HamOnNye Pre-Debate Coverage: Interview with Ken Ham

(A few years ago, I visited the Creation Museum with a large group of atheists (that’s a story for another day). Needles to say, the experience was interesting. On one hand, I was impressed with the production value of the museum. On the other, as a Christian, I cant agree with Ken Ham, his view of the bible or his cultural war mentality. Still, this is America and everyone has a right to present their views without edits. What you see below in the full on, unedited version of Ham’s answers on the museum and his upcoming debate with Bill Nye. Read. Reflect and present intelligent discussion below. Plus, I mean, he does have a killer beard….) 


When did you start becoming interested in the questions of science and faith?

I was brought up in a Christian home in Australia with a father who was very bold about his faith.  People often challenged him concerning supposed contradictions in the Bible or other alleged problems with the Scriptures and Christianity.  My father would carefully study the issues so that he could answer the critics.  I was brought up in a home environment where I was taught to think critically and was encouraged to seek answers to questions about my faith.

When I went to high school in Australia, I was exposed to textbooks that outlined evolutionary ideas—such as ape-like creatures turning into people.  I recognized the conflict between evolutionary ideas and a literal reading of the book of Genesis.  I set out to think critically about these issues and to understand the nature of science. That included recognizing the difference between interpretations of the evidence we have from the unobservable past and what we could actually directly observe and then repeatedly test.  I was able to find resources from around the world that helped me understand the origins issue and the nature of science, and saw the many problems with evolutionary ideas. At the same time, I learned how defend the historical narrative of Genesis using observational science.

In the 1970s I became a public school science teacher in Australia. With my background, I didn’t accept evolutionary beliefs, as they clearly contradicted the Bible.  In one of the first science lessons that I taught, a teenager asked me how I could even be a Christian because, he claimed, the Bible wasn’t true.  I asked him how he knew that, and he pointed to the evolutionary material in our textbook.  At that point, I began to see more and more how the teaching of evolution was a stumbling block to students even considering the claims of Christianity.

Also, when I took my students to natural history museums, they saw many exhibits that were from an evolutionary perspective.  This experience contributed to my intense burden to research and teach on the topic of origins and biblical authority.

It was also at that time that I developed a concern about the Christian church. I saw that it was being undermined by evolutionary ideas. Such beliefs about the past undermined biblical authority.  I do believe the Lord put a “fire in the belly” to start an organization to present the scientific and biblical evidence to children and adults that confirms what the Bible teaches in Genesis chapters 1-11. Those chapters are foundational to all doctrine including the gospel. It was at that time that I envisioned building a creation museum one day, and I soon started a creationist organization.


2) Many people don’t know about the fossil collection at the museum. How did you come up with the idea and where do you collect your specimens?

By any standard, we have a very impressive fossil collection.  Now, it’s certainly nowhere near the quantity of the Smithsonian or other leading museums, but the quality is equal or better in some instances. Even a reporter with the New York Times who visited when the museum opened in 2007 commented about the quality of some of our fossil displays. By the way, this coming Memorial Day weekend, we’ll be exhibiting a world-class fossil—several bones of an allosaur, including the dinosaur’s skull, which is more than 90% complete. This is not a cast or a replica. It’s one of the four or five best allosaur skulls in the world.

The Creation Museum uses fossils to present evidence that there was a global catastrophe, Noah’s Flood, that killed and preserved the remains of creatures all over the earth. The fossils that we display throughout the museum are a testimony to the reliability of the Bible’s account of the Flood in Genesis chapters 6-9.  Most of the fossils at the Creation Museum have been donated.



3) Why did you challenge Bill Nye to a debate, and do you believe this is the best way to educate people on the origins question?

In the summer of 2012, Bill Nye posted a video to YouTube where he shared his belief that teaching children against evolution was not appropriate and counterproductive in society. It has been viewed by over 6 million people, and became something of an internet sensation. Well, I posted my own YouTube video in response, as did two of our PhD scientists. These YouTube videos created such a stir that a reporter with the Associated Press contacted us for an article he was writing about the YouTube videos. During the course of the AP interviews, one of our staff members suggested to the reporter that when he spoke to Mr. Nye again, to please ask whether Mr. Nye would be open to a public debate on evolution and creation. Mr. Nye told the AP reporter that as long as we covered his expenses, he would do so.

