Ken Ham Thinks He Is God

This excerpt from a recent piece in the Christian Post tells us a lot:

“One of the things fundamentalist Christians mess up on is they try to say the earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible never makes that claim,” Jeffress said.

To those comments, Ham responded: “It is so distressing that so many of our Christian leaders don't seem to understand that to accept man's fallible beliefs of billions of years, Big Bang etc, they are really undermining the authority of God's Word.”

Since Rev. Jeffries rightly pointed out that the Bible nowhere claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is not the Bible but Ken Ham that claims that. And so when he refers to “the authority of God's Word” being rejected by those who embrace mainstream geology and other sciences, it is clear that he is talking about his own words, and thus setting himself as God.

In addition to being a charlatan, Ham apparently also has delusions of his own divinity.

As I have said time and again, Ken Ham's teachings are not a defense of Christianity. They are diametrically opposed to Christianity.

In other news, Ham's “museum” will be hosting a “conference” on creation “research.” Surely that will be the shortest conference ever…

 

  • TomS

    It is true that a lot of people, for a long time, thought that the Bible was saying that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. One might contrast that with the reading that the Bible was saying that God created unchangeable species (or “kinds”), which nobody thought before early modern times. And, of course, the reading that the Bible did not say that the Sun was going around a fixed Earth, which nobody thought before the rise of modern science.

  • beau_quilter

    Ken Ham and Robert Jeffress opposed to each other is probably a good thing. They both have repulsive views. Jeffress was recently quoted as saying that homosexuality is like trying to plug a 220 appliance into a 110 socket. He routinely spews politics (including specific candidate support) from the pulpit.

    With any luck, they’ll cancel each other out.

  • David_Evans

    It seems to me that if we regard Adam and his descendants as real human beings, not metaphors or allegories (as, surely, most Christians throughout history have done), the Bible does imply that the human race is not much more than 6,000 years old. Did any Christians deny that before science started to provide evidence for an old Earth?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Many ancient Christians assumed such an age – it was based on a non-literal approach to Genesis, combining days of creation with “a day is like a thousand years” to get a 6,000-year history, followed by rest.

      But they never made it a point of dogma, as far as I am aware, even though other groups and philosophies assumed other ages.

    • http://bartbreen.wordpress.com/ Bart Breen

      In fact, there were many Christians before the advent of modern science who believed the earth was likely much older than 6,000 years. In fact, the 6,000 year figure wasn’t introduced until the late middle ages by Bishop Ussher.

      Prior to that there were those who believed in literal days of creation in the sense that they were 24 hour days, but there were also many old earth proponents who believed they were periods of time in excess of 24 hours. Some applied the concept of a day being a thousand years with the Lord as an applicable metaphor.

      The Bible frankly, isn’t and never has been a document concerned with understanding time in the framework of 21st Century Western Civilization. So the point is rather that the Bible doesn’t say anything to make the assertions that Young Earth Creationists making. It is in fact, more credible to note that Young Earth Creationists today are making claims that Christians through Church History haven’t made and they are in fact more influenced by the findings of modern science because they see it as necessary to defend the hermeneutic they apply in other areas and so they reason backwards that in order for their theology to be correct modern science must be wrong.

      Ken Ham, in many areas has equated his hermeneutic as the equivalent of Scripture itself and further he speaks against other believers who disagree with him and his narrow hermeneutic as speaking against God and the Bible itself.

      Plain and simple, Ken Ham makes an idol out of his own interpretation and then calls that interpretation the Bible itself.

      As sad as it is for Ken Ham and those who follow his pattern (and not all YEC supporters go to the extremes of Ham), the people he damages most are unbelievers who accept what he has to say about God and the Bible and take him at his word that the Bible and Modern Science are irreconcilable, and on that basis they reject God and the Bible.

      Ken Ham will have a lot to answer for at some point and time I believe. He better hope God is more accepting of Him than he is of others.

      • Steve Greene

        The 6,000 year estimate was NOT introduced in the middle ages by Ussher. Ussher simply presented his specific chronology and that become the most traditionally accepted specific chronology after that (it was published in various Bible editions). In fact, the general young earth creationism perspective has been the predominant position of Christian theologians going back to the early church fathers in the early centuries after Christ. Now, whether they thought is was just “many thousand years” instead of a specific 6,000 years is simply beside the point, the point being that no Christian theologian ever even thought of trying to make Bible interpretations compatible with the geological concept of “deep time” on the order of hundreds of millions, or billions, of years, until geological science started to get going in the late 1700s.

        • http://bartbreen.wordpress.com/ Bart Breen

          Yes, and no Christian Theologian ever even thought of a solar centric universe in the distance and time scales that it is now known to exist before that was known too. So what? Popularity and historicity of a belief is meaningless when compared to the known facts after they are known unless there’s a desire to employ a form of willful ignorance and call it faith in order to defend a hermeneutic that is valued as a tradition and then elevated to the position of scripture itself.

          I’ve helped in the past to moderate this site’s forum and I recommend this article for those who want to examine this issue more closely in terms of church history.

          http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.html

  • Ryan Hite

    The bible is so obscure in those details that people should not take it literally word for word. The people who wrote it did not know everything either and they had a very narrow view of the world, whereas we have a much better sense of the world.

  • Sherry McCameron Peyton

    Ken is going to be very upset with you James. I’m sure he’ll be defending himself to his band of followers. I’m afraid Ken doesn’t think much of your chances of getting into heaven. When you think about it, the uber religious right are really job creators, for they have fostered an entire industry of grifting jobs in denial-related work.

