The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 145 - Responding To Ken Ham’s Distortions And Misinformation

00:00:00.000 Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I'm going to dive into the treacherous waters of young earth creationism again.

00:00:05.420 I explained on my show a few weeks ago why I don't believe in a young earth.

00:00:09.400 Ken Ham, the famed creationist, responded. His response was bad and misleading in many ways.

00:00:15.660 And so I'm going to offer my rebuttal to it today on the show.

00:00:23.120 Please pay no attention to the floral patterned chair that's right behind me.

00:00:30.000 I know it's very girly, but for some reason my wife put that thing in my office, and I don't know why.

00:00:37.500 But I've learned that I'm not supposed to move any furniture in this house because it's all been put in a place for a reason.

00:00:45.440 I don't know what the reason is, but there is a method behind it, and so I can't interfere with that process.

00:00:52.900 All right, let me tell you why I'm doing this podcast or this episode of the podcast anyway.

00:01:00.000 A few weeks ago, I did a show about young earth creationism, and I explained why I am not a young earth creationist.

00:01:07.600 I do not believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

00:01:11.800 I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

00:01:15.820 I believe that the Bible does teach truth, but I don't believe that the Bible requires us to hold the six-day creationist view.

00:01:23.860 I believe that that view is not only scientifically wrong, but I also think it's theologically wrong.

00:01:31.040 I think it is a misinterpretation, a misreading, a misunderstanding of the text.

00:01:36.760 Now, that's my position.

00:01:38.820 It's very important for you to understand that that's what my position is.

00:01:43.000 My position is not that the Bible is wrong.

00:01:45.580 My position is that if you read the Bible that way, then I think that you're wrong.

00:01:50.580 I don't think you're a bad person. 1.00

00:01:52.120 I don't think you're stupid. 0.99

00:01:53.100 I don't think you're a bad Christian. 1.00

00:01:54.420 I just think that, you know, we have a disagreement on that topic.

00:01:58.820 So there was a lot of reaction to that episode.

00:02:01.060 Some of it was thoughtful and interesting, and this was a few weeks ago, probably almost about a month ago that I did that episode.

00:02:07.040 And, you know, the reaction has hardly slowed down.

00:02:14.200 And as I said, some of the, you know, I've heard from a lot of people that agree with me, and some of whom are afraid to say out loud that they agree because they're afraid that they'll be, I don't know, disowned by their families if they come out as an old earth heretic. 1.00

00:02:31.700 But some of the responses I've gotten, a lot of the responses have been disappointing, to be honest.

00:02:39.640 I say disappointing not because people agreed with me.

00:02:41.980 I'm used to that.

00:02:42.840 But disappointing because a great many Christians made it clear that they were simply unwilling to listen to anyone who would dare disagree with the young earth view.

00:02:54.340 They said, I'm a heretic.

00:02:55.800 I'm a fake Christian. 0.99

00:02:56.780 I'm a fraud. 1.00

00:02:57.560 I'm an idiot. 1.00

00:02:58.340 I'm terrible at theology. 1.00

00:02:59.560 I need to stop talking about these things.

00:03:01.700 How dare I?

00:03:02.940 I know nothing about science.

00:03:04.240 I know nothing about anything.

00:03:05.700 So on and so forth.

00:03:08.100 Ken Ham over at Answers in Genesis issued a response as well.

00:03:12.460 Ken Ham is, if you aren't familiar, Ken Ham, probably the most well-known young earth creationist in the country.

00:03:19.380 He runs the Creation Museum where you can learn about how dinosaurs and people coexisted and other interesting facts.

00:03:26.280 At first, at first, you know, at first when I read his response, I wasn't going to issue any further rebuttal to it.

00:03:36.120 But he so mischaracterized my view and he represented it so falsely.

00:03:42.600 And he made such a straw man of what I said that on top of my readers and listeners, you know, being ticked off at me for my position on this, I've been getting emails and messages from his followers for weeks accusing me of saying things I never said.

00:03:56.980 And taking positions I never took, all because Ken Ham told them that's what I said.

00:04:02.660 For some reason, a lot of people have come under the impression that Ken Ham is an expert on science and theology.

00:04:11.380 And they trust him implicitly on those subjects and apparently on every subject.

00:04:17.600 Because when he responded to me and blatantly misconstrued my opinions, they just went with it.

00:04:22.160 They just assumed.

00:04:23.560 Now, of course, he responded to me.

00:04:24.860 He didn't offer a link to what I actually.

00:04:26.600 So that's problem number one.

00:04:28.140 Before I get into his response.

00:04:29.180 He responded without, without, without, I don't think he quoted anything that I said.

00:04:34.700 And he offered no link to it whatsoever.

00:04:36.600 He didn't, he didn't, he didn't.

00:04:37.560 So he just, it was just his, he just expected people to trust, take his word for it.

00:04:43.980 For, you know, he was going to represent what I said and you're supposed to take his word for it.

00:04:48.240 And a lot of his followers did exactly that.

00:04:49.960 Um, and so because Ham has done this, because he attacked my faith, rather than simply rebutting my opinions, he attacked my faith.

