What better way to conclude my analysis of Ken Ham’s Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church than with a seventh post? On this seventh post, I will rest from my critique of Ken Ham.
The final chapter of Ham’s book is entitled, “Implications of Accepting Evolutionary Ideas.” In reality, it should have been entitled “The ONE Implication of Accepting Evolutionary Ideas,” for after stating (again) that “millions of years isn’t a salvation issue, but rather an authority issue and a gospel issue (…which is about salvation), Ham latches on to one point and bangs that drum throughout the chapter:
- Belief in millions of years is based on death and hopelessness.
- The Bible clearly teaches that God’s original creation was perfect (as Ham writes, From the perspective of the literal history of the Book of Genesis, there was a perfect world to start with—described by God as ‘very good’”).
- To believe in “millions of years” is to believe that there have been millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, and that it was part of God’s original creation.
- God did not call death, disease, and suffering “good.”
- Natural disasters like tsunamis and hurricanes are a consequence of “the saddest day in the history of the universe: when the first man Adam rebelled against the Creator, bringing sin and death into a once-perfect world.”
- “You see, death and suffering are not ‘very good.’ No, they are painful reminders of sin’s entrance into the world and the effects of the Curse on creation.”
- What history will you accept? The biblical history, or evolutionary history, “the one that makes God an ogre responsible for millions of years of death, disease, and suffering?”
- “As soon as Christians, such as Bible scholars and church leaders, allow for death, suffering, and disease before Adam’s sin (which they automatically must if they believe in millions of years), then they have raised a serious question about the gospel message. If death has always been present, then what exactly has sin done to the world?”
The Issue of Death and Suffering
Did you catch what Ham was trying to drive home? Of course you did. And in actuality, it is a very valid point to bring up to discuss: the question of death and suffering. Ham’s point is very similar to the standard question of theodicy, namely, “How can a good God allow death and suffering?” Only, Ham takes that question, projects it back to Genesis 1-3, and after insisting that Genesis 1-3 is literal history, thus concludes that death and suffering didn’t exist approximately 6,000 years ago for a very short while, until the only two human beings who lived at the time ate a piece of fruit from an actual tree called “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” And that is the reason why we have death, disease, cancer, tsunamis, hurricanes, and carnivores.
Or more simply, Ham’s claim is that (A) God’s creation was originally perfect, (B) the first two human beings He made were originally perfect, with a perfect genome and super-intelligence, but (C) once Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate the piece of fruit, they and all of creation “fell” from that state of perfection, and (D) that accounts for all the death, disease, and suffering in the world.
Thus, the theory of evolution and “millions of years” pretty much throws a monkey wrench into that understanding. And thus, in Ken Ham’s eyes, evolution and “millions of years” is ultimately an attack on God’s own character and it, as Ham says, undermines the gospel—after all, if death and suffering were a part of God’s original creation, then what was Jesus saving us from? If, as Ham implies, the whole point of Jesus death and resurrection was to get us back that state of original perfection of God’s original creation, and yet that original creation had death, disease, and suffering, then what’s the point?
Let’s be honest: given the presuppositions Ham (and probably a lot of people in general) bring to the table, that is a devastating challenge to evolution and “millions of years.”
Irenaeus, Adam, and Death and Suffering
The only problem (to use Ham’s own terminology) is that Ham’s starting point is wrong. Let’s just get really basic: nowhere in the Bible does it say God created a “perfect” creation or that Adam and Eve were “perfect” with “super-intelligence.”
In fact, I wrote about this very thing in my series on the early Church Father Irenaeus. (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6). Irenaeus, reflecting the view of the early Church on the topic of Adam, specifically says that the idea that there was some sort of original “perfect” creation, and that Adam and Eve were “perfect” with practically super-human abilities, was a gnostic heresy. In fact, he makes is abundantly clear that Adam was not perfect—for only God is perfect. Rather, Adam and Eve were clearly child-like, and their disobedience was basically inevitable—and that was okay, because it was part of God’s plan.
Irenaeus (as well as the Orthodox Church) taught that although human beings (i.e. Adam) are made in God’s image, that in their original state they are not yet fully like God (i.e. in God’s likeness—Gen. 1:26). And thus the way human beings become more like God (although they will never be perfect like God) is through experiencing the evil and suffering that comes about because of disobedience, gaining the discernment to distinguish between good and evil, and then learning to reject evil and cling to God.
Hence, there was never a time back then when creation or human beings were “perfect.” This creation as we now have it is the original creation—it is phase one, if you will. Death and suffering are a part of this creation—they are not good in and of themselves, but God uses them within His greater divine plan to essentially “grow us up,” from our original, childish state (depicted as Adam and Eve) to fullness and maturity in Christ.
And thus, Ken Ham is simply wrong to assume that the purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection was to get us back to some state of original perfection. No—there never was an original state of perfection. Rather, Christ’s death and resurrection takes us onwards and upwards, brings us out of phase one and into phase two, if you will.
Two Passages in Romans
Once we realize this, the two specific passages in Romans Ken Ham often uses to argue for his YECist claims can be seen in a new light. We can see that Romans 5:12-21 is not trying to teach “original sin,” and a historical Adam—that’s not its point. Its point is to emphasize how Christ supersedes Adam, how the work of Christ goes over and above the works of Adam (i.e. humanity), and how the new creation in Christ is better than the original creation in Adam.
