Summary of Hugh Ross ' Misconceptions

The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross
Nov 1, 1999
Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy





Ross’s claim that modern (uniformitarian) science has borne out the claims of the Bible about origins is equally frustrating.

Ross has cited lexicons and word books to support his claims to meanings of Hebrew words, when those references say exactly the opposite .to what he claims.Ross makes much use of the principle of causality in conjunction with the big bang to argue for God’s existence. In an eternal universe there would be no need of an uncaused cause, because cause and effect would have been operating over all time.

This avoidance of an uncaused cause may have been the appeal that the eternal universe had in Western thought. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, there can be trifling violations of the law of conservation of energy, provided that the violations exist for very short periods of time. The smaller an energy violation, the longer that the violation can last. In this view, the total energy of the universe is precisely zero, so the violation (the universe) could exist forever. Astrophysicists must very cleverly devise ways in which the total energy of the universe can be zero. Biological evolution is an attempt to explain life apart from a creator, and Ross rightly rejects this, though his alternative of progressive creation is fraught with problems.Ross claims that this extra-dimensionality explains other difficult topics such as the Trinity, omnipresence, and predestination. Ross insists that God must operate within space and time, which necessitates the additional dimensions. Ross’s claims on this matter seems to suggest that God is somehow confined by time. Of course God can operate in or out of time as He chooses, so why would He confine Himself to operate within one of His own creations? Ross states that general relativity (GR) does not allow for any absolute reference frame with which to measure velocities.

It is believed that the 3 K cosmic background radiation represents the preferred frame of Mach’s principle. Anisotropy in the CBR has enabled us to measure our speed through space with respect to this frame

Ross dismisses the claim that the existence of comets is an argument for a recent origin for the solar system Ross insists comets have an interstellar origin; not part of the solar system merely pass through the inner solar system from time to time.Interstellar comets would enter the solar system with hyperbolic orbits and speeds exceeding the escape velocity, but this is not observed Nearly all astronomers believe that comets come from either the hypothetical Oort cloud or from the Kuiper belt. Ross stated that MACHOs were detected in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. In reality, the MACHOs were believed to be in the Milky Way or between the Milky Way and the LMC. What confused Ross was the fact that the objects that were lensed were stars in the LMC. In discussing how finely balanced the expansion of the universe must be to permit the existence of life, Ross states that the expansion rate ‘... cannot differ by more than one part in 1055 from the actual rate.’ it would seem that if it were thought that the expansion rate could not vary by over one part in 1055 for life to exist, we would have to know the expansion rate with that precision. The value of H0 continues to be revised by amounts far larger than one in 1055.The stakes in the controversy over the value of H In The Creator and the Cosmos, Ross ignores the astronomers who have presented evidence of higher values of H0. Teams led by Wendy Freedman and Michael Pierce have given strong cases for this. Yet in discussing new measurements of H0, Ross does not mention these, but opts instead to rely solely upon his good friend Allan Sandage,36 who is one of the leading figures arguing for a lower value of H0. 0 have been high, because an increased Hubble constant leads to a younger universe. his handling of COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) data.37 Ross states that the observed inhomogeneities in the cosmic background radiation (CBR) found ‘... were just what astrophysicists thought they would find.’ The truth is that the COBE was designed to detect the temperature fluctuations that astrophysicists expected, but that the original COBE data showed a perfectly smooth distribution. It was not until some very high-powered statistical techniques were applied to the data that much lower than originally expected fluctuations were found. At that point, big bang models were recalculated to ‘predict’ the data. How this shows perfect harmony with theory and observation as Ross claims is a mystery.In discussing the moon, Ross states that the moon at 4.25 Ga is younger than the earth at 4.59 Ga,38 hence they could not have formed at the same time. But this confuses several things. The oldest accepted radiometric ages for lunar rocks are about 4.25 Ga, but the oldest accepted terrestrial rocks have ages of about 3.95 Ga. How is this explained? Both bodies are thought to have undergone geological activity, so that no primordial rocks exist on either one. The earth is obviously more geologically active, so its oldest rocks are expected to be younger than the moon’s oldest rocks. Therefore the correct raw numbers as accepted by most scientists indicate just the opposite of what Ross concludes. If there are no primordial rocks on the earth, whence comes the 4.59 Ga age for the earth? That age comes from radiometric dates of a certain class of meteorites, from which the age of the solar system, and most of the bodies in it, has been inferred. So Ross has mixed two very different figures here. Ross briefly discusses the currently accepted scenario for the origin of the moon.39 This theory suggests that the earth formed as a single body, but that early in its history the earth suffered a collision with another body that was a significant fraction of its own size, possibly twice the mass of Mars.40 The earth absorbed most of the colliding body, while the remaining debris was blasted into orbit to eventually coalesce into the moon. Ross states that this was a ‘head-on’ collision. In physics, a head-on collision is one in which the paths of the centers of mass of the bodies intersect. Alternatively, the angle of incidence for the incoming body is perpendicular to the surface of the impacted body. Ross is wrong: this scenario requires that the impacting body approach the earth at a glancing angle. Only for a glancing collision is enough material ejected with the proper trajectory to form the moon (although there are still unsolved problems with excess angular momentum40). One must ask whether Ross merely misunderstood the origin scenario or if he does not know what a head-on collision is. The former possibility suggests sloppiness; the latter suggests incompetence.
Ross’s Oral Oversights
Ross’s books are generally well polished and have obviously been edited. However, his pronouncements in public addresses and on-air presentations are much less guarded. Davidheiser41 and Sparks42 have documented a number of scientific blunders made by Ross in these other venues. Those blunders will not be overly elaborated here, but a few must be mentioned. Sparks demonstrated numerous and monstrous errors of math and values of exponentials.

