A few days ago, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis wrote a blog post entitled, “The 6,000 Year War,” in which he took aim at William Lane Craig and Phil Vischer (the Veggie Tales guy) for promoting compromise in the church and for “attacking” Ken Ham…because we all know that when one dares to say Ken Ham is wrong, that is not only an “attack,” but that is what is the Hamean definition of Christian compromise—questioning him.
My snarky quip aside, Ham’s post really just made me sad. I don’t write about Ken Ham, AiG, or the creation/evolution debate as much as I used to, but I still occasionally pop onto the AiG website or Ham’s own blog, just to see what they’re saying. It is never anything new, as this recent post shows. Now, I started writing about YECism and the creation/evolution debate six years ago because, without going into detail, I got pretty burned by an overzealous YECist school leader who took offense to my analysis of the “Ham vs. Nye Debate” back in 2014, in which I said Ham’s arguments weren’t that good and that it seemed to me that even Ham actually believed in evolution, only he tried to shove the entire process down to about 4,000 years. Furthermore, I said that Genesis 1-11 wasn’t meant to be read as literal history or science and that many early Church Fathers most certainly did not interpret those chapters the way Ken Ham did.
All of that is true—and for that, I pretty much lost my job. At the time, I didn’t know much more about Ken Ham and AiG than that debate. In fact, up until probably 2008, if you would have asked me if I believed evolution was true, I would have said no. I would have said I thought the earth was much older than 6,000 years old, but exactly how much older, I didn’t know. In fact, in all my time growing up in the heart of Evangelicalism (Wheaton, Illinois), I would have told you that I didn’t know anyone who actually believed such a nutty thing like the universe was only 6,000 years old.
I would have also said that Genesis 1-11 most certainly was not meant to be read as history or science. Starting in 2008, though, I decided to add a “Darwin Unit” to my 12th grade course at the small Christian school at which I was teaching because I thought it would be beneficial to educate my students on the creation/evolution debate—heck, I needed to educate myself on it! That was the time that Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled, came out, and I thought it was interesting enough to warrant looking into more. Long story short, it turned out that there was quite a lot of solid evidence for the age of the earth and for evolution. And that didn’t scare me or threaten my faith, because I already knew full well that Genesis 1-11 wasn’t doing history or science in the first place, so evolutionary theory wasn’t “contradicting” the Bible. In fact, it was rather quite interesting to learn about (and that’s saying something for me to say, because science was my least favorite subject in high school!).
All that said, it obviously was a shock to my system to be treated the way I was. It was quite hurtful, to say the least. The way I worked through that hurt was to research AiG and YECism just to make sense of what happened to me. It resulted in my book, The Heresy of Ham. Basically, if you don’t believe evolution is true—fine. If you think the universe is 6,000 years old—more power to you. I think you’re wrong, but in terms of the Christian faith, it is irrelevant. But the moment you make belief in a young earth a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, you’re making a big mistake—and that is the mistake Ken Ham has been making for probably over 40 years. In fact, it is worse than a mistake. YECism is Ham’s own “Sword of Pseudoscience” with which he creates division and destroys the faith of many people.
Back to the Article at Hand
As far as his blog article goes, Ham latches on to the recent Covid-pandemic to say that the way some Christians (particularly Christian academics and church leaders) have accepted evolution and “millions of years” is actually, if I can say it this way, a spiritual pandemic of compromise that, Ham claims, is destroying the faith of the younger generation. After insisting that AiG isn’t a YECist ministry, but rather a biblical authority ministry that proclaims a young earth, he accuses Christians who “believe in millions of years and other evolutionary ideas” of “taking man’s beliefs about the past and using them to reinterpret the Word of God to try to accommodate them into the Bible.” And that is why, Ham says, AiG insists on “calling the church back to the authority of God’s Word in Genesis.” –Seemingly not just the authority of God’s Word, but only the part in Genesis 1-11!
