Ken Ham tells the truth

Ken Ham finally comes clean (photo by John Foxe, via Wikimedia Commons).

October 17, 2014

Some months ago, I wrote a post in which I accused Ken Ham of being a fibber.

I am not above changing my views to accommodate new facts (I’m not a young-earth creationist, after all), so I feel obligated to share with you an article at Answers in Genesis’ website in which the unthinkable happens: Ken Ham tells the truth.

Ostensibly a response to these gracious words by Deborah Haarsma, president of The BioLogos Foundation, Ham’s post is jarring in its candid presentation of what he actually believes.

No longer do people like me have to speculate, infer, imply and otherwise intimate that Ham is an arrogant and self-righteous prig, who believes young-earth creationism trumps the gospel and fancies himself to be in a lonely and Quixotic battle against anyone who finds reason to see allegory in Genesis; in this article, he makes that quite plain all by himself.

Haarsma’s article was a concerned yet cogent and respectful letter addressing Ken Ham’s views of both her organization and Hugh Ross, of the old-earth group Reasons to Believe. Haarsma quite accurately details where the three organizations differ, but points out the much larger common ground that exists between them, namely, a shared belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his saving work on the cross (this is also known as “the gospel,” or “the only thing that really, really, really matters, when it comes to the Christian faith”).

Haarsma writes:

All three organizations love the Bible and strive to follow Christ. While we disagree significantly on how best to interpret the Bible and the scientific evidence, we would agree that these are secondary issues to the gospel. We are all still believers together. Can we refrain from so quickly calling each other “compromised Christians” or flat-out “wrong”?

Sounds fair to me. So what does Ham think? “No thanks,” he says.
Read on

93 responses

Latest Developments

  • Photo by Yoel Ben-Avraham, via Flickr.

    Answers in Genesis responds: ‘No thanks, but here’s a book you can buy’

    October 20, 2014

    9 responses

    Almost a month ago, I posted a response to a rather critical article about me on Ken Ham’s blog.

    In that same post, I invited Ken Ham, or any representative of his organization, to an open dialogue on evolution, creation, the gospel and the proper interpretation of Genesis. Shortly thereafter, I sent a brief message along very similar lines through Answers in Genesis’ feedback form, which is the only forum for interaction on the group’s otherwise comment-disabled website.

    In my message, I also expressed interest in discussing whether it is fair for Ham and other AiG writers to regularly describe other Christians who disagree with them, like myself, as “compromisers,” who don’t accept “the authority of God’s word.”

    On Oct. 16, more than three weeks after I sent my inquiry, I received a response from one Terry Mortenson.

    Well… actually, I received a response claiming to be from Terry Mortenson, which was actually forwarded from a man named Troy Lacey (I found his bio too; he looks like a friendly chap, doesn’t he?). Read on

  • It's OK if you're lying for Jesus, right? (Photo by Angelii-D, via Deviant Art.)

    Jerry Bergman and Creation Ministries International caught fibbing

    October 16, 2014

    19 responses

    My friend, Jerry Bergman, has a very interesting article about C.S. Lewis over at the website of Creation Ministries International (CMI).

    CMI, if you’ve never heard of it, is an international nonprofit organization with close historical ties to my even better friends at Answers in Genesis.

    In this particular article, Bergman and CMI attempt to argue that the Christian author and apologist C.S. Lewis was opposed to evolution (which, of course, he wasn’t). But that little bit of truth-twisting is only the beginning.

    As evidence in support of their position, they say this: “Lewis stressed that the doctrine of evolution is ‘certainly a hypothesis,’ adding that he has concluded ‘the doctrine of Evolution as held by practicing biologists is … a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago.'”

    I’ve also taken some screenshots, just in case Bergman and CMI decide to get creative with this article. If they did, it would not be the first time a createvangelist organization blatantly altered the words of a respected Christian figure, then backtracked after being found out. Read on

  • GOE is inviting Ken Ham or a representative to an open dialogue about evolution, creation and the proper interpretation of Genesis (photo via Pixabay).

    A response and open invitation to Ken Ham

    September 23, 2014

    30 responses

    In recent months, it seems as though Ken Ham is focusing more than usual on responding to critics — all of whom are Christians, as far as I know — who suggest his organization’s obsession with a particular view of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is detrimental to the gospel message and the faith in general.

    In an interview last month with the Bad Christian podcast, I said something similar about young-earth groups like Ham’s Answers in Genesis: “There are some groups and individuals out there that have a very large following for which [evolution] is a really big issue and they say that [not believing in it] is a real central component of what it means to be a real Christian, or a Bible-believing Christian. And I think that does kind of hurt the gospel to an extent.”

    I didn’t mention Ham or AiG by name, but I was certainly thinking of them. Of course, they are far from the only ones. There are countless groups around the world that, for various and often inexplicable reasons, have made it their top priority to attack evolution and promote the idea that the universe is younger than the invention of beer. Read on