  • dangjin

    McGrath isn’t getting into heaven unless he repents and stops practicing false teaching. The Bible doesn’t mention billions of years nor a process thus Mcgrath’s argument against Ham works against him as well

    • newenglandsun

      I don’t recall McGrath ever saying that the Bible teaches billions of years. In fact, I think he says it is science that gives us billions of years, not the Bible. The Bible doesn’t give us anything.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      The Bible does not mention lots of things. I take it you do not believe in microorganisms? Galaxies? Seriously, deep down you must really hate the Christian faith, to try this hard to make it seem as though Christians can only be ignoramuses who reject science.

    • Joe King

      In Genesis it says that the Earth ‘brought forth’ animals at God’s command, which is obviously a metaphor for evolution. And the serpent has hands and then loses them, which is what actually happened in snake evolution. The whole tree of knowledge thing is a metaphor for how hunter-gather humans became farmers. They took the apple and with it the ability to make more apples and thus, take the power of making food from the gods and into their own hands. But with that power came the curse of back-breaking labour tilling the soil. And human evolution lead to bigger brains, which ment painful childbirth. It’s all there if you look. ‘Let him with eyes to see…’

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Series of comments posted on PHARYNGULA blog – “Hey, Ken Ham: don’t run away!”

    Please go to http://www.AustraliaRiseUp dot com and follow the link, JOURNEY TO THE THUNDERDOME, to get the big picture. PZ Meyers as usual was absent. He has no comprehension of science laws. The only reason A.I.G. has a following is because of people such as Meyers, Coyne, Prothero, university educators not only in the U.S. but around the globe, literally thousands of self-proclaimed experts who are arguably as deluded than the attackers of Galileo.

    ………………………………………………………………….

    The relevant parts of the above blog are reproduced at AustraliaRiseUp dot com. The fine detail of PHARYNGULA is only recommended for masochists.

    Ken Ham of course, did not run away and is not in the habit of running away. PZ Myers and the so-called “athiests” are as deeply dug in as is Ham. As the series of comments shows, neither side is dug into mainstream science. Introduce mainstream science and end the trench warfare.

    1. It’s Philip Bruce Heywood here, PZ.

    Last time I invited you to come onto your own blog and answer questions you were as incognito as the hamster himself so I shan’t be holding my breath. To your credit and to your advantage you have a sense of humour, you actually do teach some useful facts, and you do not simply cut with scissors everything and anything that you cannot answer. This contrasts favourably with people such as Professors Coyne and Prothero – who immediately remove anything not from the cheer squad or from someone they can ridicule. Keep it up. You can find me, either on your blog or at my sites -which you have consistently declined. I represent mainstream Science, and mainstream Science neither makes up fairytales about the Bible nor employs Tinkerbell making your heaven and earth. Some rely upon Tinkerbell, and some rely upon people such as K. Ham, to tinker with the Bible. Some do both.

    There is one class of person sillier than Ken Ham – those who take him seriously or regard him as a threat. If you knew the first thing about your topic, (I don’t mean your topic of Biology), Prof., you would do your research and get back to us instead of using Ken as a cover for going on pulling the wool. I am yet waiting on you to shoulder your responsibilities and start in on the facts regarding Origins Education. You have yet to address the questions put to you years ago by myself on your blog – the questions which science itself either has now answered or is in the process of doing so. As I wrote then, and repeat here: meet you, right here, any time. If you have any wits – which I suspect you do – you will either cut my comment or cut and run. Which is exactly what Ken does when I send him the same. Where would you like to begin? History of Science? Sir Richard Owen and species as vivified information packets, pre-empting Darwin, before Darwin got published? The unassailable fact that species are pre-programmed information tech. phenomena and GENESIS by obvious implication says they are such? The geologic record in GENESIS thereby rendered totally accurate? Done your homework, PZ? And if you yet possess that wonderful beard, have you got the vanilla mustard(was it?) out? Meet you here, any time – if you so choose. Others, such as Coyne and Prothero, bail out. So you have an excuse. P.B.H..

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Sorry, what is that? Are you copying and pasting a snippet from a conversation elsewhere and posting it in a comment here? If so, why?

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    It’s your forum Prof., you call it as you see it. You appear to be jumping up and down regarding departure from mainstream biblical interpretation on the part of certain young earthers. And as far as some of their methods go, you are obviously correct. What I don’t see you jumping up and down about is the departure from mainstream science on the part of the world at large. Before calling Ham on his methods, you might care to discover why such methods get a following amongst rational people. The reason obviously is because the other option — i.e., common descent or Darwinism, is worse than Y.E.C. But don’t confuse Evolution the fairytale/animist propoganda with Evolution the observational fact which modern science is fast nailing down as a real, empirical possibility. Real, empirical possibilities prick a hole in humanly generated religious/idealogic hot air balloons. To get to the bottom of this you will need to read and research. Science does not stand still. I give you the opportunity. Find the facts if you so choose. PZ Meyers happens to run a free speech blog and I stepped in where Ham can not step in. PZ stepped out because he represents animism/fairytale. I spoke (wrote) for mainstream science. If you don’t comprehend by reading PHARYNGULA there is no point repeating it all here. Science has spoken and is speaking.

  • Steve Greene

    I’m just curious – When were Genesis chapter 5 and chapter 11 deleted from the Bible?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X