In any case, in his usual fashion, Ham claims to accept millions of years and evolution is to “take man’s ideas from outside the Bible and reinterpret God’s clear Word in Genesis to accommodate them.” Of course, I can’t help but think of how Ham routinely takes what he calls “man’s ideas” regarding fossils, dinosaurs, and the genome and then reinterpret God’s clear Word in Genesis to accommodate them by claiming Adam and Eve had a perfect genome and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark. Let’s be clear, those claims that are on full display at the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum are not in the Bible. In also his usual fashion, Ham then conflates scientific questions and issues regarding the age of the universe and evolution to cultural issues like abortion, sexuality and other LGBTQ issues. I’ll touch upon that at bit later.
The bulk of his article, though, focuses on some comments by both William Lane Craig and some guests on Phil Vischer’s podcast. You can read Craig’s full comments, but basically, he says that although it is possible that God literally created Adam and Eve in the exact, literal fashion described in Genesis 2, that it is highly unlikely because the genre of those opening chapters is more “mytho-history” than literal history and that it is clearly highly figurative language. That being the case, and, given what science has been able to discover over the past century, Craig thinks it is more likely that human beings evolved from preexisting hominins.
Ham responds by saying that, although he’s not questioning Craig’s faith, he is convinced that Craig is telling people that “they can take man’s pagan religion of evolution (and that’s exactly what it is) and reinterpret God’s Word to merge it into the Bible.” He further says that Craig is undermining God’s Word and is destroying the church in the West.
Ham then turns his attention to Phil Vischer’s podcast, and an episode in which he and some guests were discussing Ham’s attack on Vischer for is own undermining of God’s Word by daring to say that AiG rejected mainstream science. Ham quotes a portion of the podcast, when the guests were saying that YECism rejects mainstream science because to accept it means that life gets a lot more complicated. In response, Ham (in an instance of supreme irony) says that the age of the universe is an “emotional issue” for Vischer and his guests. He goes on to say that their interpretation of Genesis is simple because they take God’s Word “as written” and it is simple to understand!
Ham then says that the statement of faith at AiG is built on the authority of the Word of God and that AiG is “unashamed of the stand we take on a young earth, the flood, biblical marriage, the sanctity of human life, and how we deal with moral issues (LGBTQ+).”
My Thoughts
Like I said at the beginning of this post, reading Ham’s comment really just makes me sad. For one, it literally is just the same invective and YECist talking points, over and over again. On that point, it just gets really boring to read. Second, it is sad to see that, despite his constant claims of standing on biblical authority and how he just reads God’s Word “as written” and doesn’t reinterpret the Bible according to “man’s beliefs,” that is all AiG does, over and over again. Over the past 150 years or so, mainstream science has discovered dinosaur fossils and rock layers, have mapped out both the genome and so much of our universe. Yet Ham takes all those discoveries, rejects the scientific methods by which those discoveries were made, and literally crams all those discoveries into Genesis 1-11, despite the fact that nowhere in the Bible are any of those things are mentioned.
Third, what takes things from “sad” to “infuriating” (at least for me) is how then Ham then turns around and starts attacking Christians for “undermining God’s Word” simply because they have no problem accepting what science has discovered and they don’t buy Ham’s attempts to (irony of ironies) reinterpret Genesis 1-11 in light of modern scientific discoveries. Let’s be clear, Ham and AiG are the ones reinterpreting Genesis 1-11. Yes, some theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists are also wrong to try to read modern scientific findings into Genesis 1-11 as well (what is known as concordism), but at least they aren’t so brazen to accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with them for “compromising” the Christian faith and “undermining” God’s Word.
Yet that is what Ham and AiG does, over and over again. He is right, though, that the church in the West is hemorrhaging young people—and yes, part of the reason has to do with the creation/evolution debate. But as I said to that overzealous YECist headmaster who effectively fired me:
“If you tell a student that if he doesn’t believe in a literal six-day creation 6,000 years ago, then he can’t believe in the Gospel and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then that student just takes an entry level biology class and learns just the basic facts about biology, do you know what he’s going to do? He’s going to completely throw away his faith because you will have told him that he has to. You will have attached to the Gospel of Christ a debatable scientific claim and an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that has never been universally held in Church history, and you will have made adherence to that debatable scientific claim a prerequisite for the gospel of Christ. And that is indescribably sad.”
