Ken Ham’s Alternative History of Creationism

(system) #1

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

(Christy Hemphill) #2

(Robin) #3

I know it is an old conversation, but I just read this article. It is a good one, and I appreciated the author’s work and comments. I have read Numbers and did note the back-cover-copy endorsement of it by Morris. I also did query AIG about Morris’ comments and their reaction to the assertions about the connections with Price’s work. I also got a copy of Price’s book (pub 1909 and re-released 1925) from the library to read. I also got an interlibrary loan of White’s books ( 3 vols) describing her exoeriences in the Garden of Eden (Satan was quite chatty) and other things. That is it, that is all. Sorry I missed this from last winter.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #4

Thanks for bringing this old thread out into the light again, Robin. I know I must have read it with great interest last year when it was new, and yet I had managed to forget much of this important contribution … until now!

And I look forward to any more commentary on offer from the interesting crop of books you mention as well.

(Robin) #5

You are welcome, Mervin. If a subject interests me enough, and I read a claim made, I always try to read the author’s sources. That way, I can at least see where he/she is coming from.

I also, like this author, thought that Numbers was fair-minded in how he reported on his topic, despite what may be his own opinions. And I was referred to Numbers during a brief conversation with another author who had made a similar assertion about the genesis (small g) of the modern YEC movement, using Numbers’ info. This conversation happened at a conference.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #6

Indeed, I have read Numbers’ book “The Creationists” myself many years ago, and remember being impressed by what I read (but obviously a lot of the details didn’t stick on that one reading as it took Ted here – and indeed a second reading of Ted’s column, to remind me again of some of the details of all this history.)

I also appreciate that Ted links generously to sites that are critical of his own conclusions – a practice that I hear is not much (if at all) reciprocated on their end of things. It speaks volumes to me about who is more afraid of being brought out into the light.

(Robin) #8

Thanks, Mervin.

Yes, the book by Numbers had a big impact on me.

I suspect that unpleasantness exists on both sides of this issue.

. I think there is a real desire to defend some view that is seen to be under attack, and the thinking has taken an all-or-nothing approach to it — that is, “if this particular view is not right then the whole Bible is thrown out.” Both sides can follow that line of thinking and I am sure that attitudes on the evolutionist side have exacerbated this issue.

. But the article does quote some nasty remarks by Ham with re to Mr Numbers…if the latter became agnostic because of bad experience with religion, this sort of talk is not helpful to him as a person created and loved by God -----those last six words can get lost in the shuffle quite easily.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #9

I wonder too at what may have contributed to his [Numbers’] personal experience. According to Wikipedia his father was a fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist preacher. So was the well permanently poisoned for him by certain a creationist rigidity he probably grew up with? If so, it would be ironic given that he went on to be a source of much antidote (or vaccination?) for the same in his writings.

I also find W.J. Bryan’s treatment by AIG (or at least by Tim Chaffey) to be interesting and sad. He blames Byron for the debacle (as Tim sees it) that leads to the “lampooning of fundamentalists” today. Byron is written off as a compromiser (probably largely because W.J. Byron, interestingly enough, was one of those many early fundamentalist leaders Ted writes of who had no problem accepting deep time). I guess very few would argue that Byron’s defense of Genesis comes off as successful, much less elegant. But Chaffey (and perhaps others of Ham’s cohort more generally) seem to think that, in principle at least, there could have been less compromising creationists waiting in the wings who could have flown the biblical inerrancy flag with more success. But it boggles the reality-based mind that they could think so. It’s a bit like thinking that because your alternate-reality platform did not play well for the public, the solution must be to add even more extremely narrow sectarianism.

(Robin) #10

Thanks for the thoughts. Re Numbers — he never said in his book The Creationists anything beyond that he grew up in a fundamentalist SDA home etc and considers himself agnostic. I read Price’s book and it did seem to reflect some of the thinking later publicized by Morris and Whitcomb…but obviously written earlier. And as I said I read White’s recounting of her “visions” wherein she was taken back in time and shown the creation week to be six 24-hr days, plus other things seen by her. Interesting, From their religious perspective, then, a week of that sort proves some of their doctrines. Maybe this became a source of conflict in Numbers’ mind at some point. Or it could be something else. It is his business. But I do think Ham was most uncharitable…

As for the WJ Bryan issue, I will have to look that up – but no time tonight

(Arnold J. Bur) #11

Hello, Thanks for reading it for me. Did Dr. Ham mention that the sun, the moon and the stars were not made until the Fourth Day? We cannot determine the age of the earth without a sunrise and a sunset. I have tried to communicate with AiG for a few years now but they never answer me. I did watch the Bill Nye, Ken Ham debate and I liked that Bill said that Dinosaurs and Man did not co exist. This would actually help my research about the Fifth Day, rather, Fifth Age. The days are closer to a thousand years and possibly more considering that the Yom / Day of Adam was 930 Years and a passing night is a thousand years to the LORD. You can find this information in “Before the Garden” @ everything is free.

(Robin) #12

I know that Augustine, long ago, also puzzled about the days that would have had to occur before there were bodies in the solar system by which time and days are counted. I have, from time to time, querried AIG regarding their views on things. They do have strong views of their own and can be quite feisty! It is an issue about which many are deeply involved emotionally…I will try the website you mentioned…


I have often wondered how when the sun and moon were created to “let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” and “to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness” on day four it makes any sense to say day one to three had a literal evening and morning. There was no evening or morning until day four. It is right there in the literal text.

(Arnold J. Bur) #14

What many people miss is that God “called” the Light, day and He “called” the Darkness, night. …to open their eyes and turn them from Darkness to Light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ Acts 26:18

(Christy Hemphill) #15

Sure we can. There are lots of reliable scientific dating methods.

You should try looking into the research of Carol Hill.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #16

P.S. Ken Ham only has a B.S. degree. (I mean bachelor of (applied) science, of course… that wasn’t an insult.) We shouldn’t call him Dr. Ham.

(Robin) #17

Those are good questions…Some — like, evidently, 3nme here — spiritualized a lot of it. Augustine did too, in his own way

(Arnold J. Bur) #18

Iron sharpens Iron. I misquoted my own work. The time frame of the First Three Days cannot be determined without the Sun, Moon and Stars. Genesis 1:2 …the earth was formless and void… no rotation yet.