00:05:02.800 So I have no choice then but to respond and to clarify some things.

00:05:06.660 Now, uh, just to review my, my basic contention, to summarize it very briefly before getting into Ham's response, I agree with the vast majority of scientists, Christian and secular scientists alike, who say that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe is around 14 billion years old.

00:05:26.800 Um, I think an honest evaluation of the, of the geological data, the cosmological data, astronomical, uh, data, anthropological, archaeological, mathematical data, all of that, um, supports this view.

00:05:37.680 The, the young earth view, um, can only cherry pick a few bits of data from each of these disciplines while rejecting most of the rest of it.

00:05:47.720 And, and, and that, that just isn't how you do science.

00:05:50.900 Um, in other words, you, you can't reject almost everything that say archaeologists and anthropologists have discovered while hanging your hat on a cave painting of a dinosaur in Utah, which is, which is, you know, I'm not, that's not a straw man.

00:06:08.320 That's a lot of people sent me the stuff about cave paintings of dinosaurs.

00:06:11.800 They, they, they think that this is really good evidence of, of a young earth.

00:06:15.680 Um, you know, the problem is, first of all, these dinosaur cave paintings are not actually dinosaurs.

00:06:22.640 And that's really clear when you, when you look at the, an undoctored photo of them.

00:06:27.560 And for some of these photos, people were sending me, I had to go look it up myself because the photos they were sending had been enhanced.

00:06:34.240 Um, not by the person's, I think the person sending it didn't realize that these were doctored enhanced photos.

00:06:38.880 But when you go and look at the real image, um, it's, it's, you know, the, the dinosaur outline isn't, isn't nearly as clear.

00:06:47.280 But the main point is, how can you latch onto that while rejecting every single artifact, all of the thousands of artifacts discovered, which have been dated back well over 10,000 years?

00:07:00.520 You see, it doesn't make sense.

00:07:01.600 I mentioned in the, in the, in the first video I did.

00:07:03.580 I mean, there are many examples of, of human artifacts that have been dated back well over 10,000 years.

00:07:08.360 Just one example, one type of example are these, uh, Venus sculptures.

00:07:13.040 Um, sculptures of usually rather plump, um, women with exaggerated features. 0.99

00:07:20.520 And it's, it's believed that these were, um, represented fertility cults in, in ancient times.

00:07:27.800 Um, many of these Venus sculptures have been dated back tens of thousands of years.

00:07:31.640 So, the problem is, when archaeologists discover those kinds of things, um, it doesn't make sense to go, no, that's not real.

00:07:40.820 No, that's not real.

00:07:41.780 No, you're wrong about that.

00:07:42.760 You're wrong about that.

00:07:43.380 No, archaeologists, you're wrong on that.

00:07:44.920 You're wrong on that.

00:07:45.600 Nope, nope, nope, nope.

00:07:46.540 Oh, yes, yes, that, that, yes, yes.

00:07:48.540 You're right on that one.

00:07:49.480 That one right there.

00:07:50.220 Yes, the cave painting.

00:07:51.160 Yes, that, that, that you're right about.

00:07:52.660 No, all of that you're wrong.

00:07:53.580 But yes, that you're right about, because that proves my preconceived notions.

00:07:58.220 That's not an intellectually honest way of doing things.

00:08:01.880 Especially because with the cave paintings, let's say I agree that it's a cave painting of a dinosaur.

00:08:07.680 But then let's say I argue that, okay, it's a cave painting of a dinosaur.

00:08:11.120 But you know what?

00:08:11.580 I think that someone drew it 50 years ago, after dinosaur bones have been discovered.

00:08:16.640 And then you say, no, well, that's a painting that dates back 2,000 years before dinosaurs had been discovered,

00:08:21.400 which must mean that dinosaurs existed and were walking around back then.

00:08:24.120 Well, how do you know that it dates back 2,000 years?

00:08:27.440 Because you're, you're trusting the dating of scientists.

00:08:30.800 But then you dismiss their dating on almost everything else.

00:08:34.140 So, so, so they don't know how to date anything except the one thing that proves your theory?

00:08:40.240 I mean, do you see the problem with that approach?

00:08:42.680 I think there's a problem with that approach.

00:08:44.200 I'm not saying that we have to accept everything that scientists tell us.

00:08:47.940 But if we're combing through the scientific data furiously and then accepting implicitly as dogma only the little bits of things that support what we already thought ahead of time,

00:09:00.940 that's just not an intellectually honest way of going about it.

00:09:06.440 Now, as far as the theological premise, as far as the theology of this whole thing, I argued a few things.

00:09:19.500 I just want to restate what I argued.

00:09:21.360 Number one, nobody takes the whole Bible literally.

00:09:24.240 I'm going to get more into that a little bit later.

00:09:26.360 But just so we'll, we'll, we'll dog ear that one and come back to it.

00:09:30.440 Number two, a person can read the Genesis story as non-literal without throwing out the whole Bible and while still affirming the inerrant truth of the Bible.

