I’m not sure that’s accurate. I think it would probably be more accurate to say that he’s upset “still.” In the latest issue of the Answers in Genesis newsletter answersupdate, Ham laments that the Assemblies of God denomination, which had adopted a “evolution is nonsense because the bible says so” stance back in 1977, has now changed its tune and says…
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
For a theological position, that sounds pretty reasonable. But of course Ham doesn’t think so. He’s particularly aggrieved by the part about science expanding and changing. Says Ham…
My heart was heavy as I read the statement: “The findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.”
Well, at least the Bible hasn’t changed in the past 33 years. But man’s ideas certainly have!
It’s almost ironic how Ham puts so much faith in the 2,000 year old words of (all but) scientifically illiterate tribesmen, but when it comes to the evidence gained since then by our advancing scientific and technological abilities, he just can’t bring himself to accept any of it.
Of course, to Ham, the “science” that gives us the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, and evolutionary evidence (among other things) isn’t real science. He makes a distinction between “operational science” and “historical science.” The latter can’t be valid, according to Ham’s reasoning, because we can’t observe it directly. I suppose Ham doesn’t believe that murder investigations can ever determine the guilty party, either. His position is beyond ridiculous and every time he argues it, he just confirms his obstinance and willful ignorance about science and the way the world works.
Answers in Genesis is a horrid organization that spreads misinformation about the world in which we live… misrepresenting science, promoting questionable values, and teaching an intellectually crippling worldview.
Sadly, they’re not the only organization that does this.
Fundamentalists like Ken Ham just can’t accept that the world is moving forward. Given the choice between accepting evidence for evolution and an old earth, or clinging to an ancient book that gives them comfort, they choose the latter every time.
Yep. It’s funny that he says that if they can’t accept the foundational book of Genesis, then the authority of the entire bible is in question. I agree with him, but probably not for the reason he would like. 😉