John 4:7–12).
Then we must say: stop dividing over the issue!
Anger over this issue thwarts evangelism and does not accomplish the purposes of
God (James
1:19–20). An urgent need exists within the Church for the dawn of
a bright new day. This awakening can come through awareness of the issues involved
in the controversy. Looking at how they were dealt with in the past, the theological
and scientific concerns, better interpretations, and some suggestions for how the
body of Christ can deal with them in the future can help the reconciliation process.
Objective testing of soon-to-be-fulfilled scientific predictions from both the young-
and old-earth positions offers even stronger hope for unity.
This is once more making fallible ‘science’ the arbiter of biblical
truth. This is a faulty magisterial use of science, in contrast to the ministerial
use that we advocate, where science is subject to biblical principles. I explain
this contrast further in RC pp. 49 ff.
Another article explaining the ministerial use of reason in general is
Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation. The article
I have the Bible—what more do I need? answers the opposite error
to Ross, that of fideism (from Latin fides = faith), divorcing
faith from reason and apologetics (what he falsely accuses us of).
Dr Don Batten explains in Harvesting real fruit
the problems for splitting one’s thinking into ‘two boxes’.
Peace could reign in just a matter of days.
Of course there could be peace if one side lays down its arms, and we know which
side Ross means. How can there be peace between two diametrically opposed starting
points? Is Scripture the final authority on the history of the universe? Or is ‘science’?
The only way there can be peace is if Ross repents of his denial of the final authority
of Scripture, as we pray will take place.
Flash Point
Sticks and stones may break bones, but words do more damage than most people can
imagine. Especially name-calling. “You’re dangerous!” “Deceived.”
“A false prophet.” “A compromiser!” Charges like these by
young-earth leaders, both spoken and implied, are intended to discredit, maim, and
crush old-earth advocates, including me.
As I pointed out, he doesn’t seem to mind insinuating that YECs are proto-Gnostics
or Judaizers, or portraying the great scholar Archbishop Ussher as a dunce.
Because I’m both an astronomer and a pastor, one who prefers to build bridges
rather than burn them, I’ve been reluctant to participate in public debates
with young-earth proponents.
That’s hardly our experience with Dr Ross and his supporters. They have often
challenged us to debate with Ross in a ‘neutral’ forum. We have responded
by questioning whether a neutral forum exists, and pointed out that all that really
matters is addressing the issues, not personalities—see
Answering some Hugh Ross supporters. But for debate
lovers, see this brief report of an informal
debate between Ross and Russell Humphreys.
Yet in 1999 I consented to a nationally televised debate on the age of the earth
and the duration of the Genesis creation days with Kent Hovind on The John Ankerberg
Show. Ankerberg invited Hovind and me to dinner the night prior to the
debate to remind us (as he had on several previous occasions) that we’d been
selected for this public exchange because of our reputation as “gentlemen”.
Ankerberg expected considerate behavior. I thought Hovind and I both understood
and agreed. But during the debate, in spite of Ankerberg’s many remonstrances,
Hovind let go of common courtesy, and I struggled to retain composure in the face
of outrageous innuendos.
That is most disingenuous. As mentioned above, Ankerberg had been a Ross supporter
from way back. In the debate, Ankerberg continually ganged up with Ross against
Hovind. See the transcript with my analysis for ample
proof.
Hovind is not the only Christian to call me (and other old-earth proponents) derogatory
names. Nor is the problem new. Young-earth creationist Russell Akridge, addressing
the 1982 Annual Creation Convention, berated astrophysicists and astronomers as
“high priests of this decades-old cult” of the “big bang myth”
and as “persuasive speakers [who] have deceived an unsuspecting public.”
Making this kind of offensive claim against the worldwide community of secular astrophysicists
and astronomers only drives resistance to Christians and Christian teachings deeper.
Taking isolated sentences means nothing. What was the full context? And does Dr
Akridge speak for all creationists? No, this is more of Ross desiring to play the
victim. But he is, probably inadvertently, following the practice of Göbbels:
say something often enough and even if it is not true (or in Ross’s case mostly,
only half-true) many people will come to believe it. In fact, the impression Ross
leaves with readers here seriously misrepresents most YECs, who point out that the
issue with the scientific community is usually not deception as such. That would
be accusing them of teaching ‘facts’ that aren’t. Rather, the
fault is interpreting these facts by the wrong (unbiblical) framework.’
Given scientists’ tendency toward independence and nonconformity, the suggestion
that thousands of them would band together to carry out a plot to mislead the public
seems unimaginable.