00:09:47.200 In other words, yes, we could say Genesis is true in what it says, but then the question is, what does it say?

00:09:56.260 So that's the debate.

00:09:57.500 The debate is not whether or not it's true.

00:09:59.160 The debate is, what is it, what is it trying to actually convey?

00:10:02.980 And that's where the discussion lies.

00:10:05.380 The third, third theological thing, the 24-hour creation day interpretation, well, this isn't even really theological, this is back to scientific.

00:10:12.920 The 24-hour creation day interpretation isn't the most literal interpretation.

00:10:18.500 A day literally is when the earth makes one full rotation on its axis.

00:10:23.620 As I argued, there is nothing, nothing in the text which suggests, at least through the first three days of creation, that the earth was rotating on a 24-hour schedule.

00:10:36.260 There is no reason to think that.

00:10:38.880 In fact, on the first day of creation, we're told that the earth is shapeless.

00:10:43.680 Well, where is the axis on a shapeless thing?

00:10:47.680 And even if the shapeless void does have an axis somehow, there's no reason to assume that it's rotating on our current schedule.

00:10:54.980 The Bible speaks of evening and morning, before there's even a sun.

00:10:58.880 And I know people say, well, it says evening, morning, case closed, 24 hours.

00:11:02.880 How is that case closed?

00:11:05.020 There wasn't a sun for the first three mornings.

00:11:07.860 Do you know what a morning without a sun looks like?

00:11:10.540 Do you?

00:11:10.980 Can you draw me a picture of it?

00:11:12.020 Because I have no idea what a morning before a sun even looks like or what that consists of.

00:11:18.580 So, what that tells us is that this is obvious, when it says evening and morning, this is a different kind of evening and morning.

00:11:26.280 It's not the evening and morning you're thinking of, because that evening and morning is dependent entirely on the sun.

00:11:35.140 So, it's a different kind of evening and morning, which I think would show us that it's also a different sort of day that we're talking about.

00:11:42.520 So, the point is that 24 hours is not the literal meaning of a day.

00:11:49.140 The literal meaning of a day is one full rotation on the axis.

00:11:52.860 There is no reason to think that the Earth was on that schedule before outer space and the solar system and the galaxy even existed.

00:12:00.240 Now, I don't take a literal interpretation of the creation story, but if you do, I think you're taking the wrong literal interpretation.

00:12:07.860 I think young Earth creationism fails on its own premise, because it has the wrong idea of what a literal day is.

00:12:16.900 Fourth theological point, young Earthers say that, and this is very important, young Earthers say that, well, the Earth could not be so old,

00:12:22.660 because that would mean that plants and animals were living and dying for millions of years before the fall,

00:12:30.340 but the Bible says that death came with the fall.

00:12:33.100 Well, that's not what the Bible says.

00:12:34.960 The Bible says that death came to humans from the fall.

00:12:38.400 Romans 5, 12.

00:12:39.780 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin,

00:12:43.420 and in this way, death came to all people because all sinned.

00:12:49.560 So, it is perfectly theologically consistent to have dying animals and dying plants before the fall.

00:12:55.560 Now, I do admit, okay, I do admit that it raises a question about why God would let this very violent process of life and death go on for millions of years.

00:13:05.880 It is strange to think about all these animal species living and dying and many going extinct long before humans walked the Earth.

00:13:13.860 So, it's a weird thing to think about in theological terms.

00:13:17.380 But just because I don't understand that, just because I can't wrap my head around it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

00:13:23.140 And besides, the young Earth view raises an even tougher theological question about, you know,

00:13:28.660 if you're saying that animals didn't die before the fall, and now they do die because of the fall,

00:13:37.280 well, why would the sin of Adam mean that dogs and lions and elephants and cats have to suffer and starve and die?

00:13:45.240 Why would God punish animals for the sins of human beings?

00:13:48.980 So, you don't really escape the theological difficulty by going to young Earth.

00:13:53.580 I think, in fact, you end up with a greater theological difficulty.

00:13:59.740 All right.

00:14:01.020 Now, Ken Ham.

00:14:03.760 I'm going to be as thorough as I can, so I will read Ham's post that he wrote in response to mine,

00:14:11.220 and I will interject with a counter-argument wherever I see a need for one.

00:14:18.000 Okay.

00:14:18.980 The post titled, Matt Walsh and a Young Earth.

00:14:22.860 Recently, the popular Catholic political blogger, Matt Walsh, made a fairly lengthy video explaining why he was not a young Earth creationist

00:14:31.100 and why he thinks young Earth creationists are a stumbling block to the faith of many people.

00:14:35.540 The video is filled with straw man fallacies, misunderstandings, and mischaracterizations of what creationists actually believe.

00:14:41.380 After watching the video, I was left wondering if he had even read any of our literature discussing the age of the Earth.

00:14:46.940 Let's stop right there.

00:14:49.560 He was wondering if I had even read his literature.

00:14:54.580 Well, I have, and I'll get to that in a minute, but why should I have read his literature?

00:15:00.200 He is a person with, I believe, an incorrect theological view, and he has taken it upon himself to spend his time advancing that view as the only correct view.

