Ken Ham, the Bad Magician

Researching and writing a book about the young earth creationist movement of Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is both highly entertaining and incredibly frustrating at the same time. It’s entertaining in the sense that once you have figured out their talking points, you can point them out every single time—it’s like calling a really bad magician out on every one of his tricks. There’s something satisfying on catching someone in a con. At the same time, though, it’s frustrating because you realize that there are a whole lot of Christians who are, quite frankly, being led astray by what amounts to unbiblical and anti-Christian teaching. Not only that, but there is a growing number of non-believers who are being turned off even more to Christianity because they think Ken Ham’s message represents Christianity. Simply put, “the name of the LORD is being blasphemed among the nations” because of men like Ken Ham.

Ham Attacks Christian Colleges…and a Pastor…Again

In any case, I wanted to share yet another example of Ken Ham in action. A couple of years ago, in a December 28, 2013 blog post entitled, “The Battle Between God’s Word and Man’s Word Continues” Ham (once again) put Christian colleges in his crosshairs. He did, after all, have a book entitled Already Compromised coming out that was a diatribe against Christian colleges that “compromise” God’s Word (translation: they don’t teach Ham’s young earth creationism). In short, he needed to drum up business and sales—what better way to do that than by disparaging and condemning fellow Christians?

Not surprisingly, Ham starts by calling out BioLogos—the foundation started by Francis Collins that seeks to encourage dialogue among Christians regarding how to reconcile science and Christianity. Ham calls them “a theologically compromising group” who tries to “mix evolution with scripture.” In any case, BioLogos had posted an article a Seattle pastor named Richard Dahlstrom talked about a student at a local Christian college had come to accept theistic evolution. This sort of thing obviously horrifies Ham. For him, “…it’s just another confirmation of what I’ve been saying about so-called ‘Christian’ colleges and universities.”

Please note that quote. By saying “so-called ‘Christian’ colleges,” Ham in a very passive-aggressive way, is saying certain Christian colleges aren’t really Christian for one reason only: they don’t teach the universe is 6,000 years old. Where in the Bible, where in Church history, has that ever been a criteria for being a Christian? That’s right—nowhere.

Pastor Dahlstrom told the story of a young woman who grew up in a very “young creationist-influenced” Christian setting, went to a Christian college, learned that science and the Bible were not at war with each other, and that things like the Big Bang, evolution, and an old earth were not in conflict with the Bible. This, not surprisingly, threw the young woman for a loop. She went home, talked with her parents, and ended up asking, “What else did the church lie to me about?”

Now, despite the fact that Dahlstrom mentions how this young woman’s parents were thankful that she engaged them in conversation, because she ended up not abandoning her faith, this fact Ham conveniently leaves out of his blog post. Instead, Ham jumps on the fact that this young woman was initially thrown for a loop, and he uses that to “rile up his base” by saying, “Look what these compromising ‘so-called Christian’ colleges are doing! People are rejecting the faith!” Never mind the fact that this young woman didn’t reject her faith, Ham has books to sell.

Ham laments that obviously neither her church nor her parents ever taught her proper “apologetics” that would have protected her from the compromising teaching of “so-called Christian colleges.” He writes:

“Of course, we don’t know for sure whether her parents or the church taught strong apologetics and showed how science actually confirms the Bible. But with this young woman’s reaction to taking a science course on evolution, it’s likely that she was never taught solid Bible-upholding apologetics so she could know how to defend the Christian faith against such compromise.”

Two things have to be said here:

(1) After having researched Ken Ham for the past year, I can sum up what he means by “apologetics” fairly easily. Here it is:

Genesis 1-11 is God’s scientific and historical eye-witness account of the creation of the material universe. It’s true because it’s factual—the kinds of “historical science facts” that can’t be observed or proven. (“Historical science” is the category of science I made up in order to argue that Genesis 1-11 is science). Never mind the fact that such a claim violates proper biblical exegesis; never mind the fact that such a claim has never been universally held in Church history; never mind that the most basic, indisputable facts regarding astronomy, biology, and geology show the universe is not 6,000 years old—The Bible is true because Genesis 1-11 is science; and Genesis 1-11 is science because I said it is….and that’s why you can believe in Jesus.

