A Brief Series on Ken Ham’s Book, “How Could a Loving God?” (Part 2: Secular Humanism, and a Wrong Reading of Genesis 1-3–Whose Fault is It?)

In his book, How Could a Loving God? Ken Ham attempts to give what he feels are biblical answers to the problem of suffering and death in the world. In my last post, I provided a brief overview of the book and a critique of chapter 1. In this post, I will take a look at chapters 2-3, in which Ham addresses the secular-humanist worldview (chapter 2) and presents what he feels is the biblical worldview (chapter 3).

Chapter 2: Only Time and Death?
When it comes to addressing the issue of pain and suffering in the world, Ham says there are ultimately two worldviews: the secular-humanist worldview and the biblical worldview. Technically that’s not true. What Ham clearly means is that those are the two worldviews he’s going to address. Another problem is that although Ham correctly points out that the problem of good and evil is a philosophical one, he (not surprisingly) conflates secular humanism (we can call it philosophical materialism) with the scientific theory of evolution. He actually defines secular humanism as “time and death,” and then proceeds to define it further as the belief that (A) the universe was created at the “big bang,” (B) then matter somehow came into being, and (C) then billions of years of evolution.

Let’s be clear: when you define a philosophical position with a description of a scientific theory, you’re going to get a whole lot mixed up. And that is why I had to laugh a little bit when Ham made the following comment: “Through…my experiences in the ministry at Answers in Genesis, I had also learned to think critically, to dissect and defend attacks against God and the Word.” I’m sorry, but “critical thinking” is not something I associate with AiG. Basic scientific theory isn’t philosophy and it isn’t an attack on God’s Word. Philosophical materialism is antithetical to Christianity; the scientific theory isn’t—even if you don’t buy it, it’s not an attack on Christianity. It is just an attempt to describe what is observed in nature.

The bulk of the chapter, though, makes the argument that morality itself points to God’s existence. C.S. Lewis makes this argument, albeit much more thoroughly and eloquently, in Mere Christianity. But the basic point is solid. When new atheists like Richard Dawkins or Dan Barker rail against the “evils” of Christianity or the Bible, where do they get this idea of “good and evil” from? Ham doesn’t really go too much deeper than that—still, I find that point valid. During my debate with Dan Barker, he actually admitted that ultimately, he didn’t believe “morality” really existed—it was just an instinct that is passed down akin to genetics that contributes to the survival of the human species. The end result of that view is nonsensical: while Barker says that Hitler throwing six million Jews in ovens wasn’t really immoral (we just call it that because we don’t like it), he then turns around and writes numerous books that decry how the Bible is evil because of this or that verse taken out of context.

In any case, when Ham claims that the secular humanist worldview has no answer to the questions concerning the problems of evil and suffering, that’s not quite right—it has an answer, it’s just not a good one. As I’ve written about in my book reviews of Dan Barker’s books, claiming that morality is just an evolved instinct just doesn’t work—it is illogical and an unscientific claim. There simply is no scientific evidence that our sense of morality is genetic or biological. Of course, Ham doesn’t make that obvious point. Instead, when he says that the secular humanist worldview “not only is based on a faulty interpretation of scientific fact, but its atheistic conclusions are based on faulty logic…logic that leads to a meaningless, futile existence,” he’s referring to, you guessed it, the theory of evolution itself.

In case you’re confused, let me clarify: (A) The claim that morality is the result of evolution is unscientific—it is an example of new atheists/secular humanists hijacking a valid scientific theory that is limited to things in nature by trying to make it address non-material concepts (i.e. like morality). (B) Ham, though, is claiming that atheism is based on evolutionary theory and that evolutionary theory itself is unscientific. Like I said earlier, the failure to distinguish between philosophy and science will lead to muddled thinking—it doesn’t matter if you’re Richard Dawkins or Ken Ham.

Chapter 3: The Big Picture
In chapter 3, Ham attempts to lay out what he feels is the true biblical worldview by trotting out the “Seven C’s of God’s Eternal Plan” that is often featured in AiG material. What are the “Seven C’s” Creation (Genesis 1), Corruption (Genesis 2), Catastrophe (Genesis 6-8), Confusion (Genesis 11), Christ (Gospels), Cross (Gospels), Consummation (Revelation). Needless to say, as someone one got a PhD in the Old Testament, I find it just a bit problematic that practically the entire Old Testament is thrown out in AiG’s presentation of what they call “God’s Eternal Plan.”

Call me crazy, but God’s covenant with Abraham and His involvement in the history of Old Testament Israel is just a tad important to understanding God’s purposes. But the reason why Ken Ham doesn’t seem to think so should be obvious: he is fixated on Genesis 1-11, thinks that the scientific theory of evolution is the same thing as atheism, and therefore is convinced that the way to combat atheism is insisted that Genesis 1-11 is literal history—that’s all that matters. Don’t believe me? Let’s just look at the points he makes in the chapter.

After laying out the “Seven C’s,” Ham immediately makes the claim that the fundamental problem with many Christians today is that they don’t read Genesis 1-11 as literal history: “Very few Christians see the world correctly. Many of us have been indoctrinated to believe in some sort of mixture of the secular-humanist worldview and the biblical one. Even though they might believe in Christ as their Savior, they might also believe in Darwinian evolution and that there were millions of years of suffering and death in nature before man evolved.”

Then, after making the unbiblical claim that “good” means “perfect” and that God had originally created a “perfect” world, Ham moves on to “The Fall” in Genesis 3: “At that pivotal moment in history a choice was made that altered the course of humanity, sending shock waves forever into the future; spreading lies, pain, isolation, and death to all generations.” Therefore, Ham sees all the natural phenomena like hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit: “because it is a natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience. When Adam sinned, it sent shock waves through the entire universe, including nature.”

Ham then points to Romans 8:22 (For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now) to argue that this is talking about creation suffering because of Adam and Eve’s sin, and concludes with:“How do you explain death and suffering in a world where an all-powerful, loving, and just God exists? You explain it with sin; Adam’s sin and our personal sin.”

Ham ends the chapter with a story about how his brother Rob (before he suffered from frontal lobe dementia) had confronted the president of an Australian theological college over the topic of evolution. His brother claimed the following: (A) If death, suffering, disease, and violence were part of the original creation, then God is an ogre; (B) If death came into this world as a result of Adam’s sin, though, then there is no place for the evolutionary process; and (C) If people question the literal history of Genesis 1-11, then the next thing they’re going to question is the resurrection and the virgin birth.

Problems with All That
To cut to the chase, Ham’s answer to why there is suffering and death in the world is this: God created everything perfect a little over 6,000 years ago, but Adam and Eve screwed it up for the rest of humanity, probably within the first few days. Their disobedience by eating the forbidden fruit is the reason why we have cancer, genocide, tornados, tsunamis, famine, and flooding. I’m not trying to sound flippant, mind you—that is basically what he is saying. Is that a satisfactory answer? No. Here’s why.

First, I’ve written for years about the reason why Ham’s interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is wrong. It basically comes down to this: (A) Correct biblical interpretation and genre recognition shows that Genesis 1-11, particularly Genesis 1-3, shouldn’t be taken as literal history, but rather as a story that lays out the human condition: we are created in God’s image, but we are sinful. The Bible isn’t trying to tell us the origin of sin within history, but rather the fact that we are sinful. Or to put it another way, Genesis 1-3 isn’t saying we’re sinful because of Adam and Eve, but rather that we are Adam and Eve. (B) Science has proven the earth is much older than 6,000 years old and that evolution and adaptation has happened (to whatever extent) over millions, not thousands of years.

Secondly, the crux of the issue is this: given the reality of suffering and death, are we to believe that (A) God originally created everything perfect, and that two historical people “fell” from that state of perfection, thus screwing it up for everyone else, or (B) suffering and death have always been a part of God’s original creation, and that human beings have always been less than perfect.

Ham and AiG teach that the true biblical worldview is (A)—that view, they say, essentially absolves God of any responsibility for suffering and death: it’s Adam’s fault, not God’s. And even though Adam passed his sin nature on to us, thus making it inevitable that we sin too, it’s our fault as well. By contrast, Ham says, if we say (B) is correct, then that makes God responsible for suffering and death, not Adam, not us; and that makes God an ogre.

I have two observations about those claims. First, Ham’s claim that if there is a God and if evolution is true, then that makes God an ogre, is oddly similar, if not identical to many arguments of the new atheist movement. Their logic goes like this: “Evolution involves suffering and death; if God exists, that would mean he is horrible for allowing suffering and death—therefore, there is no God.” The only difference between that view and that of Ham’s is the “therefore.”

Secondly, even as a Christian, I find Ham’s attempt to absolve God of responsibility to be unconvincing. If God created everything originally “perfect,” and if He created two real people named Adam and Eve as originally “perfect” human beings, but knew that they would sin and bring about so much suffering and death, and He did it anyway—then let’s be honest, isn’t He ultimately responsible for suffering and death? If I give you a gun, knowing full well that you will shoot and kill someone, and you, in fact do just that, don’t I share in your guilt? Come on, let’s be real.

In case you are thinking that I’m “blaming” God for suffering and death, I’d like to suggest that you take a step back and just ponder what I’ve said for awhile. Yes, it is a very scary and troubling thing to consider. No matter how you slice it, God is ultimately responsible for suffering and death, isn’t He? That’s a tough thing to swallow. After all, that’s why Job’s friends rushed to accuse Job of deserving the misfortune that had come upon him—they felt they had to defend God. Similarly, that’s why well-meaning people like Ham (and let’s face it, so many other Christians) rush to say, “Oh, it’s not God’s fault—it’s Adam’s fault; it’s Eve’s fault; it’s the serpent’s fault!”

Let me just suggest at this point that in his (and our) rush to absolve God of responsibility for suffering and death, Ham (and we) have put ourselves in the position of Job’s friends. And what was God’s opinion of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar? Speaking to Eliphaz, God says, “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42:7).

Mull on that for a bit, and come back tomorrow for my next post.