Ken Ham Responds to The Genealogical Adam and Eve

Ham writes on Facebook:

What he’s doing is nothing new. It’s the same old attempts many others have made over the years to come up with new creative ways of trying to fit man’s religion of evolution into God’s Word in Genesis.

It’s just another example of the devil’s temptation in Genesis 3 for man wanting to be God.
As this professor stated, “we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.” In other words, his story is better than God’s clear account in Genesis. His anti-biblical ideas in this article are the same basic ideas that William Lane Craig has also been promoting.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5).

I respond:

Great to hear from you Ken Ham! Thanks for getting the word out about this development in our understanding.

More and more YECs are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell. We both believe that Jesus rose from the dead. This is how he made himself known to all people. Jesus is greater than evolution, in the end, so we have nothing to fear from it.

The good news is that The Genealogical Adam and Eve arises from a plain, literal reading of Genesis. As for me, I trust God’s Word over your word.

And what God did to reveal himself though Jesus will always be greater than creation science. Don’t you agree?


I forget who it was now, but I think it was someone from the Discovery Institute who pointed out - you trust your interpretation of God’s Word and science over Ken Ham’s (and others’) interpretation of God’s Word and science.

This quote particularly sticks in my craw because it seems like one-up-man-ship that doesn’t particularly edify the body of Christ, in my opinion. At least that’s the way I see it, so it irks me.

As for me, I don’t fear anything from evolution, but it’s still part of an origin story that people who claim not to be religious guard religiously.

1 Like

I’m just quoting Ham back to Ham :). And I can back up precisely where he steps away from a literal reading.

Does it bother you when he says the same?


Plain? Many things in the Bible aren’t literal.

He doesn’t say it exactly that way, in a way that seems pithy and petty. I prefer the long-winded version. :laughing:

But joking aside, the way he writes often bothers me, yet I still follow what AIG is doing, just like I follow what is going on at Peaceful Science.

1 Like

Hehe. At least your honest :).

But I can’t take your objection remotely seriously. Once you deal with the plank in your own community, we can see how to fine tune the speck in mine.

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Could 7 billion souls fit in a Bowl?


Telling me to apply that verse to myself seems to make the verse doubly apply to you. So I don’t even know how to respond except to be amused. :neutral_face::sweat_smile:

1 Like

His anti-Hamlical ideas in this article are the same basic ideas that William Lane Craig has also been promoting.

Fixed that.

I feel so icky whenever I see people use verses like Proverbs 3:5 to promote distrust in science. Stuff like “lean not on your own understanding” and “don’t trust the wisdom of man” are so ripe for exploitation and abuse.


The effect of nobody knowing God’s thoughts on the matter, which has being the greatest challenge, IMO, to Christianity and every other theistic religion.

Everyone who understands the well-founded nature of evolutionary science will defend it vigorously from the misconceptions and lies constantly churned out about it by its opponents. I defend evolutionary biology, vaccinology, the ability of germs to cause disease, etcetera, because they are all based on rigorous science.


There is a huge cognitive dissonance here. Ken Ham trusts the wisdom of man a lot, otherwise why would he get into his car, use a plane, etcetera, all built with the wisdom of man.


Ken Ham has forgotten that when he opens his bible to read “God’s Word” then what appears on the page still has to pass through Ken Ham’s eyes and make sense to Ken Ham’s brain, which learned to read when mere fallible, mortal people taught it how to.

How can Ken Ham be so sure he’s got it right? There is no way to get around his own “understanding” and “wisdom”. That also implies the Bible is commanding the reader to do the i possible.


I don’t think there is any problem with the Biblical origin story, at least it doesn’t bother me. The trouble starts when people try to make science out of the Bible.

We don’t guard science - we don’t need to. Instead we go into the lab (or wherever) and test it again when questions come up. Religion doesn’t do that - nor should we have any expectation of religion to work in that manner. If everyone could acknowledge this basic fact, we wouldn’t have nearly so much to argue about. :slight_smile:


Ham also trusts a translation committee for whatever version he reads in English. And he trusts whatever humans have authored the commentaries he reads.


You are such a troll.

Typo alert. You used the wrong pronoun there :slight_smile:


Ken Ham Responds to The Genealogical Adam and Eve

I couldn’t bring myself to read more than a sentence or two. Answers in Genesis has delivered yet another serving of Ham and sleaze.

1 Like

Reading through the comments on Ken’s Facebook article, I gleaned that those who remarked negatively on Dr Swamidass’s impressive GAE proposal have this notion that a diversity of equally valid views on any Christian theology topic don’t exist and even if they do acknowledge the existence of this equiplurality (did I just invent a new word?), they damn all options they don’t accept based on some metric that is unclear to me.

Evolutionary biology is solid and inasmuch as I don’t give two kobo (cents, in the US of A) about A&E, I would choose GAE any day over the mumbo jumbo YEC version of A&E.


Google suggests that you did, but it’s a good one. :slight_smile:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.