Creationist - Ken Ham

My objection to creation science and every other aspect of Christian apologetics is that it is a form of priestcraft that requires [i]sacrificium intellectus[/i] - the sacrifice of the intellect. Nowhere does the Word of God require us to forfeit our critical intelligence and hand it over to a priest or creation scientist. The organized religion industry requires that.

You do not have to commit intellectual suicide to believe the Scriptures; you have to commit intellectual suicide to believe Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. I don't know a lot about science, but I know a snow job when I see one. It is one thing to believe in young earth creationism as a point of faith; it is another to support that position with lunatic logic and junk science and call yourself "Doctor."

Christian apologetics begins with the proposition that the truth of the Bible can be logically proved, then achieves the exact opposite of what it intends. It implants doubts in people's minds and then confirms those doubts by using laughably weak arguments. As a teenager I lost faith when I read Josh McDowell's [i]More Than a Carpenter[/i] and concluded that anyone who has to use that sort of logic to support his beliefs is willfully self-deceived.

People don't always understand why they do the things they do or the significance of the roles they play in the social forum. But the role of the Christian apologist in the organized religion industry is to undermine real faith so that people will be in the market for bad faith, which is precisely what the professional clergy is selling.

Agreed wayne. I think while well meaning, and while making good theological points (points that made a great impact on me when I was young in my faith), Ken Ham's apologetic is ultimately fleshly, and not Spirit fueled. While I believe in a young earth and a literal six day creation, I don't believe such because the science demands I do such. Indeed, if anything, science today shows the complete opposite. I'm no scientist, but, I had more than enough science classes in college to see the weight of the argument of the scientific community towards evolutionary theory. I believe in a young earth and literal six day creation, and ultimately the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because all the evidence says I should believe such, but rather, because I believe the revelation God has made known through the word of God. I believe such because Jesus Christ took hold of my life 11 years ago, and disclosed Himself to me in such a radical way that I will believe what He says in His word over what science says in its words. And now, no matter what evidence they stack up against the claims of our faith, I choose to believe what God says, because in my faith, I have the evidence I need to denounce the claims of this world.

Ken Ham's apologetic ultimately creates a weakened faith in the life of a believer. For the faith is not ultimately one that is centered in Christ, and in the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, rather, it is grounded in "creation science." And creation science ultimately demands one put a "spin" on the objective evidence we have before us so far today, and in some cases, lie. Oh, sometimes it raises legitimate objections to things, things which many in the world so far as I've seen have yet to answer. But, causing one to be skeptical about the findings of science thus far is not the same as creating faith in a risen Lord.

Creation science ultimately gives one a bad foundation upon which to build their life of faith. It's as shaky as using the shroud of Turin as proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For what happens, when somebody out there shows your science and "proof" to be faulty? You faith will ultimately be destroyed. Our faith must not be built on the things that can be seen, but rather, the things that cannot be seen.

Jimmy

Well said. Even Calvin, the rigid logician, said that, "It is foolish to offer logical proofs for the truth of the Scriptures, for it is only by the Holy Spirit that we know the Bible is the word of God."

Wayne,
Have you visited the Creation Museum near Cincinnati, OH?

ginnyrose

Hi Ginny,

No, I haven't. Would it be worth a six-hour drive?

"No, I haven't. Would it be worth a six-hour drive?"

I would say 'yes'. We visited it and enjoyed it. We live in MS and I think it took us close to nine hours to get there. I know of some who have been there several times. Our son who has a B.S in microbiology enjoyed it as well.

The botanical gardens are beautiful but to experience it at its best is during the summer when plants are in bloom.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

Creation science ultimately gives one a bad foundation upon which to build their life of faith. It's as shaky as using the shroud of Turin as proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For what happens, when somebody out there shows your science and "proof" to be faulty? You faith will ultimately be destroyed. Our faith must not be built on the things that can be seen, but rather, the things that cannot be seen.

Well said. Without faith it is impossible to please God and MUCH will try to come in the way of faith.

Hi Guys,

I was curious as to what people might be thinking of in terms of the methods or reasoning used by creation scientists that would not be intellectually defensible. I do know that I have come across statements made by some creation scientists, which have really seemed like a 'stretch' and which I wish hadn't been made. But I am wondering what types of statements others are thinking of.