(2) Given that, we can better understand how Ken Ham can say, “Science actually confirms the Bible.” (By the way, let’s cut to the chase and be more precise. What Ham is really claiming is that “Science confirms Genesis 1-11”). So how can he claim this when, in fact, astronomy, biology, and geology do not confirm Ham’s claim about Genesis 1-11? It’s Ham’s shell game in action: the “science” he is talking about isn’t astronomy, biology, or geology; it is his fictitious “historical science” category that he made up. Remember, Ham defines “historical science” as “beliefs about origins that cannot be tested, observed or proven, and that are based on one’s presuppositional worldview.” THEREFORE, Ham takes that definition and says, “And I’m saying Genesis 1-11 is ‘historical science!” Voila… “science” confirms Genesis 1-11.

We’ve just caught a really bad magician doing a really bad trick.

Science and Faith

After (once again) promoting his books Already Gone and Already Compromised, Ham then takes issue with Dahlstrom’s claim that some Christians unwittingly create this false divide between “science” and “faith” that is actually detrimental to young people. Making such “young earth claims” (that have never been held in Church history), some churches are setting young people up to abandon their faith, because when they go to college and take a basic biology class, they’re going to end up concluding, “I can’t be a Christian because this makes sense, and I’ve been told by my pastor and teacher that I can’t be a Christian had believe there’s something to evolution!”

Ham’s reaction is utterly predictable:

“So really, he’s accusing biblical creationists of lacking intellectual honesty and of encouraging others to abandon their own because we believe in and teach what God’s Word plainly says in Genesis. Now, Dahlstrom implies later that biblical creationists are making a belief in a young earth a salvation issue—but we have never said that it’s a salvation issue—but it is an authority issue!”

I’m sorry, but Dahlstrom is right: young earth creationists like Ham do lack intellectual honesty; they do condem those with intellectual honesty who dares question them. Incidentally, I wouldn’t call Ham a biblical creationist, because the Bible doesn’t make a scientific claim regarding the age of the earth.

In addition, in this quote, and in the very next paragraph, we see the other shell game Ham loves to play. On one hand he says “We never say belief in a young earth is a salvation issue!” But then he turns around and says, “Our mission at Answers in Genesis is to show why it’s necessary to take God at His Word in Genesis; otherwise, the truth of the gospel message is undermined because the authority of God is undermined when people compromise man’s word with God’s Word.”

So…young earth isn’t a salvation issue; it’s a biblical authority issue, and if you don’t believe in a young earth, you undermine the gospel…the gospel that tells of salvation.”

The two-bit bad magician is caught once again.

Ham’s Conclusion
Ham ends with the predictably doubling-down on his predictable talking points:

1. Dahlstrom’s accusations are “blatantly false”—(they’re not…they’re utterly true)
2. There is “no conflict between science and the Bible” and “the scientific evidence confirms that the earth is young”—(meaning Ham’s fictitious “historical science” that he then uses to mislabel Genesis 1-11. There is not any scientific evidence that confirms the earth is young. You only get that if you impose a modern scientific interpretation on Genesis 1-11 and convince enough people that Moses’ intention in writing Genesis 1-11 was to confront Darwinism and the Big Bang).
3. The conflict is between “evolutionary ideas and the Bible”—(regardless of whether or not you’re convinced about evolution, evolution is a scientific theory.)

Ham’s Answers in Genesis is a doorway into Bizzaro world, where the actual sciences like astronomy, biology and geology are dismissed as “blind faith” and rejected as science, and Genesis 1-11, which is not science in any way, shape or form, is held up as “science.”

Or more simply, in Ken Ham’s universe:

• Science is not science; Science is blind faith
• Claims with no evidence about a young earth are a new kind of untestable, unprovable science
• Therefore Genesis 1-11 is modern science that was written to an ancient, unscientific people
• If you don’t believe that, then you’re a compromised Christian—not that you’re not saved, but you are undermining the gospel, speaking with the voice of the serpent, and leading others astray…but it’s not a salvation issue.

Ken Ham is a really bad magician. It’s time his shell game is exposed.