In this next post in my series in which I analyze Ken Ham’s book, Six Days, The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church, I am going to take a look at the next two chapters in the book.
Now for Chapter Two…
Having condemned a number of Christian academics who don’t agree with his YECist claims, Ham then builds upon those claims in chapter two, which is entitled, “Without Its Foundation, the Church Cannot Stand.” Now, to be clear, if understood in its proper biblical context, that statement is true: the Church cannot stand without its foundation. Of course, biblically-speaking, that foundation is the resurrected Christ. As he himself said in Matthew 21:42, when quoting Psalm 118:22, “The stone that the builders rejected has becoming the cornerstone.” Or as the Apostle Paul said in I Corinthians 3:11: “No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.”
Now, that’s pretty clear. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that for Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, the “foundation” they are talking about is not Jesus Christ—it is a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Oh, they might say the foundation is “the authority of the Word of God” (i.e. the Bible), but let’s be clear: (1) that still is not what Jesus and Paul were referring to, and (2) in reality, Ham is talking, not about the Bible, but specifically about the YECist literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11 only. It is because the Church doesn’t teach the YECist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that the moral fabric of Western society is collapsing. As Ham clearly states, “That collapsing building represents the collapsing moral fabric of our Western nation, and the increasing moral relativism” (27).
If you want to understand what lies at the heart of YECism, that’s it: the belief that the failure to interpret Genesis 1-11 as literal history is the cause for moral collapse in Western society.
If you are thinking, “I don’t see how the two are related,” let me connect the dots for you. YECists like Ken Ham believe that if they can convince you that Genesis 1-11 is literal history, then (A) that will prove the Bible is true. And since they fundamentally understand the Bible to essentially be God’s divinely ordained moral rule book, then (B) convincing you Genesis 1-11 is factually true will mean that you will then be impelled to follow God’s rules. Simply put: the foundation for the Church and society is a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11, the ultimate purpose of the Bible is to give moral rules, and the job of the Church is to try to enforce those rules.
The Arguments Made in Chapter 2
To be perfectly honest, Ham doesn’t really make a coherent argument in chapter 2. Instead, he dashes from one point to the other, failing to really show how they are related. Let me put on my running shoes and dash along with him for a few minutes.
- “Genesis 1-3 must be historical, because Jesus alludes to it when he talks about the doctrine of marriage!” …Wait, just because alludes to Genesis 2 doesn’t mean he is saying it is historical; in any case, is marriage a “doctrine”?
- “Creation/Evolution is not a salvation issue. Salvation is based on faith in Christ alone.” …Sure, but then you say it’s an authority issue and a gospel issue…and the gospel is about salvation…it doesn’t take a genius to connect the dots as to what you are really saying.
- “Christian academics who say Genesis isn’t history are telling people that “part of the Bible doesn’t matter. Just trust in Jesus.” …No, first of all, the focus is on Genesis 1-11, not the entire book of Genesis. Second, saying Genesis 1-11 isn’t intending to convey history isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t matter—Genesis 1-11 is supremely important and does matter a whole lot. And third, what did Paul tell the jailer in Philippi when the jailer asked him what he must to do be saved? That’s right, “Trust in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Not one mention of believing in a young earth.
- “If believers are willing to deny God’s clear Word in Genesis, why should they believe God’s Word concerning the miracle of the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth?” …Again, be specific—the issue is about Genesis 1-11, not the entire book of Genesis. As for the rest of it, it has to do with being a good reader of the Bible and recognizing different genres. I’m not “denying” God’s Word in Genesis 1-11—I’m saying I don’t believe God intended for it to be understood as some sort of scientific, historical account, and I can make a really good case. And the reason I don’t reject the accounts of the resurrection or virgin birth is because those accounts are found in the gospels, which are understood to be ancient historical biographies—again, genre recognition.
- “Unfortunately, what is happening today is that many are going and saying, ‘Trust in Jesus. We don’t trust the Book of Genesis; it’s not true or it doesn’t matter. How did Noah get all those animals on the Ark anyway? Science has disproved Genesis as literal history. But don’t worry about that—just trust in Jesus.” …Hmmm…Oh gentle reader of my post, let me make an appeal to you! How would you respond to that quote? Please leave a comment!
