Defense of an Old Earth a Peculiar Blend of Christianity and Science
Defense of an Old Earth a Peculiar Blend of Christianity and Science A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. By Hugh Ross. NavPress, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2004. ISBN 1-57683-375- 5. 256 pages, $15.99.
Hugh Ross is an enigma in modern creationism. As both an astronomer and evangelist (president and founder of the Reasons to Believe organization) he brings an unusual mix of science and religion to the debate. Not only does he accept and vigorously defend the astronomical and geological evidence for an old universe, but he argues that by rejecting long ages, the young-Earth creationists are ignoring some of the most profound proofs of the God of the Bible. Having been branded a “compromiser” and “false prophet” by some young-Earth advocates, Ross’s latest book, A Matter of Days, is a thorough biblical and scientific defense of an old Earth.
Ross begins in a scriptural context, reviewing the history of Christian thought on the length of the Genesis creation days. He shows that until recently, most Christian scholars remained open to multiple interpretations. Next Ross leads the reader though a detailed study of biblical passages relevant to the age of creation, such as the meanings of Hebrew words used to measure time. He accuses young-Earth creationists of placing too much emphasis on Genesis 1 while ignoring other relevant passages. For example he cites verses indicating that God is still “resting” from his creative work, so the Seventh Day has not yet ended and must, therefore, be much longer than twenty-four hours in length.
The bulk of Ross’s book is a scientific defense of an old Earth. He describes a variety of astronomical and geological processes that serve as clocks to date the universe and its components, such as the size of the universe and speed of light, the rate of expansion since the Big Bang, the age and evolution of stars, and the various methods of radiometric dating. Since his main audience is youngEarth creationists, he pays special attention to the points on which they differ from mainstream science. He lists and addresses many creationist challenges to an old Earth, such as proposed changes in the speed of light and rate of radiometric decay, and he claims that any such changes are absurd speculations and would have side effects destructive to life. Next he addresses many of the supposed clocks cited in favor of a young Earth, such as accumulation of lunar dust, decay of Earth’s magnetic field, polonium halos, and coexistent human and dinosaur footprints. He explains how all of these claims are either outright falsehoods or use faulty assumptions to arrive at young-Earth ages. Ross points out the deceptiveness of those who claim their young-Earth views are based on science. He also mocks the “appearance of age” proposal, saying that if God is deceptive in scientific matters he cannot be trusted in scriptural matters either.
Ross describes the conundrum some creationists have made for themselves by limiting the age of Earth but accepting certain biblical claims. For example, to explain the origin of carnivores after the Fall of Adam and the diversity of life after the Flood of Noah, some young-Earth creationists have become hyperevolutionists- advocating rates of evolutionary change about 100,000 times faster than those accepted by traditional scientists. And because God’s creation phase had already ended, the mechanism advocated for this change is a familiar one: natural selection! Having accepted that evolution can be so rapid and effective, the young Earth has to be defended at all costs because an old Earth would provide ample time for evolution to create all life. Ironically, Ross points out the quirks and problems in young-Earth creationism as only another creationist can!
As I read Ross’s book I kept asking myself: When is the party going to end? Ross isn’t just a traditional scientist with a Christian affiliation; he advocates many anti-science ideas himself. In his books and radio broadcasts, Ross argues that the finite age of the universe and the “fine tuning” required for life can only be explained by the God of the Bible. He rejects virtually all evolution and considers species to be individual creations of God. Whereas young-Earth creationists are forced to accept rapid evolution, Ross, with his old Earth and need for a creator, is forced to deny that evolution has any creative power at all. In this same book he claims that at least 10^sup 100,000,000,000^ years would be required for life to originate and evolve on its own. In fact Ross doesn’t consider 14 billion years to be a particularly long time: “The entire 14-billion-year history of the universe is much too brief to support the origin and development of life by natural processes alone” (p. 215). Sweeping statements like this pepper the book’s pages. When it comes to astronomy Ross sounds like a traditional scientist, but when it comes to biology he sounds like a traditional creationist. This applies to both his methodology and conclusions.
At the end of the book Ross presents a list of predictions for the young- and old-Earth creation models to help resolve the controversy: thirteen for astronomy, three for anthropology, and two for theology. For example:
The number of scientists (both Christians and non-Christians) who conclude on the basis of physical evidence alone that the universe and Earth could only be thousands of years old will soon grow from essentially zero to millions. (Young-Earth model)
The number of scientists who conclude based on physical evidence alone that the universe and Earth are only thousands of years old will remain at essentially zero. (Old-Earth model)
Though popularity isn’t a good measure of truth, most scientists wouldn’t argue. But look at this example from anthropology:
Research will prove that Neanderthals were fully human, the offspring of Adam and Eve. (Young-Earth model)
Research will prove Neanderthals made no contribution to the human gene pool, existed before Adam and Eve, and went extinct, either shortly before or after the creation of Adam and Eve. (Old- Earth model)
Here Ross appeals to a carefully chosen fossil to resolve a question steeped in religious assumptions. He conveniently avoids data supporting the relatedness of humans to other primates and hominid fossils. Having assumed they are separate creations, Ross indulges in wild speculations for why they exist at all:
It seems reasonable that God anticipated the negative impact of (postFall) human activity on birds and mammals. One possible scenario is that in the time period prior to Adam and Eve’s creation God made a sequence of bipedal primate species, each more skillful at hunting than the one before. Birds and mammals would then have developed better behavioral defenses against the future onslaught of humanity (p. 237).
This proposal sounds like the same “appearance of age” argument that Ross condemns elsewhere in the book. In cases where the Bible and science differ, such as the order of appearance of the Earth and stars, or birds and land animals, Ross proposes peculiar meanings for Genesis to make it harmonious with science. One reason he gives for accepting scientific evidence is to give Christianity respectability: “This refusal [by young-Earth creationists] to acknowledge established data causes many people to dismiss belief in creationism as either complete idiocy or downright deception” (p. 207). But he can’t take this strategy to its logical conclusion without relinquishing his own cherished beliefs. I wonder how Ross would feel about predictions like these:
Research will find no evidence of similarity between humans, apes, and fossil hominids to suggest a genealogical relationship. (Ross’s creation model)
Research will find extensive anatomical, biochemical, and behavioral similarities consistent with common ancestry. (Evolution model)
How should skeptics respond to Hugh Ross and his message? It’s a complex issue. Given the perceived threat of young-Earth creationism, it is tempting to see Ross as an ally because of the special difficulties he poses for that movement. But isn’t his brand of creationism just as troubling? I can respect any viewpoint that makes consistent use of wellstated assumptions and authorities (pure biblical creationism, for example), even if I don’t accept those assumptions and authorities myself. It’s the inconsistency and dishonesty that I find troubling about many creationists, and Ross is just one more example of this. He lets mainstream science be the highest authority on astronomical matters (bending the Bible to fit), but he ignores the most basic data in biology and appeals to fringe authorities in order to arrive at discredited conclusions, such as the separate creation of species. This makes him as arbitrary and dishonest as any young-Earth creationist he seeks to confound. In the end, Ross’s shrewd criticisms of the young-Earth creationists can be easily turned on his own views, for his peculiar blend of Christianity and science is no more intuitive or harmonious than theirs is.
Timothy H. Heaton is chair of Earth Science/Physics at the University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota. E-mail: theaton@usd.edu.
Copyright The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (SCICOP) Mar/Apr 2005