An Extended Analysis of Ken Ham’s Book “Six Days” (Part 4: Genesis, Millions of Years, and Ham’s Affinity for Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher)

In my last post look at his book Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church, I looked at Ken Ham’s attempt to explain proper biblical exegesis and noted that although Ken Ham correctly explains some of the key principles when it comes to proper exegesis, when the rubber hits the road, he jettisons those exegetical principles in order to maintain his claim that (A) Genesis 1-11 is literal history, (B) is the foundation of the gospel, and (C) to believe in millions of years is a greater attack on the gospel than denying the resurrection of Christ himself.

Simply put, although he properly describes exegesis, Ken Ham, in fact, reads his own presuppositions into the Genesis 1-11. This is called eisegesis.

That is what makes the beginning of chapter 6 in his book so ironic, in that he accuses Christians who don’t agree with him of practicing eisegesis, for they, according to Ham, are trying to fit millions of years into the Bible. To be fair to Ken Ham, in some cases (i.e. the Day-Age Theory or the Gap Theory) he is right. It is eisegesis to try to argue that in Genesis 1 each “day” is meant to represent millions of years, or that there were millions of years between each day. To argue that really is to inject an idea into the Bible that simply isn’t in the Bible.

The problem with that view, as with Ken Ham’s YECism, is that it is assuming that Genesis 1 is trying to do straight history. Proper exegesis tells us that Genesis 1 isn’t doing history, therefore trying to inject millions of years into Genesis 1 or trying to insist on a literal 6,000 years—both are example of eisegesis, because both are failing in properly recognizing the genre of Genesis 1, and that failure impels them to fit in a whole range of claims that simply are not found in the Bible, be it millions of years, or the perfect genomes and super-intelligence of Adam and Eve.

I’m sorry, none of that is in the Bible, period.

Ken Ham Admits He Agrees with Richard Dawkins
In any case, after is comments on eisegesis, Ken Ham then turns to atheists like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins to back up his claims that Genesis 1-11 is literal history and evolution incompatible with Christianity and the Bible. He first quotes Bill Maher as saying, “If it’s [the Bible] not 100 percent true, I would say the whole thing [the writings of Genesis] falls apart.” And then he quotes Richard Dawkins saying the following:

“I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution. I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.”

Ham responds with, “I never thought I would say this, but for once, Richard Dawkins and I agree on something.”

There are a number of things that can be said about this, but let me just mention a couple. First, neither Bill Maher nor Richard Dawkins are biblical scholars by any stretch of the imagination. They simply have no clue how to read the Bible. Therefore, it is actually quite shocking that Ham would quote them to try to back up his claims about Genesis 1-11 and evolution.

Secondly, it is equally fascinating that both Dawkins (as seen in his quote) and Ham (as seen throughout his writings) both reject theologians and biblical scholars (i.e. people who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible) as being “too sophisticated” or “academic.” Simply put, when it comes to proper biblical study and interpretation, both Ham and Dawkins are profoundly anti-intellectual. It would be like rejecting Einstein, and instead clinging to the ravings of a man wearing a tinfoil hat who says, “The theory of relativity isn’t true! How does smarty-pants Einstein know who my relatives are???”

Don’t bother trying to explain to the man in the tinfoil hat that “relativity” doesn’t mean what he thinks it means—he’s not going to listen. And when you meet people who quote the man in the tinfoil hat and dismiss Einstein out of hand, just realize that you’re probably not dealing with an informed person.

The Question of Death and Millions of Years
In any case, the bulk of chapter 6 of Six Days is devoted to debunking the other theories concerning Genesis 1. Now, addressing other claims, putting forth your view, and attempting to show how the other claims are wrong is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Heck, that’s what I’m doing in this series of posts! The key, of course, is whether one’s arguments hold up to scrutiny. Let’s see how Ham does…

One of the main points Ham often brings up in his argument that Christianity and the Bible conflicts with the idea of “millions of years” regards the fact that evolution requires millions of years of death. Thus, Ham asks, “How can there be death, diseases (like brain tumors/cancer), and suffering millions of years before Adam sinned?” As far as Ham sees it, belief in millions of years requires one to believe that there was death and disease before the Fall of Adam and Eve—and that would clearly contradict Scripture, in which God called His creation “very good.”

