MY COMMENT: Ham should really have put it like this They demonstrate that they don't believe in my interpretation of Genesis. In my opinion Genesis and evolution cannot be put together. But qualified and measured statements like that don't make for the convinced sensationalist sales talk needed by a fundamentalist theme park manager who must make a show of hard selling his line of thought. Also, as I have said on many occasions "evolution", as currently understood, is hardly "naturalistic" (what ever "naturalistic" means) in that it demands very unusual up-front physical constraints to work. In fact under no circumstances can a logically contingent world such as ours ever be "natural"; God, having the property of Aseity, is the only entity that is "natural".
HAMNATION: So if someone says they “believe in Genesis,”
but they also believe in evolution, then they don’t really believe in Genesis.
They’ve taken man’s ideas from outside Scripture and added them into the Bible.
Millions of years and evolution don’t come from the Bible—they come from the
mind of fallen man, and N.T. Wright, Francis Collins, and others are using
those ideas to interpret Scripture. Really, they’re setting themselves up as
the authority over God and his Word, and they are a blight on the church.
MY COMMENT: Once again a narrow minded and sales-talking theme park supremo isn't going to get involved with measured subtleties like meaning = text + context, an equation which implies that the Bible can never be absolutely self-interpreting. It is the knowledge base we bring to the Bible which brings it alive, either rightly or wrongly (hopefully the former). But of course Ham is spiritually conceited enough to think he's got a direct line to God absolving him of any epistemic responsibility for its interpretation. It is Ham who is setting himself up as an authority over God and his word.
HAMNATION: It would appear that
by singing “DNA, shaping creatures from the dust and clay” that DNA — not God — is
doing the work of creation. This would be consistent with an evolutionary
worldview in which DNA (the molecule of heredity) is supposedly responsible for
all the life we have today. This idea is, quite frankly, blasphemous. It steals
the glory that belongs to God—and God alone—for what he has created. DNA didn’t
create creatures. God created DNA (an incredibly complex information system)
when he created life.
To say that God used
evolution to create and then to sing this line is incredibly inconsistent . . .
and hypocritical. An all-wise Creator doesn’t use the inept, bumbling process
of trial-and-error (and death, bloodshed, and disease) that is evolution to
create. Instead, he speaks and it is so.
MY COMMENT: Even if evolution as currently conceived is the explanation for natural history it is misleading to claim that DNA is responsible for all the life we have today: Instead we would have to trace the causes of evolution back to the physical regime that only omniscience could create knowing its likely outcome. So Ham is factually wrong here, although I can see why a dualist mindset like his will think in the dichotomised terms of "God did it" vs "Evolution did it" and then use that canard as the basis for accusations of heresy. But although I can offer Ham some leeway here he's not got the kind of personality that is going to give allowance for the mitigating circumstances effecting those who disagree with him - rather Ham is going to charge them with heinous sins of hypocrisy and blasphemous and no appeal accepted. I have an inkling that as Wright and Collins are both respected members of the secular academic establishment this has got something to do with Ham's outburst; the Christian evangelical Trump voting right-wing are very suspicious of "deep government" institutions in any guise, tax funded academia included. And let's not forget that Trump has fueled the fires of suspicion by making friendly noises toward Alex Jones and the QAnon conspiracy theorists. Trump, the would-be dictator, like Ham, has a need to discredit and bypass the institutions of society and appeal directly to his support base.
Although I have reservations about standard evolution myself, I wouldn't want anything to do with Ham's ignorant and mindless inquisitional style condemnation of Wright and Collins.
HAMNATION: And not how Wright and Collins mean when they sing “for he spoke and it was so”—they mean God spoke and over billions of years, natural processes, guided by God, bumbled about creating life on earth as millions of creatures that didn’t quite turn out died out, dying and suffering, killing and eating, paving the way for new, more advanced lifeforms to emerge. No, when the all-wise, all-powerful Creator speaks—it really is so, just as it says in Genesis.