00:15:11.500 That doesn't make him an expert.

00:15:13.880 Just because someone stands up there, or they make a website and they call it Answers in Genesis, that does not make them an expert on theological interpretations or on science.

00:15:27.200 So it doesn't, I don't have to consult with him before making my, before forming my opinions, but what I found is that an awful lot of Christians really do think that Ken Ham is the expert on this.

00:15:40.960 So when I, you know, when I was, you know, giving my opinion on it, I mean, probably, I don't think it's exaggerated, hundreds of people were saying, well, you got, well, what about the, you have to go to the Creation Museum.

00:15:51.480 Well, you haven't even looked at Answers in Genesis.

00:15:53.720 Well, listen to Ken Ham on this.

00:15:55.000 Ken Ham will tell.

00:15:55.560 Now, as it happens, I have read his literature, and frankly, I find it to be extremely misleading, and I want to give you just one example, and this is important, because a lot of people think that, you know, a lot of people, as I said, trust Ken Ham and his organization.

00:16:15.180 They trust it implicitly, and I think they should have some more, a little bit more skepticism.

00:16:19.860 I want to give you just one example to show you, you know, to show you the problem with the way that Answers in Genesis goes about things.

00:16:28.560 There's an article on the site, on Ken Ham's site, dealing with the problem of population, okay?

00:16:34.900 So it seeks to answer the, the, the objection that if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how did we reach 7 billion people already, right?

00:16:43.320 Now, I actually don't think that that's a very compelling argument against the young Earth view, because population rates vary so much, and they're so dependent on other factors.

00:16:55.400 So really, who knows how many people we would have or should have if the Earth was 6,000 years old.

00:17:01.940 But I was curious as to how AIG answers this problem.

00:17:07.080 And so I found an article on the subject titled, Billions of People in Thousands of Years.

00:17:13.720 Now, let me read the first few sentences of this article.

00:17:17.060 It says, creationists are often asked, how is it possible for the Earth's population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old, and if there were just two humans in the beginning?

00:17:27.120 Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

00:17:30.880 Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female.

00:17:33.640 Now, let us assume that they marry and have children, and that their children marry and have children, and so on.

00:17:40.000 Here's the important part.

00:17:41.340 Here's what it says.

00:17:42.360 Let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years.

00:17:49.100 Therefore, after 150 years, there will be four people.

00:17:52.020 After another 150 years, there will be eight.

00:17:54.740 After another 150 years, there will be 16 people, and so on and so forth.

00:17:57.860 So on.

00:17:58.340 It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative.

00:18:01.340 In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.

00:18:07.760 After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion.

00:18:13.620 Okay.

00:18:15.800 Now, this is what Ken Ham insists.

00:18:18.640 We need to read his literature before we form our opinions.

00:18:21.620 Okay.

00:18:23.100 Do you see the problem here?

00:18:24.160 Let's assume the population doubles every 150 years.

00:18:30.520 Why are we assuming that?

00:18:32.400 Where did you get that figure?

00:18:34.900 Ken Ham, I mean, this figure is on your website.

00:18:36.940 Where did you get it from?

00:18:37.860 Tell me where you got it from.

00:18:40.000 Well, I know where you got it from.

00:18:41.440 You just made it up.

00:18:42.900 It's just a made-up figure.

00:18:44.760 You made it up so that the math would work.

00:18:47.820 I mean, it's just, it's so dishonest.

00:18:51.840 This is not an honest way of making your point.

00:18:56.320 You're starting from a completely invented premise, which was engineered so that it would lead to the conclusion you were looking for.

00:19:05.020 And there's a lot of that kind of thing in Answers in Genesis, which is why I don't trust it as a resource.

00:19:10.680 Arguments that are built on false premises.

00:19:13.800 Arguments that start with an assumption that was born from the original assertion.

00:19:18.040 So they solved the population problem by saying, well, there's 7 billion people now.

00:19:23.120 We believe there were only 2 people 6,000 years ago.

00:19:25.740 So how does the math need to work in order to get us to our current population number?

00:19:31.740 And then they say, oh, well, there needs to be a doubling every 150 years.

00:19:35.560 And so there was a doubling every 150 years.

00:19:38.600 That's not how math works.

00:19:42.060 That's not how any of this works.

00:19:43.700 That's not evidence.

00:19:44.720 That's just a bald assertion that is being put forward as an actual fact.

00:19:52.480 So, yes, Ken, I've read your literature.

00:19:54.500 I find it very problematic.

00:19:58.040 Ken goes on.

00:20:00.460 Walsh's main points were that the days in Genesis could not be 24 hours and that science has proved that the earth is billions of years old.

00:20:08.000 Stop.

00:20:08.520 That's not true.

00:20:11.540 I didn't say that the days could not be 24 hours.

00:20:15.040 I said that they need not be and they probably weren't.

00:20:19.020 This is important because I'm not claiming that God couldn't have made the earth in six days.

00:20:25.000 I'm just saying that in all likelihood, looking at the science and reading the text, it seems like God didn't make the earth in six days.