I have seen other people try to explain away Ham’s claim, but quite frankly I think they all suffer from the same flaw—one that, ironically, is imbedded into the very way Ham phrases his question. It is based on a fundamental exegetical mistake: it is based on the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is giving historical information. Simply put, if (in this case) Genesis 1-3 is not, in fact, conveying historical information, then Ham’s question becomes invalid. To ask, “How could there be death and disease before the Fall?” is to start with the assumption that there really were two historical figures named Adam and Eve who were “perfect,” that they really were tempted by a talking serpent, and that by eating a literal piece of fruit, they “fell” from that state of perfection and ushered in, not just their own eventual deaths, but the existence of hurricanes, tornados, cancer…and meat-eating dinosaurs.

Therefore, when I read attempted explanations about how there could have been animal and plant death before the Fall, or that God could have taken two early hominids, endowed them with His image, and put them in a special garden while there still was death in the rest of the world—I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced. I do think, like Ham says, those are fundamentally attempts at eisegesis, and trying to read into the biblical text things that the text doesn’t really say.

The thing is, though, one doesn’t have to go to those lengths to try to answer Ham’s question about death before the Fall. One can just question the validity of his question on strict exegetical grounds.

Genre, Genre, Genre…
When it comes down to Genesis 1-11, the first question should be, “What is its genre?” And the fact is that there are A LOT of parts in Genesis 1-11 that–genre-wise–look a whole lot like other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) writings like Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, and Gilgamesh. And everyone to my knowledge understands and characterizes those writings as the genre of ANE myth. And so, whatever genre THEY are, we have to acknowledge that Genesis 1-11 look a whole lot like them.

Now, right there, I realize the word “myth” conjures up idea of “being false, a fairytale, etc.” But we’re talking genre as a category of writing–just like there are other categories of writing: parables, poetry, epics, histories, and apocalypses. Once you realize that, you will realize that in the ANE, they used the genre of myth to express their beliefs about the gods, human beings, the created order, and their general worldview. They simply weren’t trying to do history. Myths, by their very genre, are not meant to be understood historically.

So the natural exegetical question is, “If God, through Moses, wants to reveal who He is to the Israelites, and if He wants to teach them about who human beings are and what the created order ultimately is about, how is He going to do it? How is He going to communicate to them in a way they can understand?”

I think it is logical to see that He would use the genre they understood when talking about those kinds of things. There simply is nothing in the ANE that would indicate that the ancient Israelites (or anyone at that time) were concerned about or asking questions regarding the scientific/historical origins of the material world. So it doesn’t make sense that God would inspire Moses to tell them about something they weren’t even asking about or concerned with.

All that being said, we need to see that the purpose of Genesis 2-3 isn’t to tell us where sin came from, or at what point in history did sin, death, and hurricanes enter the picture. The purpose of Genesis 2-3 is to teach, through the accepted ANE style of writing that dealt with the worldview questions of people, that although we as human beings are created in God’s image and thus have dignity and worth, we nevertheless sin and ultimately suffer death. And it does no good to ask, “But what was it like before the Fall?” because Genesis 2-3 isn’t saying there was a “historical time” before a literal Fall of two literal people. Genesis 2-3 is saying, “You know Adam and Eve? That’s you!”

Therefore, to ask questions like, “How could there be death before the Fall?” or to try to answer such a question while accepting that question’s assumptions is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and genre of Genesis 2-3 (let alone Genesis 1-11).

My answer to that question is simple: You’re misunderstanding Genesis 2-3. There never was a time in this creation when death wasn’t a part of it. Genesis 1-3 isn’t claiming there was a time once when this creation was “perfect” and deathless. It is saying that although God said creation is “very good” and man is made in His image, there still is “darkness and the deep” and there still is death in this creation, and human beings still sin because they are not perfect.

