Ken Ham’s Big Ark: Impressive Architecture, but Misguided Message

“…the history in the Bible is true . . . and therefore the gospel (based in that history) is true!”

This is an excerpt from a recent Answers in Genesis article about Ken Ham’s “Ark Encounter” entitled “Big Ark to Bring Big Message.” As I was thinking today, there are a couple points I want to emphasize about what Ken Ham and AiG are doing with their “Ark Encounter.”

On a positive note, I have no doubt that architecturally, the “Ark Encounter” will be pretty impressive. The idea to build an ark according to the specifications in Genesis 6 is no doubt an interesting idea. You could certainly do a number of interesting and creative things with such an exhibit. Simply put, it could be a good idea, and could be a creative way to cultivate interest in the Bible and the biblical story. If I ever was in the Cincinnati area, I’d probably want to see it.

But the fundamental thing wrong with what Ken Ham is doing can be seen in the above quote from the article. Yes, the history in the Bible is true; yes, the Gospel of Christ is rooted and based in that history–but no, what we find in Genesis 1-11 isn’t put forth as history. The history the Gospel is rooted in is the history of Israel: the history the kings of Israel and Judah; the history in which the prophets spoke God’s Word; the history of the times of the Judges; the history of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua; the history of Exodus under Moses; and the history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph–all starting with God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12.

Genesis 1-11 is not meant to be seen as history, and it certainly is not meant to be seen in any way, shape or form as saying anything about science. Throughout Church history, theologians and Church Fathers have had various views as to how historical (or how non-historical) Genesis 1-11 is. The very fact that it is well-documented that there has always been various ways the early Church Fathers have interpreted Genesis 1-11 blows a hole the size of Noah’s Ark in Ken Ham’s claim that Genesis 1-11 has always been read has straightforward history.  So let’s be clear: Ken Ham’s historical claim on that point is historically false–there is absolutely no way of getting around it. Therefore, for him to continue to put forth that falsehood, in light of the historical facts, is utterly deceptive. But I digress….

My point was going to be that for even those early Church Fathers who did think Genesis 1 was about a literal six days for example (as St. Basil the Great thought), they still knew full well that the Scriptural account of creation was not about science.

In any case, the point I want to make in this brief post is simple: Whatever creative and positive things that one could potentially take from the building of a replica of Noah’s Ark, any good is going to be destroyed because of Ken Ham’s unbiblical insistence that Genesis 1-11 has to be history. And that’s what I am most frustrated with regarding AiG.

I recently finished another draft of my rough draft of my book, “The Heresy of Ham”–but instead of feeling a sense of accomplishment, I’ve been feeling frustrated. Here’s why: I’ve realized that for all of Ken Ham’s boasting that he is “spreading the Gospel of Christ,” in reality he’s doing no such thing. He routinely condemns fellow Christians who are not young earth creationists, he routinely antagonizes and infuriates non-believers–not because they are just rebellious sinners who are raging against God–but because he is intentionally telling lies about basic scientific realities…and he does so in the name of Christ.

And by doing so, he is actually driving people away from the Gospel and away from the Bible.

I don’t think Ken Ham is a charlatan–he really believes dinosaurs were on a real ark (built with ancient technology that put our modern technology to shame) that survived a global flood a mere 4,000 years ago. He really believes he’s spreading the Gospel and doing God’s work. But such is the nature of heresy when one looks at it in the course of Church history: it is a case of well-meaning people who get caught up so much in their novel ideas that have no support in the history and tradition of the Church, that they end up causing strife and division with the Church, and they end up actually turning away non-Christians because of their ludicrous claims.

That’s what frustrates me about Ken Ham. I’m realizing I am witnessing the unfolding of a real heresy in real time; I see the division it’s causing; and I see how the people who are actively causing the division have actually convinced themselves (and others) that this is what the Gospel is all about.

I am saddened and frustrated at what I’m seeing.