I understand what you are pointing to but I do not this is helpful. The relationship between Ken Ham (and fundamentalism and large) is complicated. I am a dark-skinned Indian raised in fundamentalist context, and have taken the time to look closely at this. Also @Wookin_Panub is an african american YEC who sometimes comments here.
In their defense first, Ken Ham collaborated with a african american scholar (Dr. Charles Ware) to write “One Race One Blood” https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/one-race-one-blood/. They make an admirable and articulate case against racism from a literalist point of view. Ironically, they focus in on the exact same passage that was used to justify segregation, anti-interracial marriage and anti-immigration doctrine (from a literal Biblical point of view) by Bob Jones Sr. (read his 1960 justification based on Biblical authority of segregation here http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/).
To their credit, in recent years AIG has gone to lengths to make the case for interracial marriage and desegregation. https://answersingenesis.org/racism/one-flesh/ https://answersingenesis.org/family/marriage/interracial-marriage/ In particular, when Bob Jones announced that they would end their 30 year policy of forbidding interracial dating in 2000, AiG applauded this decision https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ministry/aig-applauds-bob-jones-university-for-important-policy-change/. I cannot find the reference now, but it appears Ken Ham and AiG started making the case for these changes in 1999, about 6 months before the Bob Jones change. It is hard to figure out causal relationships here, but at least they were pulling fundamentalism forward here.
Now, also, Bob Jones professors have personally apologize in private for their disturbing role in harboring and enshrining racism at BJU well past the rest of us had moved on. I respect that Bob Jones has apologized, that AiG rejects these things now, and that this opens up hope of racial reconciliation.
Now to the real problem. The real problem, in my view regarding race and YEC is not that most YECs are racists. They do not appear to be racists, for the most part. Rather, forgetting this recent history, they turn around and blame evolution for racism. Quoting Ham “Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it.”
I find this to be ahistorical to an extreme, and revisionist of the history of literalism and fundamentalism. Perhaps it is even slanderous. It is theologically suspect too. Evolution is not the root of sin. And evolutionists were mere open to ending segregation than fundamentalists in 1960.
Especially given this very recent recent history of Fundamentalism and racism, this characterization is slanderous of those that actually stood against racism in our country.
Disturbingly, it also appears to be entirely ignorant of the actual history of racism. For example, african american slavery certainly does not begin (historically) with Darwinism at all. If anything, Darwin’s theory corresponds more with the Civil War than with the institution of racism. Somehow, Ham forgets that our founding fathers did not need evolution to justify establishing slavery as an institution in this great country. How did they manage.
Moreover in the last 70 years of US history, the fundamentalist and literal interpretations of scripture has resisted integration, interracial marriage, and immigration ON BIBLICAL GROUNDS till as late as 2000 (once again, read the 1960 speech from Bob Jones). Here the same hermeneutic technique they use determine the age of the earth was used to prolong racist sentiment for at least 30 years after the Civil Rights movement here. Clearly, literal interpretation was not enough to protect against racism.
Of course, if we go back to the 1800s and 1900s, evolution was used to justify racism too. Even though scientific evidence entirely undercut this view. So it seems that racism can thrive among evolutionists and YEC literalists with equal proclivity. Neither science (and evolution) nor literalism can protect us from this sin.
This tells more about the sin of racism than anything else. Racism is a darkness in our hearts. We use everything at our disposal, including science and the BIble to justify it. The root cause of racism is our nature, not any specific worldview. We are sinful people. No worldview cures of this sickness.
Of course, as Christians we should know that the cure to sin is Jesus. And that sin has roots deeper than a worldview.
Any how, with this long diatribe, I can state what I see as my common ground with Ken Ham here.
- We both agree that racism is wrong. In particular we oppose segregation, and things that interracial marriage and immigration are not opposed to Scripture.
- We both believe is very important for the Church to apologize for its role in racism in this country, and to move to a better way of treating each other.
- Even though it was 30 years too late (remember AIG was operating in 1970), I am glad that AiG and Ken Ham supported the Bob Jones University changes to embrace interracial relationships in 1999. It was too late, but it is better to be late than never. Given that AiG could not exist without the support of institutions like BJU, there might have even been real and admirable boldness in some of their positions there.
From here, I would they would learn from their experiences here. Because literalism did not protect fundamentalism from racism, and evolutionists lead the charge for Civil Rights, they should stop slandering evolution and evolutionists as inherently racist.