This is a clearly written and thoroughly thought through treatise which tackles the modern day tension between science and theology (Christian theology in particular). Some of the issues addressed are farily heavy and in some cases may not be fully understood by those who are not well read in the particular area (as I found for myself from time to time). However, I dont think this will prevent most readers from grasping the points being made, making this an important, perhaps key text on the creation/evolution topic.
Hugh Ross proposes an old earth interventionist creationism model as an alternative to the main viewpoints that get most airplay regarding ''origins'. He is respectful towards those he disagrees with and does not seek to be dogmatic in his promotion of his theory/hypothesis. So, whilst young earth creationism is clearly not validated by the science Ross puts forward, nor does he fully agree with its theology, but adherents are not denigrated in the process. Natrualism/athiesm viewpoints on origins are also rteated dispassionately and without resort to slurs on the morality or intelligence of its proponents. Other viewpoints such as theistic evolution and to a lesser extent intelligent design, are also addressed but in less detail.
The strengths of the book are lie in pointing to the gaps in our sceintific understanding ot the universe and life on earth. While asserting that the God of the Bible is the solution to the gaps, he points out that in many cases naturalism resorts to the same explanations. Instead of the possibility of a deity, the pre-big bang source of our universe is an infinite array of multi-verses of which the one so perfect for us is just one. The rapid rise of life on Earth, the lack of transitional forms, the advanced brain/mind of humans are other cases where we have hypotheses rather than strong scientific evidence leaving all parties subject to ad hoc explanations. A particular difficulty for non-theistic scientists is the speacialness of the Earth: fine tuned physical laws are one thing, but randomly organised galaxies, stars and planets which have the 'just right' characteristics seems far less tangible.
I am nno sure that I Agree with all the theological or scientific conclusions made, however. While I think care has been taken to exhaustively rrefer to peer reviewed research and preserve its context, some points seem stretched or outside the expertise of the authors and open to the accusation of cherry picking. (using an example close to my field, I was surprised by the assertion that most eexhalative sulfide deposits are biologically influenced seemd too strong, although this becoming recognised iin emerging research). Likewise some of the interpretatiion of the Bible seems tto be interpreted to fit the science rather than convincingly standing up on the text alone.
I doubt this will convince many with a firm position on this issue to change, but I do think it offers a far better starting point for discussion than previous theological-science syntheses. Those who object to the Bible's viewpoint on creation, usually have plenty of objections to other parts of it as well, so I would have prefered this aspect to be less overt: the gaps in the scientific record leave space open for the God of the Bible to have acted, but in asserting a causal agent, other possibilites also come to mind for those who are not pre-committed to Christianity.
An interesting aspect of the book are the predictions of which predictions will will prove best amongst he various models - a kind of meta-model of scientific truth. I guess this is how observational and theoretical models interact with eachother, but it is rare for predictive power of models to be stressed over the physical evidence that bears out the predictions (or not).
I certainly hope this perspective gets more airtime in both secular discussion and within church walls.