The gospel isn’t about getting us back to a “perfect, pre-Fall Adam,” because there never was a “perfect, pre-Fall Adam.” No, the gospel is about how, through Christ, we can be transformed from mere creatures into sons of God.
And then there is Romans 8:20-22. Ham quotes this passage quite often to argue that God made an original perfect creation, but then Adam screwed it up: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”
Let me just point this out: nowhere in this passage (indeed nowhere in Romans 8) is there any hint of an originally perfect creation. It’s just not there. In fact, in 8:19, it says, “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God.” Simply put, Paul isn’t suggesting that this is a perfect creation gone bad, and that thus “groans” in pain because of sin and decay. Rather, he is stating (a) this creation is subject to corruption and is filled with suffering and death, and (b) that suffering and “groaning” is, in reality, labor pains that bring about a new birth.
This creation is equated with a fetus in the womb; the new creation in Christ is equated with life outside the womb—and to get from one to the other will involve suffering, but that’s okay, because, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18).
Ken Ham and Mike Beidler
In any case, Ken Ham ends his final chapter by taking a parting shot Mike Beidler, a guest writer for…you guessed it…BioLogos! Essentially, Beidler articulated in his article the very view of Genesis 1-11 that I (and C.S. Lewis, for that matter) have: namely, that it is not meant to be understood as literal history, but rather needs to be understood according to the genre of ancient Near Eastern myth, and that the purpose of ANE mythology was not to convey historical information, but rather that culture’s particular worldview. Therefore, Christians should not feel that not reading Genesis 1-11 as straightforward history means that they are undermining biblical authority or the gospel.
This, by the way, is utterly true.
Ken Ham, though, obviously interprets this a bit differently. He accuses Beidler of simply trying to make Christians “feel better about accepting evolution and millions of years,” and then, in typical Hamean fashion, accuses Beidler of “placing man’s word in authority over God’s Word.” Of course, in a recent discussion with Beidler, both he and I said that we both came to our conclusion about Genesis 1-11 being mythological completely apart from any consideration of evolution—therefore, Ham’s claim that Beidler’s real motivation was to get people to accept evolution is simply patently false.
Ham also noted that Beidler made the argument that, in terms of genre, it is quite obvious that the Gospels are nothing like Genesis 1-11—they are clearly histories. Thus, the Gospels are clearly a reliable source for understanding the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. Besides, far as the Adam and Eve story goes, sin is still an obvious reality in our world even if there was no historical Adam and Eve.
Ham’s response to this claim? “So, the Gospels are reliable—but Genesis is not, despite the fact that through a detailed statistical analysis of the Hebrew language, Genesis has been shown to be historical narrative? What a low view of inerrancy.”
Well, there is quite a lot to untangle in that one misleading quote:
- No, Beidler isn’t saying Genesis 1-11 isn’t reliable—he’s saying it’s not meant to be understood as historical.
- When it comes to literature, who does a “statistical analysis”? What does that even mean? Should we do a “statistical analysis” of Jesus’ parables, or perhaps the Psalms?
- No, despite Ham’s repeated assertions, most scholars acknowledge that Genesis 1-11 isn’t a historical narrative—it’s no wonder, then, why Ham churns out book after book, condemning Christian scholars and academics who disagree with him.
In any case, Ham ends his section on Beidler by simply reiterating his standard condemnations of everyone who disagrees with him: “These compromisers certainly have a different view of what Scripture is than I do [Note: yes, this is true]—or than what Scripture itself clearly claims!” [Note: this is not true].
And finally, “What Beidler is teaching here is not a viable alternative to biblical creation based on any kind of textual evidence. No, he is attempting to use clever academic arguments and terms to subvert the authority of God’s Word so that man’s fallible, changing ideas are treated as the truth about our origins.”
Well, actually, Beidler’s view of Genesis 1-11 is based on solid biblical exegesis—the kind that Ham gives lip service to, but then utterly rejects. And can we note once again Ham’s anti-intellectualism and antipathy to solid biblical learning, and his use of “academic” as basically a derogatory cuss word?
Conclusion
When it is all said and done, Ken Ham’s claims about Genesis 1-11 are not based in solid biblical exegesis. And the cold, hard fact is that solid biblical exegesis and everything in modern science contradict his claims at every turn. But instead of stepping back and saying, “Wait, maybe I should rethink my position—maybe I’m wrong,” Ham has chosen to instead equate his claims with the Word of God itself, and has thus ended up making an entire career out of spinning the most absurd conspiracy that Christian scholars and pastors have teamed up with scientists to deceive Christians, undermine the gospel, and plunge society into moral chaos.
I grew up in Evangelicalism, I went to a Christian high school—up until about ten years ago, I had never encountered the absurd claims of Ken Ham and YECism. Within the Evangelical world I grew up in, the current YECist claims that have taken root in so many churches today were seen to be completely fringe and unhinged lunacy.
The decline of modern Evangelicalism in America isn’t due to the fact that people are accepting “millions of years.” It’s because, sadly, Evangelicals are by and large biblically illiterate, and thus have allowed themselves to be led by blind guides like Ken Ham. The result being a whole lot of fear and paranoia and conspiracy theories. They cannot understand why there is no growth in their churches and why everything seems to be dying, despite the fact that they are just flooding their crops with Ken Ham’s Historical Genesis 1-11: Brawndo!
No, it’s not what the plants crave—it’s what is killing the harvest.
Just found this blog. It’s pretty excellent.
Thanks! I do what I can!