| Published 2011 |
Explanations of observations in this world and their relationship to Scripture result in a wide variety
of conclusions and assertions, both theological and scientific. It is important for those who have an
interest in creationism to understand not only what is said, but especially why it is said. This is true
whether one is reviewing material from old earth 1 creationist sources, young earth 2 creationist
sources, or, for that matter, naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary 3 literature. For it is only then that
the creationist is able properly to assess whether or not Scripture speaks about the issue.
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Generally, old earth creationism holds that God created the universe “over six long periods of time – ages or
epochs that encompass thousands or millions of years” and is an attempt to harmonize assertions that the earth
is scientifically measurably old with the creation account in Genesis. Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving A
Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004) 11.
2 Generally, young earth creationism holds that God created the universe some thousands of years ago. Many,
therefore, conclude that the earth will be scientifically measurably young. It also requires the six days of creation
to be 24-hour periods.
3 Generally, that the universe, earth and all life came to be by unguided, non-supernatural means over a long
period of time.
__________________________________________________________________________
This paper is the first in a series of articles on the creationism of Hugh Ross and Reasons to
Believe (hereafter, referred to as RTB). 4 This paper is meant to give the reader a broad
overview of some of the more significant claims of Hugh Ross and RTB. 5 As we proceed, the
reader should understand that, due to space limitations of this paper, many details will be omitted.
The hows and whys will be left to future papers where we will have room to deal with the
particulars of some of his arguments more thoroughly.
__________________________________________________________________________
4. http://www.reasons.org/ (accessed April 7, 2011). Reasons To Believe was founded by Ross in 1986.
5. Ross gives a more complete presentation of RTB’s position in the book More Than A Theory: Revealing A
Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009).
__________________________________________________________________________
In my previous paper 6 I outlined the method which I intend to follow for this series of papers. I
intend to offer a distinctly confessional Lutheran assessment whenever applicable, as I believe
that a distinctly confessional Lutheran approach is sorely lacking in the contemporary creationist
movement. It is also my intent to strive, wherever possible, to keep Hugh Ross’ purely scientific
assertions separate from his theological assertions, or, in the very least, to make this distinction
obvious to the reader. I realize that his theological position can and does influence many of his
scientific conclusions. However, in order to make appropriate Scriptural application, the creationist
must always be aware of that which has its foundation in Scripture and that which does not. Those
assertions which do not have their foundations in Scripture may, therefore, be open to the
application of Christian freedom either to be accepted or rejected on rational grounds. In such
situations, individuals may in good conscience hold differing scientific opinions. Finally, it is my
hope to portray Ross’ and RTB’s position accurately and in the proper context.
___________________________________________________________________________
6. Patrick Winkler, Essential Tools of a Creationist, http://www.lutheranscience.org/2010-
EssentialTools.html (accessed April 3, 2011).
____________________________________________________________________________
A Day
One of the more well known characteristics of Ross and RTB’s position is the interpretation of
“yom” (Hebrew for “day”). Ross says that “young universe Christians claim that the Bible can only
[emphasis his] be interpreted as teaching that all creation took place in six consecutive 24-hour
days about 10,000 years ago. Old-universe Christians say the text allows ample room, with no
compromise of biblical inerrancy, for creation days of longer duration and even for a cosmic origin
date of just over 10 billion years ago.” 7 Ross continues,
According to the Bible, God’s unlimited power meant he could have chosen any time scale, short or long, to
perform his creative work (see Isa. 40-48). Concerning the six ‘days’ of creation, the Hebrew allows for more than
one literal interpretation. In Genesis 1, the word translated ‘day,’ yom, could have any of four different definitions:
(1) a portion of the daylight hours, (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour
day, and (4) a long but finite time period. .8
________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Ross, A Matter of Days, 18.
8. Ross, More Than A Theory: Revealing A Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 83.
This point on the definition of yom will be covered in detail in a future paper. Here Ross refers to the Brown-Driver-
Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon (BDBG) as well as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) definitions
when making this argument. While it is true that the Hebrew word yom can denote different time durations in
various Hebrew contexts, this does not mean that all definitions of yom might be open to an arbitrary length of time
when used in the opening chapters of Genesis. It is necessary to look at the context in which yom occurs to
determine whether such usage indicates a 24-hour period or otherwise.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Such a view, according to Ross, also offers a means by which the fossil record might be explained. 9
One of the evidences RTB uses to show that “the universe cannot be very young [is] because most
radioactive isotopes have decayed away.” 10 However, I would emphasize that even though there
may be scientific evidence which seems to support an old earth (or, as Don DeYoung describes,
a mature earth 11), that does not demand that we must interpret the Hebrew yom (“day”) as a
period longer than twenty-four hours. The Bible does not present God’s creation as being
inherently dependent upon when he created it. In other words, a creation which manifests age or
maturity is not necessarily inconsistent with the biblical account of creation per se.
______________________________________________________________________________
9. “If the Genesis 1 creation days are long time periods, the Bible offers an explanation of the fossil record enigma.
It tells why so much animal speciation occurred before the creation of humans and why virtually no animal
speciation has occurred since: after God created Adam and Eve, He stopped creating new life-forms.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 129.