On a number of occasions Ross has stated that DNA is either made of proteins or is itself a protein. This error appeared in the first edition of The Fingerprint of God, but was corrected in the second edition.

Ross has completely botched the story of the peppered moths of England. He has called them butterflies, and said that they were green. The latter gaffe is apparently because he misunderstands the nature of the moths’ alleged evolutionary advantage, thinking that the moths were supposed to be found on foliage rather than trunks of trees. It is common for evolutionists to blow the story of the peppered moths,43 but Ross has exceeded them all.

Ross has said that average human eyesight is three times better than it was 2,000 years ago. This is another example of an absurd and unfounded claim made entirely without documentation.

Ross also claimed that the Pacific Ocean basin is the scar left from when the moon was formed by separation from the earth. That is a very old idea that was discarded decades ago. Today, the Pacific Ocean basin is explained entirely by plate tectonics. These blunders and outdated ideas are inexcusable for a scientist. That is ironic, because Ross often dismisses his creationist critics for supposedly not having the credentials to adequately understand science

Both Davidheiser and Sparks show the sloppy manner in which Ross approaches science and facts in general. One illustration dealing with astronomy will demonstrate this. A few years ago, Hugh Ross and Duane Gish were guests on James Dobson’s popular radio program, Focus on the Family. During the discussion, the question of star formation came up. Gish questioned the possibility and observations of star formation today. In his response Ross, blithely stated that ‘ ... we see star formation in real time. You can take your pair of binoculars out tonight and watch it. It’s actually happening.’44 That is a blatantly false statement that no other astronomer would endorse. Perhaps what Ross meant to say was that with a pair of binoculars anyone could see regions in space where stars are thought to be forming now. Most astronomers today would consider that statement to be true. However, that is not what Ross said. He was either being very sloppy or incompetent. In either case his statement certainly misled many people.

Ross’s Book Blunders
While Ross’s biggest blunders occur in public addresses, even his books contain some careless errors. For instance, his most recent book places the Scopes trial in 1927,45 not correctly in 1925. Subtler, but equally troubling examples, of bungling abound. For instance, Ross recently claimed that the current 71 to 29 percent ratio of water-to-land surface on the earth ‘... has been theoretically and observationally demonstrated to provide the maximum possible diversity and complexity of life.’46 No reference was given for this statement, so it is impossible to determine where Ross discovered this ‘fact’ or if indeed he incorrectly handled it as well. Given the many variables involved in determining such a thing, it is difficult to conceive that one could reach such a conclusion theoretically. But even more troubling is the assertion that this has been ‘observationally demonstrated’. Short of observing a large number of earth-like worlds with various water-to-land ratios and counting the flora and fauna on each, just how could such a thing be demonstrated observationally? In the same book Ross writes that ‘ ... theory and observations both confirm that all planets start with opaque atmospheres.’47 Again, no references were given, but short of directly observing the birth and development of a large number of planets, how could this be observationally tested? To some these may seem like petty objections, but these sorts of misstatements are common in Ross’s works.

Ross’s Personal Testimony
Ross’s testimony is contained in nearly all of his books. The elements are essentially this. Ross was raised in a moral, but not Christian, or even religious, family. As a teenager, he became very interested in science. At the age of 15, he concluded that the big bang must be true, and that the existence of the world demanded that there be a Creator, so he began a study of religions. He decided that the one true religion should be self-consistent and that it should agree with the natural world. He began reading the Bible, starting with Genesis, and he saw that it alone met the requirements of being the one true religion. He found that the Bible contained no errors or contradictions, which led him to salvation through the blood of Jesus.