For one thing, we have never suggested this. But the reality is that scientists
are no less prone to following fashions than anyone else. For example, many dogmatically
hold to a materialist paradigm, as admitted by Lewontin
and Todd, and explained further in
Games some people play and The Rules of the Game.
Prof. Evelleen Richards, a non-creationist historian of science, pointed out
here that scientists contradicting the ruling paradigm can have a very hard
time getting research grants or papers published.
Another explanation must exist for the strong and united confidence of scientists
in the creation dates (as billions of years ago) for the universe and Earth.
There is an equally strong and united confidence of scientists that biological evolution
is a fact. Therefore, by Ross’s reasoning, he should accept that to go with
his geological and astronomical evolution. So this appeal to numbers is not only
a fallacy, it rebounds on Ross.
Insults such as the ones described have generated hostility, to say the least. They
shut down communication.
This seems strange—most people want to shut down YEC communication, which
is why we need our own peer-reviewed
journals to bypass
the censorship.
And they hinder the witness of many scientists who love God and want to impact the
world for Jesus Christ.
Personal encounter
I came to trust in Jesus as my Savior after a two-year personal study of the Bible
that convinced me that Scripture is free of contradiction and error—doctrinally,
historically, and scientifically. But as a young man, I couldn’t find a church
or Christian group (in walking or bicycling distance from my Canadian university)
that upheld biblical inerrancy.
Sounds good—we would likewise advise that people should not join churches
that deny biblical inerrancy.
Upon coming to the United States, I was overjoyed to meet many Christians, even
fellow scientists, who were convinced that the Bible is completely trustworthy.
Some showed great interest in my personal journey toward faith, especially in the
study that led me, as an astronomer, to give my life to Christ. Within a couple
of years, I was invited to speak on science and the Bible at a Christian conference.
After my first message, a group of angry men in crisp business suits headed my way.
One of them waved the pamphlet What Is Christianity? in my face. He said,
“I thought you were a genuine Christian, based on what you wrote here, but
your other booklet forced me to change my mind.” The disturbing words in that
“other booklet,” Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, implied
that the universe is billions of years old. So he and his friends concluded, “You
cannot possibly be a Bible-believing Christian!” My wife, Kathy, stood by
my side, too stunned to even speak.
We have only Ross’s account for this episode. Once more, is there another
side to a story (as
Proverbs 18:17 suggests)? And how does this prove that this is typical of
creationists? YEC scientists have anecdotes of the same treatment from long-earthers,
but we don’t think that such anecdotal evidence proves our case. But since
Ross is so keen, here is one from our side.
A while ago, an ostensibly evangelical minister in Western Australia invited geologist
Dr Andrew Snelling to speak, but he was streng verboten
to speak on the young earth because it was ‘too divisive’. Later, the
same pastor invited Ross to speak at a major seminar. Ross did just as he is doing
in this introduction: the first talk had all the nice buzzwords about peacemaking
and how the main issue in the Bible is ‘not so much the “when”
or the “how” but the “who’ and the “why”’
(also see below on the deficiencies of this view). But in the
second talk, he ripped into leading YECs by name and ridiculed their view.
Of course, Ross was ‘divisive’ by normal definitions of the word, since
he divided against YECs (as well as the biblical criterion of contradicting biblical
doctrine—Romans 16:17). But his supporters have invented a revisionist definition
with old-earth dogma, in effect meaning that it is impossible for a dogmatic old-earther
to be divisive. So people need to see the bait-and-switch of this term. I.e. by
their stipulative definition, young-earthers are divisive, but it is equivalent
to the truism ‘YECs deny an old earth’.
Gary Bates attended Ross’s talks in Western Australia.
He asked a fair and specific question about the way Ross mishandled a passage in
Hosea. Ross gave a long-winded spiel skirting the issue, and Gary very gently said,
‘Excuse me, Dr Ross, but you haven’t answered my question.’ The
pastor, of course claiming to be open-minded and bridge-building, ordered Gary to
sit down. And Gary was booed by the Rossites in the audience!
This was my first exposure to the raging storm of the creation-day controversy.
I offended those men by failing to mention the creation time-scale “problem”
in my talk. Yet, up to that moment, I was barely aware that such a problem existed.
The solidity of the scientific evidence for both Earth’s origin (a few billion
years ago)
That’s what remains to be proven—merely saying so fails to do so.
and the universe’s beginning (a few more billion years ago) raised not a moment’s
doubt about the necessity of a Creator. Nor did it cause me concern when I first
read the Genesis 1 creation account.
The problem is that Ross already decided that the big bang was true, and then decreed
that the days in Genesis 1 must be long ages of time. He makes this very clear in
his testimony (Creation Days, audio tape, 1990).
It honestly did not register with me that anyone could or would see a need to propose
that the earth and universe are only a few thousands of years old or that the Genesis
days are consecutive calendar days. The truthfulness of the text and the necessity
of divine intervention faced no threat from the facts about Earth’s or the
universe’s age.
We find it hard to believe. Very few people can come to the Bible alone, leaving
aside preconceived ideas of long ages, and see anything other than six 24-hour creation
days.
Battered by words
Many Christians, including scientists and others who value science, have been displaced
or alienated by this storm.
And Ross would never alienate a YEC scientist by claiming that their view ‘encourages
a form of Gnosticism’, an outright heresy? In fact, he has done exactly that.
Evangelical leaders who believe the Bible is true and that the universe and Earth
are as old as the stars and rocks proclaim are often denounced as men and women
whose lives and work “do not lead to soul-winning or spiritual growth, but
to apostasy.”
What is the context? However, it is hardly unreasonable to show that acceptance
of ‘science’ as authoritative over the Bible has led to downgrading
of biblical authority. The Bible clearly teaches that the earth was created on Day
1 while the luminaries were created on Day 4. So it is denying biblical
authority to say otherwise. I explain more in RC chapter 4.
The long-age view entails that God is the author of false
starts and extinctions—see The god of an old earth.
The view also entails that death and suffering is ‘very good’, while
the Bible calls death ‘the last enemy’. It makes it very hard to explain
to people how there can be a loving God in the face of all the suffering. If the
world is millions of years old, then death, ‘the last enemy’ has always
been with us. This view really has led to apostasy, e.g.
Charles Darwin and Charles Templeton.
But YECs point out that this present suffering is not how God originally
created the world, and that it will one day be restored. See
Two histories of death and Terrorists and Death.
Indeed, as shown in the Templeton discussion,
Ross supporter Norman Geisler answered Templeton in exactly the same way we do,
i.e. that God did not originally create animals to tear each other apart; rather,
God created them all vegetarian (Genesis
1:30), and would be restored to this state (Isaiah
11,
65). But Geisler failed to realise that an old-earth view makes
it impossible. Ross is more consistent, and instead denies that all animals were
vegetarian originally.
Refuting Compromise chapter 6 deals with the origin of death and suffering,
and why Ross’s view contradicts the Bible.
These are serious charges. Moreover, lists of the accused have been published, naming
Calvin College geologist Davis Young, Pattle Pun and his colleagues at Wheaton College,
most of the authors and officers of the American Scientific Affiliation,
Calvin College, the ASA, and some of Wheaton would oppose Ross almost as strongly,
because he doesn’t accept biological evolution, just geological and astronomical
evolution.
Gleason Archer, Charles Hodge, former young-universe creationist Dan Wonderly, Alan
Hayward, Charles Hummel, Howard Van Till, and Hugh Ross. (Yes, my name shows up
on the lists too.) Such lists, and the attitudes that generate them, cause many
Christians to become distrustful and even disdainful of scientists. Without malice
aforethought, they begin treating science as an enemy of the faith.
Ross is still defending Hayward, listing him as a Christian, although he’s
a heretic who explicitly denies the deity of Christ. And he includes Howard Van
Till, who is an outright theistic evolutionist and denier of biblical inerrancy
[update: and
subsequently apostatized completely, to the surprise of few who knew him
or his views].
Davis Young is someone
who abandoned Ross’s
day-age position for something even less biblical. This was largely because
he tired of the exegetical gymnastics of trying to make the order of Genesis 1 fit
the long-age geological order, as Ross attempts. RC chapter 4 covers this.
The reader should check out our real point of quoting Pattle
Pun, Gleason Archer, and
Charles Hodge. It is not to question their Christian faith, but to show
that they all agree that the Hebrew of Genesis suggests just what we say—but
they don’t believe it because of ‘science’. Hence their
‘reinterpretations’ are really rationalizations motivated by long-age
‘science’ rather than the text. I explain more in RC pp. 55 ff. in the
section ‘Old-earth compromisers due to magisterial use of science’.
Ross was just ‘elephant hurling’ with his list of names, but when examined
in closer details, a totally different picture emerges.
This polarization is not new. For the past 200 years, the scientific and religious
worlds have thundered at each other in a series of stormy battles over God.
