I just want to put out there that I’ve finished a very rough draft of the book I’m writing, “The Heresy of Ham.” Since I want to make sure it addresses questions and concerns of people, I would appreciate it if anyone would shoot me a comment with any observations or questions you may have regarding Genesis 1-11, Ken Ham, young earth creationism, etc. I’ll try my best to make sure they get addressed in the book, possibly in a future post as well.
Joel
As you know, I’m from the Bible Belt and very conservative. I was brought up to believe in the 24/7 literal account of creation. In my old age, I am willing to give much grace to other believers in interpretation of Gen 1 because I do not feel, it is essential to salvation or a vibrant Christian walk and science has brought many new discoveries that young Christians must grapple with to navigate school and work. The thing that still niggles at me are questions of Christ referring to creation, Job, Jonah and if Adam was not the first man, questions of original sin and the souls (saved/unsaved?) of whatever form humans took before Adam. I’m trying to be brief so I hope this makes sense.
Thanks Allene,
I’m certainly going to address those concerns in the book. As for your “niggles” comment, here are my quick thoughts: (1) Obviously God created everything. The question in regards to evolution is, “How did he do it? All in one fell-swoop, or through a natural process like evolution?” Since Genesis 1 isn’t trying to answer modern scientific questions, it would be wrong to dismiss evolution out of hand. (2) In the Hebrew Bible, Job isn’t even among what we consider the history books–it’s listed under “The Writings,” along with Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. If it isn’t listed with the history books, why do we assume it’s conveying history? (3) Jonah: as a literature major, and as someone who did a thesis on Jonah, it has all the literary characteristics of a parable–so both with Job and Jonah, if the intent was a genre other than history, we should accept it, and still be supremely confident in the inspiration and truthfulness of Scripture.
Regarding Jesus quoting from those books, I think we tend to hold this assumption that “If Jesus quoted from something” it therefore has to be “historically accurate”–that betrays how beholden we in the West are to the Enlightenment worldview that says “Only facts count as truth.” Also, we have this notion that since Jesus was God, he therefore had to be omniscient in all things. Well, no–he had the normal human limitations like everyone else. We get into very murky territory when we assume that just because Jesus quoted from Jonah that he was really thinking it was a historical account. That is just pure assumption.
The questions evolution brings up are inevitable (i.e. if it is true, what are we to make of the “people” before Adam? Was there a specific Adam? As what point did God bestow his image on humans?) But those require a longer answer than in a quick reply! I’m certainly going to address those on the book…and possible a post or two in the future.
Joel
The comments here will probably be of interest to you: http://popchrist.com/2015/09/11/ken-ham-on-homo-naledi-see-no-evidence-hear-no-evidence-speak-no-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-207
This is that email I recently sent that I have just referred to:
“Hardcore YEC-ism leds to lying, hatred, extremism, reality denial and borderline (unbiblical) insanity.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/13/bill-nye-new-religious-book/
“During the global Flood of Noah’s day about 4,350 years ago the climate was radically changed when the surface of the Earth was reshaped by the Flood. The Flood was followed by an Ice Age, which further changed our climate, and climates have gone up and down since. Fluctuations can happen quite quickly and are not cause for grave concern in regard to man’s supposed impact as Bill Nye claims. So when you start with God’s Word, you have an entirely different worldview through which to view climate change and therefore you reach entirely different conclusions about the nature and severity of it. It is true that Bill Nye’s religion of evolutionary naturalism causes him to wrongly interpret climate change. So, in essence, Bill Nye’s new book is indeed a religious book!”
Guess who lost in the great debate of February 2014.
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Harnessing-Science-Change-World-ebook/dp/B00XU114R4
No – I haven’t read it either (beyond skimming what is shown in the description here).
Ken Ham’s foolish rant is a gift to a hardline atheist blogger by the way:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/14/garbage-in-garbage-out/comment-page-1/#comment-972973
Ham claims to ‘love’ science. What a hypocrite.
