An Extended Book Analysis of Ken Ham’s “Six Days” (Part 5: Pot Shots at Christians…and a Really Big Blender)

In this next post of my book analysis of 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 chapter 7 (“Genesis and Evolutionary Ideas”) and chapter 8 (“Was There a Global Flood?”).

Chapter 7: Pot Shots at Christians who know a lot more than Ham
When it comes to chapter 7 of Six Days, perhaps a better title would be, “Let’s See How Many Christian Pastors and Scholars Can Ken Ham Condemn in the Span of 23 Pages.” For in this one chapter, Ham goes out of his way to condemn Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke, BioLogos, OECist Hugh Ross, Francis Collins (of BioLogos), Deborah Haarsma (of BioLogos), Hugh Ross (again), Old Testament scholar John Walton of Wheaton College, pastor Joel Hunter, pastor Tim Keller, OECist and philosopher J.P. Moreland, philosopher William Lane Craig, biology professor Jeffrey Schloss of Westmont College, Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman of Westmont College, and of course, Peter Enns—what would a Ken Ham book be without a condemnation of Peter Enns?

What they all have in common should be obvious: they don’t agree with Ken Ham’s YECism, and thus are labeled by Ham as “liberals” and “compromisers” in one way or another.

• Bruce Waltke said that if the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then “to deny that reality will make us a cult.” Ken Ham’s response? This is what is wrong with Christian academics! “…it is not unusual for many of these compromising Christian academics to try to convince us that they have a much deeper understanding of how Scripture and science work together.”
  
• BioLogos stated that they believe God created the universe through the process of evolution. Ken Ham’s Response? “What the academics at BioLogos do not recognize…is that evolution was an idea developed specifically to explain the world without God.”
• Hugh Ross often describes nature as the “67^th book of the Bible.” Ken Ham’s response? Hugh Ross is “putting it [nature] on the same plane as the special revelation of the 66 books! The 66 books are not cursed—nature is!”
• Francis Collins started BioLogos in order to encourage discussion of how science and faith interact. Ken Ham’s response? The kind of “science” Collins is talking about is “man’s historical science (e.g., man’s beliefs about millions of years, evolution, and so on).” And then he goes on to say that organizations like BioLogos say they affirm the inspiration of Scripture, “but they choose not to believe God’s Word is inerrant in Genesis 1-11.”

And when Collins claims that Genesis 1-11 is not a science textbook, Ham demonstrates his amazing ability speak out of both sides of his mouth: “Now, I would not say that Genesis is a ‘textbook of science’ either. But it is a book of history (God’s historical science). One could even say it is a textbook of historical science.”

• Deborah Haarsma stated that in Genesis we see God accommodating his message to the original audience, and that “We don’t have to have a perfect scientific understanding of the world to get God’s message for us.” Ken Ham’s response? “If Genesis 1 is not about how God created, and if we cannot figure a rough estimate for the age of the earth from the detailed genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, then what exactly can we trust in the first 11 chapters of the Bible? Unfortunately, BioLogos has chosen a president who denies the authority of Scripture when it comes to Genesis.”
• Hugh Ross argues for an old earth because God cannot lie, and the scientific study of nature shows that the earth is old. Ken Ham’s response? If that’s the case that God can’t lie, then how can he call his creation “very good” if it wasn’t perfect, and in fact was full of animal death?
• John Walton argues that Genesis 1 is depicting as God creating the cosmos as His Temple. Ken Ham’s response? John Walton is placing the ancient Near Eastern context above that of the plain words of Genesis 1! [Note: looking at the historical context of a passage is a key component of proper exegesis]. Ken Ham argues that considering the ANE context is not even needed! Why? “While it may be true that the definitions of words are determined based on context, God is the author of language. Isn’t He able to give man a timeless account that can be understood by all generations and translated effectively? Of course He can, and He did—the Bible.”

I’m sorry, but that truly is an astoundingly bizarre statement. I don’t even know where to begin. He has effectively said that since it is in the Bible, one doesn’t have to consider the context of any passage. Or if I can put it another way, Ham is saying, “I will just assume that my interpretation of Genesis 1 is the “timeless truth” that God intended, and if you don’t agree with me, well, you’re just questioning God!”

• Finally, both Tremper Longman and Peter Enns make the point that reading Genesis 1 as if it is claiming a literal 7-day, 24-hour creation week is to, in fact, read our modern assumptions back into the ancient text, and that we should not therefore think Genesis 1 is disputing Darwin. Ken Ham’s response? They clearly do not have a high view of Scripture! Of course Genesis 1 isn’t directly disputing Darwin, but then it doesn’t directly say that abortion is wrong! “Should we apply Longman’s logic with the creation account in Genesis to the issue of abortion? Absolutely not! Evolutionary ideas cannot be allowed to usurp the clear teaching of God’s Word.”

I guess that just goes to show you—if you can’t coherently reply to someone’s point about Genesis 1, then just scream “Abortion!” and claim that Christian scholar supports the killing of babies.

In any case, that is chapter 7 of Six Days for you. It is nothing more than Ken Ham talking pot shots at Christian scholars, pastors, and scientists, and giving really poor arguments for YECism in the process.

Chapter 8: Here Comes the Flood…
In chapter 8, Ham continues taking pot shots at other Christians: BioLogos (again), Hank Hanegraaff, Hugh Ross (again), and Peter Enns (again). If you’re familiar with Answers in Genesis’ arguments for a global flood that occurred 4,000 years ago, there really is nothing in chapter 8 that is new. For the sake of my “extended book analysis” of Six Days, though, I will do my best to summarize and critique the chapter.

