Ken Ham Tries to Fry Up Francis Collins

As I am doing research for my book The Heresy of Ham, I am constantly finding blog posts written by Ken Ham that simply are astounding. Eight years ago, when I moved to Alabama to be the Biblical Worldview teacher at a small Evangelical school, I had absolutely no clue (nor did I care about) regarding the “creation vs. evolution” debate. I didn’t care about science. All I cared about was being able to correctly interpret Scripture. Long before I had done any research into the “creation vs. evolution” debate I already knew full well that Genesis 1-11 was not attempting to convey modern science and history. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of ancient literature knows this.

Consequently, when I did start looking into the “creation vs. evolution” debate, I came across Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis—I initially thought that they must have some valid arguments for their young earth creationism. The more I read up on their claims, though, I came to realize to my astonishment that it is more than they are just not fully convincing; it is more than just they are clearly wrong—they are actively deceiving people and misrepresenting just basic facts regarding (a) what evolution even claims, and (b) what the Bible actually is. It’s the same realization I had when I read up on the New Atheist Movement: look past all the bluster and over-heated over-generalizations, and you realize that the emperor has no clothes—it doesn’t matter if that emperor is Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Ken Ham. They are all naked and should be ashamed.

Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of NIH.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of NIH.

In any case, I came across a December 10, 2013 post by Ken Ham, “Are There Two Kinds of Truth?” It was a response to Dr. Francis Collins—the scientist who headed up the Human Genome Project, mapped the human genome, is now the director of the National Institutes of Health, and who founded the BioLogos Foundation, which is a group that encourages Christians to wrestle with how to come to terms with both modern science and the Christian faith. Dr. Collins is an Evangelical Christian, and yes, he believes that God creates the natural world by an evolutionary process. He is a theistic evolutionist.

Ham, Collins, and “Historical Science”
Well, that is just not acceptable to Ken Ham. He will not tolerate self-professed Christians advocating theistic evolution. And so, in his usual fashion, Mr. Ham sets about trying to “fry up” Francis Collins.  The link to the post is here: https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/12/10/are-there-two-kinds-of-truth/

The first way Ham tries to “fry up” Francis Collins is a tactic called “guilt by association.” He begins his post by noting that Dr. Collins had written a blog for the group “Big Think” in which he discusses science and religion. This is how Ken Ham sets this up:

Big Think has interviewed a series of people hostile to biblical creation, such as Bill Nye and atheist Lawrence Krauss. Adding to their voices is Dr. Francis Collins, a professing Christian, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the founder of the theistic evolution group BioLogos.”

Now, factually all that is true: Big Think has interviewed these men. But why does Ham point out Bill Nye and Lawrence Krauss? Because they are atheists—and therefore, that allows him to line up his fellow Christian as “really one of those guys!” Notice the insinuation in his description of Collins: He is a professing Christian. Translation? “Well, he claims to be a Christian…but hey, look at the guys he’s lined up with! Atheists who believe in evolution and who are hostile to creation!” And so, from the very beginning, Ham is purposely and openly hostile to Collins.

He then quotes something Collins wrote in his post: If I am asking a scientific question, it’s the tools of science I should be using and not assuming something supernatural happened in the test tube at that moment.” This should be obvious: science looks for “cause and effect” in the natural world. When you are testing something in the lab, you’re asking, “What are the chemicals doing and what change is happening?” You’re not asking, “When is a genie going to make it go ‘poof?’”

Ham knows this, but he nevertheless uses this as an opportunity to trot out his most famous (and fictitious) talking point regarding two kinds of science: observational science—which can be tested and observed; and historical science—which is untestable, unobservable, and based on faith in a presuppositional worldview. So, to be clear, after inventing the fictitious category of “historical science,” and defining it as “untestable faith in a presupposition,” Ham has the gall to accuse Dr. Collins of giving a “distorted perspective” of science.

Ham then takes issue with Collins’ reference to the so-called conflict between science and religion. Collins argues that there should be no conflict, and indeed isn’t a conflict: the Bible clearly teaches that God is the Creator, but it isn’t attempt to give a scientific account of the why in which He creates.

Well Ken Ham has a problem with that. Sure, there isn’t a conflict between science and religion, he says,“the only conflict is between millions of years and evolutionary ideas with the clear words of Scripture. And the science used to study our origins is historical science and it’s not repeatable or observable. So whether the scientist is an evolutionist or a creationist, that researcher still has faith in a certain set of beliefs, known as a worldview.”

