Chapter One - The Awe Inspiring Night Sky

Review of The Creator and the Cosmos: second in a series...

Here the author explains the fascination that the night sky has held for all of humanity, for all of time. Simple enough. However, he takes some giant leaps along the way. In the first, he explains that if the universe has no creator, then life has no meaning and morality is irrelevant. In other words, why not just go slit our collective wrists? He offers no explanation for this conclusion, and the Headmaster is left to assume that it simply reflects the author's personal opinion. Thus, from this perspective Mr. Ross rightly concludes that cosmology has enormous implications for philosophy and theology.

The author reveals a positively puzzling perspective of science that goes like this: researchers gather and examine data through a special pair of glass which he calls the "God-is-not-necessary-to-explain-anything" glasses, while other researchers gather and examine data through their "God-is-whoever-and-whatever-I-choose" glasses. He then explains that of course there are those researchers (guess who) who are willing to gather and examine data to see which theory of origins is most consistent with the facts, whatever that theory may say about the necessity and characteristics of an Originator. Aside from the dubious use of the terms "theory" and "facts", this little piece of logic demonstrates a child-like view of the scientific process. There is little reason to believe that Mr. Ross has experience with the scientific process since he hasn't conducted any original research or published any scientific findings, but still, you'd think he'd at least understand the process. Surely, science has nothing whatsoever to say about a Creator or any other aspect of theology. That is because science is rightfully silent on any unfalsifiable concept. A scientist who makes any statement regarding God would be presenting their beliefs, not their scientific conclusions. This is why there isn't a single word about God or Creation in any published scientific paper. Therefore, to suggest that it is disengenuous to approach science from a secular point of view is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Mr. Ross then goes on to conclude that it is a mistake to separate science from philosophy and theology. From a certain perspective, this may be true. But Mr. Ross's perspective is that the latter should drive the former. Again, this shows a clear misunderstanding of the scientific process. His conclusion does not take into consideration that science is an objective discipline, while philosophy and theology are subjective pursuits. So while science may be useful in any philosophical or theological study, using philosophy or theology to inform scientific discovery, as the author suggests, would only serve to undermine the objectivity of the scientific process. Mr. Ross admits as much in the following chapter...