Of course should Ham read this he will conclude “if I was not right I would not be persecuted like I am”.
Ham is the real liar and fantasist here. Not Nye. Who Ham casually accuses of spreading ‘untruths’ (what has the reality of largely man-caused global warming got to do with either ‘evolutionary naturalism’ or the Bible anyway?). In a book that he has not even read.”
Ashley (male – in the UK not all Ashleys are female)
Thanks Ashley,
Ian Panth (of POPChrist) has been a friend of my for the past 20 years.
And yes, I (obviously) agree on the topic of Ham: great-tasting with some mustard and potatoes, but horrible in Biblical Studies and Science debates. I read Nye’s book “Undeniable”–overall it was fine. I have no qualms about the science. The biggest challenge in the public debate, as far as I am concerned, is to get people to see the difference between the valid scientific theory of evolution (which should always be further investigated, challenged, and debated…that’s what science is supposed to do), and the presuppositional worldview of philosophical naturalism. When Richard Dawkins says, “Evolution proves there is no god,” I think he’s being just as deceptive as Ken Ham in a lot of ways. Evolution cannot even address the topic of God.
And then on the Biblical Studies side, Ham’s claim that God inspired the writer of Genesis, back then and there, to write essentially a modern scientific treatise on material origins is just ludicrous.
In any case, I’d love it if you looked through my other posts on Ken Ham and offered your observations and thoughts. If there’s anything you like, by all means, share it–the more in the discussion, the better. If you subscribe, you’ll get a notice every time I write something (although I don’t always write only on Ken Ham!).
Thanks again…
Joel
By the way, if the following thing “Hardcore YEC-ism leds to lying, hatred, extremism, reality denial and borderline (unbiblical) insanity”–was meant to be a link to something, it didn’t show up.
Thanks. What I posted above was not a link but my email’s title and then the text of my email (sent to the bible.and.science.forum and others – we then discussed the significance Genesis 8:22 and the nature of the Genesis flood – assuming such really happened which could only have been on a local/regional scale if less than 5,000 years ago).
You have my email address I think. Happy to forward the exchange – I doubt the bible.and.science.forum would mind.
If nothing else, Ham certainly provides fodder for discussion!
PS Have just forwarded the four email thread to Ian Panth via his email address.
@joelando (apologies, I couldn’t get the reply button to work). I don’t know anywhere that Dawkins has said “Evolution proves that there is no God”. I would agree that Dawkins and other New Atheists conflate philosophical and methodological naturalism, and that they have made difficulties for religious people to accept evolution (I would call myself an agnostic accomodationist), but I don’t think that Dawkins has said anything quite so silly. If I’m wrong, please let me know where he’s said this.
On the other hand, I completely agree that this battle over evolution can only be won with the cooperation between scientists and reasonable religious people, particularly in pointing out how the YECs misinterpret the bible as well as misinterpreting the science.
Hey there Christine…thanks for the comment. Obviously, Dawkins saying “Evolution proves there is no God” is not meant to be a direct quote, but he says things like that, or very close to it, in his book “The God Delusion,” as well as in many of his debates. I can’t remember the exact quote, but in one debate he says something to the effect, “Of course evolution can’t ‘prove’ there is no God, just like science can’t prove there is a celestial tea-pot on the other side of Venus. But it can make the existence of God highly, highly improbable.” His point is clear: he thinks evolution makes the existence of God highly improbable.
