He’s not wrong: Ken Ham offers a powerful argument against Christianity.
Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham explains that any coherent understanding of Christianity depends upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, including a belief that the story of Noah and the account of creation offered in the Book of Genesis is historically accurate.
Posting on Facebook Monday afternoon, Ham wrote:
A Lutheran-ELCA pastor (very liberal) says the account of Noah is not history, but if that’s true then Jesus, Peter, and the author of Hebrews lied. The pastor says Genesis is myth. Well, then the gospel would also be, as it’s preached in Genesis 3:15, 21. If Noah is a myth, then so are all those listed in Hebrews 11, like Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and others. Would the pastor rather have children be taught evolution as fact and creation as myth? Millstone warning in Mark 9:42! Genesis is history.
In short, Ham is saying that if the story of Noah is nothing but a myth, then Jesus was a liar, and by extension, Christianity is false.
Ham is pointing out the simple truth that once Christians abandon claims that the the story of Noah, and the account of creation offered in the Book of Genesis, are historically accurate, Christianity itself becomes an untenable absurdity.
Ham is correct. Once biblical creationism is rejected, Christianity unravels: if there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin, and thus no need for redemption through the blood of Christ.
Indeed, on this one point Ham is demonstrating much more integrity and honesty than most Christians by acknowledging the fact that once one accepts the scientific account of evolution, one must dismiss biblical creationism, and in turn, the whole of Christianity.
In a similar vein, Christian Post reports that in July 2015 Ham asked:
One of the problems with compromise in one area of Scripture is where do you stop compromising? If Christians accept the idea of human evolution, then why not accept the idea that our sinful tendencies are really just evolved tendencies?
Again, Ham is correct. Once one dismisses creation as explained in the Book of Genesis as an untenable absurdity, the house of cards Christianity is built upon quickly collapses. As Ham notes: “where do you stop compromising?” For surely if we can reject biblical creationism, we can also reject the supposed virgin birth and the supposed resurrection of Christ as being equally absurd claims.
By arguing for the necessity of Biblical literalism, Ham exposes the flimsy house of cards that is the foundation of Christianity.
If we embrace science, and accept the scientific account of evolution; we must dismiss biblical creationism, and in turn the whole of Christianity as myth, metaphor, or some other euphemism for factually untrue.
Indeed, once one biblical account of supernatural absurdity is rejected, all other biblical accounts of supernatural absurdities become suspect.
Bottom line: Ham reduces Christianity to absurdity. Ham argues that if Noah, and the account of creation offered in the Book of Genesis, is nothing but a myth, then Christianity is false. Yet the fact is that the story of Noah and the account of creation offered in the Book of Genesis are false, thus demonstrating that the whole of Christianity must also be false.