- Answers in Genesis’ The New Answers Book 4 offers, IMO, two exciting features up front:
- “Introduction: Atheistic Devices: Spotting Them . . . but Countering Them, Too?” by Ken Ham…
- Chapter 1, " *Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?" by Ken Ham himself.
- ChatGPT summarizes and critiques the Introduction as follows:
Summary (what the Introduction says)
- Core claim & framing. Ham argues there’s an “epidemic” of Christians and leaders adopting “man’s religion of evolutionary ideas,” which “undermines the authority of the Word of God.” He says this compromise is spreading in churches and denominations, even to doubting a literal Adam and Eve.
- Slippery-slope warning. Once churches accept “millions of years,” other doctrines (Adam and Eve, original sin, hell, bodily resurrection, virgin birth) are at risk.
- “Atheists using churches.” Ham highlights statements by Eugenie Scott/NCSE, claiming they seek alliances with clergy (e.g., Evolution Weekend) to normalize evolution in churches. He quotes NCSE materials urging religious education projects on evolution.
- Biblical admonition. He cites 2 Corinthians 6:14 (“Do not be unequally yoked…”) to warn that accepting evolution/millions of years is yoking with unbelief.
- Example curriculum to reject. He reproduces excerpts from an old-earth “Genesis curriculum” (e.g., land animals ~250 Ma; pre-Adam “human-like” creatures; death before Adam) and urges readers to reject it as Scripture-twisting.
- Call to arms & AiG activities. He lists numerous cultural “battles” (media, academics, pastors, politicians) and presents AiG’s output—web resources, books, curricula, conferences, museum/Ark—as “Christian ‘patriot missiles’” to equip believers.
Critique (strengths and weaknesses)
Strengths
- Clear audience and purpose. It’s an unapologetic rallying intro that tells readers what the series aims to do: defend a particular reading of Genesis and supply talking points/resources.
- Concrete examples. The quoted NCSE lines and curriculum snippets show the kinds of things Ham is reacting to, giving readers tangible reference points.
Weaknesses - Equating “biblical authority” with one interpretation. The intro treats young-earth creationism as the singular way to honor Scripture’s authority. Old-earth Christian positions (framework/analogical days, etc.) aren’t represented, so “compromise” is defined as “any non-YEC reading,” which loads the argument from the start. (See the framing of compromise throughout.)
- Slippery-slope reasoning. The move from accepting an old earth to doubting core doctrines (resurrection, virgin birth) is asserted rather than argued; no mechanism is shown beyond guilt by association.
- Conflation of atheism and methodological naturalism. The intro repeatedly casts evolution/old-earth as “atheistic devices,” even when endorsed by Christians, which blurs the line between atheism and Christian old-earth theology.
- Proof-texting risk. Applying 2 Cor 6:14 to fellow Christians who accept old-earth views stretches the text’s original contrast (believer/unbeliever) into an intra-Christian boundary marker, without exegesis to justify that leap.
- One-sided selection. The NCSE quotations are used to establish intent (“infiltrate churches”), but there’s no engagement with why many clergy see faith and evolution as compatible—only the assertion that such clergy are aiding “atheists.”
- Militarized rhetoric. Phrases like “patriot missiles” and long “battle” lists energize readers but risk preaching to the choir and framing dialogue as warfare rather than careful theological and scientific discernment.
Bottom line
As an on-ramp to the book’s project, the Introduction is clear and mobilizing. But it rests on a binary: YEC = biblical authority; old-earth = capitulation, supported by slippery-slope warnings and selective targeting of opponents. Readers looking for a fair map of faithful Christian options (and their exegetical arguments) won’t find it here; what they get is a rallying brief for YEC and a catalog of perceived cultural/Church threats.
Summary (what Chapter 1 argues)
- Salvation isn’t a YEC test. Ham says Scripture ties salvation to faith in Christ, not to the earth’s age; nevertheless, old-earth belief has “severe consequences.”
- Authority frame: “Millions of years” comes from outside the Bible; importing it (gap theory/day-age, etc.) subordinates Scripture to “fallible” human ideas and opens a door to wider compromise.
- Contradictions claimed: Old-earth timelines put thorns, disease, predation in place before Adam’s sin, which he says conflicts with Genesis 1–3’s “very good” world and pre-Fall vegetarian diet.
- Death-and-gospel link: If animal (and human) death predated sin, Ham argues the theology of the Fall and the Cross is undermined; Christ’s death conquers the enemy “death,” which, he says, entered after Adam.
- Clarification to critics: AiG doesn’t teach “believe YEC to be saved,” countering a press claim; the issue is biblical authority, not the salvation threshold.
Critique (where the argument is weak)
- Equating “authority” with one reading.
The chapter treats a literal, young-earth reading as the only way to honor Scripture’s authority. But orthodox interpreters have long read Genesis 1–3 with genre sensitivity (poetic structure, ANE context), concluding that age indicators are not the text’s purpose—without “demoting” Scripture. - Slippery-slope reasoning.
The “unlock the door → soon you’ll deny the Resurrection” move is rhetorical, not logical. Many evangelicals affirm an old earth while holding firmly to the bodily Resurrection and full inspiration of Scripture. - Text–theology distinctions blurred.
- Romans 5 / 1 Corinthians 15 speak explicitly about human death through Adam; extending this to all animal death is theological inference, not an explicit biblical claim.
- Genesis 1:29–30 as universal animal vegetarianism is debated; it’s not decisive against all pre-Fall animal predation.
- Selective use of science.
The chapter rejects mainstream dating as “fallible,” yet cites the fossil record (thorns, pathology, predation) to argue a theological contradiction. If the dating methods are dismissed, the timing of those fossils can’t simultaneously be used to make the contradiction bite. - No engagement with viable Christian alternatives.
Robust old-earth readings (e.g., analogical days, framework, cosmic-temple/literary views) and theological accounts where animal death is part of a good, dynamic creation are not fairly represented.
What would improve the chapter
- Exegesis head-to-head: Lay out competing readings of yom, tohu/bohu, very good, and Romans 5:12 (human vs. universal death) with primary sources, not just summaries.
- Consistency standard: If scientific testimony is rejected in principle, avoid leveraging it selectively. Alternatively, present a testable YEC model for radiometrics, starlight-travel time, biogeography, and stratigraphy.
- Pastoral clarity: Maintain the stated line—“not a salvation issue”—by avoiding language that implies old-earth acceptance is an attack on the Cross.
Bottom line
Chapter 1 is clear, earnest, and pastorally motivated, but it leans on a narrow hermeneutic, slippery-slope warnings, and selective engagement with science. It convincingly shows YEC is compatible with the gospel; it does not show that old-earth readings undermine the gospel.
