Want Some Answers ???


Hello David,

>>Dear Mark, Greetings again. Without reopening debate, I write to correct a comment you made, and to get it put right. I have managed to borrow and read a book of Hugh Ross: The Creator and the Cosmos. It showed that some things you said are not correct <<

I wouldn't recommend spending any money on that book. Ross places more faith in secular science than God's word. Yet ironic how he thinks man's changing science is evidence of an unchanging God.

Note page 15. "The account [of creation] was scientifically accurate." Oops. It does not agree with evolutionary science, so it really depends on what one means by science. "...the order and the description of creation events perfectly matched the established record of nature." It most definitely does not match the order established by evolutionary science. Note page 27 - it's not °K (degrees K). It's just K. (The kelvin is a unit of temperature). Page 50 refers to chapter 7, page 54. Chapter 7 starts on page 57. There's no mention of Olber's Paradox in chapter 7.

Ross says "As many Hebrew scholars point out, a literal reading of Genesis can just as well support six geologic epochs for the creation days." Not according to James Barr, who really is a Hebrew scholar. He is on record as categorically stating that no Hebrew scholar he knows of would say that the author of Genesis was trying to say anything other than that they were six literal days. Certainly not "just as well support[ing]" long ages. The question should be asked - is Hugh Ross deliberately misrepresenting his sources or what? Heed Paul's warning, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col.2:8 NIV).

I also managed to borrow books by Morris; they prove your criticism is exaggerated way beyond truth. He is not (to quote you) “
pathetic”, “adds human imagination”, “misquotes”, “misuses words”, “wrong”, “pretends”, “imagines” has “very serious error”, baseless rubbish” or makes-up ideas, ignores and distorts. Simply not "correct" and needs to be "put right".

>>Your 19 Dec letter to me implied that he was evolutionist, for after talking of him, you added "as they discover life is more complex than ever thought, they add more time so life can evolve." Fact 1 He is not an evolutionist. He is against it.<<

I was making the point that (quote), "the theory from evolutionists and their billions of years, (is) ‘human’ guess work'". It's just 'human imagination' guessing the age of the universe. Yet Ross (and you) accept what evolutionists 'imagine' without reservation. Read carefully, I wrote (quote) "Ross has been ‘absolutely certain’ a number of times but with different dates. As they discover life is more complex than ever thought, they add more time so life can evolve."

Note the words "As they discover…." That's not Ross. When evolutionists discover the theory needs more time "they" simply alter dates or 'add more time'. So evolution theorists control what Ross believes.

>>Fact 2 He argues, from Big Bang theory, that there is not enough time for evolution. Some opponent scientists, and they are extremely few, loathe the idea of a beginning so much that they invent specious reasons against the BB. Rather than "add more time", the BB theory has taken away time, and pulled the ground of their atheism from under their feet.<<

I note Ross says about creationists, page 58, "...they see it as proof for an ancient cosmos, with time enough for strictly natural evolutionary processes to work." No recent creation believer that I know of makes the mistake of confusing the amount of time allowed with the likelihood of evolution happening. What they do say is that it confuses non-believers.

Anyway, the reason Ross teaches the big bang, is not to tackle the "atheism" of an "extremely few", but because he is influenced by the atheism of many.

The order we see in the stars is nothing like any explosion (Gen.1:14 Job 9:7-10 38:31-33). All explosions are destructive and all result in disorder. In the universe distances are so huge even at light speed, matter could not travel the distances required. Many excellent Christians and professional scientists are not convinced by BB theory. If Christians accept it there are huge problems accepting Genesis. Everything is contrary. Many who reject Christianity (ie. Templeton & R.L Numbers etc) do so because they came to accept the millions of years and BB theory.

Ross argues the universe is billions of years old, his central belief. In "The Fingerprint of God" p.178, (also see pp. 159-160) Ross says, "If the time since the creation of the universe were scaled down to a single year, the whole of human history would be less than one minute."

The Scriptures contradict that. And, not all scientific evidence indicate the universe is billions of years, or it's vastness necessarily implies a great age. The fact is, the only one who has observed the entire history of the universe from beginning to end is God. Obviously, no scientist was there billions of years ago, nor can anyone go back in a time machine to make critical measurements and tests. Only the Creator is in a position to know with certainty the true history and age of the universe.

