For the head of an organization that is supposedly based around preaching the “truth of God’s word,” Ken Ham sure seems to lie a lot.
Just off the top of my head, there was the documented attempts at historical revisionism by his group, Answers in Genesis, which tried in 2009 to twist the words of the late Charles Spurgeon into its prescribed young-earth creationist mold.
Much more recently, the man we affectionately refer to around here as “K-Ham” or “Hammy” made the bizarre statement during a Google Plus live chat that he doesn’t “know where people get the idea that people rode dinosaurs.” He went on to say, “I mean, there’s no evidence in the Bible that that is so. I mean, when Job was looking at Behemoth, the description there, there’s nothing to do with people riding dinosaurs. We don’t know how people interacted with dinosaurs.”
While it’s certainly true that there is no evidence in the Bible that people rode dinosaurs (since, you know, dinosaurs as aren’t mentioned in the Bible at all), it is not true that K-Ham is completely ignorant of where the idea came from, since the idea came from him. That is, it can be traced to his books, such as “Dinosaurs of Eden: Tracing the Mystery Through History” (relevant excerpt seen here), and his “museum,” which includes a sculpted, saddled dinosaur that children may scamper aboard and have their picture taken upon.
Perhaps it is unfair to call these instances “lies.” Maybe they are honest mistakes. K-Ham says and writes a lot of things; he can’t be expected to remember everything he has ever said and done at the drop of a hat.
However, as a Christian, I take what Ham says about the gospel message and the free gift of salvation offered in Christ Jesus particularly seriously. That’s why I was very surprised (OK, not really that surprised) to find this on Hammy’s Facebook page this morning:
I included the screenshot, just in case he should be seized by the temptation for any further attempts at accidental historical revisionism (i.e., deleting the post).
K-Ham is righteously indignant at an unnamed blogger (this gentleman, apparently), whom he quotes as saying, “AiG is, unfortunately, famous for insinuating, if not outright saying, that if a literal, six-day creation six to ten thousand years or so ago is untrue, then Christianity is untrue.” Ham sputters that (emphasis mine):
That’s simply a gross misrepresentation of what we do say. Salvation is not conditioned on a ‘six-day creation six to ten thousand years ago,’ but on faith in Christ. What we do say is reinterpreting the clear words of Scripture in Genesis to fit with millions of years undermines biblical authority. Such compromise can affect the coming generations in regard to how to look on Scripture–it can cause doubt leading to unbelief. It’s an authority issue.
Now, to be fair, K-Ham is generally pretty consistent in his message that those of us believers who accept evolution are just “COMPROMISERS,” not outright heathens. But at the same time, Ham has, in fact, taught exactly what the above blogger said he has.
See our previous story on the latest creationist movie in which Ham and his cohorts are featured. In the trailer for that film, Ham says the following: “What we need to do is to make sure we start right at the very beginning, in Genesis, answer the skeptical questions that are causing people to doubt that that book is true, to help them understand that the history is true — that’s why the gospel based on that history is true.”
His implications are perfectly clear: He believes the gospel is true because the 6,000-year-long history of the universe based on his literal interpretation of Genesis is true. Which offers a perfectly straightforward and thoroughly unpleasant inverse: If the 6,000-year-long fantasy peddled by Ham is not true, then neither is the gospel.
In other words, the statement that Ham called a “gross misrepresentation” is anything but.
So, now you see Ken Ham for what he really is: A man who not only teaches that the truth of the gospel rises and falls on the factual accuracy of the claims found at his “museum” where you can ride a fake dinosaur, but also a man who lies about having ever said that.
He is right about one thing, though. None of us should presume to be able to accurately predict what he’s going to say at his upcoming “debate” with Bill Nye the Science Guy. Normally, one can base guesses about the positions of a public figure on his past statements, but evidently, that method is completely unreliable when it comes to Mr. Ken Ham.
For K-Ham, history — even his own history — is whatever he wants it to be.