creation and time

A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy

Reviewed by Mike Crowl

New Zealanders, on the whole, don't appreciate how different our Christian scene is to the one in the United States. We have few Christian groups who are so legalistic in their beliefs that they brand as unbelievers anyone who disputes their claims. Such fundamentalist-type groups are hardly known here. But the States have more than their fair share.

In his latest book, Dr Ross writes mostly about a particular group who have painted themselves into a corner, and who, from that corner, bark and bray at anyone else who thinks differently about their views. These people are classed as young-earthers, a group which has evolved in part from ideas proposed by the Creation Science movement. They are, in general, as legalistic about their young-earth views as some Christians are about the King James version of the Bible, or others are about the need to be baptised in the Holy Spirit.

What are young-earthers? Many of their views originated in the days after the theory of evolution became the accepted worldview. Young-earthers generally consider that the earth cannot possibly be as old as scientists now claim. Some of them believe God has purposely made the world and the universe around it in such a way that it merely looks old. They cannot see any need for the universe to be old since they think man himself is only a few thousand years old. Most consider the six days of creation to be six literal days.

Much of Dr Ross' book is an attempt to bring some reconciliation between those who can't believe the idea that the earth is billions of years old, and those who can't see any other answer for the facts that lie before us. He is at all times reasonable, and practical and scientific. He says nothing that he cannot back up with argument and science.

However his goal in life is not to convert people to a particular way of thinking about science, which is what he has been accused of by young-earthers, but to explain the harmony and beauty and wonder of creation in such a way that those who do not know God may come to know Him because of it. Many of his opponents, however, believe he evangelises for evolution rather than for Christ.

He takes a number of the main arguments put forward by the young-earthers and creation scientists, and shows that they do not hold water. He also shows that the church fathers themselves, in debating these very questions over the centuries, have never held any definitive view on the matter. Many respected men in the church considered that the six days of creation could in no way be six days as we now know them, and that there was much more to the story of creation than a literal reading of it.

Lest anyone feel that this book is not for them because of its scientific content, let me say that, generally speaking, it is a very readable book. There are sections of scientific argument, but for the most part this is dealt with in such a way that the average reader doesn't need a scientific dictionary at hand to cope. It is also an eye-opening book: many of us still feel that science has the upper hand when it comes to reason and knowledge. Hugh Ross is able to show that the Creator of it all knows His physics and His chemistry, and certainly doesn't appear to have thrown the Universe together in a haphazard way.

Dr Ross aims to provide a solution to the problem of the creation-date. It is a solution which doesn't require scientists trusting in the facts of nature, or Christians holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, to compromise their views. I believe it's a book to be encouraged by.

Published by Navpress, 1994

Back to the Index