Ham begins his discussion of Genesis 6-8 is the way you’d expect: by framing the question of its interpretation as whether or not one trust’s God’s Word or man’s word—ultimately, according to Ham, the authority of God’s Word is at stake.

Therefore, he takes issue with BioLogos referring to Noah’s flood as a “story,” because that means “fiction,” and that means “not true” in Ham’s mind. He further takes offense when BioLogos says that those who hold to a literal, historical global flood don’t have a “balanced interpretation” of Scripture. “OH REALLY?” Ham asks, “…if taking God at His Word is not ‘balanced,’ then what is?”

Of course, that’s not what BioLogos said. Basically, they said that if you interpret Genesis 6-8 as a literal, historical flood, you’re interpreting it wrong—the problem isn’t with God’s Word; it’s with your interpretation. And of course, Ham’s interpretation isn’t balanced—as he openly said in the previous chapter, he feels he doesn’t have to consider the historical context of anything in Genesis 1-11! But context determines meaning, and if you ignore the context, your interpretation will not make sense, because it will not be dealing with reality.

Another piece of Ham’s argument for a global flood 4,000 years ago goes back to his fictitious categories of “observational” and “historical” science, as well as his well-used tome regarding “same evidence-different starting points.” When criticizing Hugh Ross for arguing for a local flood, Ham states “It is not the evidence that is lacking, but Dr. Ross’s starting point is wrong. He has accepted man’s fallible historical science instead of God’s infallible historical science (the revelation in Scripture).”

Let’s be clear: Ken Ham doesn’t really have an argument for either a global flood 4,000 years ago or a young earth of 6,000 years old. Instead, he plays linguistical games and talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Therefore, when he attacks Peter Enns at the end of his chapter (Enns argues that the story of Noah’s flood probably was inspired by local floods in Mesopotamia around 3000 BC), he not only criticizes Enns for accepting the “secular” starting points regarding “millions of years,” but he also (once again) disparages the basic exegetical principle of considering the historical context of a passage.  He writes:

“There is value in understanding how an ancient culture understood certain things and how they used language. This sort of knowledge can be very helpful in better understanding Scripture. However, such study should not be used to explain away what Scripture clearly says.” And on the next page, says, “Enns has demonstrated in his own words that he places more authority on man’s fallible ideas than on the Word of God.”

Let’s be clear: that statement is double-speak gobbly-gook. Ham is giving lip service to historical context, but then completely dismisses its validity. If I may paraphrase him: “Sure, historical context can help understanding Scripture! But I already know what Genesis 6-8 says and means, therefore I don’t need to consider the historical context! We shouldn’t let the ANE context affect our understanding of the Bible! Anyone who does so (LIKE PETER ENNS!) is undermining God’s Word!”

Oh, I Should Get Blender!
Ham ends his chapter by claiming that the fact that there are layers of sediment and fossil layers points to a global flood 4,000 years ago. He writes, “It is obvious that if there was a global flood, this catastrophic event would have eroded billons of tons of sediments and then would have deposited them all over the world.” And therefore, “IF most of the fossil layers were laid down during the year of the catastrophic flood, then the supposed millions of years of evolutionary history before man is eliminated.”

Well, yes, IF that was the case, that would be true. Of course, that’s not the case.

Now, I’m no geologist, but I like to think that I can think coherently. When I look at the geological column, I see layers and layers of sediment piled on top of each other with clear differences in the layers. I also see that all modern human fossils are located in the top layers, and all dinosaur fossils are located in many, many layers further down the geological column, and below them, much further down, other types of creatures that cannot be found in any of the other layers.

If there was a worldwide flood that occurred 4,000 years ago, and it really was as catastrophic as Ken Ham and AiG claims, I have a hard time thinking the result would be such an orderly laying down of various sediments and an orderly deposit of various fossils within specific sedimentary layers.

If I had the time, I’d make a video of the following demonstration…

Imagine me with a giant blender, and that blender is located in a large bowl. I put in the blender various things: peanut butter, syrup, cereal, ice cubes…maybe even some dirt, grass—just about anything. In addition, I threw in various small plastic figurines: army men, barnyard animals, sea creatures, and dinosaurs. Then I turned the blender on “high,” then in the middle of the blending, I took the top off and let everything in it just explode out of the blender and into the bowl.

What are the chances that all the peanut butter just naturally was layered perfectly at the bottom, followed by the ice cubes, then then cereal, then the syrup, dirt and grass? And what are the chances that all the army figures just happened to be deposited in the dirt, while the barn yard animals found their way to the syrup layer, the sea creatures encased in ice, and the dinosaurs enveloped in the peanut butter?

I think you get my point: if there really was a catastrophic global flood 4,000 years ago, we most certainly would not have the kind of sedimentary and fossil layers that we, in fact, have. The fact is, the geological scale and the fossil layers is (literally!) rock solid proof that there wasn’t a catastrophic global flood 4,000 years ago.

Basically, the best argument against Ham’s claims of a global flood is Ham’s own claims.

The thing is, though, you don’t even have to even “do science” to realize Ham is wrong. You simply have to know how to read and interpret Genesis 1-11—you simply have to know how to do proper exegesis. As should be obvious though, Ken Ham doesn’t care much for actual exegesis…and he apparently thinks a blender with its top off can lay peanut butter, ice cubes, syrup, and cereal down in perfect layers after two minutes on “liquify.”