In a recent episode of “Ham Bytes” which you can find linked below, I address the critical comments made by Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, against Christian academics and leaders who reconcile their faith with scientific understanding, particularly concerning the age of the Earth and evolutionary theory. Ken Ham, known for his young-age creationist views, has been vocal on social media and his blog, criticizing those he sees as compromising the Biblical account of creation, including mathematician and academic John Lennox in his most recent social media post.
Ken Ham’s argument, as I interpret it, centers around the notion that many Christian leaders succumb to academic and intellectual pride, choosing to align with secular scientific consensus to avoid offending their academic peers. This assertion implies that such individuals prioritize human approval over divine truth, a stance Ham supports by questioning their adherence to scriptural authority and literal interpretation of Genesis.
I would challenge Ham’s perspective, arguing that the issue is far more nuanced than a simple dichotomy between faithfulness and compromise. There is great diversity within the conservative and historical Christian community in understanding and interpreting the Bible, especially the Genesis account of creation. By labeling respected figures like John Lennox, C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, A.A. Hodge, B.B.. Warfield and stalwart defenders of fundamentalism over modernism such as Gresham Machen as compromisers, Ham overlooks the sincere faith and rigorous intellectual pursuit that these individuals demonstrate in reconciling their understanding of scripture with scientific evidence.
In the video above I focus on the notion of scriptural clarity or perspicuity. Ham contends that the Bible is unequivocally clear on matters of creation, making any deviation from a young Earth perspective a willful disregard of God’s word. However, I would counter this by highlighting the complexity and depth of scriptural texts, which have been subject to various interpretations throughout Christian history. The Bible, while clear on matters essential for salvation, does not necessarily provide explicit answers to every scientific question, a point underscored by the Westminster Confession of Faith’s acknowledgment that not all scripture is equally clear to all readers.
Moreover, considering the historical and cultural context of biblical texts, I would ague that interpreting Genesis as a modern scientific account imposes contemporary expectations on ancient narratives. This approach, I suggest, fails to appreciate the original intent and message of the scriptures, which were communicated in a cultural and historical context vastly different from our own.
In defending the right of Christians to engage with and incorporate scientific understanding into their faith, I would encourage respectful and open dialogue within the Christian community. We need to avoid the dangers of vilifying fellow believers for exploring and expressing nuanced views on creation, evolution, and the age of the Earth.
Ultimately, my response to Ken Ham is a call for humility and unity among Christians in the pursuit of truth. It is an invitation to recognize the vastness of God’s creation and the limited scope of human understanding, urging believers to approach these complex issues with a spirit of inquiry and openness, rather than dogmatism and division. This dialogue is not a sign of compromise but a testament to the richness and diversity of Christian thought and the enduring quest for understanding in the light of faith.
Naturalis Historia 