Ken Ham has fired the first of what, apparently, will be many volleys against what he believes is one of the biggest threats to young-earth creationists: other young-earth creationists!! hanging them with the pejorative title of “young-earth evolutionists.” Yes, Ken Ham is suggesting that one of the biggest danger to creationism–as defined by Answers in Genesis–lies within and among those who “call themselves creationists” and he has set about to root this cancer out and expose it before it does any more damage to the church (and also possibly his particular ministry).
Using well-worn debate techniques, Ken Ham sets about to label some young-earth creationists as compromisers of the faith, wolves in sheep’s clothing and those that are undermining the faith of the youth, the ministry and Christian schools. Their sin you ask? Apparently being too influenced by evolutionary theory and conversing with dangerous Christians who are not true young-earth creationists.
In a new series of articles at AiG Ham seems to be attempting to ostracize a number of well-established creationists along with an up-and-coming younger generation of creationists working outside of his organization and other established young-earth apologetics ministries. But why? Have these fellow YECs denied any of the central tenets of young-earth creationism? I don’t think so! Are they really endorsing evolutionary theory? Certainly not! They no more embrace evolution as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life than Ken Ham does. Do they interpret the scientific and evidence for the limits of a kind differently than Ken Ham might prefer? Yes, however Ken Ham is no less influenced by evolutionary thinking than those he calls “young-earth evolutionists.” In the video below I take a brief look at AiG’s introductory article that purports to expose the supposed false prophets that Ken Ham believes are damaging the church and its youth.
This “Young-earth Evolution” that Ken Ham and AiG is worried about comes from a group of YEC that I have talked about on this several times in the past. I have called these individuals “The New Creationists.” To learn more about who they are, what they believe and why I think they do represent a distinctive brand of creationism (but not for the reason Ham claims) you can read my blog series from 2021 linked below:
The Dawn of the New Creationists Part I https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2021/…
YEC in 2021 – The Dawn of the New Creationists Part 2 https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2021/…
Defining Characteristics of The New Creationists: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2021/…
The New Creationists: Final Thoughts https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2021/…
YouTube summary video about The New Creationists: https://youtu.be/AHy94J6RqtM
AiG articles referenced in the video: https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/should-biblical-creation-become-more-evolution/ and https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/christianity-objectively-true/
Naturalis Historia 
Interestingly, old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists and young earth evolutionists do not seem to get the point of frontloading. Read my book “Darwin Revisited” and you start to understand why gradualistic selectionism has been rejected by the data and how the data can be understood from the point of view decribed in my book. I have pointed it out to you a long time ago. Did you read it in the meantime?
LikeLike
Peer, several years ago you said you’d send me a copy of your book, but have not done so, despite several reminders since. Yes, I could buy it if I thought it was likely to be a good read, but I’m just wondering, is your word good or not, and if not, why should we believe anything you say. Moreover, even here you’ve yet to explain how “frontloaded” genetic info did not get largely destroyed during the severe genetic bottleneck during Noah’s Flood. Why can’t you summarize them and present some evidence? Last, if your ideas and arguments are so great, and answer the questions at hand, why have no major YEC groups endorsed them? If you believe they have, please point us to some examples.
LikeLike
Ham’s criticisms seem quite odd and hypocritical considering that AIG has been increasingly embracing that they call “rapid post Flood diversification,” sometimes called hyper-evolution or hyper-speciation. While promoting this version of YECism, they have suggested evolutionary changes at the family level or higher at times, taking place in only a few thousands years or less (since the the Flood, meaning that they now allow, or even advocate, far faster and more dramatic evolution than mainstream scientists (never mind fellow creationists). Ham also has sometimes suggested that natural section has no positive role in evolution or “rapid diversification” even tho others in his own group have allowed significant or even key roles for natural selection, since without it (and even with it), they have no plausible mechanism to explain the incredibly rapid and broad changes they need, nor any explanation for the source of the needed genetic variation (other than some mysterious, undiscovered source). Indeed, it seems hard to even imagine a sufficient genetic reservoir, in view of the severe genetic bottle-neck that would have occurred after the Flood. Of course, serious internal inconsistencies have long been common among YECism (they seem quite confused and conflicted, for example, on where the Flood occurs in the geologic record, and Ham himself often seems unable to grasp or focus on scientific details, and instead to operate largely from misguided theological dogma and emotional appeals.
LikeLike
Hi Glen, I didn’t realize I had turned on moderation quite a while back so this was sitting my my queue to approve. Yes, quite agree and by this time you will have seen their latest article calling out that that might consider a bird a type of dinosaur.
LikeLike
No prob. I think my comments mostly summarized things you and others here have pointed out before. Ham’s views on the possible relationship of birds to dinos, is rich, considering that other YECs have often insisted that bird’s and dino’s are distinctly different “kinds” (although a number of YECs began to question that some time ago, in view of the increasing numbers of feathered dino fossils coming out of China and elsewhere). It just further illustrates how conflicted YECs are even on basic concepts and how much evolution they will allow. I haven’t read your other recent articles yet, and maybe you cover this there, but other examples include YECs “evolving” views on whales and giraffes. At one time many YECs ridiculed the “evolutionist” idea that whales evolved from land animals, or that the long neck of giraffes “evolved” rather than being specially created. Now at least some YECs in AIG and elsewhere are suggesting that whales may indeed have “diversifed” from four-footed creatures, and that the modern giraffe probably had a short (or shorter) necked ancestor, as reflected in their museum and “Ark” exhibits.
LikeLike