10. Ross, A Matter of Days, 157.
11. Don B. DeYoung, author of “Thousands ... not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of
the Earth” (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005) has some very pertinent comments on this subject. In an
ICC (International Conference on Creationism) paper, he writes, “In the ‘mature’ or ‘fully functioning’ creation view,
one can speculate on the extent to which ‘apparent age’ details were imbedded into the fabric of creation. Would it
be deceptive to instantly create daughter elements which normally arise over a long time period from radioactive
parent nuclei? There is no definite answer to this question, since the Creation is described as fully functioning. For
all we know, created details such as isotope abundances might be essential to the integrity and stability of the
universe. One can only conclude that a mature creation is consistent with biblical data.” DeYoung, Extinct Isotopes
and the Age of the Earth, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation
Science Fellowship and Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), 337.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Basis of the RTB Biblical Creation Model
In addition to a day-age interpretation of yom, there are other factors which RTB uses to construct
their biblical creation model. One of these is that “the Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation”
because “the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree.” 12 On this point, Ross adds, “there
can be no contradiction between what He has made and what He has spoken through the inspired
writers of Scripture. The testimony of both will always agree.”13 “No contradictions exist between
the established record of nature and a plain reading of the biblical creation texts.” 14 Referencing
Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20, “The Bible ... declares that the record of nature is reliable and
understandable.”15
_____________________________________________________________________________
12. In this context, Ross also states that “the Bible, therefore, has a definite priority over the facts of nature and a
unique authority as the sufficient standard for Christian doctrine.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 89-90.
13. Ross, A Matter of Days, 211.
14. Ross, A Matter of Days, 237-238.
15. Ross, A Matter of Days, 60.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ross, an astronomer and physicist by training as well as by profession, accepts an age of the
universe in the billions of years. 16 Therefore, he concludes, God must have supernaturally
created the universe at the Big Bang some billions of years ago and supernaturally intervened at
various times since. Ross says that if the universe’s age is younger than that, it would create a
logical disconnect between the real age of the cosmos versus its apparent age. 17 Ross stipulates
that a deceptive appearance of age would violate God’s own stated character and purpose. 18
Ross continues, “Advocates of the appearance-of-age view typically hold what may be termed a
‘biblicist’ perspective – belief that the Bible is the only reliable truth source about any subject” (i.e.,
from astronomy to zoology). “Biblicists claim the Bible must be interpreted ‘literally’ (by which they
mean concretely), even if that interpretation contradicts observable facts of nature. ... Biblicism
has sometimes been confused with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, according to which
the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all subjects it addresses.” 19
____________________________________________________________________________
16. http://www.reasons.org/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-age-universe (accessed April 5, 2011).
17. In citing the opinion of Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), Ross concurs with North that “a cosmic
creation date of only thousands of years implies, in some respect, that the universe is an illusion. Since
astronomers have sound reasons for concluding that the cosmos is real, they cannot reasonably adopt young-
universe creationism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 36.
18. “To suggest that God artificially fixed the broadening and reddening of the light individually from 10 billion
trillion stars and 100 billion galaxies is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. ... Such action would be
contradictory to His revealed character and purpose and to His declaration that creation is a truthful witness.”
Ross, A Matter of Days, 163. The reader should be aware that I do not agree with Ross’ conclusions here and
intend to cover this subject more in depth at a later date.
19. Ross, A Matter of Days, 37. In his endnotes, Ross points out that “Sola Scriptura is the position held by
Reasons To Believe.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 259. Sola Scriptura means, literally, “Scripture alone."
_____________________________________________________________________________
From my perspective, RTB’s subscription to Sola Scriptura (albeit from a Reformed theological
viewpoint) makes it understandable to also find that they subscribe to biblical inerrancy in the
sixty-six books of the Bible 20 as well as to the use of “sound exegetical techniques” and the
“historical-grammatical method.”21 RTB holds that its model remains consistent with the creation
tenets of the Reformation confessional statements of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic
Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.22 The tendency of RTB toward the
rationalism of Reformed theology comes to light with the tendency to rationalize miraculous
events,23 the inclination toward the reasonableness of the objects of faith, 24 as well as the
tendency toward pre-millennialism. 25
_____________________________________________________________________________
20. Ross, More Than A Theory, 60-61.
21.Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach To The Origin Of Man (Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 2005), 43; “Reasons To Believe [adheres] to the doctrinal statements of the National
Association of Evangelicals and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy” Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question:
Scientific Advances And The Accuracy Of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 239. The reader might be
familiar with the fact that, in 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) produced the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in 1982, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, and the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Application in 1986. See http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,
PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094578,00.html (accessed April 7, 2011).
22. Ross, More Than A Theory, 59; Ross’ source for The Westminster Confession of Faith is http://www.reformed.
org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (last accessed April 3, 2011)
23. “If the Sun, Moon, stars, and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth
creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life.”
Ross, A Matter of Days, 77.
24. “The Bible claims that faith is based on reasonable evidence.” Continuing the quotation, “All the Hebrew and
Greek words in the Bible translated into English as ‘faith’ document the importance of belief – and action – being
based on verifiable truth.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 63. Here, Ross includes such examples as 1 Thess. 5:21,
1 John 4:1 and Acts 17:11. The application made by Ross is to ultimately come to a consistent agreement of
information from both Scripture and nature. He points out that some “believe that by discrediting Genesis they
can demonstrate a flawed Bible. This ‘faulty creation message’ is [then] used to discredit the deity of Christ, the
inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines of heaven and hell, and so forth. If the creation account is
implausible, what basis remains to believe anything else the Bible declares?” [emphasis mine] Ross, A Matter
of Days, 17. This subject of dual revelation, as well as the related subjects of the roles of faith and reason, will be
covered in a separate paper. In the meantime, however, the reader should observe with caution how reason here
seems to be emphasized since scientific plausibility is purposed to verify Scripture.