This story reflects the statements of Romans 1 regarding what is called natural revelation, and we can rejoice in his salvation. But Ross claims that as a teenager he was struck with how well the Genesis account agreed with what he knew that science had revealed about the origin of the world. That is difficult to believe. Nearly everyone who reads the Genesis creation account for the first time comes away with the strong impression that the Bible and ‘science’ have serious disagreements about origins. That is why there are so many different ways in which harmonization is attempted.

Much of Ross’s harmonization is very similar to that of the late Peter Stoner, who had a popular level book that enjoyed broad readership about the time that Ross was a teenager.48 Could it be that Stoner influenced Ross? If so, why does Ross fail to acknowledge this? Interestingly, Hugh Ross wrote the foreword to the progressive creationist book by Stoner’s grandson, which echoes Ross’s scientific sloppiness, egregious eisegesis, and general Scriptura sub scientia approach.49 Ross clearly implies that he came to his understanding of Genesis solely by his own reading of the passage. If there were any other influences that guided him, then his repeated omissions go far beyond merely misleading.

Conclusion
Just a few of the incorrect and untrue statements of Hugh Ross have been explored. The concentration here has been on scientific issues. Others, such as Van Bebber and Taylor,10 and Kelly,18 have documented many of Ross’s outrageous biblical assertions, which demonstrate that Ross’s poor scholarship extends to biblical studies as well.

Dishonesty or incompetence? It is difficult to say. While I cannot decide which explanation best characterizes Ross, I am very concerned with his inability to correctly handle factual information. On many occasions Ross has greatly bungled information. On other occasions he has appeared to have a total disregard for the truth. Some have found that when Ross is informed of his gaffes, he blithely goes on as if he never heard the criticism. There seems to be no accountability. Ross frequently overstates his arguments. There are very serious problems with his biblical studies and questions about his scientific competence. I hope that the issues raised here will cause those who entertain Ross’s teachings to re-examine his pronouncements. Contrary to what many believe, Ross’s case is riddled with errors. Those who agree with his approach to Genesis should be embarrassed with the extent of his sloppy work.

References
Ross, H., Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, Wiseman Productions, Sierra Madre, California, 1983.

Ross, H.N., The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing, Orange, CA, 1989.

Ross, H.N., Creation and Time, Navpress, Colorado Springs, 1994.

Ross, H.N., The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress, Colorado Springs, 1995.

Ross, H.N., Beyond the Cosmos, Navpress, Colorado Springs, 1996.

Ross, H.N., The Genesis Question, Navpress, Colorado Springs, 1998. [See reviews]

The science of origins—unrepeated events (singularities) of the past—is contrasted with operation science—repeatable regularities in the present—in more detail in Normal, L., Geisler, N.L. and Anderson, J.K., Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy, Baker books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987.

Johnson, P.E., Reason in the Balance, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1995.

Sagan, C., Cosmos, Random House, New York, p. 4, 1980.

Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S., Creation and Time: A report on the Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross, Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994.

Ross, Ref. 3, p. 56.

Ross, Ref. 3, p. 57.

Ross, Ref. 1, pp. 181-182.

Berkhof, L., Introductory volume to Systematic Theology, pp. 60, 96.

Ross, H.N., Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, 1997.

Jastrow, R., God and the Astronomers, Norton, 1978.

Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 10.

Kelly, D.F., Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the light of changing scientific paradigms, Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), Ross-shire, UK, 1997; see review by Wieland, C., CEN Tech. J. 12(2):152-154, 1998.

Ross, Ref. 1, p. 12.

Ross, Ref. 6, pp. 38-53.

Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 10, pp. 84-91.

Sarfati, J.D., If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God? CEN Tech. J. 12(1)20-22, 1998.

Guth, A.H., The Inflationary Universe, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997.

Hawking, S., A Brief History of Time, Bantam, New York, 1988.

Davies, P., The Mind of God, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1992.

Weinberg, S., The First Three Minutes, Basic Books, New York, 1977.

Rees, M., Before the Beginning, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997.

Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, USA, 1994. .

Faulkner D.R., Book review of Beyond the Cosmos, by Hugh Ross, CRSQ 34:242-243, 1988.