In “The God Delusion” he says this: “Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: ‘Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?’ I would have to answer yes and, at one stroke, I would have lost the jury.” (93)
I wrote a number of posts on “The God Delusion” a few years back on my earlier blog, and at some point I’ll revise and re-post them. But what I see both with Dawkins and Ham is essentially the same thing: they are co-opting science to try to prove their philosophical worldviews–but that’s not the job of science. Ken Ham no doubt rejects modern science, and he no doubt misreads and misinterprets the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-11. But Dawkins, although he doesn’t reject science as science, he does wrongly try to convince us that science can answer philosophical questions, and he (ironically like Ham) misreads and misinterprets Genesis 1-11. BOTH men assume Genesis 1-11 is making modern scientific claims–the only difference is that Ham then says, “Genesis 1-11 is scientific in a different way! And that ‘secular science’ is just rebelling against God.” Whereas Dawkins says, “Genesis 1-11 claims to be scientific, evolution proves Genesis 1-11 is wrong, therefore all religion is superstition without evidence.” BOTH men’s starting assumption about Genesis 1-11 (i.e. that it is making modern scientific claims) is wrong, therefore they both go off in wrong directions.
My take on Genesis 1-11 is fairly simple: it’s not trying to do modern science in the first place; it’s addressing different issues and questions than the ones modern science raises. Therefore, evolution can never “disprove” Genesis 1-11 because Genesis 1-11 isn’t addressing the same issues. There’s obviously a lot more to be teased out there, but it will be in the book, and hopefully I’ll find a publisher…then you can share it with everyone you know!
Thanks again for the comment.
Yes, I would agree with this, that science can’t answer philosophical questions, and that Dawkins is sometimes as annoying as Ham.
Dawkins, as Oxford professor for the understanding of science (or something like that), has done more harm than good in alienating the religious community (especially in the US, not so much in the UK where people tend to “rub along” a bit better, and there’s little in the way of fire and brimstone).
But science can have nothing to say about the existence of God, either way (and I say this as a scientific colleague of Dawkins).
Agreed…my background is in Biblical Studies, so I never really had much interest in the whole “evolution debate.” But once I started reading up on it, I was astonished at how, at both ends of the spectrum in all this (i.e. Ham and Dawkins), both sides are guilty of misrepresenting the issues, and ultimately intellectual dishonesty. And that, in turn makes it really difficult for the everyday joe on the street to even see the issue clearly. Both men, because they are more interested in promoting their own agendas than making sure the truth about science and religion is clearly seen, end up concealing the truth from a lot of people. The Christian school kid ends up really believing that if you don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old, then you’re “letting the secularists win” and you’re undermining the Bible and saying there is no God; the guy who reads “The God Delusion” ends up really believing that Christianity just wants to torture critical thinkers and go back to using leeches in medical procedures (yes, a bit of hyperbole there)–we need more people to stand up to both extremes and just say, “Stop it. You’re ruining it for everyone.”
If you haven’t read my other posts on Ken Ham, I’d love to know what you think.
Thanks again.
Dawkins doesn’t misrepresent the science issues, nor even really religion. I think that he just conflates his personal opinions about religion with what “the thinking man” should be thinking. He doesn’t bring religion into his other books, so it’s unfortunate that his religious opinions have become such a pronounced “meme” (a word he introduced) and have influenced what people think about the science that he promotes.
Ham, on the other hand, deliberately distorts or ignores the science. I understand from people like you (and Professor Tertius, of bible and science forum) that Ham also distorts the religion. I’ll look at some of your other posts when I have the time.
I think my point with Dawkins was that his distortions are essentially that science has proven religion to be false, superstitious, etc.–basically (and I’m really going from “The God Delusion”) that science, by virtue of being science, has the ability to be authoritative in matters of philosophy and religion. Simply put, just because he has a PhD in Biology doesn’t mean he is qualified to speak authoritatively on Christianity, and as I read “The God Delusion,” I was shocked at how much he gets fundamentally wrong about the Bible, Christian faith, and Church history.
But I think we’re basically in agreement.
Ken Ham is STILL apparently sulking over the activities of Bill Nye and trying to pretend that Nye is writing ‘unbiblical’ ‘untruths’ in his latest book (simply because Nye is worried about climate change) and that Nye is somehow embarrassed about the February 2014 debate where most people believe he ‘bested’ Ham:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/13/bill-nye-new-religious-book/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/09/21/bill-nye-in-religious-movie/
On the later Ham blog, and as set out in an email I sent to AiG, he claims within it: “I’m sure that the same old empty arguments Bill Nye brought up in the debate will be featured in the movie.”