This is a false conflict. Rather, it is essentially two religious worlds, Christianity
and Humanism, fighting each other with scientific weapons. These are the facts of
science interpreted according to their worldviews.
Traditionally, conflict focused on crucial questions:
- Does God exist?
- If He does, is He the God of the Bible?
- If He is the God of the Bible, how involved was He in forming the universe, Earth,
life, and the human race? Is the Bible reliable, free of contradiction and error?
In the past 40 years, however, the debate has veered from these core issues. Now
the hurricane of controversy whirls around a peripheral point—the age of the
universe and of Earth.
This is back to front. It was largely the abandonment of the biblical timescale
that led to a serious weakening of biblical authority in the eyes of the culture.
The Scriptural Geologists realised this. See Darwin,
Lyell and billions of years; The origin of old-Earth geology
and its ramifications for life in the 21st century; and RC pp. 248 ff.
‘Evolutionary geology inspired evolutionary biology’.
Scientific discoveries keep the intensity of the tumult in the public eye. Ours
is the first generation ever to measure the size and age of the universe. A few
years ago, astronomers actually produced a radio image of the universe when it was
just 0.003 percent of its present age—that moment in cosmic history when light
first separated from darkness.
This age estimation is an interpretation. In fact, related discoveries have produced
problems for big bang cosmology (which Ross accepts), as explained in
Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang and Our galaxy
is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show.
Also, there is a string of galaxies that should not have had time to form by then
(Creation26(3):15, June 2003). See also RC chapter 5.
Sadly (and ironically), news of this astounding detection raises anxiety rather
than excitement in the evangelical community. Why? Though it magnificently affirms
biblical cosmology, such data threaten belief in a recent creation date
for the universe.
That’s the whole point! The Bible affirms a recent creation date, so the big
bang contradicts the Bible. See also Jesus and the
age of the world.
Many Christians are raised believing that to be true to God’s Word means to
accept that the universe, Earth, and life were created in six 24-hour days, only
a few thousand years ago. Most people lack the theological and scientific tools
to think through the implications of this teaching.
More well-poisoning, I would submit—hinting that if you believe what the Bible
actually says, it’s the result of a lack of theological and scientific training.
Such repeated disparagement is just what he criticizes YECs for allegedly doing!
In any case, the scientific qualifications of YEC scientists such as ourselves are
just as good as his, and we disagree with him (see speaker biographies)!
And the leading Reformed systematic theologian Dr Douglas Kelly
wrote the foreword to Refuting Compromise.
In an attempt to stay out of the storm, they remain distressed and confused.
Now Ross resorts to strange psychologizing of YECs.
Yet a personal, internal storm constantly threatens to break out: scientific facts
versus scriptural integrity, the natural record versus the written words of the
Bible.
No, the naturalistic interpretation of the natural record versus the biblical interpretation.
These people love Jesus but long for simplicity—
Should we YECs be thankful to Ross for reading our minds and determining our deepest
longings?
… a cosmos not so mind-boggling, vast, and complex, with answers untainted
by the presumed corruption of scientific and theological research. In their bewilderment
and longing, some of these Christians stay away from science, never even considering
it as a tool for sharing their faith with those who don’t know Jesus.
Or else they could turn to CMI and ICR and learn to do just that!! And indeed using
it as a tool to elucidate Scripture, not as a Procrustean bed to which Scripture
must be stretched or chopped to fit.
They steer clear of organizations that use science to reach people for Christ.
Like CMI and ICR? No, that’s not what Ross means, of course—he means
organizations like RTB that subject Scripture to science. But note that this is
yet another example where Ross cleverly tries to dismiss YECs ‘by decree’
as not using science.
Thus, their faith can’t be strengthened and supported by scientific evidence.
Nor can it be tossed to and fro by every wind of science (cf. Ephesians 4:14).
Even more alarming, many skeptics who need solid evidence to resolve their doubts
remain untouched by the claims of Christ.
They have it already, according to Romans 1:18–32, so they are ‘without
excuse’. No one on Judgment Day will be able to say, ‘I would have believed
if I had more evidence.’
However, CMI is an evangelical apologetics ministry,
and among our favourite passages are two which concern our duty to share the faith:
- Positively, setting forth the Christian case: ‘Always
be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have’ (1 Peter 3:15)
- Negatively, undermining the non-Christian case: ‘We
demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge
of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’
(2 Corinthians 10:5).
In fact, Solomon juxtaposed these positive and negative aspects of apologetics in
Proverbs 26:4 and 5—see Don’t answer—do
answer!
Such people (educators, politicians, community leaders, and others) perceive evangelical
Christians as nonthinkers or even as antiscience or antirational.