Because the creationist view of origins is largely censored from our schools, museums, and the media, I look at this debate as an excellent opportunity for our voice to be better heard. The interest in the debate has far exceeded our expectations. We expect hundreds of thousands of people to watch live at debatelive.org, and tens of thousands of others may watch it later online or on DVD. Other than our Creation Museum’s grand opening six years ago, this may be the most-covered evolution/creation event in recent memory. The fact that the world’s media have been reporting on this debate suggests that we have a wonderful opportunity to present the creationist message to people around the globe, most of whom have never heard the case against evolution and the evidence that confirms creation.


4) You’re taking a lot of flak recently for saying that “liberal” Christians are a huge part of the problem when it comes to the Science/Faith debate. Why did you believe that statement was needed?

First of all, it needs to be understood that we are not saying that salvation is dependent upon what you believe about evolution, the age of the earth, and so on.  Salvation is conditioned on faith alone.  However, we are emphatic that taking ideas from outside the Bible (such as billions of years and molecules-to-man evolution) and using them to reinterpret God’s Word is a major authority issue, as it puts fallible man’s words in authority over the Word of God.  It’s also a gospel issue in the sense that when Christians allow for millions of years of fossils before humans, that means death, disease, thorns, suffering, and bloodshed existed before sin!  It would also mean God calls diseases like cancer, which some bones in the fossil record exhibit, is “very good.”

Our ministry is much more than just a creation/evolution outreach. We position ourselves first and foremost as a biblical authority ministry. AiG wants to show people that all of the Bible can be trusted, from Genesis to Revelation. Yes, there are different types of literature used in the Bible. The Psalms, for example, are poetic.  But readers of the Bible need to take God’s Word  according to the literature of the book they are reading and its context.  Genesis is written as historical narrative and is cited as such throughout the Bible, including by Jesus, the God-man, in Matthew 19, where He stated that the reason marriage is one man and one woman is based on the creation of one man Adam, and one woman Eve in Genesis.

In our era, the book of Genesis has become the most-attacked book of the Bible. If you say the Bible can’t be trusted in its first chapters of history, then the questions is: can it really be trusted elsewhere, including what it says about Christ’s salvation message in the gospels? The gospel is founded in Genesis, where we have the origin of sin and death and the need for a Savior (Genesis 3). Theologians and pastors who pick and choose what they want to believe about the Bible are creating massive doubt about all 66 books of the Bible. If people, after hearing what these theologically liberal Christians are teaching, choose not to believe that the Bible is God’s Word, such an attitude will have eternal consequences for those who reject the Bible’s messages. Sadly, too, we are seeing an exodus of young people from the church by the time they reach college age. Many of them have succumbed to doubt and unbelief because the authority of the Word beginning in Genesis has been undermined.


5) How do we forge a new way forward in the evolution/creation debate?

Looking forward, I hope my debate with Mr. Nye will create a bigger spotlight on the whole creation vs. evolution debate and to the Word of God and its gospel message. The debate will help point out that there is significant dissent in the scientific community about whether or not molecules-to-man evolution is a true explanation of origins. Yes, creationists are a minority in the scientific and engineering world.  But the majority has been wrong about many matters over the centuries; a majority-held position shouldn’t be used as a judge of truth. The creation movement is a growing one. Events like our debate can create better awareness of the important issue of origins and get more people talking, not only about origins, but the reliability of the Word of God and its message of salvation (Romans 10:9).

At the very least, our country needs to hear the problems with the evolutionary belief system and not have its challengers censored in our schools and museums. What is wrong with presenting people both sides of an issue, and encouraging students to think critically about origins?  Secularists have been able to pass legislation that protects the teaching of atheistic evolution (atheism is naturalism) in the public school systems.  As I have personally seen time and time again, this has great consequences on the lives of students.  If these young people believe they are only animals and that there is no God, then who determines right and wrong? What is the purpose and meaning of life?  Surely students have a right to be allowed to think critically about an issue that affects their whole view of life?

