Note: This article was originally written before reading the Van Bebber/Taylor counter-point book. I intend to revise this soon, with relevant material from the counter-point book.
Dr.
Hugh Ross has written a number of books on his brand of science-based theology,
including
Creation
and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy,
The Creator and the Cosmos
and others.
A cynic may say that Dr. Ross has written the same book five times.
I wouldn't go that far, I see that each of his books has a specific
emphasis. However, there is a lot
of overlap between them, none-the-less. So,
I will discuss his books as a collection.
First
off, I must say that I'm convinced that Dr. Ross is an intelligent individual
with an impressive knowledge of science. In fact, I'd say his discussion for the
evidence of the Big Bang that he presents in The Creator and the Cosmos
is quite well done. So I have no
intention of trying to dispute any of his science. Some people might say to me,
if Dr. Ross' is so smart, and he believes in God, shouldn't I?
However, I'd say that while Dr. Ross' science is strong, I did not find
his theology equally impressive. I’ll
endeavor to explain why I have this opinion.
Ross
uses several arguments for the existence of God that he feels are scientifically
sound. Some of them common, some of
them not so. The following seems to
be the most common themes/evidences in his books:
In
Dr. Ross’ view:
So
let me discuss each of these lines of arguments by Ross.
1.
The Anthropic Principle:
Ross,
and many others, term our universe as "finely-tuned" and I won't
disagree. This is often referred to as the "anthropic principle".
Yet when one ponders how our universe could be so
"finely-tuned", it seems there are two families of explanations for
it:
1.
Our "finely-tuned" universe came about via purely natural means.
2.
A God exists capable of creating such a finely tuned universe.
There
are many forms of option 1, such as pure chance, and infinite numbers of
universes. And, as there are many religions and denominations, there are also
many forms of option 2.
Ross
argues that any form of option 1 is just a pure unmeasurable, untestable guess.
And you know what? He's 100% correct. We absolutely cannot quantify the
probability of any form of option 1. But the problem is, any form of option 2 is
just an "escape-hatch" that is absolutely just as unmeasurable and
untestable. We can't put God in a test-tube. We can't discover what forces He
may have employed to create the universe. We can only just guess.
No
one can calculate the probability of either option 1 or 2. Ross tries to show
how unlikely any form of 1 is, so that proves it must be 2. But the reverse can
also be done; any form of option 2 can be shown to be so unlikely that option 1
must be true.
You
say that the universe had to come from somewhere? It couldn't just
"be"? So therefore there has to be a God? How come the universe can't
just "be" but God doesn't need something to have created Him? Any
"problem" that seems to exist in option 1 and therefore requires
option 2 doesn't solve said "problem" unless you can explain how God
is exempt from the "problem". Saying God just must be exempt from the
"problem" is no better answer than saying the "problem" with
option 1 must not be a "problem" after all.
2.
The Big Bang Requires a Creator:
To
be perfectly honest, I can certainly see how this may seem reasonable.
And I can’t completely discount it – remember that I’m an agnostic.
Everything that we know seems to need a cause. If everything sprang forth from a Big Bang, doesn’t the Big
Bang need a cause? As I said, it
sounds reasonable. But again, why
does the Big Bang need a cause, presumably God, but God doesn’t need a cause?
Once again, until it can be explained how God could be exempt from the
rule then saying “God did it” isn’t a better answer than saying that
somehow the Big Bang didn’t need a cause.
And of course the Big Bang could well have had a naturalistic cause
–even if it happens to be one that we can never detect after-the-fact.
Even if there is no detectable naturalistic cause does not prove there is
in fact no naturalistic cause.
3.
String theory shows God operates “extra-dimensionally”
In
my opinion, Ross is on real weak grounds here.
He says that limitations that would seem to limit God are circumvented by
God using the extra dimensions discovered in string theory.
Funny, Ross also says that the other dimensions are wound up so tight as
to be far smaller than a period on a printed page.
I guess God’s miracles are real small!
I know Ross is very intelligent and has a doctorate, so I am dumbfounded
as his amateurish pseudo-science that he comes up with in trying to support his
“string theory proves God” hypothesis.
I won’t bother to comment any further.
4.
Life could not have evolved – God must have created life.
(Genesis implications)
As
far as evolution vs. Creationism, first I can certainly agree that life is
extraordinarily complex. And I can
see how someone could think it impossible to evolve. However, if we didn't evolve. then God went to extraordinary
effort to make it LOOK LIKE we did. Ross
is an ardent old-Earther; meaning he believes the universe is in fact billions
of years old as most scientists believe. So in Ross' theology, God seems to have spent billions of
years creating billions of life forms in a 15 billion year prelude to a little
Garden of Eden for man. And for
what, so we can go, "gee, look at those neat fossils!"? What’s with this ridiculous prelude? Ironically, Ross even claims that the Bible shows that God
generally doesn’t create more than He needs to fulfill His purposes.
This 15 billion year prelude doesn’t count?
The
first book I read by Ross was The Creator and the Cosmos, which doesn’t
include his discussion of his interpretation of Genesis.
So in my original review of that book, I complained that Ross
conveniently ignored that Genesis teaches that God created the Earth first, and
even put vegetation on the Earth before creating the sun, moon, and stars!
I see that I was too hasty – he explains his interpretation of Genesis
in his other books. He says that
the perspective of Genesis is from the Earth surface.
