I have not posted anything this past week because I am hammering out the final touches on the print edition of my book The Heresy of Ham. Now, in case you haven’t heard, as of July 7, Ken Ham has opened his Ark Encounter. I plan to write a number of posts on it in the upcoming week or so. That being said, I want to share something I wrote last summer about a particular post by Ken Ham in which he rails against the Smithsonian Institute. I believe it hits on all the predictable points of the Hamean Heresy…enjoy.
***
On May 21, 2015, Ken Ham wrote a long blog post entitled, “Smithsonian Traveling Exhibit Propaganda Campaign for Atheism,” on a current traveling exhibit by the Smithsonian. To the point, Ham goes off on the Smithsonian with the ferocity of a wild dog. He doesn’t hold back. What is this exhibit really about? Please, tell us, Mr. Ham:
“This is nothing but a propaganda campaign attempting to indoctrinate people to believe they are nothing but animals evolved from ape-like ancestors! To the Smithsonian, that’s what it means to be human! And what they are doing in reality is trying to impose their religion of naturalism (atheism) on the culture. …Of course, the entire exhibit is religious—it is promoting the religion of atheism using evolutionary beliefs.”
“In this worldview, there really is only one answer to this question—humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals. It is nothing but an anti-God campaign.”
There it is, Ham thinks the exhibit is really just about trying to indoctrinate people into thinking they are just apes, and that evolution is nothing more than the religion of atheism. Between his attempt to portray Genesis 1-11 as “science,” and the scientific theory of evolution as “religion” it is quite clear that Ham does not know the difference between science and religion.
But here is another thing to think about, and another point on which Ken Ham is entirely wrong and misguided. He objects to the evolutionary claim that human beings share a common descent with other forms of life in the world—or more specifically, that modern human beings and modern apes both came from some primitive ancestor. Whether or not you are convinced of that evolutionary claim is beside the point that I want to make.
Ham considers a biological/genetic relationship with apes as a detestable idea that somehow devalues the dignity of human beings as being made in the image of God. My question is, “Why?” How is sharing genetic ancestry with apes any more or less devaluing than the idea that the depiction of the first man being made from dirt? Is it our biological makeup, or the manner in which we were made, the basis for our dignity and value as image-bearers of God? Does Genesis 1-2 make the claim that the reason why we are in God’s image is because He made us from dirt?
The claim evolution makes regarding the origin of human beings should not be seen as an attack on God, the dignity of man, or the authority of the Bible. The fact is, biologically we really do share commonality and possibly genetic descent with other life forms…but the Bible tells us that we are more than just biological creatures—THAT’S THE POINT. We shouldn’t deny our biological and genetic relationship with the rest of God’s creation. We should acknowledge it, embrace it, and yes, even celebrate it, because God has revealed in his Word that human beings, while being part of His creation, still have a special purpose in His creation. We are to be His image-bearers to the rest of His creation; we are to care for His creation as royal servant-priests. And it is a task that only human beings can do, precisely because we have that biological relationship with the rest of creation, and yet still are God’s image-bearers.
But Ham can’t seem to grasp the fundamental identity of human beings that God reveals in His Word, that of biological image-bearers. Ham seems to think it can’t be both. Ham has already decided that if there is an evolutionary biological relationship between human beings and the rest of the animal world, then there can’t be anything special about human beings:
“Yes, you are just an animal and just happen to be the lone survivor of this process of naturalistic evolution. You are nothing but an animal—there is no purpose and meaning in life except what you make of it while you live. Once you die, you won’t know you ever existed.”
First, let’s just all agree that Ham has injected a whole mess of philosophical assumptions into that quote that do not necessarily have anything to do with evolution. Second, Ham’s comments also betray a fundamental hatred of materiality and the natural world. Ham thinks any genetic relationship to the natural world is beneath the dignity of man, and beneath the dignity of God. And so, I must ask, “Why does Ham seem to devalue and hate God’s creation?” He seems intent on denying that human beings really have anything to do with it.
Another interesting quote from Ham in this post is this: “…it’s creation—not evolution—that is confirmed by the evidence and that gives human beings worth and dignity as beings created in God’s image.” Well, it’s clear that Ham does not know what he’s talking about. He is setting up a completely false dichotomy: creation or evolution. He fails to see that evolution is the means by which creation brings about new life and variety. What would we tell Ken Ham if he said, “It’s the painting—not the actual paint or the brush—that is confirmed by the evidence”? I hope we would tell him, “You can’t have the painting without paint and brushes.” The same applies here: creation is the “grand painting of nature,” and evolution is the paint and brushes, the mixing of colors and the artistry of the brushstrokes.
At the end of the post, Ham once again launches into an attack on both the Templeton Foundation and BioLogos, because they are “compromising Christian organizations” that lead people away from biblical authority. Unlike them, Ham boasts that he is going to stand firm on God’s Word and continue to proclaim the gospel of Christ….by building a life-sized Noah’s Ark. He boasts that “the life-size Ark project will show millions of people that God’s Word can be trusted and will graciously point them toward the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I have to ask, though, “How?” How does building a life-sized ark show that the Bible can be trusted? How does building a life-sized ark point people to the gospel? For that matter, how is Ham building it? With modern technology, engines, cranes, etc.? If he really wants to show that the Bible can be trusted, perhaps he should build it in the same manner as we read in Genesis 6: with his wife, three daughters, and three son-in-laws! If he built his replica that way, then I would sign up with AiG in a heartbeat!
Ken Ham ends by reminding his followers that “the devil is surely active. It makes me more enthused than ever to ‘contend for the faith’ and proclaim the gospel.” So again, if you believe the universe is millions of years old, chances are you’re working for the devil, or at least have been deceived by him.
And one more thing, how exactly is Ken Ham proclaiming the gospel? His entire organization is called Answers in Genesis…not “in Christ,” but “in Genesis.” Whatever gospel Ham is proclaiming, it is not the gospel of Christ, that is for sure.
In any case, check back over the next week…I’ll have something special to share–so stay tuned!
Everytime I read what ken ham says about how people are being indoctrinated into naturalism in the school classes and atheists like dan barker and richard dawkins say the same thing about churches, I think about a quote by Albert Einstein, “The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results.” It’s just SAME THING over and over again.
Ham’s message is essentially negative. ‘All those scientists are wrong because they don’t hold to a hardline biblical worldview.’