Books are normally the re-chewing of old cud. I am talking scientific articles.
Well, he certainly seems to have stopped publishing scholarly work before the time-frame covered by Google Scholar (I checked because his publication list contained exactly five papers--the number the NSF asks you to trim your publication list to, so it was possible that the posted cv was incomplete).
Still, in post 11 silverleaf gave an example of his popular pro-creation work. Perhaps the thread could stop being based on ad hominem centered on the article author's rather silly characterization of Ross as 'world renowned', and discuss content.
The table linked in post 11 is primarily a summary of anthropic cosmology, together with most of the specifics of the 'habitable planets are rare' argument. Ross is neither flogging the usual 'the Bible is true, so we've got to read it the way ordinary post-Enlightenment science and history books are read' argument of the six-day literalists, nor does he seem to be arguing for a 'tinker god' who hand-designs molecular machines. The last few points on Ross's table are actually arguments for the specialness of Earth's environment as a context for evolution!
You mean, peer-reviewed like that world-renowned Korean stem-cell scientist who just resigned in disgrace? He was peer-reviewed by Science magazine--and he turned out to be a big fake. Looks like peer-review isn't what it's cracked up to be...we may need to peer-review the peer-reviewers.