God created the entire universe on the first day, and that the sun, moon
and stars simply didn’t become visible from the Earth until the forth day when
He cleared the atmosphere. Hmmm…
If I were to claim that I had discovered the true interpretation of
significant Biblical passages, and that the “correct” interpretation has
eluded Bible scholars for centuries, people would say I was being rather
arrogant. And yet, this is what
Ross claims, he has found the answer that nobody else has.
I’ll simply say I’m a “bit” dubious of such claims.
By
the way, Ross has many critics in the young-earth camp.
(Young-Earthers are people that insist that the Earth is but a few
thousand years old.) I find the
debate between old-Earthers (such as Ross) and young-Earthers of interest.
I'd like to quote a young-Earth critic of Dr. Ross.
This is from an anonymous reader from "God's Green Earth" on
amazon.com, who claims that Ross’ theology violates many Christian concepts:
Concept violated: the goodness of God.
The Bible says 'God is good' and in Genesis 1:31 God described his just
finished creation as 'very good'. How do you understand the goodness of God if
He used evolution, 'nature red in tooth and claw', to 'create' everything?
Concept
violated: Adam's sin brought death and decay, the basis of the Gospel
According
to the evolutionist's (and progressive creationist's) understanding, fossils
(which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on
earth. Doesn't that mean that you can't believe the Bible when it says that
everything is in 'bondage to decay' because of Adam's sin (Romans 8)? In the
evolutionary view, hasn't the 'bondage to decay' always been there? And if death
and suffering did not arise with Adam's sin and the resulting curse, how can
Jesus' suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal
life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam
all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive")?
Concept
violated: the straightforward understanding of the Word of God
If
the Genesis account does not mean what it plainly says, but must be
'interpreted' to fit an evolutionary world, how are we to understand the rest of
the Bible? How are we to know that the historical accounts of Jesus' life, death
and resurrection should not also be 'reinterpreted'? Indeed, can we know
anything for sure if the Bible can be so flexible?
Concept
violated: the creation is supposed to show the hand of God clearly
Dr
Niles Eldredge, well-known evolutionist, said: 'Darwin . . . taught us that we can understand life's
history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or
divine.' [Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames - the Rethinking of Darwinian
Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium", 1986, Heinemann,
London, p. 13.] Is it not
philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)?
If God 'created' using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God's
'eternal power and divine nature' be 'clearly seen' in creation, as Romans 1:20
says? Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is
all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with
the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not
God an 'unnecessary hypothesis'?
Concept
violated: the need of restoration for the creation
If
God created over millions of years involving death, the existing earth is not
ruined by sin, but is as it always has been - as God supposedly intended it to
be. So why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and earth
(2 Peter 3 and other places)?”
Okay,
I’ve quoted enough of what the young-Earther says. He lists other concepts he feels Ross violates, but these are
sufficient to get the idea. Interested
readers are encouraged to read the rest of that review, and other young-Earth
critics of Ross. The reason I quote
this young-Earther is, he's right. Dr.
Ross' theology does violate these concepts.
But Dr. Ross is right, the evidence for an old-Earth is overwhelming.
So, young-Earthers and old-Earthers effectively disprove each other.
The only viable choice left is evolution!
5.
Fulfilled prophesy proves the Christian faith.
I’m
not really versed in this. I’d
like to refer the reader to the Secular Web’s articles on this, as well as
Earl Doherty’s Challenging the Verdict.
The bottom line is that as near as I can tell, all of the
“irrefutable” evidence of fulfilled prophesy that Christians claim are all
totally baseless.
So, my conclusion for the five arguments is that at best, the science for/against God is a draw. So, all we can really do is look at circumstantial evidence and see which option seems more likely. Most people, theists and atheists alike, would expect that if option 2 is true, God would want those He created to know about Him. Maybe not, but it seems like a reasonable guess. And after much reading, I've concluded that the circumstantial evidence for at least the Judeo-Christian God is not compelling. Again, I would refer to the Secular Web articles and Earl Doherty’s books for good evidence that the proof for the Judeo-Christian God is completely lacking.
SECTION
II - Dr. Ross' Theology
In
the first section, I discussed Dr. Ross' science-based theology. He also
has some chapters on more traditional theological issues, which I'd like to
discuss now. Dr.
Ross' chapters on evil and hell are roughly what any other apologetic writer
would say, with all the same flaws. I was surprised, however, that he says that
it is actually a good thing that Satan brought evil into the world as we need it
to test us. Seems rather strange that God Almighty, who is presumably all Good,
would find evil a useful tool. So God is a willing and able accomplice to evil?
This seems to be rather strange theology, Dr. Ross.
Dr.
Ross also says that as far as any pain or suffering that God inflicts upon those
in hell, it is merely an unfortunate necessity. The people in hell are so evil
that they would be doing terrible things to each other if God wasn't distracting
them with pain. Oh, gimme a break! God Almighty can't think of a better way to
prevent people in hell from inflicting evil upon each other? Dr. Ross' God, for
being omniscient, is astoundingly short-sighted. God couldn't come up with a
punishment/reward system in hell where those that insist on harming others are
kept in solitary confinement while those that behave well are allowed some more
freedom? God Almighty isn't smart enough to think of this? And this God is to be
worshiped?
When I originally wrote this section, discussing Dr. Ross' presentation of hell and Satan, it was much longer. But it was mainly a repeat of what I've said in another paper of mine on the implausibility of Satan. I've decided that rather than duplicate that information here, I will just link to that paper.
Dr.
Ross, the point of your book, I assume, is to help readers be more Christian. If
anything, you've pushed me the other way.
Copyright 2002. Paul Jacobsen. All rights reserved.