MY COMMENT: Once again Ham is over stating the random "bumbling" element of evolution and wrongly thinking of it as a "natural process". In any case chaos, suffering, fall and evil predate man; that's what the appearance of the serpent in Genesis 3 teaches us.
HAMNATION: They sing that God is
grace and love, but they are really attributing millions of years of death,
suffering, disease, and bloodshed to God. By saying God used evolution, they
are really saying God—not our sin (which is what the Bible teaches)—is the
author of death and the brokenness of creation. That’s not the loving and
gracious God of the Bible! God sent his Son to pay for this brokenness and
rescue us from the mess we caused because of our sin in Adam.
Genesis describes the paradise of Eden as the first home for humanity—before Adam and Eve’s sin broke creation. But in Wright and Collins’ view, Adam and Eve are standing on layers of sediment filled with fossils (the remains of dead things). This means, in the evolutionary view, they are standing on the evidence for millions of years of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed. How’s that for a “bliss” that we miss? What kind of paradise is that?
MY COMMENT: As is common with some fundamentalists Ham neglects Satan's fall and the chaos beast - but actually in a sense so does the Bible but for the right reasons. Viz: That the central and primary message of the Bible is the plan of salvation for humanity and not Satan's fall; the latter is mere context even though it alludes to an important cosmic event; this event is not allowed to upstage the Glory of Christ which is the central message of the Bible (Phil 2:1-11). Moreover, like other toy-town fundamentalists Ham fundamentally understates the problem of suffering and evil by glibly (and wrongly) tracing too much back to the Adamic fall.
Although Adam did screw things up big time for humanity, a claim to be the originator of the Serpent and cosmic chaos is too big a claim for (wo)man.
HAMNATION: ....BioLogos and
those affiliated with them are leading Christians into error. Wright and
Collins need to repent of their compromise with the pagan religion of the day,
repent of not believing God’s Word, and repent of encouraging others to
compromise God’s Word. They may sing, “Oh, I believe in Genesis,” but what they
really mean is, “Oh, I believe in man’s ideas about the past and have added
them into Genesis.” They would do well to heed God’s Word, “let God be true but
every man a liar” (Romans 3:4 NKJV).
MY FINAL COMMENT: Notice that Ham automatically gives no credence to the consciences of Wright and Collins or concede that in their own very scholarly minds they have satisfactorily reconciled evolution and Genesis; like other fundamentalists Ham assumes that Wright and Collins secretly understand the Bible in the way that Ham does but are knowingly suppressing it; fundamentalists (by definition) assume their interpretations are "plain" and beyond doubt. This is the assumption made by all fundamentalists (by definition) that I have met from the Watchtower through the Children of God to Ken Ham. Ham is effectively accusing Wright and Collins of wilful, knowing sin. Such is the wrath of a Trump voting right-winger who fears and looks askance at the academic establishment, especially if, like Wright and Collins, they claim God's salvation!
Ham's word is not to be identified with God's word but simply the word of Ham. He's used Romans 3:4 in exactly the same way the Watchtower use it of those who contradict Watchtower teaching. In any case it's worth noting the parallels between AiG and the Watchtower. Ken Ham is a theological dunce who has failed to draw out the anti-pagan lessons of Genesis 1 and instead distorted it with his town-toy "anti-science" and a pagan dualist outlook. He should apologise to Wright and Collins for his baseless and fallacious accusations of heresy. Unfortunately. however, I see in Ham the spirit of the inquisition, a spirit which follows rules and fails to take cognizance of consciousness.
***
Postscript
In a recent bizarre web encounter I have had with a fundamentalist who is plumbing the depths of unreason I actually started to feel that relatively speaking Ken Ham is quite a reasonable bloke! That AiG in comparison can seem a moderate outfit goes to show how far some parts of evangelical Christianity (if it's fit to be called that) have gone down the road of utter intellectual debasement and lunacy. In fact so much so in this case that I found myself recommending an article on AiG to the fundamentalist concerned! But more about that weird encounter another time!