>>Now I know you folk don't agree with the BB. That is not the issue here, however.<<

And the fact you (and Ross) does is "the issue". Why allow theories of men determine how you understand the Bible? Fred Hoyle who popularized the term ‘big bang’ came to reject it as “preposterous” [p.6 ‘Big Bang Critic Dies’ G.Demme TJ vol.15(3) 2001]. Why, because if it occurred, matter in the universe should be evenly distributed, but it contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. Matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, did the measuring program expecting support for the BB model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos. The more progress made the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The BB model is tarnished by this discovery.

Ross claims many astronomers are led to a belief in God because of the BB, but mentions no one. To the contrary, the big names in cosmology could be described as agnostics or pantheists at best. Most are avowed atheists, so why does Ross mislead people in this way?

>>For you did write that AiG are very fussy about correcting errors. At least here are 2 errors that AiG can correct:- Error 1 Cease misleading labels of Hugh Ross; like "a professing Christian", or "evolutionist".<<

No AiG literature 'labels' Ross an 'evolutionist'. Those holding to Progressive Creationism are not evolutionary theorists nor biblical creationists. In their position, the foundation of Christianity has been replaced by Darwin while still retaining an illusion of a prayer-hearing God. Their doctrine is clearly only a stepping stone to ease the theist into a new faith whose foundation is evolution.

Ross is "a professing Christian". His liberal interpretation of scripture (the days, flood) questions his scriptural understanding. He promotes the same liberalism of Schleiermacher and Rauschenbusch, 'the spirit of the Enlightenment'. He reinterprets God's infallible Word to fit a fallible, man-made theory i.e., BB. This is the seed of apostasy that in the end denies the whole bible. Out go miracles, the new-birth, Christ's deity, true nature of man, salvation etc. Hence the need to correct errors.

>>Error 2 Stop alleging that the BB theory agrees with biological evolution when it does the exact opposite.<<

Not according to biological evolutionists. Even theistic evolution scientists insist the process was entirely natural. When will you realize BB theory, millions of years and biological evolution are held by the same people, and used against biblical Christianity? Stop alleging they agree with biblical Christianity when they do the opposite.

BB theory was devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution or 'billions of years'. Those who urge trying to harmonize the BB with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, i.e., 'primitive earth' gradually cooling, death and struggle millions of years before the Fall, etc.

>>I'm not asking you or AiG to agree with BB theory. Time will tell, when it comes to such theories. But it is wrong to wilfully misrepresent it, and there are irrefutable measurements behind it, like the expansion of the universe.<<

Time will tell if you will ever understand and acknowledge the error of such theories. Without the Holy Spirit I doubt it. BB theory is not the first scientific theory to explain the cosmos (and will not be the last). It was preceded by views that were, in their day, the consensus of modern science. If we allow current scientific opinion to interpret the Bible for us, we will later need to reinterpret it many times over through coming decades and centuries. Christians should not step on such a slippery slope and risk making a mockery of the Bible. Give me some of those 'irrefutable measurements' for the BB.

>>I have criticisms of his book as I have of most books. But he is gentle with his Christian critics. Yours sincerely David<<

If "he is gentle" what is rough? Ross compares young earth creationists to the ungodly characters of the bible and church history. He has far greater respect for evolutionists than young-earth Christians. Why is it he believes apostates, liberals, and evolutionists before taking any notice of young earth Christians who believe the bible? He follows a doctrine that paints Christ the Creator (Jn.1.1-3 Col.1.16 Heb.1.2) as sadistic and cruel rather than good and loving. Why not allow the language of scripture to speak in context, instead of trying to make the text fit to ideas outside scripture?

BB theorists strongly reject all suggestions of any intelligent direction. They don't mix God in naturalistic science. The learned in the secular world, with some justification mock those who hold to Progressive Creationism – they see the inconsistencies.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn Univ., "But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives." (p.9­10. H.J. Fahr, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall Kosmologie im Umbruch – Franckh-Kosmos Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, 1992.

Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist, "…a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield." (E.P. Fischer (Ed.), New Horizon 92/93, p.112-173, 1993). See also