Why Ken Ham Lost the Debate

As you may well know, earlier this week Bill Nye (The Science Guy) and Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, debated one another as to whether or not Ken Ham’s understanding of the world’s origin is viable (Ham is a literal 6 day, young earth creationist). If you haven’t watched the debate, and have 2 hours and 45 minutes on your hands, you can check it out here.

When I say that Ken Ham lost, I don’t mean to imply that Bill Nye won.  In fact,most people have already concluded that Bill Nye came out on top. What was more important to me was how the Gospel was communicated in light of creation. This debate was not just viewed by Christians alone – I imagine there were many people who were excited to see what would come of the debate. Knowing this, I was hoping and praying that Jesus might be known in and through what was said.

So when the following question was directed to Ken Ham (at 2hr 18 min in the video), I got excited, recognizing the latent possibilities:

“Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the earth was more than 10,000 years old and creation did not occur in 6 days, would you still believe in God, in the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that Jesus was the Son of God?”

If I had been asked this question, I would have answered as such;

“Absolutely. My faith in Jesus Christ and my belief that he truly is who he claimed to be is not determined by my understanding of creation. Within the church we like to speak of essentials and negotiables. Jesus Christ as Son of God is an essential – you don’t have a Christian faith without it. But one’s understanding of creation is a negotiable. Not all Christians agree on how the earth came into existence. In fact, there are some Christians who believe that God used evolution. While I may disagree with them, since we both belong to Christ, that Christian with a different view point is actually my brother. And in fact, Mr. Bill Nye could very well know Jesus as the Christ and be transformed by the power of His Spirit and never change his beliefs on evolution. God is much bigger than our beliefs on the origins of the universe. He is not as concerned about our answer to the question of ‘How we came into being?’ than He is of ‘what we make of Jesus?’”

That is what I would have loved to hear Ken Ham say.

Instead he reminded the audience of his argument that one could never find evidence to disprove his view, therefore making the “hypothetical” meaningless. While, in his short response to the question, he didn’t mention his understanding of the importance of Genesis, there were other moments in the debate where he made Genesis the foundation for all Christian doctrine.  In fact, on his website, he does argue that compromise of Genesis ultimately undermines the gospel.

In basing the entire gospel upon his understanding of how the world came into being, Ken Ham made the Gospel inaccessible.  He made creation the door by which one can experience salvation, not Jesus.  And that is a tragedy.  Ken Ham may be my brother in Christ, but I believe he lost, not only the debate, but an opportunity to make known Christ’s mystery and majesty.  Fortunately for him, and for all of us, God is not dependent upon our proclamations to make himself known to anyone.

You might also enjoy…

6 responses to “Why Ken Ham Lost the Debate”

  1. John Anthony Dunne

    Thanks Calvin. That is precisely the worst part of the whole debate. Thankfully Bill Nye kept reiterating that this was “Ham’s creation model” and juxtaposed Ham’s views with the “billions” of religious people who think differently. Hopefully if non-Christians remember anything it’s that Ken Ham does not represent mainstream (or historic) Christianity.

  2. Tony

    wow……….Seriously?

    Just what was it about the ENTIRE debate as presented by Ken Ham that you cannot see him MULTIPLE TIMES make Jesus “…known in and through what was said.” ?! Was it because he did not toot the exact notes on the horn you would have? That makes his part of the debate a fail?

    wow…..

    Mr. Ham continually pressed compelling evidence from a non-faith based imperial evidence interpretation and logical reasoning, and yet still MULTIPLE TIMES presented Jesus, his word, and salvation as part of the discussion. Any reasonable non-believer could see that. It would be easier for someone to miss Air force One flying overhead on final approach to an airstrip next to them than to not have been able to see this.
    The equivalent to your position would be the complaining about an alter call not being valid because someone came down the wrong aisle.

    wow……

    1. Calvin Sodestrom

      Tony – thanks for reading and for commenting!

      I watched the whole debate and, with you, did hear Ken speak of salvation through faith in Christ. And if those comments were ripped from the entire context of the debate, indeed, Christ would be made known. And as I noted at the bottom of the post, I believe that God used Ken to make himself known, even if it may have been in spite of him.

      The problem I had with Ken’s overall presentation is that he made all of Scripture dependent upon reading every word in Genesis as completely literal. For Ken, if Genesis is not completely literal then the Bible isn’t trustworthy and one can’t know Jesus. Therefore, according to his system, faith in Jesus depends on a literal reading of Genesis.

      When you hold Ken’s understanding of Scripture next to his proclamations of Jesus, it qualifies them. He seemed to make Young Earth Creationism=Christianity. So while he proclaimed Jesus, in light of his other comments, it was a stunted view of Jesus.

    2. Just a follower

      “Any reasonable unbeliever . . .”

      Just as one small facet of Ham’s debate tells us all we need to know, this one part of your comment tells us all we need to know about your objection. The fact is, reasonable unbelievers and believers alike have every reason to call all of his arguments into question when he tells us very clearly that he is unswayed by facts. In fact, I think this makes the obvious quite clear: this one comment of Ham’s is enough to call anything else he says into question. If he can be so spectacularly misguided on a point that is illustrative of his intellectual integrity, he’s untrustworthy. My roommate has many of Ken Ham’s DVDs here. In the descriptions, Ham confirms what Calvin has written: Ham makes the believability of God’s word hinge on the veracity of HAM’S interpretation of Genesis. If Ham is wrong, then God does not exist. Since Ham is every bit the fallible being that the rest of us are, I think it does everyone a disservice to make such recklessly ignorant proclamations. He’s put the cart before the horse. He’s placed his biblical exegesis in front of what we see before our eyes. And worst of all, he’s doing everything he can to malign the integrity of the gospel with his human failings. He’s quite simply robbing Christ of followers. He’s anathema to Christ’s message.

  3. Jeff Whisler

    Thank you Calvin, for the post! I appreciated your insights.

    Hope all is well!

  4. Paul

    Brilliant Post. I totally agree with your assessment of the “debate”. I’d love to see Bill Nye debate Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. That would be much more effective at removing obstacles to sharing the gospel. Many people have asked him if he’d be willing to debate Bill Nye, and he said “I’d love to have a ‘gracious dialogue’ with him, yes”
    Bill and Ken never really engaged in a discussion, spending most of their time talking past one another… what a wasted opportunity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *