An Extended Analysis of Ken Ham’s Book “Six Days” (Part 1: Blame the Satanic Christian Academics)

It was four years ago that I first really began to pay attention to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. It began with writing a number of posts on the Nye/Ham Debate, and it kicked into high gear when I was informed by an over-zealous YECist headmaster that I was no longer a “good fit” for the Christian school at which I taught for eight years, primarily because I he felt I was undermining the authority of Scripture by not agreeing with Ken Ham and YECism.

At the time, I was simply flabbergasted—who in their right mind would ever think that not believing that the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago constituted “undermining Scripture”? I grew up in Evangelicalism, in Wheaton, Illinois nonetheless, and never in my life did I ever meet anyone who made the “young earth” position a fundamental tenet of their faith. Did I know people who didn’t believe evolution occurred? Sure. Did I know people who thought that Adam and Eve had pet vegetarian velociraptors as pets? Absolutely not.

Then I started researching Ken Ham and YECism.

To the point, every time I read or see something new from Ken Ham, I find I have a mixture of amusement and frustration. It is both comical and terrifying. It is comical in that it is so absurd, and it is terrifying to know that so many people have for some reason bought into YECism. I’ve often wondered what is the best way to address and confront numerous problems with YECism—getting it shouting matches rarely bears fruit. Too often, people of both sides of any issue simply shout past each other.

And so, I as I was in the midst of researching my book, The Heresy of Ham, I determined that the best thing to do was to simply go through the things that Ham and AiG say and claim, and point out, bit by bit, where their claims and statements break down. Basically, the best thing is to simply shed light on the issues, for sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Six Days…Another Book that is the Same Book
And so, a month ago I decided to read yet another book by Ken Ham, Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church. The title pretty much gives the plot away. Yet over the course of the month, I realized something as I read the book—granted, I really knew this already, but this time the realization struck me more profoundly.

What I realized was this: it’s the same book. Pick up any book by Ken Ham—The Lie, Already Gone, Already Compromised, Inside the Nye/Ham Debate, Six Days—it’s all the same book…just a different title and different picture on the cover. It’s the same re-hashed talking points upon which AiG is entirely based on. It’s the same smoke and mirrors that I discussed in my post series on Inside the Nye/Ham Debate. The only real difference is that Ham puts different people in his crosshairs in each book. Yes, there are some (like BioLogos and Hugh Ross) at whom Ham takes aim in every book, but you can be sure that with every different book, there will be yet some new Christian that Ken Ham feels impelled to condemn as a compromiser.

Now, like I said, Six Days is really much of the same. In that respect, there really isn’t much new in the book. Nevertheless,  whenever I read his books, I always feel there are things that need to be addressed.

And so, without further ado, let’s walk through Ken Ham’s Six Days…

Chapter 1: Shepherds Leading the Sheep Astray
As the title of the book makes clear, Ken Ham feels that what lies at the core of the decline of the church in America is the failure of church leaders to teach YECism—“compromising” on the issue of the age of the earth is the reason why secularism is taking over our culture and why we now have gay marriage, transgenderism, abortion, etc. According to Ham, failure to teach Genesis 1-11 as literal history is the ultimate cause of homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion. Regardless of one’s view on those issues, whether one is affirming or against those things, I would hope that most can see the logical absurdity of such a claim.

In any case, Ham claims that, sadly, those leading this “attack” on the literal history of Genesis 1-11 are those who are a part of the Church—specifically, Christian academics. Like Satan in Genesis 3, these Christian academics are casting doubt on the truthfulness of God’s Word and saying, “Did God really say?” And the result of such compromise, God, the Bible, prayer and “biblical” creation (which is really YECism and is not biblical) have been thrown out of our public schools and replaced with evolution, and now children are being “indoctrinated into an anti-God religion in the public schools.”

I’m sorry, but there is so many things that are wrong in the very way Ham presents his claim, it’s hard to know where to begin.

• No, Christian academics trying to clearly articulate the genre of Genesis 1-11 so that we can understand it better in its original context is not and “attack” on Genesis 1-11, nor is it trying to cast doubt on the truthfulness of God’s World.
• The continual equation of fellow Christians with Satan is particularly disturbing.
• Linking various controversial social issues with how one interprets the genre of Genesis 1-11 is also illogical.
• It is wrong to call evolution an “anti-God religion.” It is a scientific theory, not a philosophy or religion. Again, whether one is convinced of it or not is irrelevant—it’s not a religion.