Finally, what about all those controversial cultural issues? I actually probably agree with Ham that many of those issues reflecting a dying culture! I agree that the Western Church is crumbling and has largely lost any ability to effectively be “salt and light” to our culture. Yes, I think that having drag queens reading stories to children in libraries and teaching them how to “twerk” is not a good idea! Yes, I think America is effectively a post-Christian culture and we are just now beginning to see the effect of that. But that is a much deeper—and yes, more complicated—issue than just a simplistic matter of, “Well, gee, it’s all because we’re not reading Genesis 1-11 as literal history!”
That’s the saddest part to YECism and AiG. They retard, not just intellectual growth, but spiritual growth. I know many solid Christians who are mature in their faith who might question whether or not evolution is true, but at the same time, they don’t obsess over the issue because they know it isn’t central to the faith anyway. But with their obsession over YECism and their zeal to judge and condemn anyone who dares question their clearly unbiblical claims, YECist groups like AiG retard spiritual growth in Christ. It’s not a mature mindset, to say the least. It is actually infantile and divisive.
And that is why ultimately, it is just sad. If you’ve been burned by YECism, it is something you have to work through, for sure. I had to do that. But hopefully, at some point, you can leave it all in the rearview mirror.
Kind of tangential but one of the ironies in how AiG and others situate evolution vis-a-vis the culture wars is that in reality evolutionary theory isn’t exactly a staple of contemporary culture or progressive thought and practice; there is a pop layer of interest (dinosaurs etc), and a limited ‘entry point’ in terms of climate change- but on the whole if anything many contemporary left-leaning folks are very reluctant to introduce too much biology or evolutionary theory, if any at all, into their thinking. Take the question of educational mobility (I’m thinking of a recent Substack post by Freddie deBoer)- it’s almost certainly the case that genetic factors are pretty key here, yet most progressives etc will not touch such questions with a ten-foot pole, afraid as they are of the possible implications of applying genetic science to human outcomes and group dynamics. At the risk of being uncharitable, it’s become increasingly clear to me over the last few years that the ‘we believe in Science’ line item in the progressive credo not only betrays a lack of scientific understanding but is also really conditional in what aspects of scientific knowledge and inquiry are socially acceptable and politically actionable (and to be clear I would agree that political decisions should not be ceded to ‘experts’ and scientists, but that’s another issue, and I’m not sure it’s the animating logic on why progressives- and other factions otherwise enthusiastic about some sciences- become so reluctant or even hostile with others).
If anything enthusiasm for evolution and science in general has increasingly become the preserve of the politically heterodox, from the so-called intellectual dark web types to exiled progressives like deBoer to outright reactionaries (whose embrace of evolutionary theory doesn’t encourage liberals to like it more, to be sure).
Myself, my own youthful leftism has been much tempered by my increased knowledge of evolution and of deep time perspectives; it’s hard to take a lot of 19th century-based leftist thought seriously in light of more recent scientific advances in understanding, and the damage is more serious given that so much socialist etc thought rests on claims to careful material and scientific analysis. Hence my faith as an Orthodox Christian has not suffered, quite the contrary, because the points of interchange are more flexible, as it were.
Anyway, obviously the culture war proceeds, like pretty much all wars, not out of any logic or rationality but due to the ferocious misapplication of the passions, so pointing such things out is unlikely to persuade those out in the proverbial trenches…
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your comments. To the point, yes–I find it both humorous and alarming that both “sides” of the culture wars like to pick and choose what “science” they are going to believe in, and then conveniently ignore the science that doesn’t support or justify their particular political/cultural ideology. It is those kinds of ideologues that are the most dangerous.
Actually, to your last sentence, in my book “Christianity and the (R)evolution in Worldviews,” in my chapter on the 20th century, I have it subtitled, “Fanatics, Fundamentalists, and Foxholes”–which actually speaks to your point. People entrenched in their ideological foxholes/trenches–aren’t interested in the discovery of truth. They just want to lob grenades.
