Ken Ham on Tyler Francke: Does the Creation/Evolution Debate Hurt the Gospel?

In my reading and research of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, I’ve come across quite a lot of material, so much so that I simply will not be able to include it all in the book I’m writing. Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean the material that doesn’t make the book can be shared on my blog. So, without further ado, here are some of my comments on a blog post of Ken Ham’s from September 19, 2014.

In a September 19, 2014 post entitled, “Does the Creation/Evolution Debate Hurt the Gospel?” Ken Ham picks a bone with Tyler Francke, the creator of GodofEvolution.com, who claimed in a podcast that the whole debate was essentially a side issue that was not central to the Gospel. Well, Ham begins by actually agreeing with Francke that the creation/evolution debate “is not a salvation issue,” but then he immediately turns around and, in true “Hamean form,” says, “It’s an issue that is central to the very gospel because it’s an attack on the authority of God’s Word—from which we get the gospel message! It’s a question of whose authority you’re going to accept: man’s ever-changing opinions or God’s authoritative Word?”

This is a tactic that Ham and those at Answers in Genesis regularly use: double-speak. To be clear, on one hand, Ham says, “it’s not a salvation issue,” but then he turns around and says “it’s an authority issue,” and the “authority issue” is central to the very gospel—which obviously is about salvation! It absolutely amazes me how blatantly deceptive Ham is in his language, and how his followers simply cannot see it.

It needs to be said time and time again that, regardless of whether or not you are convinced by the claims of evolution, the fact is evolution is not an attack on the authority of God’s Word, because God’s Word is not attempting to give a 21^st century historical/scientific account of the origins of the material universe—evolution can’t be an attack on something that doesn’t even address the issue evolution addresses.

One cannot even say that evolution is “an attack” on Ken Ham’s young earth creationist interpretation of the Genesis 1-11, for the simple fact that when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, there was as of yet no thing as “young earth creationism.” Despite what Ham might try to claim, young earth creationism is a 20th century phenomenon that was birthed out of the writings of Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price,  and that took root within Evangelicalism with Henry Morris’ book The Genesis Flood in 1961.

Simply put, evolutionary theory is not “an attack” on anything. It is, as of now, the most convincing explanation of certain processes in the natural world. Yes, atheists like Richard Dawkins might misuse evolution in an attempt to attack Christianity, but the problem is with Dawkins’ misuse of evolutionary theory, not evolutionary theory itself.

Evolution is not an attack on the authority of God’s Word. Yes, Ken Ham himself no doubt feels attacked, but that’s because evolution proves his claims (that have never even had a “history” in the history of the Church!) are simply wrong. The reason Ham wrongfully claims that evolution is an attack on the authority of God’s Word is because he quite obviously is equating his own authority with the authority of God’s Word.

So when Ham says, “evolution and the account of creation in Genesis are completely and utterly in conflict with one another,” he is absolutely wrong. Evolution is in conflict with his claim of a young earth and his claim that Genesis 1-11 is God’s eyewitness historical account of the origins of the universe. But if you know your Biblical Studies, you’ll know that you don’t even need evolution to prove that Ham’s claims are wrong.

There was No Death of Any Kind?
One of the “evidences” that Ham uses to argue for the historicity of Genesis 1-11 is that “according to Genesis, death arrived after the Fall as a punishment for sin.”

Well, does the Bible really say that before the Fall there was absolutely no death of any kind, whatsoever? Did apple cores not rot after Adam and Eve ate them? Did animals not defecate, and did certain insects not eat animal poop? Did plants not die when they were eaten? Such questions, as nonsensical as they sound, are completely legitimate questions that Ham cannot answer, given his claims.

In actuality, Genesis states that death came to human beings as a result of their sin. It doesn’t say there was no death in the plant or animal kingdom before the Fall. So even if you read Genesis 1-11 as literal history, you still have to acknowledge that Ham, by claiming there was no death of any kind at all, is clearly reading something into the text that isn’t there.

Damn, Dirty Apes…and the Image of God
Ham makes another odd claim, if one stops to really think about it. He says that evolution claims mankind descended from earlier ape-like creatures (which is essentially true, it does claim that), but then he contrasts that with, “whereas in Genesis, man was specially created by God from the dust and woman from his side.” What I would like to note is that for some reason Ham believes being made directly from dust is somehow more “special” than any kind of evolutionary process. My question is, “Why? How is dust more special and more dignified than an ape-like ancestor?” I simply don’t see it.

What Ham clearly fails to understand is that mankind’s specialness, his uniqueness of being made “in God’s image,” has nothing to do with the way in which the natural, biological body was created. Whether mankind biologically descended from ape-like creatures, or whether the first man was literally made from a pile of dust is completely immaterial and irrelevant to what the Bible is getting at when it talks about being made in God’s image. But Ham, being the modern Enlightenment thinker that he is, reduces everything to materiality and biology, and therefore is blind to the theological truth about mankind’s inherent worth, dignity, and God-ordained vocation to be God’s priestly-kingly-custodial-gardeners of His creation.

Imaginary Categories and the Hamean Shell Game
At the end of this post, Ham once again falls back on his imaginary distinction between “two kinds of science.”

“Observational science is the kind of science that we can test, observe, and repeat—it’s what gives us space shuttles and medical advancements. Historical science deals with the past and cannot be tested, repeated, or observed. Because of this, your starting point will determine how you see the evidence.”

Well, if it can’t be tested or observed, then it’s not science. Ham is attempting to make up a category so he could argue that Genesis 1-3 is “scientific” without having to actually prove it scientifically. It is the shell game of Ham in full swing.