Yes, it appears that all of this is the fault of these YECs—but Ross would
never be divisive and attack us, because he is seeking unity … .
Because the creation-day issue has divided many Christians into hostile camps, young-
and old-earth creationists often focus more energy on defending their respective
positions than on reaching out to those who don’t yet believe the Bible is
true.
Distortions deluge society
Notice that even in his introductory chapter where he’s painting himself as
the martyr and peacemaker, he throws in ample pejorative language like ‘distortions’.
The young-earth viewpoint and the desire to avoid science have inoculated a large
segment of society from taking seriously the call to faith in Christ.
This contradicts our own experience—see:
As shown, it’s the likes of compromisers like Hugh Ross who have done a good
job of that for almost 200 years. I.e. they tell the public, in effect, that when
it comes to the history of the universe, ‘science’ has the final word,
not the Bible. So why be surprised when people decide that ‘science’
should have the final word about other doctrines of Christianity as well? After
all, ‘science’ shows that dead men don’t rise and virgins like
Mary don’t conceive. The liberals are being consistent when they ‘reinterpret’
these passages the same way as compromising conservatives do with Genesis.
Thus, because of a belief in a universe and Earth only thousands of years old, the
groundwork has been laid to discount the Bible’s credibility and remove “religious
notions” from public education and the public arena.
Please note that they managed to get rid of prayer in the public schools before
the revival of YEC.
Worse yet, courts in North America have come to perceive the length of creation
days as a central issue of Christianity. Some leaders who don’t want creation
taught in public schools are delighted that a majority of evangelical Christians
accept a young universe and a young Earth. They exploit this belief to win their
court cases, keeping creation teaching out of public institutions.
All they have kept out is compulsory teaching of creation. We likewise
don’t want this—why would we want an atheist to be forced to teach creation,
and be likely to distort it?
Of greater importance, they believe that by discrediting Genesis they can demonstrate
a flawed Bible.
Note this unbiblically pragmatic reasoning. What matters is whether a teaching is
true, not how much it is ridiculed. That must be established first.
And if the Bible really does teach something, then it’s just too bad if people
ridicule it. By Ross’s reasoning, we probably should never preach that the
Bible opposes homosexual behaviour, because so many in
the establishment ridicule any idea that this is abominable. And of course, Paul
would never have preached Christ crucified because it was ‘a stumbling block
to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles’ (1
Corinthians 1:23).
Martin Luther (1483–1546), the leader of the Reformation, was clear that avoiding
doctrines that are ridiculed by the world was gross dereliction of Christian duty.
A quote wrongly attributed to him is nevertheless
good advice:
‘If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion
of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil
are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved;
and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if
he flinches at that point.’
This “faulty creation message” is used to discredit the deity of Christ,
the inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines on heaven and hell,
and so forth. If the creation account is implausible, what basis remains to believe
anything else the Bible declares?
First of all, Ross must show that the creation message is faulty. It is not faulty
simply because some people use it to ridicule these other doctrines. In any case,
the YEC creation message provides the only coherent basis for these doctrines.
An example of this line of reasoning is articulated in the book Steve Allen on the
Bible, Religion, and Morality:
‘The fundamentalist argument against the scientific assertion of the great
age of our planet—to the effect that God created the earth only about 6,000
years ago, including fossils embedded in rocks— is unworthy of serious discussion
… . It is now recognized by every intelligent and informed person that the
two [Genesis and science] cannot be reconciled. … Nor should we be guilty
of the error of assuming that the problem relates only to Genesis. It touches the
New Testament as well.’
Steve Allen? Should we tremble when a man best known as a comedian and
TV talk-show host disagrees with something in the Bible? It should be no surprise
that the book’s publisher, the atheistic Prometheus Books, would rely on such
a person. But an ostensibly apologetics ministry like RTB? By Ross’s reasoning,
if consistently applied to this book, we should reinterpret a lot more than literal
creation week, e.g. the miraculous, all the acts of God’s judgment on sin
and admit loads of biblical ‘contradictions’. See this review
on Tekton.
Many educators use the age of the universe to marginalize, patronize, and abuse
the Christian community with statements such as these: “If you are a Creationist,
the Bible—not nature—dictates what you believe.”
Actually, it is the Bible that gives us the correct framework to analyze nature
correctly.
“The spurious stories in Genesis are simply absurd. Yet, they do represent
a conceptual framework from the undisciplined imagination of a prescientific age.”
“The biblical story of creation has great poetic beauty and metaphorical power.”
