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.