Ross, Hugh. Christian astronomer. Believes in progressive creation, and thus in an old universe, and is responsible for creating huge confusion in Christian teaching circles (nicknamed the Hugh Confusion), partly due to his apparent greater faith in the secular scientific establishment than in the Bible, and partly due to his lack of care with facts. He teaches that nature is a 67th book of the Bible, absolutely equal in authority to the Bible, instead of nature being a fallen creation that needs to be understood in the light of the Bible. Hugh Ross does not see any discrepancies between the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order defined by evolution. Misleadingly, he teaches what he calls a "worldwide" flood, by which he actually means a local flood which killed all people not on the Ark. He and his ministry Reasons to Believe actively attack Christians and Christian ministries who believe and teach a recent creation, and has not acknowledged clear evidence from those ministries that his arguments are wrong.

It is inconceivable that Ross could have mistaken these new distance measurements for trigonometric parallax had he actually read and understood the articles that he cited. The huge distances alone should have told him that trigonometric parallax was not possible for either of these objects. This is another example of how poorly Ross understands or mishandles information, even in a field in which he is supposed to be an expert. This should cause his supporters to question his conclusions not only in astronomy, but also in matters such as anthropology, speciation, Hebrew and theology where he clearly has no professional expertise.

The article The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross is sad but enlightening.

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.’ 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.’ 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.

The article finishes:

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, and Kelly, 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.

Another example of Hugh Ross' inability to correctly handle factual information is his insistance that there are Earth fossils in huge quantities on the Moon (thrown up by large Earth impacts). The idea was actually just raised as a theoretical idea; to Hugh Ross it is a fact. For more comment on his teachings as they relate to the Bible see the article Creating Confusion in Genesis with Hugh Ross.

	Caution: The group/person or belief/practice has false or questionable doctrine that to varying degrees may be directly or indirectly harmful to its members/followers and their families. Such groups/people/beliefs/practices are not necessarily bad but should be approached or used with caution.
	Hot Topic: The group/person or belief/practice has recently featured in the secular news media, has generated notable correspondence, is a popular conversation topic, etc. Note that this rating has nothing to do with the "cultishness" of a group.

Printed on 20 January 2021 at www.cults.co.nz.
Close window