About Jonathan Ryan

Jonathan Ryan is a novelist, blogger and columnist. His novel, 3 Gates of the Dead, published by Open Road Media, is in bookstores everywhere. The sequel, Dark Bride, will be out early next year along with a powerful new Young Adult Trilogy, Revolution of the Wolf and a moving middle grade series, Ghost Bear.

  • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

    “how [to] defend the historical narrative of Genesis using observational science.” I’m very interested to know what observational science — as opposed to “interpretations of the evidence we have from the unobservable past” — Ham has in this regard. Neither side of the debate can directly observe events of the past, so how does Ham avoid the interpretive pitfalls that he claims mainstream science has fallen prey to?

    • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

      Ken Ham believes that the Bible is an absolutely perfect source of history. He thinks he has observations recorded by someone who was there.

      • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

        I know he thinks Genesis is a first person, observational account. But is that the “observational science” that he’s referring to?

    • Nemo

      Creationists often try to distinguish observational science from historical science. Basically, anything that occurred in the past and cannot be directly observed in real time is considered unreliable. In which case, forensic science is unreliable, since you didn’t actually see me break into the vault. This also ignores that neither evolution, geology, or cosmology (and they aren’t the same thing by any means) are based on random guesses. We have observed new species forming (although we don’t have a large enough time scale to observe the drastic changes often demanded by the likes of Ham and Comfort). We have observed dozens of fossils of human ancestors which leaves creationists like Kent Hovind utterly confused as to whether they are human or a still living ape. In cosmology, we can observe even now stars in various stages of formation. We can observe tectonic plate activity, and the formation of new crust, as well as the movement of continents even now.

      • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

        I still want to know what “observational science” he uses to confirm Genesis.

    • Daniel Webb

      By creating that false distinction, he’s actually doing three main things:
      1) He’s ever so subtly affirming that god was the observer and executer during this period of “observational science” and that “observational science” is much more credible than even the best “historical science.” The funny thing is when “observational science” actually is “historical science” (i.e. distant starlight) and the young earth creationists have to jump through hoops to come up with crazy ideas to explain away how we can observe a star explode now that actually blew up five million years ago.
      2) He’s attempting to bring a scientific theory that’s buoyed by overwhelming evidence down to the level of a belief in creationism–which relies on “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) If he can be successful in doing this in the minds of his followers, then all he has to do is sell creationism as the only spiritual solution. It’s just a more devious way of removing reason and reinforcing fear and emotion (i.e. millions of years can’t be correct, repent or you’ll go to hell)
      3) He knows that “historical science” doesn’t provide any evidence for his interpretation of the genesis account, so he discredits “historical science” altogether. He understands that there are many lines of divergent evidence within science that confirms evolution–so removing a few by throwing out “historical science” benefits his cause.
      I know many people say that Ham is an idiot, but I’d clarify that by saying while he believes many idiotic things– he’s certainly not an idiot. He’s managed to manipulate and create false dichotomies that seem very credible to laypersons (of the biblical and scientific type) that are almost immediately thrown out by the overwhelming majority of those who are actually experts in those disciplines.

  • MMattM

    I know this is bad of me, but I kind of wish the interviewer didn’t go so easy with the questions. Ham didn’t play nice when he said “liberal Christians” are sending people to hell with their interpretation of Genesis. Why not ask him to address the concern by Christians that asking someone to accept a literal interpretation could be an unnecessary burden of “Christ and” or an additional stumbling block to belief?

    • Author Jonathan Ryan

      Your question is addressed in this interview. My job as a journalist is to NOT attack the people I’m interviewing, but allow them to tell their side of the story. I don’t agree with Ham on any level, but he deserves the right, just like anyone, to have his view heard. The problem with most journalists today is they become a part of the story they are reporting, instead of just giving us the facts. My questions are attempts to remove myself from the equation and give a fuller view of Ham as he is, not the way people attacking him wish to be. It’s not my job to support anyone’s whiny self righteousness on either side of this question.

      Further, if you look at my interviews with Dr. Kenneth Miller and Jack Collins, I allowed them to give a counterbalance to Ham’s point of view in Christian circles. I suggest you read them. They are excellent.