(As the Ham blog shows if you click on the relevant link, it’s a planned movie about Bill Nye being produced by two of his FANS by the way:
http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/08/72757-bill-nye-film-project-secures-800000-becomes-kickstarters-most-funded-documentary/
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/bill-nye-documentary-kickstarter-1201538891/)
They were not ’empty’ arguments Liar Ken Ham.
They mostly were disproofs of a 6,000 year old Earth and universe. Disproofs which you did not even ATTEMPT to refute at the debate. And I know WHY. It was not just your ignorant biased supporters who were watching. Millions watched either live or soon afterwards.
You chose to lose, pretty inevitably, the debate (having gained a lot of publicity for your activities and having also done some Bible preaching which you probably saw as a priority) – not by speaking your organisation’s unscientific nonsense in front of the world (the kind of responses that are habitually posted on your science denial and fundamentalist website), but instead by ignoring what Nye presented. And complaining that you did not have enough time to deal directly with all of what he presented (yes I took notes too). After Nye outlined his detailed opening arguments, at 1 hour 29 minutes when you had five minutes to ‘rebut’ you began by saying that if you dealt with all the points the moderator would think you was going on for ‘millions of years’. But you did not attempt to rebut ANY of Nye’s specific examples. Not a SINGLE one. Instead you went on about how radiometric dating is supposedly unreliable and about how unbiblical Christians are who believe in millions of years and perhaps evolution too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=794&v=z6kgvhG3AkI
NB This video of the debate – apparently posted on You Tube by Answers in Genesis – has ‘comments disabled’. And underneath is the message “To see Bill Nye’s arguments debunked visit http://debatelive.org.” How utterly dishonest and intolerant. How utterly typical of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (who when under pressure FAIL to provide real robust and convincing answers – because they do not possess such answers). In fact when I went to this link I was still left searching for answers to the specific points Nye put forward at the debate and which Ham failed to begin to rebut. Points Nye began outlining – directly addressing the actual debate topic – at just past 58 minutes in.
I repeat – Ham utterly failed to show at the big debate that Nye’s examples were ’empty arguments’. From the debate title he was claiming to have a viable model of origins – but he totally failed to SHOW that he did and his performance was criticised even by some fellow YECs (but the real problem is how bad their ‘answers’ actually are rather than how they have good answers but Ham somehow forgot to provide any of them on the night – though he DID tell a few whoppers which I also recorded in my notes and which Biologos remarked upon on their website).
Yes, it really is astounding when you read (or see) Ken Ham saying over and over again, “Oh science proves young earth creationism! There’s nothing to Bill Nye’s claims!” but then he NEVER gives any of the supposed “evidence” he claims “proves young earth creationism.” It is all smoke and mirrors; it’s all a shell game.
One common description of idolatry used throughout the Old Testament is that of “air,” “breath,” “nothingness”–because, of course, even though there might be physical idols erected in temples, there ultimately was nothing to them. I think the same goes for Ken Ham’s YEC idolatry. He has an organization, he puts out “curriculum” and propaganda, he claims the “evidence” proves he’s right–but he never produces that evidence, he never addresses valid criticisms of his claims–he just keeps up with his shell game, because there is nothing really there.
Expect you may have seen (I only skimmed): http://www.godofevolution.com/ken-ham-believes-in-aliens-after-all/
I expect you WILL be able to believe this (my latest comment on the money-grabbing but mad Ken Ham, timed at 7.50 pm, awaits moderation due the number of links):
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/tomorrows-lunar-eclipse-two-ways-to-watch/#comment-95028
May be of interest (though it’s not Ken Ham but another YEC having a go at theistic evolutionists):
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-truth-of-matter.html