I haven’t written about Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, and Young Earth Creationism for some time, but in truth, during the first five years or so of this blog, I wrote on that topic A LOT. This blog was my “template” for hashing out my ideas and views concerning that topic. I ended up writing a book, The Heresy of Ham about it. Over time, I have moved away from really focusing on the topic, but I still think what I wrote those years ago was actually pretty good. Besides, it’s hard to put blog posts on your bookshelf!
And so, I’ve decided to go back through my old blog posts and put them in three different collections–yes, I really did write that much about Ken Ham and Young Earth Creationism! Volume 1 is now out. Volumes 2 and 3 will be coming out in the next month or two.
Honestly, this is really just my way of collecting my own stuff into a hard copy format. But at the same time, if you are interested in the topic, and especially if you are a Christian who is struggling with the topic, I think you’d enjoy my stuff. Yes, you could search my blog for these posts–they’re still there–or you can just buy the whole collection.
I’m making these available as cheap as possible. So, if you care to, check out The Heresy of Ham Files: Ham Fisted Hermeneutics Volume 1: My Adventures in AiG Blogging.
…and you can enjoy my silly promotional video!
This is truly great, by the way.
Wait until the next two volumes. The cover for Volume 3 might be my most favorite cover of all time. Haha
I grew up believing in Young Earth Creationism. I continued to believe in Young Earth Creationism even while I was taking biology and other science classes in college; classes in which I was presented with overwhelming evidence proving a young earth impossible. So why did I continue to believe?
Answer: I believed in the supernatural.
If God says in his Holy Word that He created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago, he did. The fact that evidence exists that this process took billions of years to occur only proves the majesty and power of God. He enjoys confounding the wise!
With the supernatural, anything is possible, including making a young earth *appear* to be very old.
Ken Ham does not believe in a Young Earth because he is an idiot. He believes in a Young Earth because his views of the supernatural are different from yours. Neither of you can prove the other’s views wrong. You cannot prove each other wrong because there are no rules in the supernatural. Anything goes. Anything is possible.
When it comes to actual scientific questions about the material world, yes, science can prove that Ken Ham is wrong. It is a scientific question about the natural world, and science is the study of the natural world. The age of the earth is not a supernatural question. Ham’s problem isn’t that he believes in the supernatural. I believe in the supernatural as well. His problem is that he doesn’t know how to properly identify genre.
Since I am not a scholar, I am in no position to debate the literary genre of the first and second chapters of Genesis. But it is interesting to check out what Artificial Intelligence says on this issue, in particular: Did ancient Jewish thinkers believe that Genesis 1 and 2 were literal descriptions of creation? AI says that most *early* Jewish sages understood these texts to mean a literal six-day, 24-hour period.
Did ancient Jews believe their culture’s Creation Story to be literal? Did this literalistic view change after exposure to Greek philosophy? That would be fascinating to know.
I find it interesting that “fundamentalist” Christians are not the only people today who view Genesis 1 and 2 as literal descriptions of God’s creation of the universe. Ultra-orthodox Jews also believe these texts to be literal. Since orthodox Jews are very keen to maintain traditions, it seems unlikely that a “young earth” view was an 18th century invention.
A young earth interpretation of the text is certainly not new. The current form of it is largely a reaction against science and Modernity. AiG has become a culture war organization and has no interest in any reputable science any more.
Unrelated, it will be curious to see who will replace Ham and whether AiG can survive, or at least remain relevant, in that transition. They tried once already but Martin Iles moved on.
“…. science can prove that Ken Ham is wrong.”
Science has also proved that you are wrong, so why do you cling to non scientific nonsense?
What would you say to progressive Bible scholars who believe that the Resurrection Story (Stories) are allegorical (spiritual), not literal?
Excellent question, Gary.
Not really. You see, both you and Gary determine if anything in the Bible (be it Genesis 1-11 or the Gospel of Mark) is historical or not based on your presupposition that anything “supernatural” or “miraculous” = fiction. You base EVERYTHING on your presupposition of philosophical naturalism.