      • MMattM

        I saw the interview with Collins and thought it was excellent. I don’t think addressing the concern is the same as attacking or whining, and don’t get me wrong, I applaud your approach. I just thought if Ham takes the discussion in the direction of blaming “those” Christians for unbelief, asking about the concerns of an extra burden or stumbling block would be fair. And you may consider that whiny self-righteousness, but I don’t. All that to say, I like what you’re doing, but I’m curious as to how he’d address those concerns. But I take it all back of course if I missed where the question was addressed, which is possible.

        • Author Jonathan Ryan

          I wasn’t accusing you of whiny self righteousness. I just see that a lot when it comes to either Ham or Nye. It illustrates the tendency to not listen to people.

      • AgesOfReason

        Sorry Mr. Ryan, I agree with Matt’s comments completely. You say your “job as a journalist is to NOT attack the people I’m interviewing, but allow them to tell their side of the story.” Whilst that may be true, your job as a journalist goes further, much further….. like to the “truth”. Regrettably your interview left many readers with the opinion that Creationism and Evolution are on equal footing.

        I have been to Ham’s Creation Museum and frankly I can’t imagine that anyone beyond the age of 7 wouldn’t simply laugh at the silliness of it all. Having said that I did note a lot of busloads of out of state visitors that were in rapture over it. Most however looked like they just arrived from Intercourse Pennsylvania.

        By his own account Ham was fed this nonsense at the knee of his father at an age when he lacked the capacity for critical inquiry. The most important gift parents can bestow on their children is the Right to Think, keep them free of religion until their minds are reasonably developed.

        • Author Jonathan Ryan

          Once again, Age of Reason, I’ll point out this is a journalistic enterprise. If you read our other coverage of this event, you’ll see where the balanced perspective comes from and look at the full extent of our coverage.

          I’m not going to address your other comments, as they are outside the scope of your main point.

          Oh, and if you notice, Matt and I agree in the end.

        • Tracy

          It seems to me that most who diss the whole creation idea are very frightened people. So much so, that we have to keep ‘religion’ out of childrens minds till they can accept the ‘truth’ of evolution. Didnt Matt about say he was an evolutionist THEN became a creationist? Another thing i have noticed, is that evolutionists and atheists are VERY familiar with scriptures. Why is this? I would venture to say that most have been Christians themselves at some stage or interested seekers perhaps, or bought up in a Christian home, and have become disolutioned with the Christian faith, and got hurt by it or perceived that God hurt them in some way. This is the only way I can account for their animosity and sheer hatred of God at times. So if we can put all that aside, I am hoping this debate might actually have good solid evidence from both sides of the fence so we can all make our own decisions and choices around this issue, without being sworn at, or belittled.

  • Stephen Myers

    I think Ham’s personal perceptions of Genesis undermine the book’s “truth stories.”

  • Daniel Webb

    As a nonbeliever, I didn’t think this debate would be productive at first…but after seeing the reaction of progressive christians (many of whom are uniting against the intellectual bankruptcy of Answers in Genesis and YEC), I think it’s a great thing!
    Ken Ham is just gleefully leading his fellow young earth creationists off the Cliffs of Sanity where they’ll be dashed upon the Rocks of Irrelevancy. The older generations who haven’t “Already Gone” (<–Ham's book on the massive amounts of young people leaving the church) will soon fade out, and they'll be replaced by generations who shake their head at the illogical beliefs and embrace what is actually important.

    • Matt C.

      What is it that is actually important? Who decides what is actually important? You? I don’t think evolution is logical. I’m undecided on young earth vs old earth, but I think macro evolution doesn’t hold water. Rather than being dismissive, why not figure out why there are so many very intelligent people would think the Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the creation of the earth.

      • Daniel Webb

        For a Christian, believing that Jesus is your saviour is what’s important. I believe that was god who decided it was. Do you disagree? That’s why progressive Christians dismiss Ham’s stand on a battlefield that isn’t even a salvation issue–except in the sense that it makes non-believers look at Christians like they’re insane.

