Review of Ken Ham's Post

Yesterday, Ken Ham issued a message on Facebook to which I have reviewed below. To view Ken Ham's post, click here.

Ken Ham's post begins by making the point that you cannot automatically trust Christian leaders to teach Genesis correctly. He fails to acknowledge that this post, by the same logic, should not be automatically trusted. The arrogance with which Christians can come across is astounding. There is a difference between what the Bible records and what our interpretations are. Ham is one of those who has blurred the lines in favor of his argument. This is demonstrated in his claim (without evidence) that all those views he quoted are "compromising positions about Genesis that permeate the church." Permeate? If they are permeating throughout the church (meaning to penetrate and spread), why is that a bad thing? Does this not mean that people are having discussions about these topics. The author does not want discussion nor does he want critical thought. He wants YEC (Young Earth Creationism-where the universe is between 6,000-10,000 years old) to be the only interpretation considered to explain Genesis.

"They try to accommodate what the secularists believe about origins/millions of years." Ken Ham epitomizes Christian leaders who lack humility. In another speech, he went as far as to say that Christians who do not believe YEC are probably not saved because they don't really believe the Bible. But the statement is also concerning. It lumps every interpretation of Genesis that does not align with Ham's as secular. This is what unwise Christian leaders do; they convince weak-minded or new believers that biblical interpretations different from their own are of the world and not of God. Since we all know unbelievers are automatically in error somewhere in their beliefs, all the speaker has to do is convince others that the alternative interpretation is trying to make Christianity palatable to trick unbelievers into conversion. Furthermore, Ham speaks as if it is a known fact that secularists invented the idea of an old universe or OEC (Old Earth Creationism-recent estimates of the age of the universe are 13.787 +- 0.20 billion years). Ham's claim is not a historical fact; although they were not usually specific, some of our early church fathers believed in a relatively old universe.

The next few paragraphs about the big bang and evolution try to force Christians to choose one of two sides: Christianity with YEC beliefs or fake Christianity with OEC beliefs and evolution. This is the gotcha moment for Ham. He insists that to believe in an old earth/universe, one must believe in evolution. I may be reading between the lines a little for the sake of this post but have heard enough of his arguments to know this is a point to which he repeatedly returns. There is no evidence for species to evolve from one to another, and it is absurd to think one must believe in evolution to agree with the position of OEC. Why does this come up so often? I suspect to bolster his argument. Besides, more and more secular scientists are abandoning Darwin's theory of evolution because a 13 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old earth do not allow enough time for the kinds of evolution proposed. Ironically, YEC believes that ALL animals, globally, were on Noah's ark. They justify this by referring to animals "adapting" rather than evolving. This is unscientific in the extreme. Not only do they propose that all species of dogs came from one male and female dog, but that variations like foxes adapted from dogs as well. Since Nehemiah references foxes, this would mean that, according to YEC timelines, dogs adapted into foxes within two-thousand years after the flood. This may sound like a long time for adaptation, but evolution requires hundreds of millions of years for changes that slight. Meaning, YEC's proposed adaption rate is a wildly more progressive rate of evolution than the theory of evolution was.

The rest of the post is a guilt trip. Ham proposes that God doesn't lie, the Bible clearly states, and the words in Genesis are infallible, so, ta-da! His interpretation must be correct. I actually laugh at the phrase, "No wonder we are seeing a mass exodus of young people from our churches." He just fabricated his own cause to justify a statistical reality. I can play the same game and say, "You don't allow students to think or ask questions. No wonder they're leaving."

Again, I laughed at the last two lines. How typical to say the opposing viewpoints are driven by the devil. Study the history of Christianity and discover that many pretenses for war, pilgrimages, and giving the church all your possessions were done to combat what the devil was really trying to do. Ham's solution to start with "God's Word, beginning with Genesis," is a great idea. Readers without preconceptions will see for themselves how the word "day" has different uses as soon as they read Genesis 2:4. If they study history, geology, and astronomy, then they will notice how the order of creation perfectly aligns with what the experts in those fields (both Christian and secular) are discovering.

January 24, 2026