A new book ‘(Mis) Interpreting Genesis by Ben Stanhope has much to say against Kan Ham and AiG (https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B08R35P84H&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_NQF1WBMHXT8Z60EYZ3AT)
Yes, I know! I wrote a book review of it…lol.
For may years (decades) I have thought many of the same thoughts you write about. SO refreshing! Thanks for your bravery and honestly. I have long believed that if there is a seeming contradiction between science and scripture, then one or the other needs to be re-examined, and in many cases, it can be either one that needs updating. God is infinite, we are not, therefore our theology ought to be evolving. I struggle with the thick 3-volume sets of “theology” as if it were all cast in stone. If we had infinite knowledge (we do not) then we could publish such books and rest in a complete knowledge of God. That’s not gonna happen. Thanks again, keep up the good work!
Hi Joel
I recently discovered your blog and work. You express a perspective that I share with my husband which we often discuss. Interesting that you too have become Orthodox. My husband B…left evangelicalism about 20 years ago to become Orthodox (I myself haven’t yet found a church I feel entirely comfortable with but certainly now have a better understanding of orthodoxy and feel at home with their actually reverend! worship, though it is in Greek).
B… is pretty much self-educated and has a strong interest in both history and science and subscribes to Scientific American. Sadly, when a bright young work colleague saw him reading this at lunchtime in the office she said: B…, how come you are a Christian but read science??? Says it all really. That belief that Christian faith and science are incompatible is one of the main things preventing many from taking Christianity seriously (but equally sadly, there are other huge stumbling blocks).
As for a Christian friend and his pastor who sometimes talk about “false science” we note that they still run to the doctor or pharmacist when they are sick…
I also have a kind of connection with Ken Ham (or rather a chosen non-connection) so am interested to hear what he is up to these days. In the early days of “Creation Science” Ken offered me a secretarial position. This was in Brisbane in 1980 (yes I’m Australian). It would have been my first job. Being always curious, I had attended a couple of Creation Science presentations. However I wasn’t sure about Ken’s mission in life, knowing I didn’t have the scientific background to evaluate it.
It was obvious who I should consult: a deeply committed Christian friend who was the head of an evangelistic Christian organisation and who, in addition to a PhD, had a Doctor of Science in organic chemistry and had worked in that field. Jim simply told me that evolution was the best theory we had to date.
Anyway Joel, I’m looking forward to reading your “The Heresy of Ham”. Doesn’t the Bible itself caution us from thinking we know the mind of God so how can he be so aggressively sure of himself? Sounds he has become more like a cult leader…
“Telling A Better Story – Why Faith and Science Belong Together”. Joel; I stumbled onto this a few days ago. It is presented by the “Faraday Institute”, Cambridge College, England. I had never heard of the Faraday Institute until now and this may be old information for some of your bloggers. Hope someone may find it helpful. Scroll down until you find two sessions delivered by John H. Walton and others.
https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/event/telling-a-better-story-why-faith-and-science-belong-together-catch-up/
Thanks for the link to the Faraday Institute Larry. That should keep me going! Particularly interested in an understanding of “the fall of Man” and original sin in light of modern science. I’ve been having a little discussion on that with Joel in his blog “Response to a reader – Orthodox Church and YECism”.
Mr. Anderson,
I am late to this discussion as I usually stick to defending YEC (as you call it using..passionate terms) but I was searching for passionate comments from Phil Vischer about Ken Ham. So, here I am finding myself compelled to point out a few deficiencies in your critical thinking that are sufficient to disprove your overall evaluation of those Christians who believe that Creation happened around 6500 years ago (another Christian site, CARM used the passionate term ‘butt hurt’).