00:20:32.420 He could have made it in any amount of time he wanted to.

00:20:36.440 The question is, what did he do?

00:20:39.160 Not what could he do?

00:20:42.800 Ken goes on.

00:20:43.880 We have repeatedly addressed these claims on our website, again, making me wonder if he did any research before making his video.

00:20:51.500 Stop.

00:20:53.400 There he goes again, putting forth his organization as an authority on the subject.

00:20:57.860 I did plenty of research, Ken.

00:20:59.160 I just don't trust the information you provide for reasons I've already explained.

00:21:02.740 And by the way, what credentials do you have?

00:21:06.840 You claim to be an expert on apparently dozens of areas of science.

00:21:10.860 I mean, you must be an expert on those areas if you can claim that the scientific consensus in all of those areas is wrong.

00:21:17.700 I mean, to make a statement like that, you must really, really know your stuff.

00:21:21.580 You must be credentialed and everything.

00:21:25.440 And also, you keep insisting that we use you as a reference.

00:21:31.780 So you must be an expert.

00:21:33.220 But how so?

00:21:34.000 I mean, I looked up Ken's bio.

00:21:35.540 It says he has a bachelor's in applied science and a diploma in education.

00:21:39.860 He runs the Creation Museum.

00:21:41.240 He goes on speaking tours.

00:21:42.380 He writes books.

00:21:43.000 But I'm just looking for the part that makes him an authority on any scientific subject or theological subject whatsoever.

00:21:49.060 Now, here's the thing.

00:21:53.940 I admit that I am no expert.

00:21:56.620 I admit that.

00:21:57.280 I've said that all along.

00:21:58.720 I also admit that I could be wrong about the age of the Earth and the age of the universe.

00:22:05.360 I admit that.

00:22:06.860 It's Ken Ham who puts himself forward as a reference.

00:22:09.960 It's Ken Ham who claims to know better than the vast majority of scientists in every field.

00:22:13.520 It's Ken Ham who claims that he absolutely could not be wrong.

00:22:18.980 It's Ken Ham who says that his interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation.

00:22:23.980 So I ask, on what basis?

00:22:27.080 Where did you gain this authority?

00:22:29.620 What are your credentials?

00:22:32.060 It seems that his credentials are not much better than mine.

00:22:35.660 Yet only one of us insists that we should be a reference on these subjects.

00:22:41.020 Ken Ham continues.

00:22:42.260 However, the fundamental point that Mr. Walsh is making is that he is more willing to rely on man's fallible word than to trust God's infallible word.

00:22:52.100 Let's stop again.

00:22:54.440 I mean, I can't even make it a sentence without him blatantly mischaracterizing.

00:22:59.780 And again, remember, he does this without providing a link to what I actually said.

00:23:07.860 Now, what he just said there is simply a lie.

00:23:10.920 I said no such thing.

00:23:13.960 I said no such thing.

00:23:16.220 And it is this line.

00:23:17.880 It's that sentence, I think, in particular that has misled a lot of people about my point and has caused people to assume that I reject the Bible and that I don't think that the Bible is infallible.

00:23:29.700 This is what I've been hearing from people.

00:23:31.100 People think that I said that the Bible is not infallible.

00:23:34.160 I did not say that.

00:23:36.600 But that's the way Ken Ham presented it.

00:23:38.520 I'm calling on Ken to do the honorable thing and apologize for this, for this, for what he knows to be a mischaracterization.

00:23:46.420 That is the honorable and Christian thing, Ken.

00:23:48.700 You need to apologize and put something on your website admitting that you mischaracterized me.

00:23:55.700 I never once made the fundamental point that we shouldn't trust God's word.

00:24:00.800 I trust God's word entirely.

00:24:02.900 I just don't trust your interpretation of that word, Ken.

00:24:07.120 It is you I disagree with, not God.

00:24:10.900 Are you God?

00:24:12.500 Let me ask you, are you God?

00:24:15.740 Because if you're not, then stop saying that I disagree with God because I disagree with you.

00:24:21.000 The arrogance of such a statement is mind-boggling.

00:24:24.860 I mean, it's dizzying to me.

00:24:29.860 I disagree with your interpretation of God's word.

00:24:33.120 I do not disagree with God's word.

00:24:34.880 I disagree with your interpretation of God's word.

00:24:39.240 Have I said it clear enough now?

00:24:43.980 Ken goes on.

00:24:44.920 He repeatedly cites science as the reason the earth cannot be young.

00:24:48.380 Yet, when observational science is performed, there are mountains of evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, archaeology, and so on, that the earth is indeed young.

00:24:57.240 Now, he asserts that there are mountains of evidence.

00:25:00.140 He provides no evidence, so we'll just move on.

00:25:04.880 Ken says, by accepting the dogma of secular science, Walsh completely ignores the context of God's infallible word.

00:25:14.240 No, Ken.

00:25:15.800 I completely ignore your bad science.

00:25:19.380 I don't ignore God's word.

00:25:21.600 And the old earth view is not secular science.

00:25:25.040 That's not secular science.