Aside from the repeated fiction of “historical science,” Ham is blatantly wrong on two other points: (1) the claims of “millions of years” and evolutionary theory have come about because of scientific research—that’s science; and (2) the “clear words of Scripture” do not claim that the universe is 6,000 years old. The ancient Israelites did not hold to, or were even aware of, 21st century modern scientific issues. The “clear words of Scripture” would have had to make sense to them; they would have to have been clear to them. And a modern scientific interpretive imposition on Genesis 1-11 would have made no sense to them. Therefore, the way Ken Ham is interpreting Genesis 1-11 cannot be “the clear words of Scripture,” because such an interpretation would not have been clear to the original audience.

So let’s be clear: in the above quote, Ken Ham (1) calls science “not science,” and (2) claims Genesis 1-11, which could not have been science, “science”!  He has turned both science and proper biblical interpretation on their heads.

Ah Yes, the Culture War!
And so, when Collins claims that “faith and science need not be in conflict” because some people are trying to have a cultural war and pit “science” vs. “religion,” and make it seem like one has to win and one has to lose, Ken Ham’s response is basically, “Crickey! That’s exactly right! That’s what I’m doing! I’m leading a cultural war!”

And then, once again, Ham trots out his “historical science” talking point. He claims that the “science” Francis Collins it talking about: “is usually man’s historical science. But this is a battle of the biblical worldview against the secular humanist worldview. And you see, our worldviews color how we understand much of the world around us, including origins. Sadly, Dr. Collins doesn’t seem to understand that perspective. In fact, he claims that “we need both kinds of world views,” apparently considering “science” to be its own separate worldview, rather than realizing that it’s really God’s Word (the Bible) versus man’s word (millions of years and evolution).”

It is plain as day: Ken Ham doesn’t even regard evolutionary theory to be science. He confuses it with the presuppositional worldview of secular humanism. Oh, he’ll call it “historical science,” but the kind that is based on secular humanism, and he’ll contrast it with the “historical science” that is based on a modern scientific interpretive imposition onto Genesis 1-11. But listen up: there is no such thing as “historical science.” It is a made-up, fictitious category Ken Ham uses in order to both (1) deny there is any scientific merit to evolution, and (2) claim that Genesis 1-11 is “science”… “historical science”…the kind you can’t observe or test! It is a con, a shell-game, a deception, pure and simple.

Regardless of whether you are convinced or not of all the claims of evolutionary theory is ultimately beside the point, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t necessarily buy everything that evolutionary theory claims. Much of it is convincing, some, not so much. But at the very least, we should be upset that Ken Ham is actively trying to prevent people from even knowing what evolutionary theory actually is. Don’t be conned by an Australian charlatan who is shuffling his “scientific-sounding shells” so quickly that you lose track of the ball…and your mind.

Ham’s Condescension
The whole post is rather bizarre. We have a former high school science teacher lamenting that the leading scientist in the world today, the one who successfully mapped out the human genome and is now director for the National Institutes of Health, doesn’t understand what “science” is. The Hubris of Ken Ham is just astounding. Who are you going to listen to and take seriously: the “I mapped out the entire DNA structure of the human genome” guy, or the “Noah had access to power tools and computer models to help him build the ark” guy?

In any case, Ham ends his post by encouraging people to pray for Francis Collins, “that he would repent and return to the authority of Scripture on creation.” His ignorance and arrogance is palpable. His ignorance is seen in his lack of a basic understanding of either science or the Bible; and his arrogance is seen in his calling Dr. Francis Collins to repent for not agreeing with him! Francis Collins never left the authority of Scripture. What Scripture says about creation is that God is the Creator, that creation is good, and that human beings are created in His image, and there have a vocation to be His priests, and kings, and stewards of His creation. That’s the point and purpose of Genesis 1-2. What Ham calls “the authority of Scripture on creation” is no such thing; rather, it is his own authority, and his modern, Enlightenment interpretive imposition onto Genesis 1-2.

It is one thing not to be convinced of evolutionary theory; it is one thing to believe that Genesis 1-11 is actual history. I would think you’re wrong, but I’m not going to question your Christian faith, condemn you, or call you to repent. I’d hope we could have a discussion and share our views and learn from each other.

