Title Author Date

correction Rossol , Ernie Aug 30, 2006

I just happened on your website as I was reviewing some info re Hugh Ross' positions on various issues. As I read your critique, I noticed what appears to me to be a mischaracterization of the position of young universe creationists ("YUCs"). You wrote,
"The "young universe creationists" maintain that every word of the Bible must be accepted in its simple literal meaning, and if it contradicts science, that is just too bad for the science. For example, the modern astronomical data, together with the facts established by physics (such as the value of the speed of light) indicate the enormous dimensions of the universe and correspondingly give its age as about fifteen billion years. This does not deter the young universe creationists who shrug off the scientific data and claim that the large size of the universe is just an illusion. Likewise, according to the young universe creationists, the fossils found in various strata of the Earth crust have been deposited by God to create an illusion of billions of years of the earth' history. Of course, the young universe creationists are not in the least baffled by the question as to why God would indulge in the deception of scientists. The ways of God are unfathomable, and the word of the Bible is not to be doubted in any manner – that is the unshakable conviction of the young universe creationists."
While it would not surprise me to find that a few folks take these rather simplistic positions, they certainly do not fairly represent the approach most YUCs take. I find that many (perhaps most) YUCs recognize that the universe is quite large, and do not generally ascribe the appearance of such as an illusion. On the other hand, they also recognize that the "generally accepted" size is an estimate based on a number of assumptions and presuppositions, not all of which are necessarily correct, and they therefore reasonably question whether the number is indeed correct. The fact is, no one really knows.
Your second example is much worse. I don't know of any present day YUCs who believe God is playing tricks with fossils to give the illusion of billions of years. On the contrary, YUCs by and large take the position that what we see in the fossil record is largely the result of the rapid burial of millions of plants and animals during the world-wide flood described in Genesis. (Indeed, present day observation easily demonstrates that apart from rapid burial by catastrophic causes, fossils rarely are formed.) YUCs observe that virtually all dating methodologies are based on multiple assumptions that we really don't know to be true. More often than not, tests on fossils and rock layers produce various disparate dates and dates are assigned in a circular process: rock layer dates are based on which fossils they contain and fossil dates are based on the rock layers they're in.
Representing alternative views fairly and accurately will improve your own credibility.

Sincerely,
Ernie Rossol

Title Author Date

correction Perakh, Mark Aug 30, 2006

Mr. Rossol asserts that my description of the Young Earth creationists (YEC) misrepresents their position. I'd like to point out that my essay is not about YEC, but about Hugh Ross's publications; Ross is an Old Earth Creationist who is the YEC's adversary. The position of YEC per se was only very briefly touched in my essay. Were I writing an essay about YEC, I'd have to point out that there are many varieties and subvarieties of Young Earth Creationism, differing in nuances and sometimes even in principal features of their positions. The description of YEC given in my essay correctly
reflects the position of a substantial fraction of YEC, for example of the so-called Omphalos version of YEC (for a more detailed description of Omphalos see, for example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html). Another fraction of YEC that meets my description is that represented by the views
of Jewish creationists - see, for example the discussion of the position of the seventh Lubavitcher rabbi Menachem Schneerson, specifically the section on Schneerson's writing. If Mr. Rossol is interested in a detailed analysis of all the
versions of YEC, my essay is not a source of such information, as YEC was just a minor point there. He may turn to http://www.talkorigins.org, and use the search facility at that site, which will produce a long list of posted essays dealing with various aspects of YEC. In particular, Mark Isaak's posts there may be very useful for Mr. Rossol. Of course, all the varieties of YEC have been discredited a long time ago.