00:25:26.580 There are a great many Christians and Christian scientists who reject the young earth view.

00:25:36.280 Ken goes on.

00:25:37.180 His claim that the day in Genesis cannot be 24 hours because a day is defined by the earth revolving around the sun and spinning on its axis reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what a day is.

00:25:46.720 Though he's correct to say that the sun, according to scripture, wasn't there until the fourth day, the length of the day has nothing to do with the sun.

00:25:53.680 It is entirely dependent on the rotation of the earth.

00:25:56.740 That's my point, Ken.

00:25:58.060 And people will be able to see that if you link to what I actually said.

00:26:03.080 I'm saying that a day is the earth's rotation.

00:26:06.020 I'm saying that.

00:26:07.120 That's my point.

00:26:08.760 You have no proof and no reason to believe that the earth was rotating on a 24-hour schedule at the beginning of creation.

00:26:14.620 That's my point.

00:26:16.040 That's the point I am making.

00:26:18.440 Did you even listen to the podcast before you responded to it?

00:26:22.120 I mean, you obviously don't want your followers to listen to it before they read your response, but did you even listen to it? 0.55

00:26:31.800 Also, to say that a day has nothing to do with the sun whatsoever is obviously ridiculous.

00:26:36.480 I mean, the parameters of a day are not completely dependent on the sun.

00:26:44.600 But clearly, if you lived on a planet that was careening through space and not revolving around any star at all, how would you know when a day begins?

00:26:54.200 You wouldn't.

00:26:55.700 So obviously, the concept of a day cannot be completely divorced from the sun.

00:27:00.800 Ken goes on.

00:27:01.940 By accepting secular interpretations of the past, Walsh completely ignores what a day means in scripture.

00:27:08.860 Well, there he goes again.

00:27:11.120 He keeps doing this.

00:27:12.220 It's not honest.

00:27:15.000 It's not right.

00:27:16.440 He's telling his followers that any scientific theory that contradicts his own must be secular, as in godless, as in contrary to the word.

00:27:26.100 He knows this isn't true.

00:27:28.180 He knows it.

00:27:29.580 He knows that a great many Christian, God-fearing people, to include scientists, do not accept the young earth position.

00:27:38.060 There are Christians on both sides of this issue.

00:27:41.440 Good Christians.

00:27:42.680 Okay?

00:27:43.260 I admit that.

00:27:44.440 I've said that from the beginning.

00:27:45.920 I was very clear about that, that I am not questioning the faith of anyone who disagrees with me on this at all.

00:27:52.780 I'm not questioning their sincerity.

00:27:54.960 I'm not questioning their honesty.

00:27:56.160 I'm questioning Ken Ham's honesty because of the dishonesty that he is engaging in here, which I've already shown you.

00:28:01.400 But Ken Ham is the one who says that only his position is Christian, and any position other than his own is secular.

00:28:13.760 This is arrogance in the extreme.

00:28:16.700 He goes on.

00:28:19.820 Walsh is right that the word day in the Bible has multiple meanings, but not when it is combined with evening, morning, and a number, as it is in Genesis.

00:28:29.440 Every single time it is used with those words, it means a literal 24-hour day, something he completely ignores.

00:28:36.160 Every time the word day is used in the same sentence with evening, morning, and a number, it means 24 hours.

00:28:42.500 Who says who?

00:28:45.180 Where do you get that from?

00:28:47.700 Ken, that's just an assertion.

00:28:49.940 You're just restating your premise.

00:28:51.940 That's not evidence.

00:28:54.400 Where do you get that from?

00:29:00.900 He goes on.

00:29:01.840 It is very ironic that Walsh regularly defends biblical positions such as biblical marriage, human life made in God's image, beginning at fertilization, two created genders, and so on,

00:29:10.320 but rejects the foundation for those beliefs.

00:29:13.400 Without appealing to Genesis, there is no foundation for marriage. 0.95

00:29:16.400 Abortion becomes perfectly acceptable if we aren't made in the image of God. 0.94

00:29:20.160 Get rid of spare cats or spare kids.

00:29:22.220 What's the difference?

00:29:23.720 Why should we have two genders if God did not make them male and female in the beginning? 0.97

00:29:27.860 Genesis provides the answers to those questions.

00:29:31.400 Here we have more blatant mischaracterizations from Ken Ham.

00:29:35.840 Hopefully now you understand why I needed to respond to this.

00:29:40.320 How in the world am I forfeiting the sanctity of life and of marriage by arguing that the earth is not 6,000 years old?

00:29:52.720 How are those things even related?

00:29:55.980 So if the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, life isn't sacred?

00:30:00.220 What?

00:30:01.180 What are you talking about?

00:30:03.040 When did I ever say that God didn't make them male and female?

00:30:06.640 I've never said that.

00:30:07.800 That is not a position I took.

00:30:11.520 And Ken Ham knows that.

00:30:14.560 When did I say that God didn't make man in his image?

00:30:17.820 I didn't say that.

00:30:19.400 And Ken Ham knows that I didn't say that.