25. “A common, though not universal doctrinal position among old-earth creationists is premillennialism.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 265.
____________________________________________________________________________
Existence of Death
With respect to the role of death, RTB says,
the story of life, death, and new life is part of RTB’s biblical model. It does not contradict New Testament statements
about the kind of death that originated with Adam. Romans 5:12 clarifies this position: ”Sin entered the world
through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned.” This
death, introduced by Adam’s sin, applies strictly to humans. The whole of Scripture confirms that only humans,
among all life created on Earth, can (and do) sin. Therefore this “death through sin” applies to humans alone, not to
plants and animals. In addition, the passage states specifically that this “death came to all men.” It does not say “
to all creation” or “to all creatures.” The verses make no apparent reference to plant or animal life, nor do other
parallel passages (see 1 Cor. 15:20-23). 26
This role of death seems to be, at least in part, a way for RTB to deal with the problem of evil in
the world. 27
______________________________________________________________________________
26. Ross, More Than A Theory, 85
27. “God has the capacity right now to reduce human suffering. But a loving, merciful God allows people … to
suffer discomfort, illness, injury, and death. Can it be that God has good purposes for what seem like bad things?
Could Earth’s long history of plant and animal death have been part of God’s good preparation for humanity and
human civilization, technology, and the efficient spreading of the gospel?” Ross, A Matter of Days, 134-135.
______________________________________________________________________________
Origin of Humanity
With RTB’s position that death was preparative over much of Earth’s history, one might have
questions about RTB’s explanation of fossilized remains of bipedal primates, for example, the
Neanderthals, as well as the introduction of Adam and Eve into history.
RTB makes a distinction between pre-human bipedal primate species and humans. 28 Whereas
pre-humans are animals, specially created by God, 29 humans are distinct in that they are God’s
crown of creation, supernaturally created and made in God’s image. 30
The reader should also be aware that, if Neanderthals and modern humans are two separate
species, 31 any “pre-human” hominid genetic information found in the human genome might be
interpreted by RTB as being the result of interbreeding between species (i.e., bestiality) as Todd C.
Wood 32 points out. 33
What was the purpose of such pre-human bipedal primate species? According to RTB,
It seems reasonable that God anticipated the negative impact of (post-Fall) 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. God may have had other reasons as well for
creating bipedal primates, reasons scientists are as yet incapable of discerning .34
____________________________________________________________________________
28. “Neanderthals represent a pre-human primate species.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225; “A note on nomenclature:
In modern evolutionary biology, humans are classified as ‘hominids.’ This book uses that term to refer only to the
bipedal primates that preceded ‘modern humans.’ …neither the authors [Rana and Ross] nor RTB believes that
hominids prior to modern humans should be called human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 29; “RTB’s
biblical creation model considers the hominids found in the fossil record to be animals created by God’s direct
intervention for His purposes. . . . While the hominids were created by God’s command, they were not spiritual
beings made in His image. This status was reserved for human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; “
Homo sapiens idaltu (like H. erectus, Neanderthals, and other archaic Homo sapiens) were simply primates –
animals that walked upright, possessed limited intelligence, and had some type of culture, but animals
nonetheless.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 83; The RTB model “identifies these [Neanderthal] hominids as
created by God – with some similarities to human beings and yet distinct.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 191.
29. Ross points out, “theistic evolution seems to contradict Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. . . .
These and other Bible passages indicate that God created the original human pair in a special, direct, and personal
way. Thus RTB’s model for humanity’s origin must reject any form of theistic evolution that doesn’t posit God’s
direct involvement. The RTB model asserts that attempts to establish evolutionary relationship among the hominids
in the fossil record and to identify the evolutionary pathways to modern humans will ultimately prove unfruitful.”
Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 44; “Several positions, including the day-age interpretation adopted in this book,
treat the biblical creation accounts as reliable (though not exhaustive) descriptions of Earth’s and life’s natural history.
According to the day-age approach, the Creator repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history, initiating new life-forms,
including humans.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 42.
30. “…only human beings were made in God’s image” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 48.
31. “In other words, humans could not possibly be descended from Neanderthals.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225.
32. Todd C. Wood, PhD is a young earth creationist with a background in biochemistry and genomics. Personally, I
often appreciate his viewpoint and started following his blog after I ran across the following blog entry:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html (last accessed, April 4, 2011).
33. http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/04/neandertals-bred-with-humans.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertals-in-bizarro-world.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertal-non-sequitur.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/pondering-image-of-god.html and a related post
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/human-species.html. Todd Wood also offers an interesting multi-part
assessment of RTB’s human/chimp genome comparison which he finishes here
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-8.html (last accessed, April 22, 2011)
34. Ross, A Matter of Days, 237.
___________________________________________________________________________
Finally, RTB continues with their day-age assertions in determining when Adam and Eve were
created by God 35 and conclude from the fossil record that Adam and Eve were created
approximately 50,000 years ago. 36
____________________________________________________________________________
35. “…precisely dating the creation of Adam and Eve from the biblical text is not possible. Gaps in the genealogies
and the ambiguity of key words in the original Hebrew text render the best attempts at a biblical date for Adam and
Eve as estimates only. If few gaps exist, the date calculates to around 10,000 years ago. If many gaps occur, the
date falls closer to 100,000 years ago.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 45.
36. Ross, More Than A Theory, 59.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A Universal Flood
Another aspect of RTB’s creation model lies in the interpretation of the flood described in Genesis
chapters 6-9:
All human beings and the “soulish” animals (birds and mammals) they came into contact with were destroyed by
his flood – except for Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Contrary to popular perception of the Genesis Flood
account, RTB’s model for human origins posits that the Flood was geographically limited (confined to the environs
of Mesopotamia), not global. Still, the RTB model considers the extent of the Flood to be “universal” in that all
humanity was impacted by it. 37
This is because their model is required to be both a “biblically consistent and scientifically
plausible interpretation of the Flood account.” 38 In other words, RTB’s interpretation of the flood
is a conclusion based upon, and a result of, RTB’s adherence to a dual, consistent revelation
between nature and Scripture which I spoke of earlier in this paper.
In addition, the reader should also distinguish between universal and global. Global would imply
that the flood covered the entire planet, something which the RTB model deems to be scientifically
implausible. Whereas universal implies that “the Flood event described in Genesis 6-9 did, indeed,
accomplish the ends God clearly intended – and explicitly stated – without covering the entire
planet.” 39
Although RTB appeals to a local universal flood, they still maintain the scientific plausibility of
humans living hundreds of years prior to the Flood. “The Genesis 5 genealogy indicates that
some of humanity’s patriarchs to be several hundred years old. The RTB model maintains that
these ages are to be taken literally. Genesis 6:3 records that God deplored humanity’s rampant
sinful behavior and intervened to shorten the maximum human life span from about 900 years to
about 120 years.” 40 “The RTB biblical creation model must accept the burden of proof by
demonstrating that the long life spans recorded in Genesis are scientifically plausible.” 41
___________________________________________________________________________
37. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 51.
38. Ross, The Genesis Question, 160.
39. Ibid.
40. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50. My personal opinion is that it is likely that the words in Genesis 6:3
(“his days will be a hundred and twenty years” [NIV]) not only mark the time until the flood waters came upon the
earth, but that these words also limit the maximum life span of human beings to 120 years. Nevertheless, it took
time for this reduction of the maximum life span to reach 120 years. I find it highly correlative that the current
scientific approximation for the maximum life span of human beings is, and has historically been, 120 years. Note
that the definition of maximum life span is not the same as average life span, life expectancy or mortality rate.
41. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 112.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Some Final Comments
The reader should notice that, while RTB presents an old earth viewpoint, they present themselves
as standing in opposition to a purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary position. 42 The RTB
creation model is one characterized by God’s supernatural, intentionally designed and finely
tuned 43 intervention.
Because chance governs biological evolution at its most fundamental level, repeated evolutionary
events much result in dramatically different outcomes. ... The nature of the evolutionary process
renders outcomes nonreproducible. ... Biological evolution must take place along a unique
pathway each time, if and when it occurs. In other words, evolution cannot repeat.” 44
Finally, RTB makes a significant observation with which I agree. Christian creationists need to be
reminded of this on occasion: “Although materialism is the reigning worldview in science,
Christians must realize that the scientific community’s resistance to creation stems largely from the
view that the biblical perspective represents a religion, not science.”45 This does not mean that
God’s creation is immeasurable or unquantifiable in a scientific way. What it does mean is that
Christians interpret the world and see God’s hand in the marvels of His creation from the
presupposition of faith – something that is unquantifiable from a scientific point of view.
In future papers, we will take a closer look at some of the biblical assertions of RTB that we have
mentioned here. LSI
____________________________________________________________________________
42.. “A 14-billion-year-old universe is vastly too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield, on its
own, even the simplest living organism. Yet biologists and chemists have spent years building naturalistic models
based on these inadequate boundary conditions.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 121.
43. “No other characteristic of the universe is so well designed as this cosmic expansion.” Ross, A Matter of
Days, 139. “This observed stability indicates that the universe is expanding at a highly fine-tuned rate.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 146. RTB spends a fair amount of time in their literature speaking about the anthropic principle,
namely, that the physical aspects of our universe, including the seeming arbitrary values of physical constants
(e.g. gravitational constant, strong nuclear force, etc), have all been finely tuned/determined. If any one of those
constants would have been slightly different than its current value, life would not be possible.
44. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 23. Rana here is referring to Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion that, from an
atheistic evolutionary perspective, humanity’s arrival in evolutionary history is a “wildly improbable evolutionary
event.”
45. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 12.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Patrick Winkler, P.E., has worked for twelve years as a mechanical engineer in the Milwaukee area and earned a M.S.
Engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. Prior to that, he served as pastor at Prince of Peace Ev. Lutheran
Church (Yucaipa, CA) and also at Grace Ev. Lutheran Church (Casa Grande, AZ). Email: runx10@gmail.com
of conclusions and assertions, both theological and scientific. It is important for those who have an
interest in creationism to understand not only what is said, but especially why it is said. This is true
whether one is reviewing material from old earth 1 creationist sources, young earth 2 creationist
sources, or, for that matter, naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary 3 literature. For it is only then that
the creationist is able properly to assess whether or not Scripture speaks about the issue.
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Generally, old earth creationism holds that God created the universe “over six long periods of time – ages or
epochs that encompass thousands or millions of years” and is an attempt to harmonize assertions that the earth
is scientifically measurably old with the creation account in Genesis. Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving A
Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004) 11.
2 Generally, young earth creationism holds that God created the universe some thousands of years ago. Many,
therefore, conclude that the earth will be scientifically measurably young. It also requires the six days of creation
to be 24-hour periods.
3 Generally, that the universe, earth and all life came to be by unguided, non-supernatural means over a long
period of time.
__________________________________________________________________________
This paper is the first in a series of articles on the creationism of Hugh Ross and Reasons to
Believe (hereafter, referred to as RTB). 4 This paper is meant to give the reader a broad
overview of some of the more significant claims of Hugh Ross and RTB. 5 As we proceed, the
reader should understand that, due to space limitations of this paper, many details will be omitted.
The hows and whys will be left to future papers where we will have room to deal with the
particulars of some of his arguments more thoroughly.
__________________________________________________________________________
4. http://www.reasons.org/ (accessed April 7, 2011). Reasons To Believe was founded by Ross in 1986.
5. Ross gives a more complete presentation of RTB’s position in the book More Than A Theory: Revealing A
Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009).
__________________________________________________________________________
In my previous paper 6 I outlined the method which I intend to follow for this series of papers. I
intend to offer a distinctly confessional Lutheran assessment whenever applicable, as I believe
that a distinctly confessional Lutheran approach is sorely lacking in the contemporary creationist
movement. It is also my intent to strive, wherever possible, to keep Hugh Ross’ purely scientific
assertions separate from his theological assertions, or, in the very least, to make this distinction
obvious to the reader. I realize that his theological position can and does influence many of his
scientific conclusions. However, in order to make appropriate Scriptural application, the creationist
must always be aware of that which has its foundation in Scripture and that which does not. Those
assertions which do not have their foundations in Scripture may, therefore, be open to the
application of Christian freedom either to be accepted or rejected on rational grounds. In such
situations, individuals may in good conscience hold differing scientific opinions. Finally, it is my
hope to portray Ross’ and RTB’s position accurately and in the proper context.
___________________________________________________________________________
6. Patrick Winkler, Essential Tools of a Creationist, http://www.lutheranscience.org/2010-
EssentialTools.html (accessed April 3, 2011).
____________________________________________________________________________
A Day
One of the more well known characteristics of Ross and RTB’s position is the interpretation of
“yom” (Hebrew for “day”). Ross says that “young universe Christians claim that the Bible can only
[emphasis his] be interpreted as teaching that all creation took place in six consecutive 24-hour
days about 10,000 years ago. Old-universe Christians say the text allows ample room, with no
compromise of biblical inerrancy, for creation days of longer duration and even for a cosmic origin
date of just over 10 billion years ago.” 7 Ross continues,
According to the Bible, God’s unlimited power meant he could have chosen any time scale, short or long, to
perform his creative work (see Isa. 40-48). Concerning the six ‘days’ of creation, the Hebrew allows for more than
one literal interpretation. In Genesis 1, the word translated ‘day,’ yom, could have any of four different definitions:
(1) a portion of the daylight hours, (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour
day, and (4) a long but finite time period. .8
________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Ross, A Matter of Days, 18.
8. Ross, More Than A Theory: Revealing A Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 83.
This point on the definition of yom will be covered in detail in a future paper. Here Ross refers to the Brown-Driver-
Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon (BDBG) as well as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) definitions
when making this argument. While it is true that the Hebrew word yom can denote different time durations in
various Hebrew contexts, this does not mean that all definitions of yom might be open to an arbitrary length of time
when used in the opening chapters of Genesis. It is necessary to look at the context in which yom occurs to
determine whether such usage indicates a 24-hour period or otherwise.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Such a view, according to Ross, also offers a means by which the fossil record might be explained. 9
One of the evidences RTB uses to show that “the universe cannot be very young [is] because most
radioactive isotopes have decayed away.” 10 However, I would emphasize that even though there
may be scientific evidence which seems to support an old earth (or, as Don DeYoung describes,
a mature earth 11), that does not demand that we must interpret the Hebrew yom (“day”) as a
period longer than twenty-four hours. The Bible does not present God’s creation as being
inherently dependent upon when he created it. In other words, a creation which manifests age or
maturity is not necessarily inconsistent with the biblical account of creation per se.
______________________________________________________________________________
9. “If the Genesis 1 creation days are long time periods, the Bible offers an explanation of the fossil record enigma.
It tells why so much animal speciation occurred before the creation of humans and why virtually no animal
speciation has occurred since: after God created Adam and Eve, He stopped creating new life-forms.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 129.
10. Ross, A Matter of Days, 157.
11. Don B. DeYoung, author of “Thousands ... not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of
the Earth” (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005) has some very pertinent comments on this subject. In an
ICC (International Conference on Creationism) paper, he writes, “In the ‘mature’ or ‘fully functioning’ creation view,
one can speculate on the extent to which ‘apparent age’ details were imbedded into the fabric of creation. Would it
be deceptive to instantly create daughter elements which normally arise over a long time period from radioactive
parent nuclei? There is no definite answer to this question, since the Creation is described as fully functioning. For
all we know, created details such as isotope abundances might be essential to the integrity and stability of the
universe. One can only conclude that a mature creation is consistent with biblical data.” DeYoung, Extinct Isotopes
and the Age of the Earth, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation
Science Fellowship and Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2008), 337.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Basis of the RTB Biblical Creation Model
In addition to a day-age interpretation of yom, there are other factors which RTB uses to construct
their biblical creation model. One of these is that “the Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation”
because “the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree.” 12 On this point, Ross adds, “there
can be no contradiction between what He has made and what He has spoken through the inspired
writers of Scripture. The testimony of both will always agree.”13 “No contradictions exist between
the established record of nature and a plain reading of the biblical creation texts.” 14 Referencing
Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-20, “The Bible ... declares that the record of nature is reliable and
understandable.”15
_____________________________________________________________________________
12. In this context, Ross also states that “the Bible, therefore, has a definite priority over the facts of nature and a
unique authority as the sufficient standard for Christian doctrine.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 89-90.
13. Ross, A Matter of Days, 211.
14. Ross, A Matter of Days, 237-238.
15. Ross, A Matter of Days, 60.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ross, an astronomer and physicist by training as well as by profession, accepts an age of the
universe in the billions of years. 16 Therefore, he concludes, God must have supernaturally
created the universe at the Big Bang some billions of years ago and supernaturally intervened at
various times since. Ross says that if the universe’s age is younger than that, it would create a
logical disconnect between the real age of the cosmos versus its apparent age. 17 Ross stipulates
that a deceptive appearance of age would violate God’s own stated character and purpose. 18
Ross continues, “Advocates of the appearance-of-age view typically hold what may be termed a
‘biblicist’ perspective – belief that the Bible is the only reliable truth source about any subject” (i.e.,
from astronomy to zoology). “Biblicists claim the Bible must be interpreted ‘literally’ (by which they
mean concretely), even if that interpretation contradicts observable facts of nature. ... Biblicism
has sometimes been confused with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, according to which
the Bible is the supreme authoritative source of information on all subjects it addresses.” 19
____________________________________________________________________________
16. http://www.reasons.org/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-age-universe (accessed April 5, 2011).
17. In citing the opinion of Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics), Ross concurs with North that “a cosmic
creation date of only thousands of years implies, in some respect, that the universe is an illusion. Since
astronomers have sound reasons for concluding that the cosmos is real, they cannot reasonably adopt young-
universe creationism.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 36.
18. “To suggest that God artificially fixed the broadening and reddening of the light individually from 10 billion
trillion stars and 100 billion galaxies is to imply intentional deceit on a vast scale. ... Such action would be
contradictory to His revealed character and purpose and to His declaration that creation is a truthful witness.”
Ross, A Matter of Days, 163. The reader should be aware that I do not agree with Ross’ conclusions here and
intend to cover this subject more in depth at a later date.
19. Ross, A Matter of Days, 37. In his endnotes, Ross points out that “Sola Scriptura is the position held by
Reasons To Believe.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 259. Sola Scriptura means, literally, “Scripture alone."
_____________________________________________________________________________
From my perspective, RTB’s subscription to Sola Scriptura (albeit from a Reformed theological
viewpoint) makes it understandable to also find that they subscribe to biblical inerrancy in the
sixty-six books of the Bible 20 as well as to the use of “sound exegetical techniques” and the
“historical-grammatical method.”21 RTB holds that its model remains consistent with the creation
tenets of the Reformation confessional statements of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic
Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.22 The tendency of RTB toward the
rationalism of Reformed theology comes to light with the tendency to rationalize miraculous
events,23 the inclination toward the reasonableness of the objects of faith, 24 as well as the
tendency toward pre-millennialism. 25
_____________________________________________________________________________
20. Ross, More Than A Theory, 60-61.
21.Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach To The Origin Of Man (Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 2005), 43; “Reasons To Believe [adheres] to the doctrinal statements of the National
Association of Evangelicals and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy” Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question:
Scientific Advances And The Accuracy Of Genesis (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 239. The reader might be
familiar with the fact that, in 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) produced the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, in 1982, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, and the Chicago
Statement on Biblical Application in 1986. See http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,
PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094578,00.html (accessed April 7, 2011).
22. Ross, More Than A Theory, 59; Ross’ source for The Westminster Confession of Faith is http://www.reformed.
org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (last accessed April 3, 2011)
23. “If the Sun, Moon, stars, and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth
creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life.”
Ross, A Matter of Days, 77.
24. “The Bible claims that faith is based on reasonable evidence.” Continuing the quotation, “All the Hebrew and
Greek words in the Bible translated into English as ‘faith’ document the importance of belief – and action – being
based on verifiable truth.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 63. Here, Ross includes such examples as 1 Thess. 5:21,
1 John 4:1 and Acts 17:11. The application made by Ross is to ultimately come to a consistent agreement of
information from both Scripture and nature. He points out that some “believe that by discrediting Genesis they
can demonstrate a flawed Bible. This ‘faulty creation message’ is [then] used to discredit the deity of Christ, the
inerrancy of Scripture, the sanctity of life, doctrines of heaven and hell, and so forth. If the creation account is
implausible, what basis remains to believe anything else the Bible declares?” [emphasis mine] Ross, A Matter
of Days, 17. This subject of dual revelation, as well as the related subjects of the roles of faith and reason, will be
covered in a separate paper. In the meantime, however, the reader should observe with caution how reason here
seems to be emphasized since scientific plausibility is purposed to verify Scripture.
25. “A common, though not universal doctrinal position among old-earth creationists is premillennialism.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 265.
____________________________________________________________________________
Existence of Death
With respect to the role of death, RTB says,
the story of life, death, and new life is part of RTB’s biblical model. It does not contradict New Testament statements
about the kind of death that originated with Adam. Romans 5:12 clarifies this position: ”Sin entered the world
through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned.” This
death, introduced by Adam’s sin, applies strictly to humans. The whole of Scripture confirms that only humans,
among all life created on Earth, can (and do) sin. Therefore this “death through sin” applies to humans alone, not to
plants and animals. In addition, the passage states specifically that this “death came to all men.” It does not say “
to all creation” or “to all creatures.” The verses make no apparent reference to plant or animal life, nor do other
parallel passages (see 1 Cor. 15:20-23). 26
This role of death seems to be, at least in part, a way for RTB to deal with the problem of evil in
the world. 27
______________________________________________________________________________
26. Ross, More Than A Theory, 85
27. “God has the capacity right now to reduce human suffering. But a loving, merciful God allows people … to
suffer discomfort, illness, injury, and death. Can it be that God has good purposes for what seem like bad things?
Could Earth’s long history of plant and animal death have been part of God’s good preparation for humanity and
human civilization, technology, and the efficient spreading of the gospel?” Ross, A Matter of Days, 134-135.
______________________________________________________________________________
Origin of Humanity
With RTB’s position that death was preparative over much of Earth’s history, one might have
questions about RTB’s explanation of fossilized remains of bipedal primates, for example, the
Neanderthals, as well as the introduction of Adam and Eve into history.
RTB makes a distinction between pre-human bipedal primate species and humans. 28 Whereas
pre-humans are animals, specially created by God, 29 humans are distinct in that they are God’s
crown of creation, supernaturally created and made in God’s image. 30
The reader should also be aware that, if Neanderthals and modern humans are two separate
species, 31 any “pre-human” hominid genetic information found in the human genome might be
interpreted by RTB as being the result of interbreeding between species (i.e., bestiality) as Todd C.
Wood 32 points out. 33
What was the purpose of such pre-human bipedal primate species? According to RTB,
It seems reasonable that God anticipated the negative impact of (post-Fall) 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. God may have had other reasons as well for
creating bipedal primates, reasons scientists are as yet incapable of discerning .34
____________________________________________________________________________
28. “Neanderthals represent a pre-human primate species.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225; “A note on nomenclature:
In modern evolutionary biology, humans are classified as ‘hominids.’ This book uses that term to refer only to the
bipedal primates that preceded ‘modern humans.’ …neither the authors [Rana and Ross] nor RTB believes that
hominids prior to modern humans should be called human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 29; “RTB’s
biblical creation model considers the hominids found in the fossil record to be animals created by God’s direct
intervention for His purposes. . . . While the hominids were created by God’s command, they were not spiritual
beings made in His image. This status was reserved for human beings.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50; “
Homo sapiens idaltu (like H. erectus, Neanderthals, and other archaic Homo sapiens) were simply primates –
animals that walked upright, possessed limited intelligence, and had some type of culture, but animals
nonetheless.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 83; The RTB model “identifies these [Neanderthal] hominids as
created by God – with some similarities to human beings and yet distinct.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 191.
29. Ross points out, “theistic evolution seems to contradict Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4. . . .
These and other Bible passages indicate that God created the original human pair in a special, direct, and personal
way. Thus RTB’s model for humanity’s origin must reject any form of theistic evolution that doesn’t posit God’s
direct involvement. The RTB model asserts that attempts to establish evolutionary relationship among the hominids
in the fossil record and to identify the evolutionary pathways to modern humans will ultimately prove unfruitful.”
Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 44; “Several positions, including the day-age interpretation adopted in this book,
treat the biblical creation accounts as reliable (though not exhaustive) descriptions of Earth’s and life’s natural history.
According to the day-age approach, the Creator repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history, initiating new life-forms,
including humans.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 42.
30. “…only human beings were made in God’s image” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 48.
31. “In other words, humans could not possibly be descended from Neanderthals.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 225.
32. Todd C. Wood, PhD is a young earth creationist with a background in biochemistry and genomics. Personally, I
often appreciate his viewpoint and started following his blog after I ran across the following blog entry:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html (last accessed, April 4, 2011).
33. http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/04/neandertals-bred-with-humans.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertals-in-bizarro-world.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/neandertal-non-sequitur.html
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/05/pondering-image-of-god.html and a related post
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/human-species.html. Todd Wood also offers an interesting multi-part
assessment of RTB’s human/chimp genome comparison which he finishes here
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-8.html (last accessed, April 22, 2011)
34. Ross, A Matter of Days, 237.
___________________________________________________________________________
Finally, RTB continues with their day-age assertions in determining when Adam and Eve were
created by God 35 and conclude from the fossil record that Adam and Eve were created
approximately 50,000 years ago. 36
____________________________________________________________________________
35. “…precisely dating the creation of Adam and Eve from the biblical text is not possible. Gaps in the genealogies
and the ambiguity of key words in the original Hebrew text render the best attempts at a biblical date for Adam and
Eve as estimates only. If few gaps exist, the date calculates to around 10,000 years ago. If many gaps occur, the
date falls closer to 100,000 years ago.” Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 45.
36. Ross, More Than A Theory, 59.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A Universal Flood
Another aspect of RTB’s creation model lies in the interpretation of the flood described in Genesis
chapters 6-9:
All human beings and the “soulish” animals (birds and mammals) they came into contact with were destroyed by
his flood – except for Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Contrary to popular perception of the Genesis Flood
account, RTB’s model for human origins posits that the Flood was geographically limited (confined to the environs
of Mesopotamia), not global. Still, the RTB model considers the extent of the Flood to be “universal” in that all
humanity was impacted by it. 37
This is because their model is required to be both a “biblically consistent and scientifically
plausible interpretation of the Flood account.” 38 In other words, RTB’s interpretation of the flood
is a conclusion based upon, and a result of, RTB’s adherence to a dual, consistent revelation
between nature and Scripture which I spoke of earlier in this paper.
In addition, the reader should also distinguish between universal and global. Global would imply
that the flood covered the entire planet, something which the RTB model deems to be scientifically
implausible. Whereas universal implies that “the Flood event described in Genesis 6-9 did, indeed,
accomplish the ends God clearly intended – and explicitly stated – without covering the entire
planet.” 39
Although RTB appeals to a local universal flood, they still maintain the scientific plausibility of
humans living hundreds of years prior to the Flood. “The Genesis 5 genealogy indicates that
some of humanity’s patriarchs to be several hundred years old. The RTB model maintains that
these ages are to be taken literally. Genesis 6:3 records that God deplored humanity’s rampant
sinful behavior and intervened to shorten the maximum human life span from about 900 years to
about 120 years.” 40 “The RTB biblical creation model must accept the burden of proof by
demonstrating that the long life spans recorded in Genesis are scientifically plausible.” 41
___________________________________________________________________________
37. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 51.
38. Ross, The Genesis Question, 160.
39. Ibid.
40. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 50. My personal opinion is that it is likely that the words in Genesis 6:3
(“his days will be a hundred and twenty years” [NIV]) not only mark the time until the flood waters came upon the
earth, but that these words also limit the maximum life span of human beings to 120 years. Nevertheless, it took
time for this reduction of the maximum life span to reach 120 years. I find it highly correlative that the current
scientific approximation for the maximum life span of human beings is, and has historically been, 120 years. Note
that the definition of maximum life span is not the same as average life span, life expectancy or mortality rate.
41. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 112.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Some Final Comments
The reader should notice that, while RTB presents an old earth viewpoint, they present themselves
as standing in opposition to a purely naturalistic (atheistic) evolutionary position. 42 The RTB
creation model is one characterized by God’s supernatural, intentionally designed and finely
tuned 43 intervention.
Because chance governs biological evolution at its most fundamental level, repeated evolutionary
events much result in dramatically different outcomes. ... The nature of the evolutionary process
renders outcomes nonreproducible. ... Biological evolution must take place along a unique
pathway each time, if and when it occurs. In other words, evolution cannot repeat.” 44
Finally, RTB makes a significant observation with which I agree. Christian creationists need to be
reminded of this on occasion: “Although materialism is the reigning worldview in science,
Christians must realize that the scientific community’s resistance to creation stems largely from the
view that the biblical perspective represents a religion, not science.”45 This does not mean that
God’s creation is immeasurable or unquantifiable in a scientific way. What it does mean is that
Christians interpret the world and see God’s hand in the marvels of His creation from the
presupposition of faith – something that is unquantifiable from a scientific point of view.
In future papers, we will take a closer look at some of the biblical assertions of RTB that we have
mentioned here. LSI
____________________________________________________________________________
42.. “A 14-billion-year-old universe is vastly too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield, on its
own, even the simplest living organism. Yet biologists and chemists have spent years building naturalistic models
based on these inadequate boundary conditions.” Ross, A Matter of Days, 121.
43. “No other characteristic of the universe is so well designed as this cosmic expansion.” Ross, A Matter of
Days, 139. “This observed stability indicates that the universe is expanding at a highly fine-tuned rate.” Ross,
A Matter of Days, 146. RTB spends a fair amount of time in their literature speaking about the anthropic principle,
namely, that the physical aspects of our universe, including the seeming arbitrary values of physical constants
(e.g. gravitational constant, strong nuclear force, etc), have all been finely tuned/determined. If any one of those
constants would have been slightly different than its current value, life would not be possible.
44. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 23. Rana here is referring to Stephen Jay Gould’s conclusion that, from an
atheistic evolutionary perspective, humanity’s arrival in evolutionary history is a “wildly improbable evolutionary
event.”
45. Rana with Ross, Who was Adam? 12.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Patrick Winkler, P.E., has worked for twelve years as a mechanical engineer in the Milwaukee area and earned a M.S.
Engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. Prior to that, he served as pastor at Prince of Peace Ev. Lutheran
Church (Yucaipa, CA) and also at Grace Ev. Lutheran Church (Casa Grande, AZ). Email: runx10@gmail.com
A Case Study:
The Creationism of
Hugh Ross and
Reasons to Believe,
Part 1 (Overview)
by Patrick Winkler
The Creationism of
Hugh Ross and
Reasons to Believe,
Part 1 (Overview)
by Patrick Winkler
