This past weekend, Ken Ham came to my hometown for an Answers in Genesis conference at a local church. I knew he was coming as far back as last May, when it was announced to the faculty at my former school that the whole school was going to get to attend the conference. Needless to say, I’ve had the date on my calendar for quite some time. After all the reading, research, and writing I’ve done over the past year on Answers in Genesis and young earth creationism, I knew that I would just have to go to at least one session to hear the man himself.
Now, if you think I’m going to say something snarky, like, “I wasn’t disappointed!” you’ll be wrong. In all honesty, I was pretty disappointed with Ham’s presentation. It amounted to the same, rehashed clichés and talking points that I’ve been pointing out and addressing on this blog for the past six months. There simply wasn’t anything really new. By the end of the hour and a half presentation, I found myself getting rather tired and bored.
Nevertheless, I do think it is worthwhile to take you through Ken Ham’s presentation. I will provide a link to other posts I have written that address the points he brought up in the session. Also, where is necessary, I will provide some additional comments regarding a few unique things he said during his presentation.
Let’s Get Introduced
When Ken Ham took the stage, he made it clear to everyone what the motivation and purpose of Answers in Genesis was: to equip young people to give a defense of the Christian faith. Now, that sounds very noble, but ask yourself this as you read this post: “When does Ken Ham ever really defend the Christian faith?” Yes, he will occasionally quote a Bible verse, but when does he ever really discuss the Gospel?
He then proceeded to mention AiG’s “The Seven C’s of History” as a way to show one of their primary witnessing tools. Of course, if one knows Ham’s “Seven C’s of History,” one should realize that AiG glosses over, indeed, leaves out, a small portion of the Biblical story: the section from Genesis 12- Malachi. Yes, that’s right. Outside of Genesis 1-11, nothing else in the Old Testament gets mentioned. That’s quite a lot of the Bible to ignore.
Before he got into the bulk of his presentation, Ham then took a few minutes to promote the Creation Museum, the upcoming “Ark Encounter,” as well as the numerous books, pamphlets, and pocket guides he would be selling after the presentation.
Evolution, Evidence, and DNA
Ham first told of his brief time as a high school science teacher, and explained that when some students told him that evolution proved the Bible wasn’t true, he soon realized he wanted to devote his life to “creation ministry,” in order to show that the Bible could be trusted, even when it comes to science. Almost immediately after that, he then explained that there are two different kinds of science: Observational Science that builds our technology, and Historical Science that is untestable belief about the past. I’ve written about this before. Simply put, no, there are not “two kinds of science,” and if your very definition of “historical science” is untestable belief about the past, then it’s not science.
But is there rock solid evidence for an infinite God? Ken Ham’s answer was a resounding “Yes!” He quoted Romans 1:20 (“Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse”), and then pointed to the laws of nature, and the “laws of logic,” and argued that there is a uniformity in nature that shows there is a God.
Now, I have to say that he is right on the issue of nature: there is uniformity in nature, and the sheer complexity of nature points toward something beyond itself. You’ve heard this said before: “When you just look at nature, you have to think there is a God.” But where he goes wrong is when he claims this is “evidence” for God in some testable, scientific way. Secondly, his claims regarding the “laws of logic” and “uniformity in nature” are strange and bizarre—of course, he didn’t go into them in the presentation, but fortunately, I wrote a post on it.
After this, Ham then pivoted to an entirely different topic than science, but he continued to give the impression he was talking about science. He claimed that if there is no God, and “just evolutionary processes,” then how can one account for morality? If we are “just evolved animals,” how can anyone determine right and wrong?
Natural Processes and Bicycle Instructions
Now, Ham is right, sort of. If there is no God, and if human beings are nothing more than evolved animals, then yes—the very concept of morality is problematic. But there’s just one problem with what Ken Ham said: evolution does not say there is no God. Evolution is a scientific description of the natural process that leads to the varieties of life we have in the world. To put Ham’s comments into perspective, let me provide an analogy. It would be like if he held up the assembly instructions to a bike, and then said, “These instructions are trying to tell you that the Schwinn company doesn’t exist! If bikes are just the result of these instructions, if there is no Schwinn company, then how can you get bikes?”