I feel that using creation science 'arguments' has its place, but can also be taken too far, especially if argumentation is employed as a substitute for the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts, the apostles were said to 'reason', and to 'dispute' with people, and in their presentations of the gospel, they made reference to known facts of history, and to what could be commonly observed by people, about the world around them. I believe that the apostles felt it valuable to provide an evidentiary basis for faith in Christ. At the same time though, evidence and logic was never used as a replacement for faith in the Saviour's work on the cross. Rather it was part of the platform that was built for the purpose of helping people to understand the necessity of faith towards Christ and repentance towards God.

In Jesus,
John

My favorite is the doctrine that the universe is 6000 years old but appears 13 billion years old because the Lord created it "with vintage." That statement may be factually accurate but in science it does not qualify as a theory, or even a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested, mathematically demonstrated, proven or disproven. It is a "fact"...which must be taken by "faith." So why trot out junk science to support the word of God? It only undermines Christian credibility when they see us resorting to charlatanry to support our doctrine. It is better to just say, "We don't believe we are highly-evolved primates because we take the Word of God over the word of man."

We should render unto science the things that are science's and unto God the things that are God's.

It would be OK to demonstrate that Genesis is at least scientifically plausible, but creation science doesn't even succeed in doing that, much less proving or demonstrating anything.

I have been following what has been going on with the ministry of Answers in Genesis for some time. My formal training is in Mathematics and Physics and I have always been interested in all things science.

The foundation of the entirety of that particular ministry is that the Bible can be trusted as the foundation of our faith. That if supposed science and the straightforward teaching of scripture are ever at odds, one can always rely on the straightforward teaching of scripture as accurate and the science as still in need of modification. They have shown this through the scientific research and study that they have done. They are not trying in any way to "prove" the Bible true nor to try to find some scientific hook to hand faith on. Rather, they are proclaiming the message that the Bible is the basis of truth and that this truth is the basic assumption that all Christians should used when interpreting science. I don't think they have ever tried to replace faith with evidence or logic. I think it is an awesome ministry.

By the way, there are many who have categorically rejected Christ and have never opened themselves up to allow Him to get a foot in the door so to speak because of what they have been taught by atheist evolutionist teachers. I know of very bright young boy of 10 years of age who said, "I just don't think I believe the Bible is true at all because it does not agree with what my teacher said in "science". He could see the difference at 10. Wow!! However, many of these people have heard the events that science deals with explained in a scientifically and Biblically sound way and have said, "Maybe I can accept that God exists. This really makes sense.", and these people have immediately or eventually come to be born again.

I definitely think it has its place.

Travis

My favorite is the doctrine that the universe is 6000 years old but appears 13 billion years old because the Lord created it "with vintage." That statement may be factually accurate but in science it does not qualify as a theory, or even a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested, mathematically demonstrated, proven or disproven. It is a "fact"...which must be taken by "faith." So why trot out junk science to support the word of God? It only undermines Christian credibility when they see us resorting to charlatanry to support our doctrine. It is better to just say, "We don't believe we are highly-evolved primates because we take the Word of God over the word of man." We should render unto science the things that are science's and unto God the things that are God's. It would be OK to demonstrate that Genesis is at least scientifically plausible, but creation science doesn't even succeed in doing that, much less proving or demonstrating anything.

Wayneman: This "in vintage" idea is not one held very seriously by most creationists. I suggest you look for a book called "Starlight and Time" that is available on the website of Answers in Genesis, Amazon.com, and many other sites. It outlines a new theory of cosmology by Russell Humphreys. Flows right out of Einstein's theory of general relativity and answers many of the questions that theories like the big bang totally fail to answer. Again, it is not the Bible, but it is good science, which by the way is simply man studying in a systematic way the amazing structure and order of the things that God created. No one is trying to "prove" anything. They are accepting by faith that the Biblical account of 7 days of creation plus the clear geneologies listed in the first five books of the Bible (the famous begats)adds up to about 6000 years. They accept what scripture says and use it as the basic truth upon which they base scientific research.

Travis

In the hopes that we are all trying to stay close to the Lord and not allow "minor issues" like creationism to get in the way;
I would recommend you look at an organization called Reasons to Believe and particularly a number of books by a man named Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and a Christian as well. ALso, he is most definitely NOT an evolutionist and believes the bible is the infallibly written word of God. I believe they make a number of credible arguements to the young earth position put forth by Answers in Genesis. They also specifically make a number of very pointed references to Humphries' works. We are all justifiably concerned by arguements by scientists that squelch the spiritual appetites of young people; we should also be concerned about those who are pushed away from Christianity because of the requirement that you adhere to the 6000 year old earth theory. This in no wa sugests that we bend our positions to make them more palitable to others who are searching for the truth; only that we make sure about understanding both sides of the arguement before we require that folks are young earth Christians before we break bread with them. My only response to both camps is check both out and prayerfully consider the arguements of each. In the final analysis, we are Christians and we are fallen and we make mistakes. May we show the same grace to others that God has shown us.

