Book Review: The Creator and the Cosmos

By Hugh Ross

Back to Review Index.

Semi-random notes by Ian Mander, made before giving up on reading the book. (Because these are notes made while reading the first few chapters of The Creator and the Cosmos, having a copy of the book handy might help in understanding what I'm talking about here. I do not recommend spending any money on it, however.)

A book apparently explaining man's changing science as being evidence of an unchanging God. Ironic, no?

"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."
  – Colossians 2:8 (NIV).

With that verse in mind, let's examine Hugh Ross' teachings.

Aside: If the death from Adam's sin was spiritual only, not physical, that means that because of Jesus's death and resurrection we can't look forward to physical eternal life. To me that says Jesus didn't win the full battle. Therefore Hugh Ross is wrong.

Page 11. If the revelation is from God, it is indeed the only point of view that is of any use, the only one that will be unchanging. HR makes it seem by implication that revelation is only another option.

As someone with tendencies toward being an intellectual dilettante, I consider myself a scientist, a theologian and a philosopher. The primary reasons I believe in a recent creation are theological, but I also have scientific and philosophical reasons.

Page 14. The Big Bang model has slowly been waning in popularity, perhaps only propped up by the lack of a "better" secular model to replace it. It doesn't explain everything very well – probably because God didn't use this method to create the Universe.

Also, to say that nature doesn't present inconsistencies is rather inaccurate. If one believes that redshift of light from stars is directly related to their distance from us, astronomer Halton C Arp has hundreds of examples of inconsistent redshifts.

Page 15. "The account [of creation in Genesis] 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.

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. But chapter 7 starts on page 57. There's no mention of Olber's Paradox in chapter 7.

Page 54. Einstein's force is back. Popular science is no longer repulsed by the idea.

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 biological evolution happening. What they do say is that it confuses non-believers.

"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, really ignorant, or just plain stupid?

Page 69. How has "the worldview underlying Hinduism and its many derivatives [been] proven false"?

HR doesn't explain or support this statement, and while it can indeed be deduced from logical principles such as the law of non-contradiction, he is referring to secular science, which changes frequently.

In just the last two years at the Auckland Observatory I have seen ideas of the state of the size of the Universe accelerating in its growth go from being laughable (literally) to being "the" accepted idea. Scientific models change, and being models, they can in no way prove Hinduism false.

Page 83. Ignores evidence.

And about that point I gave up on the book. To me, Hugh Ross represents someone who places more faith in secular science than in God's word, the Bible. He bases his theology more on man's ideas from often-changing secular science, than on God's revelation in his Word, and ends up in contradictory nonsense which doesn't help people understand God better, or what Jesus did for us, or even why we need to be saved.

And that is very sad.

Back to Review Index.