Does that sound nonsensical? Of course. Instructions are just instructions; they aren’t a declaration that there is no Schwinn company. In the same way, evolutionary theory is just description of the process of nature; it isn’t a declaration that there is no God. So Ham is right to say that if there is no God, then morality is problematic; but he is completely wrong to suggest that evolutionary theory (i.e. the bike instructions) is an atheistic claim.
Ham then turned his attention to DNA as evidence for God—he spent quite a lot of time on this, but essentially his argument was this: DNA is the code that provides the information necessary for things to live, grow, and develop. But that information is immaterial, and matter cannot produce information, so where does the information come from?
Now, he’s sort of right, although he’s making more of a metaphysical argument than a scientific one. Basically, the very idea of purpose, meaning, intelligent, an information (all of which are immaterial things) suggests that there is something more to human beings than just being biological creatures. Where Ham goes wrong should be obvious: he levels this argument against evolution. Yes, he levels it at atheism as well, but for him, atheism and evolution are one and the same—at that’s a problem; a very misleading problem.
In any case, Ham then proceeded to mock “evolutionists” for not being able to explain “where the information comes from. He mocked “them” for claiming that “somehow” matter came into existence, and that “somehow” matter produced information and codes. “It’s a fairy tale! Evolution is just a fairy tale! They don’t know! Atheism is just blind faith!” Ham them exclaimed.
Is that confusing? Did that seem to come out of left field? I would concur. Despite what Ken Ham says, evolution doesn’t even attempt to explain “where matter came from” in the first place. So when he calls it a “fairy tale” because it can’t explain the origin of life, he’s disparaging it for not being able to answer a question that it never has attempted to answer in the first place.
Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins
In any case, Ham then showed a clip from the Intelligent Design movie, Expelled, in which Ben Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins, and in which Dawkins suggested that life on earth could have been “seeded” by some alien life form. Not surprisingly, Ham then mocked Dawkins for claiming “aliens.” Again, I sort of agree with Ham here: Dawkins’ answer is pretty out there, and if you’ve been reading my posts on Dawkins, you know I don’t think much of him.
But the thing that struck me as odd was that Ham was using a clip from an Intelligent Design movie, and even said it was a good movie. Why’s that odd? Because the Intelligent Design movement is not a young earth creationist movement. Its proponents admit to “millions of years,” and they admit that evolution by means of natural selection occurs. They have other points of contention with the general theory of evolution, but my point is simple: Ham routinely savages anyone who doesn’t subscribe to young earth creationism; but here, because this particular clip serves his purpose, he gives the impression that he agrees with the I.D. movement.
What’s the REAL Reason?
So why did “atheists” come up with the “fairy tale of evolution”? It’s obvious to Ham: they are in rebellion against God. God owns you, and He made the rules. “Atheists” invented the theory of evolution because they didn’t want to obey God’s rules that He put in the Bible. That’s why we have abortion and gay marriage. Regardless of your views on those two issues, let’s be clear what Ken Ham is claiming: people want to abort babies and marry the same gender…so they “invent” evolution, so that they can abort babies and marry the same gender.
No, that is nonsense.
In any case, Ham ended his initial rambling, muddled argument involving “information” and “evidence” with a flourish:
- “Atheism is evolution, and evolution is a religion that says there is no God.”
- “Science confirms the Bible.”
- “Genesis 1:1 is the most scientific statement one can make.”
Now, I’ve just given a recap of probably Ham’s first 20 minutes. Has his statements convinced you of any of those three claims? The fact is, evolution (whether or not you believe it) is not a religion; it is a scientific theory. Ham gave no evidence where “science confirms the Bible.” Yes, one can say that the information in DNA points to the possibility that there is a creator, but that is far different than saying, “Science confirms the Bible.” Finally, don’t you think his statement on Genesis 1:1 is just a bit much?
Tomorrow, I’ll cover the second part of Ham’s talk. It will include thoughts on Noah’s Ark, the Flood, Adam and Eve’s clothes, plus evolution’s role in the breakdown of our culture.
“When it was announced to the faculty at my former school that the whole school was going to get to attend the conference”. I find it incredible that in the US school students are bussed in to listen to young earth creationist claptrap as part of their ‘education’.
It is a small private school, for the record. There is a very “anti-public school” sentiment within some sectors of Evangelicalism, because they believe it when Ken Ham says public schools are “temples of atheism.”