I will say this, though—is it me, or does Ham’s comments regarding trusting Jesus really take on a mocking tone? If he was in Philippi with Paul, when Paul told the jailer to put his trust in Jesus, would Ham say, “Oh sure, Paul! Just tell him to trust in Jesus! What about believing that behemoth was a dinosaur, or that Noah didn’t take insects on the Ark because they don’t have a nephesh? Are you really going to tell this Philippian jailer that those things aren’t important? If you don’t convince him “day” in Genesis 1 has to mean a literal 24-hour day, what’s going to stop him from going back to the pagan temples and hiring sacred prostitutes? The answers are in Genesis, Paul! Stop trying to point him to just Jesus!”
On to Chapter 3…
Everything in chapter three is a rehashing of the standard AiG talking points. In some form or another, chapter three is found in every book by Ken Ham. If you want a summary of chapter three, this is all you need to know:
- Observational science and historical science
- Same evidence, different starting points
- Man’s fallible word vs. God’s infallible Word
- All dating methods are fallible
- Science is always changing, but God’s Word never changes, so who will you believe? (see #3)
- God was there and doesn’t lie, and He told us what happened, so who will you believe? (see #3)
- God didn’t use the Big Bang or evolution because that’s not what His Word says, so who will you believe? (see #3)
- It’s a battle of worldviews; one’s worldview will determine how a person interprets the evidence (see #2)
- BioLogos is bad!
- Evolution is modern man’s pagan religion.
Light and Space…and Why Ham Doesn’t Calculate the Age of the Universe by Them
Sprinkled in between these standard talking points, though, there were a few comments Ken Ham made that caught my eye. At one point, Ham addressed the issue of distant starlight—based on the constant speed of light in a vacuum and given the fact that the entire universe is expanding, astronomers have calculated that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Therefore, based on observable, scientific grounds (i.e. can we even use the YECist term “observational science”?), the YECist claim that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old is provably false, right?
“Wrong,” says Ken Ham. So how can Ham explain away what is clearly observed and calculated? In other posts and articles on the AiG website, they have made several proposals in an attempt to explain away what is clearly observed in the universe—perhaps God has made time zones in space, perhaps light can speed up or slow down at random—but here in the book, Ham chooses to keep things ambiguous. He writes, “Let me ask you a question: do you know everything there is to know about light? Do you know everything there is to know about space? Is it possible that there’s something we don’t know about light or space that could totally change our conclusion?” (49).
The obvious answers to those questions would be, of course, “No—we can’t be sure we know everything there is to know about light and space, and yes—it certainly is possible there is something out there that, when discovered, might change our conclusion.” Still, the cold, hard fact remains that given what we do know, we can be reasonably certain that the universe is 14 billion years old. Therefore, the reason Ken Ham gives for rejecting that claim isn’t because there is anything that contradicts it, but rather, his assertion that there might be something out there that we don’t know about that would prove otherwise.
Simply put, he is rejecting what can be observed and calculated in favor of…well, nothing.
Speaking of Observational Science…
For all Ham’s talk of the difference between “observational” and “historical” science, and how “observational science” is limited to what is testable, whereas “historical science” is beliefs about the past, and how “observational science” can’t really anything about the past, he certainly seems to get them confused at times. At one point in the chapter, when discussing this supposed difference, Ham attempts to give some examples to illustrate his point.
When applying “observational science” to DNA, Ham concludes that “it confirms ‘in the beginning God,” and that it doesn’t confirm a slow process of billions of years. Now, just put aside the scientific argument for a second, and realize how he has just contradicted his very definition of “observational science.” For if “observational science” can’t speak of the past, then it can’t “confirm” ‘in the beginning God,’ and it can’t ‘not confirm’ billions of years.
Similarly, when he applies “observational science” to genetics, he claims that is “confirms created kinds.” Well, how is that possible? For YECists claim that “kinds” describes certain animals who lived in the past. Never mind the fact that the YECist claim regarding “kinds” and the whole “field” of what they call “baraminology” is based on a purposeful twisting of the Hebrew word min (no, it is not describing God’s ancient scientific classification of animals)—the fact is that if observational science only deals with what can be tested and observed, and if it can’t say anything about the past, then it obviously cannot confirm the existence of a hypothetical and unbiblical classification of animals that lived in the past.