But what Ken Ham routinely does is something altogether different—and that is what I am trying to bring to light: his distortions, his deceptions, and his open condemnation of fellow Christians. Whatever your view of evolutionary theory or Genesis 1-11 might be, I would hope you would see the things Ken Ham is saying, and conclude with me that what he is doing is hateful, divisive and wrong.

Books by Francis Collins:

  

7 Comments

  1. I actually wrote a college paper that touched on this creation-evolution topic and, having been pulled out of (public) school by my parents to attend the Ham/Gish/et al creation seminars as a youngster, I naturally turned to the ICR website for help finding sources to support my view. My plan was to glean sources for my bibliography from the footnotes of articles posted on the site. I hit a brick wall: there were no sources! The articles were full of statements like, “scientists have found…” and “scientists now say…” without any references to scholarly work of any kind. I was so frustrated and disoriented by the complete lack of substance that I actually wrote a letter to the ICR. They wrote back several weeks or months later and I have the letter somewhere. I will pass it along when/if I next run across it. As I recall it was like, sorry you had a bad experience, thanks for letting us know, we’ll look into it.”

    1. Hey there Lisa,
      That’s a really good point I’ve found to be true as I’ve looked into Ham. There are constant claims of “Scientists say…” etc. etc.–and I find myself asking, “What scientists? Who is claiming these things?” I think the only “scientists” who say these things are the handful who work for the organization. You’re right–when you look into organizations like ICR or AiG, it is all just smoke and mirrors. And since they are so deliberate about it, I have concluded it is purposely deceptive.

      By the way, Eliot still likes the blanket you made!
      Joel

  2. I just came across Ken Ham a few weeks ago, and, I’m sad to say, that he has become a sort of obsession that I need to let go. I’ve never encountered an individual that was able to to sicken me in as many different ways, and I just cannot seem to wrap my head or heart around around a guy so utterly hypocritical, cruel and vindictive to strangers, willing to lie to children, and condescending towards opponents while responsible for some of the all time insults against God and science. Few examples: no evolutionists were around to see it happen, so it can’t be true but I don’t need to have been there to prove Noah’s ark because I have God as my witness as he says in Genesis. No dinosaur bone has been discovered that has a label on it indicating how old it is, so, they have no proof, but I have God telling me in Genesis. Lying to children, claiming to know what heaven looks like and who is there or not, and all the while acting as if everyone else must be crazy to see how obviously correct he is. He makes me sick along so many lines, and I hope he is universally ridiculed and not in a position to infect anyone else with his lies. I don’t believe in fiery pits where God tortures people or celestial amusement parks, but, in this case, I think it’s a shame that there is no hell for this sinister charlatan to go to.

    1. Kevin, I do not think I could have said it better myself. There is so much twisted logic and outright deception, I don’t know what is more disconcerting: that there are men like Ken Ham out there who puts this out, or that there are millions of Christians who have gotten sucked in and deceived by him. Now I don’t think he thinks he’s deceiving people: I think he really does believe what he’s saying, but that just shows how self-delusioned he is. I’m really hoping once I finish my book that a publisher will pick it up, and it will find an audience. The “true Hamites” are so far gone that nothing will change their minds. But I’m concerned for the scores of thinking young Christians (high school/college) who have grown up with this, who don’t know anything else, but just know there’s something wrong about it. I don’t want them to think that HAM is preaching Christianity. He isn’t, pure and simple. It kills me to think that there are kids who are ditching Christianity because this man has presented it as pure stupidity. Using his logic, men like Origen, Ireneaus, Augustine, Aquinas, Kepler, Galileo, etc. etc. would all be “compromised Christians.”

      I never knew something could be so laughable, yet so infuriating at the same time.
      Again, thanks for your comments. If you know of anyone who is chucking Christianity because they think Christianity is “anti-science,” tell them about my blog.

    1. In a nutshell, I don’t think the story is trying to give us historical information about a historical person. The word “Adam” means “man”–I believe the story is about mankind. It’s your story and my story: we are made in God’s image, but we sin and are enslaved to corruption and death; and yet God’s plan is to redeem us and renew the entire creation.

      Or in other words: Genesis 2-3 is telling us WHY we are sinful (i.e. Adam sinned and passed down his sin to us), but rather THAT we are sinful (i.e. WE are adam).

  3. Than you Joel for sharing your insight. I am a Christian and physician who has had a lifelong love for science and curiosity about human origins and cosmology in general. I always find your writing interesting and often inspirational. Keep on blogging!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.