Travis,

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

One thing i saw that Ken Ham was wrong about that he might of just made a mistake was that satan and the angels that fell all fell before Adam and eve fell, because serpent was tempting them and was not serpent satan, so it had to happen where satan and the his angels fell first not Adam and eve and then satan.

And why is this concept wrong? I have never heard anyone suggest that Lucifer did not fall before Adam & Eve. Or, are you suggesting that Ham says the serpent tempted Lucifer?

ginnyrose

I have listened to Hugh Ross talk about his beliefs, and have seen him debate Ken Ham. Some of his ideas are, to me, irreconcilable with scripture. He is a progressive creationist who believes that God used the big bang to get the whole show started and that each creation day is really a very long period of time. The scientific ramifications of his view require drastic rearrangement of the book of Genesis, reducing it from historical narrative to ancient allegory. The big bang also has some very serious if not fatal scientific problems itself, but it is the best theory that those who must show how the universe is billions of years old have to justify their view. I guess I am pretty literal where Genesis is concerned. Nothing in the book leads us to believe it to be anything other than historical narrative. It is a book of history. I believe that history to be true and find no reason to try to adjust or reinterpret the first few chapters so that I am in closer agreement with secular science. From what I have read I think Dr. Humphrey's cosmology may be the best theory going. Even he will say that it is only a theory, but then again, any cosmology has to be.

I can see this issue as pretty important. If we cannot trust the Genesis account, can we trust the account of Christ? After all, the condition that Jesus came to deal with came about in Genesis.

Travis.

Quote: One thing i saw that Ken Ham was wrong about that he might of just made a mistake was that satan and the angels that fell all fell before Adam and eve fell, because serpent was tempting them and was not serpent satan, so it had to happen where satan and the his angels fell first not Adam and eve and then satan. And why is this concept wrong? I have never heard anyone suggest that Lucifer did not fall before Adam & Eve. Or, are you suggesting that Ham says the serpent tempted Lucifer?

Ginny: I have come to the conclusion that Lucifer's fall was in the Garden of Eden and occurred when he tempted Adam and Eve, not at some time in the heavenlies in time past. I know that the common view is that there was a war in heaven in time past and satan took 1/3 of the angels with him, but the only place I can find that view scripturally is in the Revelation sandwiched into prophecy about future events. I do find in Isaiah and Ezekiel descriptions of Lucifer, one of which states that he was the in the garden and was the anointed cherub that covers until iniquity was found in him. I believe when he said, I will ascend and be like God, that he decided to take man's authority and position from him by deception. I also think that when God said His creation was very good, that excludes the argument that satan had already rebelled. Bit either way, Satan did rebel against God and tempted Adam and Eve. When he rebelled is, I guess, a bit of an academic discussion. It does make much more sense to me to believe it happened in the garden.

In all fairness to Ken Ham, I think some of the comments about him in this thread are unnessecarily disrespectful. This issue of origins is too controversial to expect that anyone will produce a Christian repsonse that will please everyone. Admittedly AIG has their own propretary position on a number of questions regarding this issue. So does everyone else.

It should be enough to simply say you don't believe in their Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science...there's no need to throw a brother under the bus! ;)

MC

Brian, have you checked out the Institute for Creation Research? There are PH.D.'s at a nearby state university who will host reps from ICR on their campus, who will share their take on creation science. They also have a website.

Blessings,
ginnyrose

MC, do you not believe in a Young Earth or creation science?

I do.

I added the qualifier "their" in reference to the Creation Museum's position to allow Ken Ham's critics the grace to disagree with him, without resorting to ad hominem. The Creation Museum's rendering of Creation Science has points of distinction from what other creationists (and ID advocates) would claim as their own. For instance, there are various ongoing disagreements between the Creation Museum, ICR, Carl Baugh, Hugh Ross, and many others...including myself for that matter.

However, since 100% consensus with the Creation Museum is not mandatory for bible believing Christians, there is no need to denounce where simple disagreement would suffice. My main point was that I felt the people who launched the Creation Museum were being misunderstood in this thread.:)

Mike

ginny: I too would recommend someone checking out ICR. I think it a good organization.

