Hugh Ross’s "A Matter of Days" is a thoughtful and respectful defense of old-earth creationism, aimed at Christians who want to take both the Bible and science seriously. Ross accepts the Big Bang and rejects young-earth timelines, which makes his work more credible than much of the creationist literature. His tone is pastoral, not combative, and he genuinely wants to help believers reconcile faith and reason.
I find Ross most convincing when he critiques the literal use of biblical genealogies for dating the age of the Earth. He explains clearly why these genealogies were never meant to function as strict chronological records. His analysis is a helpful corrective to a common misreading. I also find his interpretation of Noah’s Flood as a localized event more coherent than global flood models. Ross presents the Flood not as a universal physical necessity but as a providential and prophetic sign with theological purpose. These sections of the book reflect his strengths in integrating Scripture and science with care and insight.
I agree with Ross that the Bible is inerrant and that it does not contradict modern science. However, this is not because the Bible contains or anticipates scientific discoveries in the way Ross often suggests. It is because, when we examine the literary genres, rhetorical patterns, and theological idioms used throughout Scripture, it becomes clear that the Bible is not making scientific claims in the first place. The text speaks truthfully within the horizon of its purpose, which is theological, moral, and covenantal, not empirical. Conflicts only arise when people try to force the Bible to answer questions it was never intended to address.
However, I find several aspects of Ross’s approach unconvincing. While I agree with a figurative interpretation of the six days, I find the literary framework hypothesis more coherent than Ross’s day-age model. The structure of Genesis 1 functions more as a theological framework than a scientific chronology. Forcing a one-to-one mapping between biblical days and natural history eras imposes a burden on the text that it does not require.
More importantly, I believe Ross crosses the line into pseudoscience when he offers a testable creation model. The scientific method requires observation, measurement, and repeatable testing. But Scripture draws clear boundaries around such efforts when it comes to God. "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah" (Deuteronomy 6:16, ESV). "No one has ever seen God" (John 1:18), and "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure" (Psalm 147:5). Trying to verify divine creation through laboratory methods misunderstands both the nature of God and the limits of science. Creation is revealed, not tested.
Ross appeals to Romans 1, where Paul writes that "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20). But there is a difference between what can be known through philosophical reasoning, such as arguments from contingency, order, or complexity, and what can be demonstrated through modern scientific methods. Philosophy and natural theology deal in broad, rational inferences. Experimental science, by contrast, relies on observation, measurement, and falsifiable theories. Ross’s attempt to treat these as interchangeable creates confusion about what science can actually do and what theological truths must be known by faith or reasoned argument.
I personally believe that God wills all things into existence at all times through one simultaneous, instantaneous, and eternal act. Therefore, there is no need to point to sudden leaps or gaps in the fossil record to demonstrate God's presence or activity in the universe. God is just as capable of working through natural causes and processes as he is through miraculous, supernatural phenomena. I feel that Ross places too much emphasis on such gaps to make his case. This implies that God can only work or create through direct intervention. It reduces divine agency to the exceptional rather than affirming God's continuous and sovereign action in all things. It may conceivably be true that there are gaps in the fossil record that science will never fully account for. But using these gaps as a way to prove divine action resembles a god-of-the-gaps argument, and it remains vulnerable to future discoveries that may close the gaps with new transitional forms.
Ross sees the Big Bang as evidence of creation, and it is refreshing that he affirms it. However, the Big Bang may not represent the absolute beginning of all things. It may mark the origin of this observable universe but not of all reality. Some models suggest prior states or parallel universes. More importantly, for most of history, there was no scientific evidence pointing to a beginning at all. Yet the doctrine of creation was still affirmed on the basis of divine revelation.
This book is useful for readers moving away from young-earth fundamentalism. It models respect for Scripture and science. However, in trying too hard to prove creation through empirical means, Ross loses sight of a deeper truth. God cannot be tested, measured, or seen through human instruments. Creation can only be received by faith.