        As for the rest of your statement, it’s a poor idea to think that intelligent people believing something makes it valid or even worth considering many times. For example, Isaac Newton believed and practiced alchemy. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies. Martin Luther was convinced there was a demon at the bottom of a pond near his house that would get angry if you threw rocks in it. But, if you must wave intelligent people as a justification…consider that just over 800 people in various disciplines of science/engineering signed the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” that was being championed by the discovery institute. As a joke, the national center for science education started a list of their own for scientists who embrace evolution. The catch is, you can only sign the list if your first name is Steve. There are already 500+ more Steve’s on the NCSE list than there are total people on the dissent from Darwin list. In the pissing contest of # of intelligent people believing in evolution vs those who disagree…creationism doesn’t fare well.

        • Matt C.

          I don’t think that because intelligent people believe something it is therefore valid, but I do think the many circumstances the “why” is important. I also do think that just because a larger # of people believe something it is more valid. Mass numbers have been wrong on numerous occasions, but the “why” is almost always important.

          The “why” is what is very important to Ham, it is what got him to where he is. The way he saw the information put in front of him and how he decided to interpret it. I was once a strict “evolutionist” growing up, but slowly I became more of a “intelligent design” person in my mid twenties because I started asking why to some questions I had never known to ask in school.

          Myself, like Mr. Ham, do believe our salvation in Christ is the most important thing in this world and I pray the same for you as well, but the “why” is also very important.

          All that to say, it bothers me when people are dismissive of any point of view and whether intended or not I got that vibe from your original comment and felt compelled to respond. Why yours and no one else’s? I don’t know.

          • Daniel Webb

            I would agree that the “why” is important. The straw man set up by Ham and other young earth creationists is that “secularists” and “evolutionists” only theorize about evolution because they want to remove god from the equation. However, the scientists that study evolution and its conplimentary theories aren’t trying to remove god, they’re following the evidence–this is what the father of the Big Bang, a monk, was doing. This is what Francis Collins, head of the human genome project was doing. Their “why” is to further the understanding of the natural world–not to remove god. We wouldn’t question now the people who theorized that lightning wasn’t actually a direct action of Zeus. We followed the evidence.

            The “why” for creationists, especially YEC, is that they believe it’s the only way the bible can be interpreted correctly and still uphold the word of god. For a Christian though, this is a false dilemma. The genesis story doesn’t need to be literally true in order for a Christian to understand and apply its meaning anymore than the parable of the Good Samaritan needs to be a true story.

      • Tracy

        Totally agree with you Matt.

  • Bill

    The creation movement is a growing one.

    I don’t think that’s true. Gallup poll results show little change over the last 30 years. People are stuck in their ways. There’s a slight increase in belief in atheistic evolution, but not much.

  • Jakeithus


    While you have received pushback for not being harsher on Mr. Ham, I appreciate the format you used. I don’t read anything put out by Ham or AiG, because I don’t agree with their approach. Basically, the only time I’m exposed to him at all is when people are attacking him or his views. While there is certainly a place for that, leaving this open for him to explain himself without the added commentary is a good reminder of our shared humanity and the value and respect we should still show one another.

    • Dr Bill

      I agree! That is the approach we learned in my journalism class back in the Jurassic Era. Conduct the interview in such a way as to allow the interview-ee to clearly express their views. Leave the blood-letting for others. Good job, Jonathan!

    • Author Jonathan Ryan

      Much appreciated, bud.

      • Daniel Webb

        I agree as well–I’d like to see a similiar interview with Nye, but he might be a little harder to get ahold of.

        • Author Jonathan Ryan

          Working on that….cross your fingers…

  • Dr Bill

    (In an Austalian accent:) “That’s not a killer beard. Now THIS is a killer beard.”

  • Greg B

    I would like to know why so many who call themselves Christians are so eager to dismiss out-of-hand the clear teachings of Scripture. Since when did the speculations of God-ignorers become more authoritative than the Bible?

    • Daniel Webb

      I felt the same way when those damn northerners were trying to take away my right to own slaves! I told them–don’t you know what Leviticus 25:44-46 says?
      It says: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”
      Who is this damn fool Lincoln who thinks he can dismiss out-of-hand the clear teachings of scripture! If I want to own african slaves, then by god–I should be able to own those slaves and pass them down like the property they are to my sons!
      Since when did the speculations of these god-ignorers become more authoritative than the bible?!
      **cue rebel yell and Dixie**

      • Greg B

        Your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant.

