What is Ken Ham's opinion of denominations that allow for evolution and an old universe?

Upvote:0

This doesn't directly answer the question, but it might provide the kind of ideas you'd like to see discussed.

There are denominations that take the bible literally, believing that the six 24-hour days of creation occurred about 6,000 years ago, yet don't believe in Young Earth Creationism. The debate you're looking for might be found within their publications.

Here are a few examples:

We believe that the physical evidence of the universe and the textual studies on Genesis 1 favor the universe and the earth being older than the 6,000 years man has existed. Our understanding is a logical, straightforward way of explaining Genesis 1 that is consistent with what we find in the physical world.

— In Defense of an Ancient Universe | United Church of God/

Creationists are typically classified into two groups—young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists. There are variations of creation models within each camp, yet the purpose here is not to discuss those differences, but rather to briefly lay out why we believe in what is labeled a form of old-earth creationism.

— How Old Is the Earth? | United Church of God

“Young Earth” creationists interpret the Genesis account to mean that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

These creationists believe that any evidence not supporting their theory is incorrectly applied, or that data is misinterpreted. Their view is that the Bible is the only source that should be examined to prove creation, and the events recorded in it should be taken as they interpret them.

Young Earth proponent Henry Morris stated, “Either … believe God’s Word all the way, or not at all” (The Long War Against God).

…

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the entire universe. Satan’s rebellion took place at some point between the accounts of verses 1 and 2. And verse 2 describes the re-creation of the Earth that Young Earth creationists correctly date to approximately 6,000 years ago.
…
Christians should not run from science. While scientists do not always interpret the data correctly, certain concepts and fundamental laws mesh with the creation. Scientific laws man has discovered and defined were created by the God of the universe.

— Is the Earth 6,000 Years Old? | Restored Church of God

A common argument is that this belief in an ancient Earth (and Universe) with a recent re-creation is a recent idea, an ad hoc theory developed in response to scientific discoveries. But that simply isn't so:

Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2.

The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century.

The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering … of it was taken in hand?' (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6).

Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.

— Earth's Age: Does the Bible Indicate a Time Interval Between the First and Second Verses of Genesis? | United Church of God

Other examples:
— How Old Is the Earth? | Living Church of God
— Dinosaurs and the Bible | Philadelphia Church of God
— Dinosaurs Before Adam (PT 1963 article).pdf

Upvote:4

"Debating with a brick wall"... what an excellent analogy for what it's like to try to debate a Materialist!

(Yes, I'm deliberately misappropriating that quote. Also, in the extremely unlikely chance it isn't blindingly obvious, this answer is from a YEC perspective... The OP asked for YEC opinions; many of the statements herein are rather direct expositions thereof.)

In order to examine the YEC response to "theistic evolutionism" or any other such (non-YEC) view, it is necessary to first understand what we are truly dealing with, which is Philosophical Naturalism, also known as Materialism. (In short, "nothing exists outside of nature / the material".)

What are we (really) dealing with?

Materialism is the religious belief that there is no God. This necessitates the assertion that everything in Creation (yes, I'm using that word deliberately) can be explained solely by natural processes. It's not very scientific because it excludes possible explanations a priori for reasons that can only be described as philosophical; indeed, if God exists, it's obvious that this philosophy will be unable to produce accurate explanations. It must also be noted that Materialism is basically Humanism without the social bits.

Humanism is a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity. In fact, the destruction of Christianity is an explicit goal of Humanism. We should therefore expect them to do everything possible to accomplish this goal. Moreover, as Christians, we ought to recognize that these attacks are not for the sake of "truth" or "tolerance" or "science", as Humanists would have us believe, but are in fact nothing less than attacks by Satan directed against God and Christ. The Humanist objective is nothing less than the eradication of God.

Historic science is all about trying to guess what happened in the past based on what we can see now.

Materialists start with the axiom that God does not exist and miracles cannot happen. This dogma is both unacknowledged and sacrosanct; no deviations are permitted, no matter what the evidence says. Using this starting point, they have produced a model which attempts to explain various observations. This model has been polished over time until it looks "pretty" on the surface, but has many underlying flaws and is significantly a product of circular reasoning. Humanists have further used every means at their disposal to cover up these flaws, pretending that they don't exist, and to silence any dissent. Because of their underlying religious beliefs, other models may not be considered, no matter how well those models may fit the available evidence.

Where do we (YECs) stand?

The only reliable way of knowing what happened in the past is the testimony of a reliable witness... and we have the most reliable! God Himself tells us that He created in six days (i.e. ~144 hours), about 6,000 years ago, and that about 4,500 years ago He sent a global Flood that destroyed all (non-oceanic) animal life aside from eight humans and representatives of all animal kinds. Creationists start with a belief in Genesis as an accurate historical record on the assertion that, when read without preconceptions, it is abundantly evident that Genesis 1-11 are meant to be read as real history and not "myths". (That is not to say that they are free of any allegory or hyperbole and literal in every possible sense, but that the events described therein really happened in the manner plainly described.) Using this starting point, YECs have produced scientific models which attempt to explain various observations. These models have a small number of well-known gaps, but overall provide an extremely good fit for the observable evidence.

We would do well also to point out that "Young Earth Creationism" is the historic teaching of the Church, going back thousands of years. It is also affirmed by Christ Himself (e.g. Mark 10:6). Moreover, Evolutionism is older than you think as well. The conflict is not new. "Science" does not clearly favor Evolutionism and Uniformitarianism over YEC; in fact, most YECs would claim the exact opposite!

What is the YEC stance regarding non-YEC Christians?

In short... they're wrong.

