Ken Ham’s Presentation, Part 2: Noah’s Ark, Evolution, and Psalm 104

Yesterday, I discussed the first part of Ken Ham’s talk to the high school kids at the Answers in Genesis conference this past weekend in the town where I live. Today, I’d like to discuss the second part.

Noah’s Ark
After making his case that atheism was the same thing as evolution, that evolution was an anti-God religion, that “science confirms the Bible” (even though he gave no actual examples of this), and that Genesis 1:1 “was the most scientific statement to make” (even though it isn’t a scientific statement—mind you, it’s true: God did create the heavens and the earth; but Genesis 1:1 isn’t a “scientific” statement)—after all that, Ken Ham turned his attention to the topic of Noah’s Ark and the Flood.

A natural question many ask is, “How did Noah get all those animals on the ark?” Well, Ham had is answer all ready to go: Noah didn’t have to bring in every known species that we have today. He only had to bring the original “kinds” from which the wide variety of today’s species came. That would have been about 1,000 “kinds,” and thus about 2,000-3,000 land animals on the ark. I’ve written on this claim in an earlier post. For example, there was an original pair of “dog kind” that got on the ark, and that diversified over the past 4,000 years into all the different species of dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. that we have today.

Basically, Ham takes “according to their kinds” as God’s own scientific classification system. The “modern” classification system of animals, Ham said, was simply a “man-made” classification system, and that God’s “kinds” corresponded to the “family” group in the modern system. He then spent a considerable amount of time trying to argue that natural selection (something he does not, in fact, reject) always entails a loss of genetic information. Therefore, that original “dog kind” only had the genetic information of “dog kind,” and thus could only produce offspring of the “dog kind.” Yes, there was a wide variety of genetic information in that original “dog kind” to produce dogs, wolves, etc., but it could never produce anything outside of that “dog kind.”

The only problem with that claim is that it demands such an explosion of variety over the span of 4,000 years, that it is nonsensical. Yes, it is hard to get your head around how one species could slowly evolve into another species over the span of millions of years; but try imagining two beagles procreating so much, with so much genetic variation, that after a mere seven years their “descendants” are Siberian huskies. And then imagine that happening on a consistent basis for 4,000 years. That’s what it would take to get those “original 1,000 kinds” to develop into the current 500,000 different species of land animals.

Simply put, Ken Ham’s claim is evolution on crack cocaine. He advocates for basically the same thing evolution claims, only he compressing the amount of time it could happen into the past 4,000 years. Instead of a common ancestor and millions of years, Ham claims it was 1,000 original ancestors and 4,000 years. But even if you started with 1,000 “original ancestors” if you will (instead of one), that’s the sort of multiplication and variation would have to happen, given over a mere 4,000 years. And if that truly was the case, then we shouldn’t be able to read in the Bible (a book that was written 2,000-3,000 years ago) descriptions of foxes, ostriches, wolves, jackals, snakes, horses, cows, sheep, camels, etc. Why? Because according to Ham’s own claims of natural selection over the span of 4,000 years, those kinds of animals would not have been around yet at the time. Foxes, ostriches, horses, and cows are all modern species we have today…4,000 years after Noah’s ark. They would have not come into existence a mere 1,000-1,500 years after Noah’s ark yet. And if Ham claims the explosion of variety within “kinds” happened that quickly—within 1,000 years after Noah’s ark, then I’m afraid that would require a pair of beagles to literally given birth to Siberian huskies, who would then literally give birth to basset hounds.

One of the ways Ray Comfort, another anti-evolution associate of Ken Ham, often mocks the theory of evolution is that he shows these ridiculous pictures of half-duck/half-crocodiles, and says, “According to evolution, we should have croca-ducks!” Well, according to Ken Ham’s own claims, that’s the sort of thing that would be needed. All that said, it should be obvious: Ken Ham’s claims of variation from original “kinds” in the span of a mere 4,000 years is sheer nonsense. And there’s one more thing: if you go visit Ham’s “Ark Encounter” this summer, you’re not going to find any known animal on the ark, because Ham is literally making up animals based on what he thinks the “original kinds” would have looked like. You won’t see monkeys, and cows, and giraffes. You’ll see representations of animals that have no known existence in the real world. You might actually see a “croca-duck.”

There was one additional thing Ham said in regards to all the animals on the ark that I almost missed. He claimed that there was 2,000-3,000 land animals on the ark (that figure, by the way is not found in the Bible), but that there was more than enough room on the ark for that many animals, because, according to Ken Ham, “most average land animals are smaller than a rat.” After he said that, he quickly moved on to showing a video that made false claims about evolution (I’ve written about that very video here).

But let’s back up for a moment: most land animals are smaller than a rat? I’m no expert scientist, but that claim sounds, at the very least, highly suspect. Can anyone name more than five land animals that are smaller than a rat? Cows? Dogs? Elephants? T-Rexes? (Yes, we have to include T-Rexes…Ham claims they were on the ark too!)—I’m pretty sure these animals are not smaller than a rat. Well, Ham has said that there were probably baby animals that came on board. I’m pretty sure even a baby cow or a baby elephant (or whatever “kind” that were their supposed ancestor) is still not smaller than a rat. Yet, Ham just throws that out there, as if to say, “See? They all could fit on the ark, because I have declared most land animals are smaller than rats!”

And astonishingly, no one seems to notice that this is an utterly absurd claim.

