A Guide to Understanding Ken Ham

Ken Ham is best known because of his debate with Bill Nye on February 4, 2014. He is the former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and currently operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. I contend that most people do not understand where Ham is coming from and what he is trying to communicate. He is often misunderstood, dismissed, maligned, and misrepresented.

This post aims to help people understand Ken Ham. I believe he is crystal clear on what he is saying, where he is coming from, and what he is trying to accomplish. I hope that anyone reading this blog post will, at the very least, be able to understand him better. For the record, I have personally met Mr. Ham and visited the creation museum with my family many years ago.

Ken Ham is a Presuppositionalist

The first thing you must understand is that Ken Ham is primarily making a presuppositional argument. In other words, Ham recognizes the reality that everyone has a fundamental starting point from which they see the world. Another way of saying this is that we all have a worldview. This means that we all have a set of beliefs that we hold that profoundly influence how we see reality.

If you do not understand this point, you will not understand Ken Ham. He is unequivocal that his starting point, his worldview, his presupposition of reality is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I could get into why he believes this, but that is not the purpose of this blog post. I could also spend a lot of time explaining that everyone has a set of presuppositions that they assume to be true through which they view reality. But that again exceeds the purpose of this post.

In his opening statement of the debate, Ham clearly stated:

So, is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? The creation/evolution debate is a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science, confirmed by observational science, in today's modern scientific era.

Ken Ham Presupposes the Authority of Scripture

The second thing one must understand is that because Ham presupposes the authority of the Bible, anything that contradicts the Scripture is automatically presumed to be wrong. Before you dismiss him for doing this, it is essential to note that Bill Nye does the same thing with naturalistic evolution. Bill Nye immediately presumes that something is false if it does not line up with naturalistic evolution presuppositions.

As Ham often points out, when an archeologist uncovers a bone, it does not come with a date engraved on it. If Ham and Nye simultaneously discovered the same bone, Ham would say that the bone cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Nye would claim that the bone maybe millions of years old. They both are looking at the same bone, but they see it differently because of their presuppositional foundation.

Ken Ham Holds to Observational Science

The third thing one must understand is that Ham is careful in his use of terms. The old axiom is true, "The one who controls the definition of the terms controls the argument." Why? Because definitions are presuppositional. Ken Ham was careful in the debate to define the term "science." Says Ham,

What is science? The origin of the word comes from the classical Latin, which means "to know." The dictionary will tell you that science is the state of knowing and knowledge. But there's different types of knowledge, and I think this is where the confusion arises. There is experimental or observational science, as we call it, that's using the scientific method of observation, measurement, and experiment and testing…

But I want you to also understand: molecules-to-man evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology. You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past; we weren't there; we can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution or whether it's the creation account.

When you are talking about the past, we like to call it origins- or historical-science.

Ken Ham believes in observational science. His point is that since we cannot go back in time and observe evolution, it is speculative as to what happened millions of years ago or whether the universe is millions of years old for that matter. Bill Nye cannot bring us back to the past, and conclusively prove evolution is true. The best he can do is speculate. Speculation is not science. That's Ken Ham's point.

Ham presupposes the Bible gives the correct account of historical science. Nye presupposes the theory of evolution. Both are presupposing something. Because Nye assumes God does not exist, he must come up with a theory to explain how we got here without God in the equation. Ham's point is that Nye is not using observational science. He is philosophizing.

Ken Ham is a Christian Apologist

The final thing one must understand about Ken Ham is that he is a Christian apologist. This does not mean that he ignores observational science. He doesn’t. I believe his primary motive is evangelism through creationism. His point is that you cannot believe in the theory of millions of years and still believe in God’s revelation given through Scripture. He is primarily a Christian apologist defending the integrity of the Bible in the face of naturalistic evolution. His ultimate desire, I believe, is that people come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Two of the most famous Presuppositional Apologists are Dr. Cornelius Van Til and his former student, Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The fact that you can read many of Bahnsen's articles on Answers in Genesis attests to these two Christian apologists' influence.