These comments expose the widely held assumption that all evangelical Christians
reject the integrity of science and accept young-universe creationism. (The term
creationist, for example, is rarely qualified, though one can be a creationist
without adhering to a young-universe view.)
The opponents of the Bible hate old-earth creationists and ID theorists with a passion
too, make no mistake about it! So we may as well be ‘hanged for a sheep as
a lamb’.
Well-known atheist Michael Ruse goes even further:
“There are degrees of being wrong. The Creationists are at the bottom of the
scale. They pull every trick in the book to justify their position. Indeed, at times
they verge right over into the downright dishonest. … Their arguments are
rotten, through and through.”
Does Ross seriously believe that Ruse doesn’t include his OEC and even ID
views in this? And why should we be surprised when an admitted atheist passionately
attacks those who defend Genesis?
What’s even worse is Ross (elsewhere) quoting the scientifically and ethically
discredited Australian Humanist of the Year (1995) Ian Plimer
with approval:
‘Here is yet another manifestation of what geologist Ian Plimer said of young-earth
creationists in his book, Telling Lies for God. Plimer observes that these
folks make every effort “to silence, discredit or belittle” those who
dare to challenge their views’. (letter to Charisma, Sept. 2003,
p. 10).
Note: not the slightest mention of the Bible-mocking and vicious mudslinging in
Plimer’s book, and the fact that all his amazing array of charges were
rebutted by an independent inquiry. Even some atheists thought Plimer’s
book was appalling (see The Main Points about the ‘Noah’s
Ark Trial’ and Ian Plimer for examples). How desperate can Ross be
if he needs to cite a book by a Christ-hater disowned even by some of his fellow
anti-theists?
A destructive controversy
Few Christians comprehend the devastation wreaked by the creation-day issue.
Indeed so—that’s why they fall for Ross’s false teaching, oblivious
to the damage such compromise caused in Darwin’s day!
Many people dismiss the Bible because of it. The sad irony is
that the creation date need not be a difficulty. (See “What the Fuss Is Not
About,” page 19.) Twenty-one different creation accounts within Scripture
(see table 6.1, page 66) emphasize most strongly the who of creation. To
a significant degree, they explain the how of creation. And to a much lesser
degree, they discuss the when of creation. In other words, the Bible itself
places far more importance on the factual nature of the creation events than on
the length of the Genesis 1 creation days.
How many times does God have to say something before it’s important? God told
Adam only once (as far as Scripture reveals) not to eat the forbidden fruit! And
if we can’t trust the Bible on the when (or the order of events),
then why should we trust the Bible on the who?
The Bible’s central teaching about the steps men and women must take to receive
God’s promise of redemption from sin, and to form a relationship with the
Creator, makes this order of emphasis entirely appropriate. Misidentifying God or
His key attributes could destroy the possibility of a person’s relationship
with Him. Misunderstanding God’s strengths, capacities, and past works can
impair the trust required to build intimacy. But misidentifying the timing of God’s
past works in the cosmos has little or no bearing on that closeness. Nor does it
bear upon the Bible’s authority. Yet this one doctrinal point stands at the
center of the roaring tempest.
As Ross should know full well, our emphasis is not on the issue of the
length of day or the date of creation. Rather, our emphasis is on biblical authority.
A recent creation date is merely a corollary—it follows not only from a grammatical-historical
understanding of the days of Genesis and the chronogenealogies
of Genesis 5 and 11, but also from the Bible’s teaching that death
is the result of Adam’s sin.
Young-universe Christians claim that the Bible can only be interpreted
as teaching that all creation took place in six consecutive 24-hour days about 10,000
(104) years ago.
Yes, because this view is, overwhelmingly, the only one compatible with the grammatical-historical
approach.
Old-universe Christians say the text allows ample room, with no compromise of biblical
inerrancy, for creation days of longer duration and even for a cosmic origin date
of just over 10 billion (1010) years ago. Meanwhile, nontheists acknowledge
that the age of the universe must exceed 10100,000,000,000 years for
life to have any chance of self-assembly by natural processes alone (naturalism).
Most naturalists acknowledge nothing of the sort—that’s why faith in
evolution from ‘goo to you via the zoo’ is so entrenched. YECs have
long realized that even the evolutionary age of the universe is insufficient for
evolution. This refutes Ross’s oft-repeated claim that YECs fear long ages
because it might make evolution possible. See ‘Fear
of the millions’.