00:30:22.880 Again, my point is that he is wrong about his interpretation of day in Genesis.

00:30:29.360 That has no bearing on anything else that he just mentioned.

00:30:39.220 He says, Walsh did not mention it, but I wonder what he makes of how Jesus affirmed that Genesis was the beginning in Mark 10.6.

00:30:46.680 Or how he feels about Exodus 20.11, which tells us everything was made in six literal days.

00:30:52.060 See, this is the problem with trying to fit billions of years into Genesis.

00:30:55.740 It always ends up compromising the Bible in places outside of Genesis 2.

00:30:59.480 So either we accept the whole Bible naturally as it is written, or we reject the whole thing.

00:31:04.060 Trying to fit the Bible with the secular timeline just does not work.

00:31:07.720 Here at Answers in Genesis, we are committed to answering the questions posed by secularists and compromised Christians about what the Bible says. 0.78

00:31:16.680 We have a lot of articles on these topics, some of which are listed below.

00:31:20.660 So I am a compromised Christian, according to Ken Ham.

00:31:25.180 No, Ken, you are lying.

00:31:28.220 And you know it.

00:31:29.500 And again, you need to apologize.

00:31:31.140 Because to misrepresent one of your brothers in Christ, for your own selfish reasons, is shameful.

00:31:44.360 Now, going to the points that he made there, he says that Jesus, you know, we need to accept the six-day creation idea because of what Jesus says in Mark.

00:31:58.020 Well, in Mark, Jesus simply restates that God made them male and female, which, again, I don't dispute. 0.99

00:32:05.620 So that's got nothing to do with anything.

00:32:07.500 In Exodus, we just get a restating of six days.

00:32:11.980 So it does not specify six literal days.

00:32:16.200 It just restates what it said in Genesis.

00:32:19.680 So once again, Ken Ham is misleading us.

00:32:22.220 Those verses do nothing at all to enhance his point.

00:32:25.840 Nothing.

00:32:26.260 Ken says the whole Bible must be taken naturally as it is written.

00:32:35.940 Well, I agree.

00:32:37.920 But the dispute over what naturally as it is written means.

00:32:43.040 You know, that's the dispute.

00:32:43.900 The dispute is how was it written?

00:32:47.520 What is it trying to convey?

00:32:48.920 What is the natural interpretation of this verse?

00:32:53.500 That's the whole point here.

00:32:54.620 That's the discussion.

00:32:56.460 Was Genesis written as a literal documentation or as a more metaphorical and theological work?

00:33:03.640 I say the latter.

00:33:05.260 And I think that that is the natural interpretation.

00:33:07.700 And I think that Ken Ham has the unnatural interpretation.

00:33:10.660 I think that he is infusing an unnatural interpretation into the text.

00:33:17.200 But if Ken believes that the whole Bible must be taken literally,

00:33:22.600 then I've got some verses for him.

00:33:26.220 First Chronicles 1630.

00:33:28.680 He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.

00:33:31.660 Well, we know that the earth moves in every sense.

00:33:38.520 The plates move.

00:33:39.420 The surface moves.

00:33:40.600 The earth itself moves.

00:33:42.040 Orbits rotates.

00:33:43.960 Does Ken take that verse literally?

00:33:46.400 If he doesn't, why is it okay for him to take that metaphorically,

00:33:50.780 but I can't take day metaphorically?

00:33:53.200 How did he determine that it's okay to take that metaphorically, but not this metaphorically?

00:34:02.480 Psalm 104.5.

00:34:04.080 Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it can never be shaken.

00:34:07.480 Again, is that literal?

00:34:09.040 The earth shakes all the time.

00:34:11.260 If Ken doesn't take that literally, why do I have to take day literally?

00:34:17.620 Matthew 16.

00:34:18.480 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,

00:34:21.580 and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

00:34:23.200 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

00:34:25.280 Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

00:34:27.320 Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

00:34:29.260 Does Ken take any of that literally?

00:34:31.940 Was Peter an actual rock?

00:34:33.540 Was he given a physical key that would open literal doors to heaven?

00:34:38.580 John 6.54.

00:34:39.840 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, 0.98

00:34:42.360 and I will raise them up at the last day.

00:34:44.880 Luke 22.

00:34:45.680 And he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,

00:34:49.100 This is my body given for you.

00:34:52.200 Do this in remembrance of me.

00:34:55.120 Now, I know that Ken is not Catholic.

00:34:59.940 But here Jesus says, This is my body.

00:35:04.100 Straightforward statement.

00:35:05.680 What does the word is mean?

00:35:07.480 You know, that's Bill Clinton's question.

00:35:08.880 It depends on what the definition of is is.

00:35:11.900 Well, we know what the definition of is is, don't we?

00:35:14.520 This is my body.

00:35:17.280 Whoever eats my flesh has eternal life.

00:35:19.160 Do this in remembrance of me.

00:35:20.840 These are the direct words of Christ.

00:35:22.940 But Ken takes them metaphorically.

00:35:25.580 How does he justify that?

00:35:28.020 I mean, that doesn't seem to me to be the natural interpretation of the text.