        • Daniel Webb

          What’s irrelevant about it? Your argument is identical to that of christian slave owners from one of the darkest eras of American history. The only ignorance here is your inability to understand that cherry-picking isn’t an appropriate way to justify your beliefs.

          • Greg B

            It is irrelevant because the topic under discussion is what the Bible teaches about creation, not slavery. It is ignorant because one cannot compare historical narrative to conduct instructions given to a certain people for a certain time and place. It’s apples and oranges. It is also high offensive to liken believers in special creation to persons who practiced an unbiblical form of slavery.

            PS–it’s Leviticus 25, not 22

          • Daniel Webb

            Unfortunately for you, the entirety of the bible is the word of god and so you don’t get to pick and choose if you believe a few chapters in genesis to be literal while discounting chapters in Leviticus. The analogy, which is what my comment was, is that you chastise “people who call themselves Christians” for not taking the clear biblical teachings literally while you do the exact same thing…the difference here is that one (creation) you support and the other (slavery) you don’t. But that doesn’t change that it’s a clear biblical teaching directly from god…at least in your worldview anyways. I can see you’re trying to use that “people of a different time” approach like believers use when confronted about their mixture of fabrics–but don’t forget that slaves were told to obey their masters in the New Testament as well.

            If you’re offended by the literal word of god, perhaps you should consider a new religion–because that’s your baggage. You can’t just beat the parts of your bible that you like–nor can you accuse others of how they read the bible when you do the same selective reading. I’m sorry–but the truth hurts.

            Thank you for the correction on that chapter mistake.

          • Greg B

            I don’t see what point you are trying to make. What are you saying, that I can’t accept the factuality of Genesis unless I own slaves? I don’t deny that slavery was allowed under the Mosaic Covenant, but we Christians today are not under that covenant. As for the NT on slavery, what should slaves who converted have done, rebelled? How would that have helped? Becoming good servants did more to advance the Gospel than anything else they could have done. Slavery was a widespread practice in the 1st century. Since there was no way the tiny, politically and economically powerless Church could change that, Paul gave instructions on how believing masters and slaves should interact with each other. Under no stretch of the imagination does that mean that Christians today ought to own slaves. How does the practice of slavery in the ancient world mean that the creation account of Genesis is wrong? How can you, one who doesn’t understand or believe the Bible anyway, tell me how I have to interpret it?

          • Daniel Webb

            I’m glad you asked. The new covenant did not change any previously held standards on slavery. We can know this because: 1) Jesus did not teach against slavery, other than to support that slaves should be submissive to their masters and 2)his apostles did not teach against slavery, in fact they supported slavery by reinforcing that slaves should obey their masters. Now, if you were an omnipotent, omniscient, and unchanging god, what would you do when given the chance to correct a wrong? God had no qualms about massively changing the Israelite lifestyle and codifying everything from circumcision to adultery–are you saying that he didn’t think he could also mandate that his people not own other people? You know what else was a widespread practice in the 1st century? Animal sacrifice in order to atone for sins. Was Jesus able to change that for his followers? Jesus spoke out against many things that he considered immoral, but never against slavery. Never. Neither did Paul, Peter, or any other apostle. So, what we know from the bible is that slavery is not only acceptable in the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament. When you say that Christians today should not own slaves–I have to ask, where did you find that biblically? Nowhere…which means that while you thump the bible about the factuality of genesis and how it needs to be taken literally–you ignore your own thumping when it’s concerning a subject that you don’t agree with on your own.

            If you are so delusional as to think that an all powerful god and his son who, by the bible’s own admission made radical changes and severely strict moral standards, could rescue the chosen people from Egypt and give them a land of milk and honey and win most of their battles etc…but couldn’t sustain them economically without using slaves? Without owning other people? Just how powerful is this god? Jokes.

          • Brothr John

            WOW !!!! I am Loving this thread!! I find myself, at this point in my journey, at a place where God is more and more ever-present in my day to day experience. Lectionary study of the bible and twice daily centering prayer has become an integral of my daily practice. I now “see” God in others and have learnt to seek and receive guidance from Him thru my interaction with others in daily experience. I too, used to be shackled by dogma and beliefs in the terrible, wrathful God of the fundamentalist tradition into which I was indoctrinated. That God made no sense and constrained me within a mental straightjacket in which I believed that God judged my every thought. I lived in constant fear of allowing my mind to stray. The God I now know and relate with speaks of Love, not fear. Of transformation, not condemnation.