If you will, it is not claiming, as Ken Ham says, that “Adam was created perfect, unlike us who are suffering the effects of sin.” Rather, it is claiming that this original creation—including human being in our current state—is “step one,” with “step two” being transformation and salvation through Christ.

Ham’s Rundown of Other Theories
For the rest of chapter 6, Ken Ham simply gives a rundown of the other theories regarding Genesis 1-11, and why they are, in his view, compromised positions that really are just trying to smuggle “millions of years” into Genesis. He spends 10 pages on the Gap Theory (the idea that there were gaps of millions of years between each literal day of Genesis 1), 3 ½ pages on Historic Creation (the idea God created the raw materials of the universe over millions of years, but then took six literal days to make the land on earth inhabitable for human beings), and 2 pages on the Day-Age View (the idea that each day was really millions of years).

To the point, Ham is actually right in his basic criticism of them: they really are trying to “fit millions of years” into the first page of Scripture. Ham calls such attempts “compromise” and says they undermine the gospel. I just think they’re wrong—just like Ham’s view. The difference, of course, is I’ve never heard any proponents of those overviews accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them of undermining biblical authority and attacking the gospel.

The Framework Hypothesis
The final view Ham attacks is called the Framework Hypothesis—it claims (quite correctly) that the first six days of creation aren’t meant to be read as a literal historical chronology, but rather bear a clear literary parallel structure. The easiest way to explain it is that with Days 1-3, God essentially created the various spheres of existence, whereas with Days 4-6, God fills each sphere up. So what you get is the following:

Day One: Light and Darkness         Day Four: Sun, moon, and stars
Day Two: Heavens and Seas           Day Five: Flying creatures and sea creatures
Day Three: The Land                       Day Six: Land animals and human beings 

Hence, the Framework Hypothesis isn’t trying to “fit millions of years” in at all—it doesn’t even address it. Rather, it focuses on trying to understand the literary structure of Genesis 1. Ham, though, still rejects it because (despite it making sense!) that would imply that Genesis 1 wasn’t a historical narrative—and that is something he has already pre-determined, and he not about to let any exegetical principle to get in the way of that!

In any case, his attempt to discredit the framework hypothesis is truly baffling. He notes that the Framework Hypothesis claims the days of the creation week are not to be taken in a literal, chronological fashion, but then criticizes it by saying, “…besides denying the historical trustworthiness of God’s Word, this claim fails because if we rearrange the chronology, then it totally breaks down.”

If you’re thinking, “Huh?” let me explain.

1. Ham claims that water was created on day one, and yet the sea creatures were created on day five.
2. Ham claims that the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the heavens in day four, but heavens were created on day two.
3. Ham then claims that the framework hypothesis claims that days one and four are the same event from a different perspective, and that therefore that would mean that the sun moon and stars were created prior to the creation of the heavens on day two.

Now, as a way to conclude this post, let me set things straight:

1. Genesis 1 doesn’t claim water was created on day one. Genesis 1:1-2 describes chaos (described as “darkness” and “the deep”) before the six days begin. “The deep” was a reference to the accepted ANE description of the primordial Sea of Chaos.
2. The sun, moon, and stars of day four connect to the “light” and darkness” of day one—again, a clear poetic parallel to anyone who knows how to read.
3. And no, the framework hypothesis doesn’t claim days one and four are the same event from a different perspective—that is simply false. For Ham to claim such a thing, he has to either be hopelessly ignorant or purposely lying in order to give the impression that the framework hypothesis is saying that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day one—which of course, it isn’t saying, and wouldn’t say it in the first place because the whole point of the framework hypothesis is to show that the arrangement of the six days of creation fit a poetic (NOT CHRONOLOGICAL) pattern!

So there you have it—in his chapter in which he discusses “Genesis and millions of years,” Ham (A) shows that he fails in the basic exegetical step of proper genre recognition, (B) correctly calls the various other theories out for their clear flaws, and (C) engages in purposeful deception in his presentation of the framework hypothesis.

…and oh, he takes time at the end of the chapter to condemn both Greg Boyd and William Lane Craig for undermining biblical authority—what’s new?