YECs believe that there are only two types of Christians; those that ascribe to a "plain" reading of Genesis 1-11 (i.e. Creation in ~144 hours ~6,000 years ago and a global Flood ~4,500 years ago), and those that have abandoned the historic teaching of the church and succumbed to varying extents to the tremendous "peer pressure" of Humanist teachings. Christians that don't believe in YEC have, whether they realize it or not (and the attack is so insidious that many don't recognize it for what it is!), allowed their theology to mingle with the theology of Humanism.

To understand this, one must first recognize how non-YEC teachings are, at their heart, influenced by Humanism (i.e. God-denial), and second, know enough [Creation] science to recognize that Humanist conclusions are absolutely unnecessary when one acknowledges God. If you start by accepting God, it's easy to show that Uniformitarianism is unnecessary and unsatisfactory, and easy to show Evolutionism for the nonsense it is. Indeed, many scientists that don't believe in God believe that Evolutionism is absurd, and it's telling that the reaction to this approach isn't to refute it, but to accuse its proponents of "trying to smuggle God in the back door", to double down on the Humanist dogma, and to shout back that their house of cards is "proven science".

The key point here to understanding this view is that, once one removes the Humanist foundation and allows God to enter the picture, there is no logical reason whatsoever to accept the Materialist worldview. The only value it can provide to someone willing to consider the possibility that God exists comes in reducing one's exposure to the persecution that Humanists are eager to heap upon anyone that dares to disagree with them. (But, as Christians, we are taught that we will face persecution, and we are called to make our faith known (Matthew 5:15-16). As Christians, we ought to stand firm and hold to the Truth. We can take comfort, however, that God knows our predicament, and indeed even spoke of it since long ago. Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 and 2 Peter 3:3-6; these verses are almost a direct condemnation of Materialism.) Ultimately, however, the claims of Materialism are not the result of an unbiased examination of the evidence, but of an extremely biased worldview that sets the denial of God before all else. Conversely, that same evidence, when examined against God's Word, shows that God's Word is not lacking, and that science is fully compatible with the Bible. If one accepts God's existence, there is no scientific reason to accept Evolutionism, Uniformitarianism, or indeed any compromise whatsoever from the historic and Godly belief in Creation, the (global) Flood, and a ~6,000 year old Earth.

There are a number of resources that can help expose the Humanist influence on "scientific" beliefs. One which I would highly recommend is I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Moreover, understanding just how committed humans are to denying God will help make sense of why so many "Christians" are willing to believe all manner of things that directly contradict the Bible. (Please note that I don't mean to attack all non-YEC Christians here; the societal pressure to accept all manner of Humanist teachings can be overwhelming. Rather, it's important to recognize that some within the church are embracing such ideas for anti-Godly reasons, as such recognition will help to elucidate how such beliefs can become so prevalent.)

Finally, I would be remiss to not mention, however briefly, the YEC take on the theological consequences of Humanist "infection". I could write several paragraphs on that as well, but since you mentioned Ken Ham, specifically, I think it's reasonable to point to some articles from the organization he founded, Answers in Genesis:

Thus, the response isn't only "you're wrong", but "theologically, you're playing with fire". To be sure, not all Christians that reject YEC will fall into outright heresy, and not all YECs are free from other heretical beliefs. It's critical to note that, on the individual level, most Creationists would say that a belief in evolution does not absolutely preclude someone being saved. However, such a belief has serious consequences, not the least of which is that one is rejecting things which God has spoken to us, not only in Genesis 1, but again through Christ. Further, when one explorers the consequences of belief in Evolutionism, one is confronted by the fact that it makes nonsense out of the theology of the Fall, and in doing so, undermines the very basis of Salvation.

At an organizational level, we are doing ourselves no favors in failing to defend against this insidious attack. Fortunately, many Christians do recognize this attack for what it is, and know the truth that Science affirms God's Word.

It's important to understand that there is no middle ground. Those that reject YEC, even among Christians, are not following (unbiased) science, they are following Humanist assertions which result, ultimately, from a denial of God.

As the expression goes, "give an inch and they'll take a mile". The "inch" many Christians are yielding is the Truth of Genesis 1; that is, Creationism and an Earth that is ~6,000 years old. The "mile" we are losing by doing so is nothing less than the bedrock of our faith. Without that foundation, how are we to stand firm against the attacks of the adversary, or bring new members into the Church?

Postscript

I mentioned briefly that science, when freed of a dogmatic rejection of God, supports a literal reading of Genesis. I could not possibly hope to contain any in depth exploration on this subject to a reasonable length, as there are (at least) hundreds of publications, hundreds of hours of lectures, and thousands of pages of books written on the subject. The previous links may provide a starting point, but if more is desired, AIG provides many resources (including a YouTube channel), as do CMI and ICR. Some particularly notable books include Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood and Walt Brown's In The Beginning. Anything by John Morris is also likely worth reading, and even non-Christian authors such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton and Stephen Meyer speak to the flaws of the Materialist worldview.

Also, the question originally expressed more confusion as to why YEC vs. non-YEC debates tend to go the way they do. I previously gave additional thoughts on that topic which may be seen in this answer's history.

TL;DR

YECs believe and assert that non-YEC views are wrong, are theologically dangerous, and have no evidential justification when the evidence is examined apart from Humanist bias; if you accept God, any non-YEC worldview is inferior, full stop. YECs further believe and assert that if you don't accept the YEC worldview, it as almost surely because you accept, at some level, "science" which rests on the axiomatic rejection of God.

Hopefully a) this will help with understanding the YEC position, and b) I've addressed "what do [YECs] say about how [non-YECs]?", even if only by example 🙂.

More post

Search Posts

Related post