          • Daniel Webb

            Glad to hear that

  • Timothy Beirne

    I think it is a killer beard, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t personally believe that there could not be some form of animal or plant death before Adam sinned. As Paul said: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Romans 8:18–21 NIV84).” One can certainly be a scientist and not buy whole hog into macro evolution, but one cannot be saved without faith. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul (Mt 16:26 NIV84)?” We need more scientists but we also need people to turn to God in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

  • Jim

    Mr. Ham seems to have educated himself well. How did he miss the fact that the Hebrew word for “days” in Genesis means a very long period of time? It is closest to our word “eons.” And if he believes the Great Flood story to be literally true, water covered the highest mountains, including Mt. Everest, which is 29,000 feet high. On a balmy day there, the temp is minus 20 degrees, and it can get as cold as minus 100 degrees. The upper level wind blows at 135 mph, the force of a Cat 3 hurricane. The oxygen level is one-third that of sea level. The ark would have been ice bound, and every thing and person aboard it would have froze to death or died because of lack of oxygen. Ham is a nut case.

    • E. Stephen Burnett

      You may be a little behind Ham’s education, man. :-P I don’t always agree with AiG, but when I do, it’s because I’ve already read their responses to the rather common objections. I’d read the “the Flood even covered Mount Everest?!” objection years ago. AiG well covered this rather cliche riposte.

      And becase I’m already feeling mildly (but I hope affectionately) snarky …


    • http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com Stormbringer005

      “How did he miss the fact that the Hebrew word for “days” in Genesis means a very long period of time?” This is called prejudicial conjecture. That is, you say something without doing your homework. It does NOT mean “very long period of time”. “Yom”, when used with an indicator like “evening”, “morning”, a number, means literal 24-hour day. Otherwise, it means indefinite period of time (“back in my father’s day” or similar).

    • Noah Martin

      1. Yom, Hebrew “day”, is as versatile in use as our use of the word. There are contextual rules that ensure that it is known to be a literal 24 hour day, rules such as: being preceded or followed by morning and night, and including numerical indication such as first day, second day, third day, etc.
      2. The mountains probably weren’t as prominent before the Flood. The flood would have been the cause of extreme sediment deposition building up the mountains higher.
      3. A Flood that engulfed the entire planet most certainly would have a large effect on weather patterns, it is suggested that before the Flood there was a much more tropical like climate.

  • bill wald

    The major part of the problem is how “science” is now defined. People think that any sort of investigation which uses expensive high tech tools is “science.” This is encouraged by hack “scientists” because “scientist” pays better than “machine operator.”

    “Science” should be restricted to investigations, observations, and conclusions which can be falsified. If a conclusion can’t be falsified then logically neither can it be claimed to be correct.

    I think that conclusions involving statistical analysis and mathematical arguments are a gray area between science and the arts. An obvious example is people who argue for a “hyperdimensional universe” simply because equations can be written For example, the square root of e squared can equal the square root of the sums of a squared plus b squared plus c squared plus d squared.

    Further, no one would claim that it could be “scientifically” demonstrated that Oswald killed JFK with no assistance from any other person. Why are historical investigations not “scientific” but pre-historical investigations magically become “scientific?”

    By this standard, laboratory and natural investigations of the evolution of small living critters is “scientific.” Pre-historical conclusions deduced from statistical analysis of current human DNA samples is a gray area. Determining lineage by comparing ancient bones of long dead critters dug from hillsides is an art, not a science.

  • Kelsey

    “Still, this is America and everyone has the right to present their views without edits.”


    Seems like, in today’s society, if you present a view different than everyone else’s, everyone is like “no. You can’t say that.” But I still buy into the theory that everyone has a right to believe a certain way and a right to express that belief!! Has no one read 1984 by George Orwell??

  • GoodBerean

    It will be “Godzilla” (Ham) vs. “Bambi” (Nye.) And we know how that turned out.

    John Lofton, Director
    The God And Government Project