Both Van Til and Bahnsen articulated and promoted the transcendental argument for God's existence. In essence, this proof states that if you do not start with the self-existing Triune God who revealed Himself in the self-attesting Bible, you cannot prove anything. Apart from the Christian God, there is no way to account for science, reason, and morality. They argue that if one starts from an atheistic evolutionary worldview, you cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the immaterial laws of logic, or human morality. The atheist must borrow meaning from the Christian worldview to attempt to refute Christianity. When atheists begin with atheism's presuppositions, they start with nothing, say nothing, and prove nothing because no meaning exists.

As soon as Bill Nye showed up to the debate, he lost because he has to borrow meaning from the Christian worldview in order to logically argue the supposed science of evolution because he believes Ham is wrong and it is immoral to teach creationism. Understand what I just wrote in that last sentence and you will understand Ken Ham.

The Origen of Systemic Racism

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑢𝑒:

𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡, 𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑎𝑢𝑙 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 17:26, "𝐺𝑜𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ." 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑘 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 "𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑" 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 "ἔθνος" (𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑠). 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 "𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑖𝑐," 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 "𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒," "𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒," 𝑜𝑟 "𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛." 𝐼 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠. 𝐼 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑣𝑒. 𝐴𝑠 𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛, 𝐼 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒. 𝐼 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑤𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤.

I have been thinking a lot about racism. As a Bible-believing Christian, I have no problem with the toppling of idols and graven images or exposing the racist hypocrisy of many of our ancestors and founding "fathers." The United States was built upon the ungodly domination, subjugation, and extermination of a nation that pre-existed long before my Pilgrim ancestors arrived on the scene, not to mention slavery. And paintings of Jesus? Well, I never liked them, especially white Jesus, that hippy type looking dude with long hair and a beard who looks more like the guy on a Zig Zag blunt wrap package than anyone else.

However, I'm still waiting for modern social iconoclasts to focus on one of the biggest racists idols in history. This guy is responsible for more racist attitudes than anyone else I know. Of course, the man I am referring to is Charles Darwin, you know, that guy who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"?

I was thoroughly indoctrinated by his racist view in my biology class in high school. I remember looking at the amoeba-to-man illustration in the text, wondering where I, as a white-boy, fit into the scheme of things. I wasn't taught that all human beings, regardless of the color of their skin, were made in the image of God. No, I was taught that human beings of various races are just one step in a long line of evolutionary transition. It wasn't said, but implicitly, my classmates and I were being indoctrinated with the racist belief that white people were further along in the evolutionary process than black and brown-skinned people.

Along with evolution, I was taught the "scientific" principle of the "survival of the fittest." It was more than just the process of natural selection. Natural selection made sense and is a scientific fact. We can observe it and repeat it. What we cannot observe and repeat are the supposed evolutionary leaps that happened over millions of years. It wasn't until I studied logic that I saw the inherent flaw of evolution. We start with a single-cell creature that, through natural selection, end up a human being. Going from simplicity to complexity, using the means of atrophy is absurdity.

I was taught that biologically some entities are further along on the evolutionary process than others and, as such, dominate the lower developed entities because of a superiority of intellect and adaptability. In other words, those who hold power deserve to be on top because of their superior biological evolution. It's all about "survival of the fittest." And if you are superior, you must not only grab the power, you must consciously and intentionally dominate and subjugate anything inferior. If you lose control, it is your own fault. Perhaps you weren't as "fit" as you thought you were. Wealthy white Europeans loved Darwin. He gave them a "scientific" justification for imperialism and Manifest Destiny.

So, I'm waiting for the Darwin god to fall. I'm waiting for those heinous symbols of racism, the Darwin fish with legs, to be ripped off of car bumpers and thrown into the gutter. I'm waiting for those fighting against systemic racism to direct their furor against our governmental socialist indoctrination centers that disseminate this inherent racist propaganda to innocent, vulnerable, and unsuspecting children. And I'm hoping and praying those fighting against racism will submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Law of God and fight for the only way racism, and all sin for that matter, can and will be overthrown. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!"