Today, I’d like to share a short response to one of Ken Ham’s blog from a couple of years ago. This response has not made it into the book I am writing, but it still is worthwhile to read. It involves the controversy over evolution and the historicity of Adam and Eve that erupted at Bryan College a few years ago… Enjoy.
In a March 4, 2014 blog post, Ken Ham turned his attention to Bryan College, “What’s Happening at Bryan College?” Bryan College is located in Dayton, Tennessee, the very place where the famous Scopes Monkey Trial took place, and the very college that Rachel Held Evans attended. What had happened was that the board of trustees drafted a statement that declared they believed “Adam and Eve were created in an instance by God and that humans shared no ancestry with other life forms.” They then told the faculty that if they didn’t sign it, that their jobs might be on the line. Not surprisingly, a whole lot of professors and students objected. There had been a news report on what was going on, and Ken Ham took issue with it.
Not surprisingly, Ken Ham didn’t see a problem with the board’s actions at all. After all, according to Ken Ham, “if you don’t believe in a literal Adam and a literal Fall, then the whole foundation of the gospel is gone, as there would be no original sin. Also, if there were no literal Adam, then why are all people sinners?” That statement should alarm every clear-thinking Christian. Nothing in that statement makes sense, and the gist of that statement is actually heretical.
First off, the gospel is not dependent upon whether or not one thinks Adam was a historical person. Nowhere in the Bible or in Church history is that claim ever made. What Ken Ham is saying, therefore, is a different gospel. Given that fact, I think there is a quote from the Apostle Paul that is quite appropriate:
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:6-8)
Secondly, let’s engage in a little thought experiment. Let’s say that for whatever reason, the Bible never mentioned Adam and Eve. Does anyone think for a moment that we would not realize that people were really screwed up and sinful? Is Ken Ham serious when he thinks the only way we can know we are sinful is that if there was a literal Adam and Eve? That is simply amazing.
In any case, the news report mentioned that Ham had criticized Bryan College back in 2010 because Rachel Held Evans, a graduate of Bryan College, declared she came to believe evolution was the way God created the world. Why did Ham criticize Bryan College for Held Evans’ views? Because at Bryan College there was a biology professor, Brian Eisenback, who said that in his biology course he taught all origin views and theories without telling the students what his own beliefs were.
That’s right. Eisenback refused to indoctrinate his students with only one particular view, and instead dedicated himself to truly educate his students on the entire creation/evolution debate—and for that, Ken Ham condemned him! This is the epitome of irony, for Ham’s constant accusation against “secularists” and “theistic evolutionists” is that they indoctrinate people. But here, Ken Ham is doing that very thing. Another quote from Paul comes to mind:
“Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” (Romans 2:1)
Of course, Ham doesn’t see teaching only his view as “indoctrination.” He sees it as teaching the authority of God’s Word. That is why Ham said, “It’s about time that these colleges were held accountable for allowing such undermining of the authority of Scripture to the coming generation.” Amazingly, in response to the news report quoting him saying that, Ham turned around, and accused the “secular media” for distorting what he said. They had made it sound like Ham was trying to get Bryan College to force its teachers to teach young earth creationism. Not so, said Ham, “We do not want to force instructors to teach creation.”
Of course not. Ham simply claimed that what Eisenback was doing was “undermining God’s Word.” All Ham did was saying that colleges who allowed this to happen should be “held accountable.” He wasn’t saying Bryan College should force Eisenback to teach young earth creationism. It seems pretty clear: just insist that Bryan College force its teachers to sign an amendment to the statement of faith that endorses young earth creationist claims, and if a teacher won’t do that, he is certainly free to resign and leave the college…but no one is forcing him to teach young earth creationism. Teach it or leave…it’s entirely his choice!
Like any other cult leader, be it David Koresh, Jim Jones, or Warren Jeffs, Ken Ham sees himself both as the arbiter of God’s truth and God’s grand inquisitor; God’s unquestioned teacher and God’s anointed judge. Perhaps equating Ken Ham to David Koresh or Jim Jones is a bit over the top, I admit. I doubt Ken Ham would ever purposely lead his followers to their deaths. But one thing is sure, he does see himself as God’s appointed grand inquisitor. And on that point, it is not a stretch at all to see him as a modern day Evangelical Pharisee. I’m pretty sure Jesus wasn’t too fond of them.
The opposite of indoctrination is encouraging critical thinking. Eisenback was actually encouraging critical thinking, and Ham pronounced judgment on him and Bryan College for refusing to indoctrinate students with his young earth creationist propaganda. Unfortunately, it seems that Ham’s opinion holds sway over the board at Bryan College, hence the “statement” produced by the board.
Ham ended his post with, “Once you give up a literal Adam and Eve—and thus reject a literal Fall—then you may as well throw the Bible away.” Yes, according to Ham, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then the entire Bible is worthless.
What can you say to that, other than to simply call Ham on his heresy, and then walk away.