Scholars will determine first the GENRE of a given book or passage. The GENRE of Genesis 1-11 is ANE myth–it has all the literary characteristics of that genre. The Gospel of Mark is an ancient historical biography–it has all the literary characteristics of that genre. Even more “liberal” scholars will acknowledge that to be its genre. Some will still say they don’t believe certain things in Mark “really happened,” but they’ll still acknowledge its proper genre. And, IMO, their reasons as to why such “miraculous” things are found in a historical biography of Jesus aren’t really convincing. And most will NOT say the story of Jesus’ resurrection is “allegorical.” They’ll say something like, “Oh, the early Christians really believed that but were suffering from mass hallucination or cognitive dissonance” or something like that.
So, as always, Gary’s question is problematic and illogical to begin with.
The question that must be asked is: What are the characteristics of an ancient historical biography? Did they consist of mostly historical facts like today’s biographies, only differing in that a few minor embellishments were allowed? Or, were they heavily embellished with fictional tales to glorify the protagonist? I am not an expert, but I can ask AI: (I have added asterisks ** at points for emphasis.)
Liberal Bible scholars generally classify the Gospels as a form of ancient Greco-Roman biography (bios) blended with theological narrative, rather than modern objective history. They argue these texts are **heavily** edited (redacted) oral traditions designed to promote theological agendas and community values, often focusing on the significance of Jesus’ death rather than providing strict, chronological fact-checking.
Key views from liberal/critical scholarship regarding the genre of the Gospels include:
-Greco-Roman Biography (Bios): Many modern critical scholars argue the Gospels belong to the genre of bios, which aimed to inform, **entertain**, and paint a **portrait** of a person’s character, rather than providing precise historical accuracy.
-Theological Interpretation (Redaction): Liberal scholars argue the Evangelists were not just chroniclers, but “redactors” (editors) who **reshaped** stories to fit the specific theological needs of their communities.
-Unique Literary Genre: Others, such as Karl Ludwig Schmidt, have argued that the Gospels represent a unique, new genre that merged oral traditions about Jesus with theological commentary, separating them from standard Greco-Roman biographical writing.
-“True Fiction” or Myth: Some argue that, because the texts were written decades after Jesus’ life and prioritize theological meaning, they should be understood as “true fiction” or narratives that may not be factually true, but convey the early church’s perception of Jesus.
-Focus on Meaning over History: Liberal scholars prioritize finding the intended theological or ethical message of a passage rather than focusing solely on whether the event occurred as recorded.
Gary: This proves that a significant percentage of experts (scholars) doubt the historical reliability of the Gospels. It isn’t that they claim everything is fiction, only that a lot of it MAY be fiction. You may disagree with this position but you need to stop claiming that Douglas (Ark) and I are ignorant and completely wrong. Our position is the position of liberal Christian scholars and atheist scholars.
.
@Gary
Joel gets around acknowledging the fact that his belief in the supernatural has no more evidential basis than than the silly things he ridicules Ken Ham for by ascribing the term ‘genre’ to the supernatural beliefs he clings to.
And yet, the entire Exodus narrative, Angelic Visits, Virgin births, tales of Instant Viticulture, Triune gods, and being a pedestrian on Lake Tiberius are just as ridiculous as Adam and Eve, talking reptiles, and Noah and his ark.
I believe Joel could very well be correct regarding the genre of Genesis 1 and 2 but evidence does exist which supports Ham’s position that many ancient Jews believed these stories were written to be understood literally. There is really no way to know who is correct.
We have a similar situation with the Gospels. Some experts believe it is naive to believe that the Gospel authors intended for their readers to read their stories as historical accounts. Ancient biographers had very different standards than those today. Just think of this: If first century people expected stories about famous persons to be heavily embellished (with fiction), maybe that is why no one batted an eye when the author of Mark wrote a “biography” of Jesus in which he invented fantastical miracles which no one had ever heard of!
AI: “Yes, some scholars, theologians, and historical critics argue that the Gospels were not originally intended as strict, literal, or modern historical accounts. Instead, many view them as early Christian stories, theological narratives, or “true fiction” designed to convey deeper symbolic, spiritual, or philosophical truths about Jesus rather than precise, chronological reporting.”
Like every apologist I / we have encountered over the years, Joel will pick and choose his stories on the belief to he comes out of any discussion on the matter feeling as though he has defended his position with flying colours, while at the same time refusing to confront the reality that the faith-based lens through which he views the bible is completely bereft of evidence and therefore , has no more validity or merit than that of Ken Ham.
As we have discussed on your site, there will very likely come a point in time when the realization will be that ALL these tales are simply made up.