00:35:32.900 That is not interpreting the text as it is written.

00:35:35.260 Jesus does not say, This is like my body.

00:35:38.980 He says, This is my body.

00:35:40.620 That's what he says.

00:35:42.100 It's just what he says.

00:35:43.360 Right?

00:35:44.860 So, how can Ken take these words metaphorically while telling me that I can't take day metaphorically?

00:35:52.280 Matthew 24, 34.

00:35:55.680 After talking about the end times, Jesus says,

00:35:58.100 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all of these things have happened.

00:36:04.400 What is the naturally as it is written interpretation of that verse?

00:36:10.020 Generation is a very simple word, isn't it?

00:36:12.700 It would seem anyway.

00:36:13.620 I mean, generation is a simple, straightforward word.

00:36:16.360 So, why get all fancy with interpreting it?

00:36:18.920 Generation means all of the people that were born at a particular time.

00:36:25.160 Right?

00:36:25.360 So, when someone says to a group, These things will happen during this generation.

00:36:31.580 He means soon.

00:36:33.400 As in, you folks are going to see it go down.

00:36:36.320 Right?

00:36:37.360 And that's the interpretation that the very early Christians had.

00:36:41.200 If you know anything about the first century of the church,

00:36:44.500 you know that a great many Christians thought that the world was going to end imminently in their lifetimes.

00:36:51.460 But, of course, it didn't.

00:36:53.220 So, we now understand that this generation must be understood differently.

00:36:58.700 A simple word like generation becomes not so simple anymore.

00:37:03.820 Right?

00:37:04.020 And so, there's been a debate for centuries about what generation means in this context.

00:37:10.580 Does Ken Ham insist on the most literal and strictest interpretation of that word, generation?

00:37:16.660 If not, then why does he insist on it for day?

00:37:22.460 I mean, you know, it really starts to seem like Ken doesn't take the Bible literally at all.

00:37:28.560 But he only takes certain parts of it literally.

00:37:31.060 And then he insists that everyone must take those parts literally too,

00:37:35.360 or else they haven't forfeited the entire faith.

00:37:38.200 You know, it really seems like Ken Ham has, on his own authority,

00:37:45.800 gone through the Bible and found certain statements that would appear to be literal statements,

00:37:52.120 and said, no, not literal.

00:37:53.820 And then other statements that would appear to be literal and say, yes, that must be literal.

00:37:58.000 It cannot be anything else.

00:37:59.240 And he has declared that his determination is now gospel truth.

00:38:10.620 Well, again, I ask Ken, who told you that?

00:38:14.060 Where are you getting this from?

00:38:16.440 Did God tell you?

00:38:18.540 Did you have some kind of special revelation from God?

00:38:21.040 Because if not, then how dare you suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a compromised Christian?

00:38:33.920 No, Ken, I think you're the compromised one.

00:38:39.320 Engaging in this kind of dishonesty and this level of arrogance.

00:38:43.760 I remind everyone again that I never questioned the faith of those who disagree with me.

00:38:55.480 I did say that I think the young earth view, when it is advanced, puts an obstacle in the way of nonbelievers, an unnecessary obstacle.

00:39:08.340 And I think that's just simply the case.

00:39:10.960 I mean, talk to them.

00:39:12.780 And one of the first things they'll tell you is, look, I just can't.

00:39:17.660 I know that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

00:39:20.700 If you're telling me that I have to believe that in order to be a Christian, then I can't be a Christian.

00:39:26.540 So I do think that's the case.

00:39:27.780 But I don't question the integrity, the sincerity, the good-heartedness, anything.

00:39:33.600 I don't question anything about the people that hold that view.

00:39:36.100 I think this is a discussion that we can have.

00:39:38.360 And I also don't pretend to know exactly how old the universe or the earth is.

00:39:42.480 I don't know that.

00:39:43.540 I mean, that question is way above my pay grade.

00:39:47.420 Ken Ham thinks it's not above his.

00:39:49.600 He knows everything.

00:39:50.900 But I don't know everything, and I admit that.

00:39:54.360 But I'm just not going to have someone misrepresent me in that way.

00:39:57.220 And I think that if you're a follower of Ken Ham, you should know that this is how he operates.

00:40:01.760 And then you should decide how seriously you're going to take him from then on out.

00:40:07.800 It's really disappointing.

00:40:09.100 You know, it's a sad thing that I had to address this publicly.

00:40:13.300 I even waited a month hoping that he would, you know, maybe have a change of heart and backtrack and admit that he miscarried.

00:40:19.520 But he didn't.

00:40:20.140 So here we are.

00:40:23.640 All right.

00:40:25.160 We'll leave it there.

00:40:26.140 Thanks, everybody, for listening.

00:40:27.700 Thanks for watching.

00:40:28.560 Have a—it is Friday, right?

00:40:30.140 So have a great weekend.

00:40:31.140 Godspeed.

00:40:31.760 Have a great weekend.

The Matt Walsh Show - November 16, 2018

Ep. 145 - Responding To Ken Ham’s Distortions And Misinformation

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript