From the Bookshelf of Easley Library Bookworms…

The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis

Hugh Ross

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Mar 10, 2008 Werner rated it really liked it

Shelves: biblical-studies, creation-evolution

Note, Jan. 15, 2016: I've just edited this review to correct a minor typo.

In the clash of worldviews that characterizes our cultural milieu, one of the major battlegrounds is over the origins of the natural world and of humanity in particular, with advocates of random evolution as "proof" of existential meaninglessness and purposelessness squaring off against those who believe in purposive creation by a Creator. One of the primary weapons of the former is root-and-branch ridicule of the Genesis Note, Jan. 15, 2016: I've just edited this review to correct a minor typo.

In the clash of worldviews that characterizes our cultural milieu, one of the major battlegrounds is over the origins of the natural world and of humanity in particular, with advocates of random evolution as "proof" of existential meaninglessness and purposelessness squaring off against those who believe in purposive creation by a Creator. One of the primary weapons of the former is root-and-branch ridicule of the Genesis creation and flood accounts, which are caricatured as hopelessly outdated and obvious falsehoods which "everybody knows" are thoroughly discredited by Science (even if "everybody" is a bit clueless about the details), and only believed in by knuckle-dragging, brainwashed idiots totally ignorant of the glories of Science. Enter Christian scientist Hugh Ross (B.Sc. in Physics, Univ. of British Columbia; M.Sc. and PhD. in Astronomy, Univ. of Toronto), founder of the Reasons to Believe Institute, whom even the most prejudiced religion-basher would (or at least should) have some difficulty in portraying as "ignorant of science." This book is one of several by the author, though the only one I've read. While it's not a commentary as such on Genesis 1-11, it carefully considers the basic messages of those chapters in textual order, determining their actual meaning, and bringing to bear the light that cutting-edge (as of 2001, when this second edition was published) science casts on its credibility. The results might surprise some readers.

This is a difficult book to do justice to in a short review, because it's packed so full of information and ideas. Ross writes from the perspective of "old earth" creationism, accepting the GAD (Generally Accepted Dates) and providing a cogent explanation of why the 6,000-year-old earth theory of the "young earth" creationists will not hold water. (He also deals with the theological argument that certain New Testament passages require young-earth creationism, demonstrating that this is not the case.) He then analyzes the seven "days" of creation, making a convincing case that these are not to be understood as successive literal 24-hour days, and establishing that the order of Divine creative acts dovetails precisely with the order of events as suggested by current science. Among the other subjects treated here are the scientific facts that discredit random macroevolution as the explanation for the emergence of the basic kinds of living things, the interpretation of the flood narrative (he demonstrates conclusively, IMO, that this was a localized rather a global event, and that this is compatible with the teaching of the text), the perennial skeptical question, "Where did Cain get his wife?" and some speculations about the "Nephilim" mentioned in Genesis 6:4.

One of the most interesting aspects of the book to me was the treatment of studies comparing the DNA of modern Japanese males with that found in the bones of males from the ancient Jomon and Yayoi tribes, the ancestors of the modern Japanese. This allowed scientists to calculate the rate of chromosome divergence over time, allowing for the figuring of the approximate date of the most recent common male ancestor of all living humans once the degree of chromosome divergence among them was established. According to a Y-chromosome study published in 1995, that date is 37,000-49,000 years B.P. (before present), with the most recent common female ancestor dated "somewhere between a few thousand and a few tens of thousands" of years earlier. If we hypothesize that this common male ancestor was Noah, it provides an approximate date for Noah's flood. Another especially illuminating part, for me, was the discussion of the plausibility of the long antediluvian lifespans, in light of the fact that human aging is caused mostly by exposure to cosmic radiation (and its interaction with telomerase activity). In 1996, it was determined that most of the current cosmic radiation comes from the explosion of the Vela supernova, only 1300 light years from Earth, ca. 8,500-37,000 years B.P. Prior to that time, it seems clear that exposure to cosmic radiation would have been much less than it is today.

I don't personally agree with every conclusion Ross espouses. I'm not convinced that there was no genuine human habitation outside of the Middle East before Noah's flood; I don't think that's a necessary conclusion from the Biblical text, and the archaeological evidence, IMO, would suggest the opposite. In particular, I think Ross (and others) are in error in considering the Neanderthals to be a lower primate species unrelated to humanity. Skeletal remains from caves on Mount Carmel in Palestine known as early as the mid-20th century, as I understand it, clearly indicate interbreeding between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (anatomically modern humans), which to me proves the humanity of the former. In this respect, I would agree with scholars such as Ralph Linton (The Tree of Culture). But even on points where one disagrees with him, Ross' treatment here is enormously stimulating and fascinating. (I took copious notes from the book when I read it; there's much more material here than I've been able to summarize!) It's not necessary to agree with him in toto to realize that he's set forth a solid basic case for the credibility of Genesis as an account of origins and primeval history. Obviously, the book will not convince the bigoted, who will either avoid reading it or read it only to ridicule it. But for open-minded readers willing to consider what science and Genesis have to say to each other, it will offer a lot of both factual information and food for thought.

While the book does utilize footnotes (and has a good index), it's written for the intelligent layperson. Some of the science involved is necessarily complicated, but the author does a very good job of explaining it without either jargon or "dumbing it down." ...more

13 likes · Like · see review

Group Home Bookshelf Discussions

Photos Videos

Send invite Members Polls