ADDED UPDATE:
Since I wrote this post, it was told to me by a scientist that, in fact, most “land animals” are smaller than rats, because 80% of species are insects, and they are considered “land animals.” So technically, Ham is telling the truth: most land animals are “smaller than rats.”

But wait! This reveals an even more deliberate lie, for Answers in Genesis claims in an article from 2013 that the animals on Noah’s Ark were limited to “land-dwelling, air-breathing vertebrate animals—corresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts.” Translation? Ham isn’t counting insects, etc. as part of the animals on Noah’s Ark. Therefore, it is completely misleading to use the stat regarding “most land animals are smaller than rats,” because that stat is only true if one includes insects, etc.–and Ham it clear that he doesn’t include them on Noah’s Ark.

Therefore, this is a clear instance of intentional deception on Ken Ham’s part.

Chasing a Rabbit—More Rants Against How Evolution is Stupid
Ham then quickly turned and claimed that the best evidence “atheists” give for evolution is Darwin’s finches: their beaks adapt and change length, given their natural habitat. “But finches are still finches are still finches!” Ham said, thereby making it sound like those “atheists” are just so plain stupid.

There’s only two problems with that claim though. First, like I’ve said before, “atheism” is not the same thing as “evolution.” By claiming they are the same thing, Ham was being purposefully manipulative and misleading. Secondly, the beaks on Darwin’s finches are not the “best evidence” for evolution. That is simply the phenomenon that Darwin observed that got him to start developing his theory. By far the best evidence for evolution (among other things) is found in the genome and in genetic research. The evidence is literally observable and undeniable. When Ham claims that “finch beaks” is the “best evidence” evolutionists have, he simply is not telling the truth. Even if you ultimately are not convinced of evolution, at least be honest about what the evidence actually is.

In the midst of that claim, Ham then made another very odd statement. After denying the claim that human beings are genetically related to everything in the natural world, he then said that evolutionists only claim that you are related to everything so that they can say abortion is okay.

What? Now, I think Ham was trying to say if human beings are biologically related to animals, then that somehow means there’s no such thing as morality. But that is an absurd statement. The genetic fact is that human beings and chimpanzees have 22 identical chromosomes, and that the 23^rd human chromosome (human chromosome #2) is basically the result of the other two chimpanzee chromosomes being fused together. That’s the only difference. Does that mean, because we are biologically related to chimpanzees, that it is now morally acceptable for human beings to start throwing feces at each other? Of course not.

Mere biological/genetic relationship between other living things in nature does not automatically negate morality. Yet this is what Ham is trying to get his listeners to believe. He wants you to believe that evolution (which is basically the description of the biological relationships between living things) somehow obliterates any notion of morality, and that if you acknowledge a genetic relationship between human beings and other life forms, then that must mean you are for partial birth abortion. Such a claim is worse than nonsense. It is intentional and manipulative fear-mongering.

Here’s Andrew Snelling!
Ham then showed a video of none other than Andrew Snelling (I wrote a post about him last week), in which Mr. Snelling gave a number of evidences for a global flood. Without going into detail, I’ll just say I wasn’t impressed the “evidences” like “there are billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth.” I’m sorry, that’s not evidence of a global flood. That’s evidence that things get buried in rock layers, and that could be for various reasons.

In any case, when the video ended, Ham said, “So who are you going to believe? Men who make mistakes or the Bible?” This came right after he showed a video of a guy giving answers that are not found in the Bible.

Psalm 104 and Genesis 1
To further bolster his claim that there really was a global flood, Ham referred to Psalm 104, and claimed that Psalm 104 (I’m guessing verses 6-9) is the description of how God got the flood waters to abate. There’s just one problem with that claim: Psalm 104 isn’t taking about Noah’s flood. It’s a description of God’s power over the Waters of Chaos in Genesis 1. Psalm 104 is using the imagery of ancient Near Eastern mythological creation stories, and such stories were not attempting to give scientific, historical information. Namely, the imagery is that God “raised up” the land out of the primordial Sea of Chaos, to establish a place to where he would bring forth life. Psalm 104 using that imagery to praise God for having power over creation—it is highly symbolic and poetic language. Psalm 104 is not giving a detailed description of precisely how God “drained off” the earth after Noah’s flood. I have never met or read one biblical scholar who has ever made that claim.

Ham then turned to the argument that Genesis 1 is talking about a literal six-day creation a mere 6,000 years ago. He claimed that Christians who accept evolution are trying to “fit millions of years” into Genesis 1, but that it can’t be done. Well, he’s right. Theories like the “Day-Age Theory” are nonsense. We shouldn’t try to “fit millions of years” into Genesis 1. Why? Because Genesis 1 isn’t giving us a scientific account in the first place. Therefore, there’s no need to “fit millions of years” into Genesis 1, because evolution and Genesis 1 are addressing two entirely different topics. Genesis 1 is written in the genre of ancient Near Eastern myth, but it reveals a revolutionary concept of the true God and the true nature and purpose of creation and mankind. It is using the imagery and language the ancient Hebrews would have been familiar with in order to reveal to them the truth about God. The theory of evolution is an entirely different topic.

In any case, in the midst of that, Ham claimed that you don’t need a sun in order to have a 24-hour day. The light for those first three days came from somewhere else—but he doesn’t know where.

I’m sorry, what can you say to that?

Tomorrow, I’ll wrap up my concluding comments about Ken Ham’s presentation. And yes, there will be a surprise.