Here you said this: “Ham’s arguments weren’t that good and that it seemed to me that even Ham actually believed in evolution, only he tried to shove the entire process down to about 4,000 years.” The first part of that statement is an opinion. Then you twisted facts in the next two parts and even threw in an appeal to emotion by using the word shove. Those of us who believe in Creation as described in The Bible also believe in the ‘piece’ of the greater Theory of Evolution more accurately known as anagenesis. Speciation, however, is where a line is drawn because the actual scientific evidence supporting that concept is not very scientific. I have spent years defending AiG and as you describe them YECs and have yet to see anyone say about 4k years. The acceptable statement is about 6500 years. I just searched and your twist is found in not properly researching, because the belief is that Creation Week was about 4000 years before Christ. It is tough to go on after the first premise for your opinion is based on errors, but another point you made was more in line of a false accusation.
“But the moment you make belief in a young earth a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, you’re making a big mistake…” I stopped there because my ministry is in defending that concept against unbelievers and believers. Obviously, it is fundamental because it tells us where, why, and how we as humans came to be. But in the ancient Jewish method of storytelling, it has far more depth than just a cursory explanation. Those who study ancient civilisations for a living will tell you that the word Yom when used in conjunction with a number always means a 24 hour period of time. Furthermore, the requirement for Christ’s death is thrown into confusion by allowing the possibility of death before God said “It is good”. That possibility of death before death is found in a fundamental tenet of the Theory of Evolution where death is necessary for there version of Creation.
I just read the rest of your article to make sure you didn’t address my points and I have to say that your arguments just continued to be based on the appeal to emotion fallacy with statements like: “what takes things from “sad” to “infuriating” (at least for me)”. Those fallacies allowed you to slip in more lies like “…then that student just takes an entry level biology class and just the basic facts about biology, do you know what he’s going to do? He’s going to completely throw away his faith” I can only assume you meant to say evidence instead of facts but that evidence more reasonably points to a Creator. Right before that we also see your false accusation “…you tell a student that if he doesn’t believe in a literal six-day creation 6,000 years ago, then he can’t believe in the Gospel and resurrection of Jesus Christ…” of which you have no evidence to back up that claim against Mr. Ham.
The Theory of Evolution, by the way, was forced onto the world by a man who was angry with God because he kept losing children to death. A properly grounded Christian would have known that death comes from the kingdom of darkness and therefore blamed humanity and himself. Which would then motivate him to ensure that all Christians unite in order to effectively tell everyone else about Salvation (John 17).
In conclusion, you angrily and falsely accuse Mr. Ham of being angry and falsely accusing others of heresy but you use logical fallacies and lies in your statements while providing no evidence to back your accustions.
Sincerely,
Michael
Hi there,
Just a quick few comments:
1. A study of AiG clearly reveals that they claim that Noah brought on the original “kinds” onto his ark around 2400 BC and that once those original “kinds” came off the ark, that is when all the speciation occurred…all within a span over about the next 4,000 years. But even if you want to say 6,500 years, he still accepts “hyper-evolution” happening over an extremely short time–hence my word “shove.”
2. It is a simple, historical fact that at no time in the early Church (or most of Church history) was belief that the earth was only a few thousand years old considered to be a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. The historical Christian faith is rooted in the creeds, and they reflect what the creedal fundamentals of the Christian faith have always been. And they simply do not put YECism in as a fundamental tenet of the faith. Anyone who makes it a fundamental tenet of the faith is making a big mistake.
3. Yes, “yom” means days–obviously. But Genesis 1-11 is not making historical or scientific claims to begin with. You have to understand its genre to interpret it properly. If I write a poem and say, “My love is a red, red rose,” yes, I am literally saying “rose,” but no one is going to think I am literally in love with a plant.
4. Yes, YECists like Ken Ham send the clear message that if one doesn’t accept YECism, then one is calling into question the resurrection of Christ as well. And yes, he (and many other YECists I’ve met) clearly question the faith of any Christian who doesn’t accept YECism. And so, if you tell a kid that if they accept evolution, then they are calling God a liar and subverting the Bible, they really are going to think that acceptance of evolution means you have to reject Christianity.
Sorry, but Ken Ham is the one spreading hate and division. I’m simply calling him out on it.