© 2009 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

The Bible is Scientifically Accurate. Get the Evidence @ ICR.org

Biblical · Accurate · Certain | www.icr.org
Tags:
Allegations, Citizens For Responsibility, Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics, Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington, Congressional Ethics, Ethics Rules, Financial Impropriety, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lawmakers, Melanie, Member Of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Sexual Misconduct, Sloan, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Swamp, Wrongdoing, Election Challenge, General Election, Important Magazine, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Paul Burka, Rick Perry, Texas Governor, Texas Monthly, X92, Army, Defense Secretary, Doctors, Fort Hood, Inappropriate Behavior, Information Gathered During, Islam, Medical Training, Nidal, Pentagon, Pentagon Investigation, Performance Evaluations, Psychiatrist, Rampage, Robert Gates, Secretary Robert, Superiors, X27,
Alaska Native, Answer Choices, Census Bureau, Complexion, Controversy, Doles, Federal Government, Money, New Decade, One Question, Stanley, U S Census, U S Census Bureau, X27,
C Span, Choice Act, Closed Doors, Congressional Leaders, Health Care Bill, Members Of Congress, Public Discourse, Secrecy Scheme, Voices, X92, Global Economy, Youtube, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Drudge Report,

Big Losers, Campaign Platform, Campaign Pledge, Family Farmers, Farm Subsidy, Federal Taxpayers, Immediate Release January, January 6, Loopholes, National Sustainable Agriculture, Subsidy Payment, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington D C, X96, 22 Years, Advocacy Groups, Foreigners, Hiv, Hiv Infection, Hiv Status, Hiv Test, Immigrants, Immigration Advocacy, Last Monday, Medical Examination, Permanent Residents, Term Visitors, United States, Visa Application Afghanistan Al Qaeda Amp Barack Obama Christmas Christmas Day Climate Change Cnn Congress Copenhagen Democrat Democrats Economy Fort Hood Global Warming Gop Harry Reid Health Care Health Care Bill Health Care Reform Insurance Israel Job Jobs Legislation Money Nidal Obama People Recession Republicans Reuters Sarah Palin Senate Terrorists United States Backlash, Budget Reconciliation, Government Seed Money, Health Care Bill, Health Care Bills, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Option, House Democrats, Joe Lieberman, Liberal Democrats, National Public Health, Progressive Democrats, Promising Area, Provision States, Public Health Insurance, Public Money, Public Options, Senate Bill, State Money, Unanswered Question Bill Thomas, Chairman Bill, Commercial banks, Congress, Consequences, Depression Era Glass, Financial Crisis, Financial Markets, Glass Steagall Act, Inquiry Commission, Investment Banks, Investments, Last Spring, One Thing, Public Hearings, Rundown, Senate, Wikipedia Bloggers, Campaign Season, Center For Responsive Politics, Chief Executive, Citizens, Edward Kennedy, Election Year, Federal Campaign, Governorships, Lawmakers, Legislation, Member Of Congress, Mud, Opencongress, Personal Reasons, Retirement Announcements, Retirements, Senate, Swing State Project, Voting Records Advocacy Group, Body Mass Index, Cholesterol Level, Group Health Care, Harvard Health, Health Care Bill, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Portability, Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act, Health Policy Expert, High Cholesterol, Incentives Program, Legislative Text, New England Medical, New England Medical Journal, Pre Existing Medical Conditions, Progressive Health Care, Reform Advocacy, Senate Bill, Senate Health Cadillac, Dayen, Economic Policy Institute, Excise Tax, Health Care Bill, Health Care Bills, Health Plans, House Democrats, House Dems, House Of Representatives, Insurance Plans, Joe Courtney, Middle Class, Priority Health, Progressives, Senate Bill, Senate Health, Signatures, Surtax, Union Members Appropriations Bills, Earmarks, Federal Spending, Fiscal Year, Legislation, Members Of Congress, Pet Projects, Taxpayers For Common Sense, Usa Today, Watchdog Group Banking Committee, Banking Industry, Career Path, Chairmanship, Connecticut Voters, Constituency, Consumer Protection Legislation, Dodd, Dorgan, Early Retirement, Last Spring, Legislative Agenda, Lobbyist, Mortgage Market, Reform Legislation, Regulatory Reform, Retirement News, Retirement Plans, Retirements, Senate Democrats Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Bailout, Beneficiary, Blush, Byron Dorgan, Chris Dodd, Democratic Hopefuls, Democratic Nomination, Joe Lieberman, Loan Scandal, Mortgage Deal, Outrage, Rising Star, Scandals, Senate Banking Committee, Senate News, Senate Seat, Sidenote, State Attorney General, Target Greg Abbott, Republicans,
Michael Steele, Nebraska Compromise,
Harry Reid, Abbott wrote in a letter Tuesday to U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Texas Republicans
John Cornyn,
Trent Lott, Apology, Bureaucratic System, Dozen Other States, Half A Dozen, James Webb, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Medicaid, Medicaid Enrollment, Medicaid Rolls, Mr Webb, People, Senators, Sens, State Budget, Tough Talk, True Reform, Virginia Medicaid, Virginians, X27 Limbaugh Institute, Live Radio, Microphone, Radio Show, Rush Limbaugh, Rush Radio,
Jon Kyl, Game Change
Race,