All: I have never visited the creation museum that AIG has. I hope in the next year or so to do that. I am looking forward to it. Everyone I have spoken to who had gone said it was well worth it.

Travis

Brian,

Before you get all wrapped up in Ken Ham, please give a good listen to Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross.

Here are three free mp3’s that give you an overview of his ministry.
[url=http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/search/label/Hugh%20Ross]Hugh Ross[/url] Old Earth vs Young Earth debate is a three hour debate.

In the 1990’s, I used to listen to debates between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross and what won me (besides Dr. Ross' science) was the fact that he was never unprepared, nor did he get upset when pressed, nor did he resort to interrupting Ken or being rude or personal remarks toward Ken Ham but that is not true for Ken Ham’s behavior towards Dr. Ross. It was exactly the opposite of Dr. Ross’s. (I want to know why the rudeness, aren’t we on the same side?? LOL)

If I may advise you, please listen to the debates with Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross as well as Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross. It’s been almost 20 years, so hopefully behavior has changed but by listening to the debates you will get a good scriptural basis for both sides.

A few responses to the post by wayneman.

I wish to give some balancing comments as one who has been greatly blessed by and appreciated the ministry of Ken Ham. (For the record, I have kept away from Kent Hovind.)

My objection to creation science and every other aspect of Christian apologetics is that it is a form of priestcraft that requires sacrificium intellectus - the sacrifice of the intellect. Nowhere does the Word of God require us to forfeit our critical intelligence and hand it over to a priest or creation scientist. The organized religion industry requires that.

I agree that some of these disciplines can be "priestcraft", including creation science, but I personally have never found Ken Ham's ministry to be so. I just watched a message by him last month, and he was upholding faith in all the Scriptures as well as retaining and using all of our "critical intelligence".

You do not have to commit intellectual suicide to believe the Scriptures; you have to commit intellectual suicide to believe Ken Ham . . . I know a snow job when I see one. It is one thing to believe in young earth creationism as a point of faith; it is another to support that position with lunatic logic and junk science and call yourself "Doctor."

Maybe Ken Ham calls himself Doctor, I don't know, but why go on a rant about committing intellectual suicide and lunatic logic? Do you have specific statements Ken Ham has made that you have a problem with?

I am no "fan" of mainstream apologetics, by the way. Men such as Josh McDowell and others who have come in the decades since don't do a lot for me. However, I don't think that Josh McDowell's historical research is invalid either.

Christian apologetics begins with the proposition that the truth of the Bible can be logically proved

For some perhaps, but many apologetics ministries acknowledge that the truths in the Bible cannot be logically proven. Of course, I think it should be universally acknowledged that the Bible is not separate from logic. The Scriptures are not illogical.

KingJimmy, I have a few thoughts to offer in response to your post.

I think while well meaning, and while making good theological points (points that made a great impact on me when I was young in my faith), Ken Ham's apologetic is ultimately fleshly, and not Spirit fueled.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective and experience KingJimmy, but you have become quite a judge of Ken Ham, declaring his work is fleshly. I have not found it to be so. In expressing your own opinion and experience of Ken Ham, it is fine enough if you do not like him or what he has to say, but I think you have gone out on a limb in declaring him fleshly. That is an eternal pronouncement that his works are wood, hay, and stubble and will be burned up. If he is fleshly, his life cannot be pleasing to God. I think this is saying far too much. You also condemn those who feel his ministry is good.

While I believe in a young earth and a literal six day creation, I don't believe such because the science demands I do such. Indeed, if anything, science today shows the complete opposite.

There is a lot of good science today that upholds a six day creation before any other theory of why the earth came to existence.

Ken Ham's apologetic ultimately creates a weakened faith in the life of a believer. For the faith is not ultimately one that is centered in Christ, and in the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, rather, it is grounded in "creation science."

I understand that this can and does happen, but I find that Ken Ham's messages strengthen my understanding of faith, Christ, and all the Scriptures. I think you are wrong to say that Ken Ham in focused on something besides Christ. A goal of his ministry is to come against the spreading disbelief in the older Scriptures, because if the older ones are not valid then how can the newer ones be? His entire ministry is to support the writings about the Christ.

Creation science ultimately gives one a bad foundation upon which to build their life of faith. It's as shaky as using the shroud of Turin as proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For what happens, when somebody out there shows your science and "proof" to be faulty? You faith will ultimately be destroyed. Our faith must not be built on the things that can be seen, but rather, the things that cannot be seen.

If this happened for you, I am sorry, but it does not happen for all.