Young-universe creationists differ from old-universe creationists by only six zeros,
while a hundred billion zeros separate naturalists from those who believe in the
Creator. In the past I’ve called this difference between young- and old-universe
proponents trivial, referring only to mathematical terms. This perspective in no
way suggests a trivial difference in other respects. My intent was to indicate that
young- and old-universe creationists are mathematically much closer to one another
than they are to any form of naturalism. Thus, the controversy seems largely unnecessary.
That’s interesting. Dr Ross might be interested to know that a lot of his
supporters have given my books Refuting Evolution
and Refuting Evolution 2 the
lowest possible rankings on the Amazon website. It seems not to matter to them that
only a small part of the books cover the age issue, and most of the text deals with
opposing evolution. Since Ross and his supporters are so big about being ‘anti-evolution’,
and ‘we aren’t so far apart’, then it’s incongruous that
they would mark down a book on just one issue that supposedly shouldn’t divide
us so much.
Of course, the implications of the age issue are more far-reaching than just chronology,
as I’ve explained.
The emotionalism associated with the young-universe versus old universe debate also
seems unnecessary.
This did not stop Ross from quoting two emotional statements from anti-Christians
Ruse and Allen to try to support his case.
I admit that my own attitudes need continual growth and change, especially when
I encounter personal insults and injuries.
How about, ‘when I dish out personal insults and injuries, even when
they are subtle’.
So do my communication abilities. Defensiveness and hyperbole only contribute to
the problem. Remembering the factual basis for my position helps me maintain a sense
of objectivity:
- Science is an attempt to interpret the facts of nature.
- Christian theology is an attempt to interpret the words of the Bible.
According to that theology, God created the universe and is responsible for the
words of the Bible.
What the fuss is not about
Many Christians fear that believing in a billions-of-years-old Earth and universe
means they must accept a multimillion-year history for the human species. In this
inaccurate notion, they see an implied denial of Adam and Eve as literal historical
persons from whom the human race descended.
It’s not so simple. Rather, the problem for Ross is undoubted Homo sapiens
remains ‘dated’ (by the very methods he upholds) as older than Ross’s
date for Adam. See Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find:
A severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’
compromise views, and the later correspondence between Ross’s
minion Fuz Rana and CMI–Australia’s managing director Carl Wieland.
Another problem concerns Ross’s dating Adam as possibly younger than the carbon-14
date of Australian Aborigines, since he accepts radiometric dating despite its many
problems, covered in RC chapter 12. See
Did the Australian Aborigines come from Adam and Eve?. ‘RC’
covers these points and more about the history of mankind in chapter 9.
Years ago, at a conference on the Genesis creation accounts, I shared the speakers
platform with three old-earth creationists and one young-earth creationist.
Well, odds of 4–1 should help the old-earthers hold the balance …
Someone from the audience asked the panel, “Did God literally create Eve out
of a rib of Adam, as described in
Genesis 2:21-22?”. To everyone’s surprise, each of the old-earthers—despite
significant differences among us in our interpretation of Genesis—expressed
belief in God’s direct creation of Eve (and Adam). Each of us appealed directly
to the Bible for support, upheld biblical inerrancy and supernaturalism, and in
no way capitulated to naturalistic evolutionary theory. The troubling issue is not
the historical factuality or the recency of Adam and Eve but rather the identity
and authenticity of the so-called humanlike species that existed before them. For
more details, biblical and scientific, on the origin of humankind and the origin
and extinction of the bipedal primates that preceded human beings, see chapter 20,
pages 221–226.
And that’s the whole point. If a fossil is ‘dated’ older than
Ross’s date for Adam, Ross arbitrarily calls it non-human—no matter
how human it may look or how many human behavioural
characteristics are shown (see discussion with a skeptic about
Homo erectus, which we assesses as human while Ross does not).
- Since the Bible repeatedly declares that God cannot lie or deceive, no contradiction
can exist between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature.
- Therefore, any conflict between science and Christian theology must be attributed
to human misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
- Such conflicts need not cast doubt on the integrity of the Christian faith or raise
suspicion toward all science and scientists.
- Such conflicts indicate that further research is needed.
That sounds reasonable as far as it goes, but again there is the bait-and-switch
about what the facts of nature really are. The Bible is infallible propositional
revelation from God, i.e. facts about things. Therefore, its teachings
can be understood from its grammatical and historical context by the laws of hermeneutics,
and are supremely authoritative. Nature is not propositional, and therefore
the data of nature must be interpreted within a framework.
