Creation Science Book Review

Why Is There Right and Wrong? (Page 87)

What Is Marriage All About? (Page 88)

For the most part I agree with Ken Ham here.  He says the more people reject Genesis, the worse our cultural situation is.  I agree…I just wish Ham would realize how much damage the young earth creation science movement has done to the church, and that they are the main reason people reject Genesis (see the discussion for Why Does It Matter? (Page 86 in Ham’s book).

Foundations Under Attack (Page 90)

     Ham says the “evolutionary teaching on dinosaurs is an attack on the foundations of Christianity.”  Not at all…one can accept that God used evolution to create, and accept Genesis as literal truth.  Evolutionary teaching is contrary to the young earth theory, but it is merely a scientific theory.  Its purpose is not to attack the Bible.  Sure, there are atheistic evolutionists who use it as such, but that does not summarize the whole of evolution.

     Ham says the foundation is attacked.  The foundation of the Bible is Jesus Christ, and salvation through Him is the only real important issue.  Creation is a side issue, which has no bearing upon one’s salvation.  Believe what you want about creation…young earth, old earth, theistic evolution, gap theory…whatever.  Do you have Jesus?  That’s the only real issue in God’s eyes.

     Ham says the biblical doctrine of origins is foundational to all other biblical doctrines.  Prior to the young earth movement, there was no “doctrine of creation.”  It was an addition to the church over the last 125 years.  For more, see The Doctrine of Creation.

     Ham gives no real reasons to support his doctrinal claim…he just states it matter of factly for the young earth creation science reader to accept blindly.

Millions of Years and the Gospel (Page 92)

     Ham goes back to the death before sin issue.  He says that accepting millions of years of death is contrary to the Bible, and that the Bible makes it clear that death was a result of sin.  We have already dismissed this poor Biblical interpretation in the earlier discussions of this book.  For anyone wishing to review it, check out the Death Before Sin article section.

     Interestingly, concerning Genesis 2:17, where God told Adam he would die that day, Ham says the Hebrew word for death implies it would be a “process of dying.”  Young earth creationists like to use the analogy of a grandmother…if an old lady was reading Genesis, and it said “day,” then the grandmother would plainly read it as a 24-hour day.  True.  Using the same logic, when God said in Genesis 2:17 that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit, the same grandmother must come to the conclusion that Adam would have dropped dead when he bit the fruit.  It works for them in Genesis 1, with the days of creation…why not in Genesis 2:17?

     In Genesis 2:17, Ham goes to the meaning of the Hebrew word to explain it away.  Old earth creationists go to the meaning of the Hebrew word for “day” to explain it in terms of long ages.  What’s the difference?  If Ham is free to use the Hebrew to reinterpret Genesis 2:17, we are free to use the Hebrew to reinterpret “day.”  Yet, Ham and the young earth creationists deny that we can do this!  It’s the same thing they are doing for Genesis 2:17!  Are young earth creationists the only ones allowed to examine the original Hebrew!  Of course, they do not see this hypocritical activity on their part.

     Ham then uses the shedding of blood argument.  Basically, the shedding of blood prior to Adam would destroy the foundation of atonement.  In atonement, the shedding of blood is done for a specific purpose…to atone for sins.  Clearly, not all blood shedding is done for sin (some is a result of sin!).  Shedding of blood prior to Adam has nothing to do with sin, as it was not done for atonement for sin.

     He briefly mentions the new heaven and new earth, and how it will be restored to how it was at the creation.  This state of restoration will be to the conditions in the Garden of Eden, and not the world in general.  The Garden of Eden was once a perfect place.  The world is not addressed as perfect...only the Garden.  The creation as a whole was “very good” (not “perfect”).

     If the world were perfect (free of death and decay), then why did God create a special place called Eden, and place man there?  If the whole world were perfect, there was no need for Eden!  God had foreknowledge of man's fall, and created Eden to show man a glimpse of heaven.  He would one day restore this perfection in heaven.  Outside the gates of Eden, the world was different.  It was also perfect, but in a different sense.  It had a perfectly functioning ecosystem, able to self-renew.  This was just as God planned it.

Missionary Lizards (Page 94)

     Ham claims that dinosaurs are used to brainwash people into believing evolution.  Although I like to refrain from using the term brainwash, in reality, that is exactly how the young earth creation science movement sustains itself…by brainwashing their youth into believing in a false theory.  This book is part of that effort.  It is used in homeschools and in church schools to indoctrinate children.  It is not necessary.  There are plenty of alternatives to this non-scientific propaganda.  Give the children the evidence…if the young earth evidence really is strong enough, let it stand up to the scrutiny of the other theories…may the best theory win!  Speaking from experience as a homeschooling father, young earth creationism loses every time the evidence is examined impartially.

     Ham says “Sadly, I have found over and over that people, particularly students at schools and colleges and universities, say that because of evolution, the Bible must be wrong.”  This is the influence of the young earthers making them choose between one or the other.  You can believe in an old earth, with or without evolution, and believe in a literal Genesis creation account.  Again, this testifies to the millions that young earth creationism has driven from the churches.

     Ham discusses how many churches, who have accepted evolutionary teachings, cannot defend the book of Genesis.  I agree.  We have many liberal churches that do not take the Bible literally, and their members cannot defend their beliefs.  We have always had these liberals…always will have them.  However, they don’t prove that evolution weakens the church or the Bible.  There are many who believe in evolution, and are strong, conservative Christians.  Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too!

    Ham says many Christians are confused about what to teach their children.  This is a direct result of the young earth movement and the either/or choice they present concerning creation.  If we teach our children that an old earth is not contrary to the creation account, this problem goes away!

     Ham shows his blind ignorance in the closing paragraphs.  He claims that “Christians can show the world that the evolutionist story about dinosaurs cannot be defended, but the biblical account presents a logically defensible account that makes sense of the evidence.”  The young earth viewpoint makes a mockery of the evidence, and is scientific garbage.  The only way to believe it is to put some blinders on that eliminates the old earth evidence (for more on how this happens, read Morton’s Demon).  In his rose-colored glasses world, he actually believes this.  In reality, the world would laugh at the young earth creation science theory, and they have no chance of converting someone to Christianity through the use of their science (unless the person is uneducated in scientific matters).

What Is A Christian? (Page 97)

How Can I Become a Christian? (Page 97)

What Do I Need to Do? (Page 100)

How Can I Be Sure That I Am A Christian? (Page 103)

There are no major problems here, as long as you realize that you don’t have to believe in a young earth to become a Christian.

The Consequences of Compromise (Page 104)

     In reality, the only consequence is that you will be free from the unnecessary burden of believing in a false young earth creation account.  He paints a picture using an illustration of a father-son conversation, based on his either/or scenario.  Again, you can accept an old earth, with or without evolution, and believe in a literal Genesis creation account.  If understood properly, there are no negative consequences of old earth belief.