Those Satanic Christian Academics
So who does Ham feel is responsible for this compromise in the Church? Christian professors who don’t think like him, that’s who! For example, John Schneider, retired professor at Calvin College was quoted in Christianity Today saying that Eden couldn’t be a literal description of how things were. In addition, Daniel Harlow, religion professor at Calvin College, said in the same article that our understanding of the Fall may need to be “reformulated” and that Christians must be willing to “decouple original sin from the notion that all humans descended from a single pair.”

Ham took particular exception to Harlow’s statement. Ham wrote, “Once believers ‘reformulate’ their understanding of the Fall, there is no gospel message. Why are humans sinners? Where did we come from? What exactly is the gospel message?”

Allow me to respond. First, here is how I take Harlow’s comment to mean (granted, I haven’t talked to the man, so perhaps he means something else): I don’t think he’s denying that Genesis 3 is clearly teaching that human beings are sinful. It obviously does. Rather, I think he is simply saying that we can still hold to the fact that all people are sinful (i.e. what most lay people understand “original sin” to mean), and not have that dependent on whether or not Genesis 3 is depicting literal, historical events of the first two human beings, merely 6,000 years ago.

Let’s be clear: that is true. Even if Genesis 1-11 never appeared in our Bibles, I highly doubt anyone would be able to look at our world today—indeed at the entire history of humanity—and not conclude that we are one messed up, violent, sinful lot. In other words, the fact that humanity is sinful is obvious to all—it is not dependent on whether or not Genesis 3 is literal history. As I have said numerous times, the story of Adam and Eve isn’t attempting to teach us where sin came from or why we are sinful (i.e. it’s Adam and Eve’s fault), but rather that we are sinful—we are Adam and Eve in the story. The very name “Adam” means mankind—the Genesis 3 story is the story of humanity. And that is why we need salvation. That’s the point.

But obviously Ham doesn’t get that. He takes Harlow’s comments as somehow a denial that human beings are sinful. In fact, Ham’s reaction should make one thing very clear regarding what he thinks the purpose of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3 is: he thinks the purpose of Genesis 3 is to tell us factual information regarding where sin came from.

Therefore, if you are like me, or the next Christian academics Ham condemns (Peter Enns and Tremper Longman) and think that Genesis 3 is not attempting to give historical, factual information, but is rather a highly literary narrative that teaches that humanity is sinful, Ham thinks you are thus undermining the foundation of the gospel. But that is simply not true—the gospel is undermined if you deny human beings are sinful, not if you think Genesis 3 really is about all humanity.

And this really lies at the heart of so much that is wrong with Ken Ham—he truly thinks that if the origin of sin isn’t found in two historical people who lived 6,000 years ago, then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy and the very gospel of Jesus Christ is undermined. As ironic as it may sound, that thinking characterizes the second sin in Genesis 3—after sinning, Adam blames Eve as being the origin of sin, and then Eve blames the serpent, both basically saying, “Hey, it’s not my fault, that person is the reason sin is in the world. And thus, in his attempt to “defend biblical authority” (which really is just an attempt to defend a very modern-Fundamentalist, 20^th century, Enlightenment-influenced, literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11) Ham ends up committing the second sin of Genesis 3—shifting the blame for sin.

Losing the Foundation/The Culture War
Ham ends his first chapter by touching upon what is the real motivation for YECism: fighting the culture war. And again, I have to re-emphasize, I do think our culture is becoming increasingly godless on a number of fronts, and I do think there are a lot of things wrong with our culture. It’s just that I, unlike Ken Ham, do not think the reason for society’s problems is because people don’t believe the universe is only 6,000 years old.

But let’s be clear, that is precisely what Ham believes. It is, if you will, his core conviction. Therefore, he ends his first chapter by saying things like, “There are only two religions in the world—God’s Word or man’s word,” and “It’s a battle of worldviews—between God’s Word and man’s word.” And, in a way, if understood correctly, those statements can be seen as true. The problem is that Ham is equating “God’s Word” solely with a particular interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that was (as late as the early 20^th century) really only held by 7^th Day Adventists and only introduced to the larger Evangelical world by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb with the publication of their book, The Genesis Flood in 1961.

And that simply is a shame.

One of the things that the New Testament writers often did was quote and reference countless passages in the Old Testament and show how they ultimately pointed to the fulfillment of God’s covenant in Christ. What one sees with Ken Ham and AiG, though, is backward to this very thing. Ham makes it a point to quote and reference countless passages in both the Old and New Testaments and show, not how they apply to and find fulfillment in Christ, but rather how they supposedly “prove” Genesis 1-11 is literal history.

Anyone who has taken the time to read Ken Ham’s books knows this to be true. What that tells me, therefore, is that if Ken Ham was honest, he’d admit that his “Bible” really is The Genesis Flood and its literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-11. For him, the answer to the world’s troubles isn’t Jesus—it’s believing in a young earth.