In RC pp. 46–47, I cited the historian and theologian Dr Noel Weeks (who also
has an honours science degree in zoology), who pointed out in his book The Sufficiency
of Scripture (Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 16–17, 1988;
see review):
‘Where there has been some realization of what the Bible actually says about
the revelation through the creation, the claims for science have often been modified.
It will not be claimed that the findings of science are synonymous with general
revelation. Sometimes all that is said is that science studies God’s general
revelation. It is claimed that, as the study of general revelation, it should be
granted as much respect as theology, which studies God’s special revelation.
‘Formally this may be correct, but if it is, there is a consequence which
should follow. The first and most basic conclusion of science should be the character
of the God who made the world. For we have seen according to the Bible the character
of the God who made and rules the world is what creation reveals. To avoid the inconvenient
fact that science, as we know it, largely ignores God, there are various excuses.
The most common is to say that science is concerned with how the cosmos operates,
not with how it began or why it operates as it does. …
‘Suppose we had a theology which missed a basic point of the Bible; a theology
which, for example, ignored the fact that God “is and that He is a rewarder
of those who seek Him” (Heb.
11:6), would we think that theology a valid study of God’s special
revelation? Of course we would not! How can a science that ignores the existence
and attributes of God be called a valid study of God’s general revelation?
…
‘My concern here is those who want to make science an authority for Christians
on the grounds that it is studying God’s general revelation. Since science,
as we know it today, misses the main point of God’s revelation through the
creation, it could hardly be said that it should be regarded as an authority by
a Christian.
‘This leaves open the possibility that there could be a very different science
which would not ignore the revelation of God himself through his creation. What
could that science be expected to learn from creation? … . Compared with
all that the Bible teaches, it offers very little information. Many people have
wanted to solve controversial questions like the nature of creation, the causes
of homosexuality, etc. from a study of creation rather than the Bible. Clearly they
expect to learn something very certain and definite other than the nature of God.
What right have they to expect more definite answers to such questions from a study
of creation rather than from the Bible?’
Additional research will help resolve conflicts. Yet, with so many storm clouds
swirling, can anyone hope for a peaceful end to the tumult? I can and I do. The
desire for reconciliation motivated this book. It compels me to address the controversy.
I write these pages with the hope that I can contribute to the peacemaking process
by presenting sound reasoning that challenges unbelief and nurtures faith.
The irony of Ross claiming ‘hope for a peaceful end to the tumult’,
while seeding the very ‘storm clouds’ he asserts are ‘swirling’,
should not escape notice. For someone who cites a ‘desire for reconciliation’
as a motive, he has a strange method for seeking reconciliation—by biting
the very hand he purports to shake.
I’m persuaded that more than enough evidence is now available to resolve the
conflicts between science and faith—young-earth and old-earth perspectives.
The evidence from Scripture has been around since the close of the Canon in the
last decade of the first century AD. And for most of church history, exegetes thought
it was obvious that the Bible taught a ‘young’ earth. Even those like
Origen and Augustine, who allegorized lots of Scripture, denounced the long-age
speculations by Greek philosophers on the grounds that Moses taught only thousands
of years. Yet Ross repeatedly claims that these men and many others supported long
creation days. But see how scathingly Augustine denounced long-age ideas. In his
most famous work, City of God, he has a whole chapter, Of the Falseness
of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past,
where he says:
‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when
they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived,
too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many
thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000
years have yet passed.’
No compromise of integrity is required by either side, not by the Christian who
upholds the inerrancy of God’s Word nor by the scientist who trusts in the
established facts of nature.
By this point in his book, Ross has already poisoned the well enough that many readers
would get the impression that the basis of this resolution could mean only an old-earth
view. Of course, CMI has a number of Ph.D. scientists who ‘uphold the inerrancy
of God’s Word’ and also have respect for real
operational science, but affirm a ‘young’ earth.
A first and essential step toward resolution is to trace the historical growth and
development of the creation-day controversy. Bitter acrimony didn’t arise
overnight. Though the date for creation has been debated since the birth of the
Christian church, that discussion remained open and friendly for 15 centuries.
There was in fact no such discussion as there is today among Christians because
there was nothing to discuss! Old-age views were absent within the church. But the
denunciation of pagan long-age conjectures was anything but friendly—see Augustine
above for an example.
Then, beginning just a couple of centuries ago, friendly dialogue degenerated into
sharp polarization.
Unfortunately, people started to undermine God’s Word starting with its very
first verse. It is hardly surprising that polarization should follow.
Further reading
Reference
- <www.reasons.org/resources/products/a_matter_of_days/a_matter_of_days.pdf>
| The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going.  | | |
|