The same principle and contradiction can also be applied to Ham’s claim that, when applied to fossils and rock layers, “observational science” “confirms catastrophism consistent with the Flood of Noah’s day” (59). In a word, according to Ham’s own definition of “observational science,” that is one thing that it cannot do. By Ham’s own claims, what “confirms” things like a young universe, kinds, and Noah’s flood is “historical science.” That’s the very reason why YECists claim that there are “two kinds of science.”
Therefore, as a matter of basic logic and consistency, Ham can’t have it both ways: he can’t claim that “observational science” can’t say anything about the past, then turn around and claim that “observational science” confirms his YECist claims about the past.
Conclusion
I’ll keep my conclusion to this post simple: (A) No, the foundation to the Church isn’t a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11. That may be the foundation for Ken Ham’s faith, but it’s not the foundation of either the Gospel or the Church. And (B) Come on, look at those ten talking points I mentioned in chapter 3, then read your New Testament—are any of those reflective of the early Church’s declaration regarding the Gospel? No…of course not.
Due to the distances involved, when we observe very distant stars and galaxies we observe them as they were long in the past not as they might be in 2018.
True, but we are still observing and measuring phenomena that shows the universe to be very old. YECs can’t adequately explain away the problem with starlight.
Indeed not. (They accept the distances involved.)
My point was that this ‘observational’ science is seeing into the past – and it also shows how long the light must have taken to arrive into our telescopes.
Exactly. Everything we observe is in the past simply because of the speed of light.
As to your request for response to Ham’s quote, I guess I would ask: who is saying such things? Sounds like a big old strawman to me.
My response is this: it’s a false dichotomy. I find it interesting that atheists and people like Ken Ham agree on the assertion of either or; they just fall on different sides of that dichotomy. They BOTH say that it all must be historically accurate or none of it is true. Ironic, isn’t it?
Yea indeed….ken ham and Richard Dawkins are each other’s doppelganger.
You’ve done exactly what ken ham is saying, this article undermines the authority of scripture. And it is clear you have completely missed the point he is making entirely. He is saying, that one cannot understand the need for Jesus, much less believe in him, unless there is a foundation of genesis. Genesis explains why we need Jesus because it explains mankind’s sin problem and Gods righteous judgment on sin. It also explains why God is truly love because it is a story of redemption. Jesus is sent by God to redeem mankind. We only know why because of genesis 1:1-11. One cannot leave this part out. And the point is, it’s been left out for quite some time and we can see the result. Churches everywhere. More Christian literature than ever and yet the culture is bankrupt, and the church is too. It’s because mankind has begun to do what satan did in the garden..”did God really say?” Satan minimized literally some of the first words spoken to mankind. And that’s what you are doing. And that’s what many are doing. Gods word is no longer the authority. And therefore the foundation has been lost. It’s like Jesus said “if you don’t believe me about earthly things then why would you believe me about heavenly things.” I’m paraphrasing but you get the point.
Ah, the typical YEC talking points.
– We do not need a literal Adam to have a theology that everyone needs salvation; Paul developed a theology of universal sinfulness without references to Adam in Romans 1-2. And I think any humble and self-reflective adult will admit that they are guilty people in need of redemption.
– And yet the culture is bankrupt? When was it not? The 19th century was rampant with imperialism, child labour and abuse of the poor, the 18th century similarly but to a lesser extent, the 17th and 16th centuries saw Europe tearing itself apart over war, folk magic was common throughout the Middle Ages, I could go on. The 1950s that Ham and co. love to point to was a highly racist society with a materialistic culture. If you ever think that there was a time when society wasn’t sinful, you’re deluding yourself.
– The serpent’s words. Here’s a good article about that: https://howoldistheearth.wordpress.com/2021/05/10/quote-mining-the-voice-of-the-serpent/. Short version, the serpent didn’t actually quote God but a superficially similar inversion of His words and in several places, the Bible tells us to ask if God actually said something.
– I remember reading Ken Ham using 3:12 as a kid and thinking it was convincing. Then I read John 3 for myself. What’s actually happening is that Nicodemus doesn’t understand what being born again is supposed to be, at which point Jesus said “if you don’t get these human metaphors, how the heck am I supposed to talk to you?” He was *not* saying “If you don’t believe historical and scientific claims you won’t believe theological ones.”