Do people like Ken Ham help or hurt Christian evangelization?

RKO

Member
Oct 27, 2011
3,134
1,368
✟41,071.00
Faith
Catholic
First, let me apologize to any young earthers who may read this. I don't mean to offend you, but I just can't hang...

Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous. I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take. My church (and I BELIEVE the EOC) teach that Genesis should or can be taken to be an alliteration.
It seems to me that to ask people to believe something with so much proof against it based on a limited interpretation can actually hurt the cause of evangelization.

But then, I bet they said the same thing when the apostles talked about the resurrection.
 

Shiranui117

Sack of Hammers
Jul 29, 2013
242
22
Ohio
✟16,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Personally, I think advertising YEC as the only way to interpret Genesis is what is harmful. The Church Fathers (like Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great) also pointed out the theological and allegorical meanings behind Genesis, and they themselves said that much of what's in Genesis is God making the incomprehensible comprehensible for us mere humans, and what's described in the Book of Genesis is not necessarily a literal description of how everything came to be, but it tells us THAT all of creation came to be because of God creating it. The fact THAT God created the world, and not HOW, is the point of the creation story, and it's completely irrelevant whether YEC or the scientific viewpoint is correct. For example, God creating the plants before creating the Sun is getting at the fact that it's God, not the Sun, that sustains life on Earth. The fact that light exists before the sun and stars shows that God is the source of light and good in the world, not the sun and stars.

Interpreting Genesis allegorically instead of literally will be helpful to evangelization, but I think that showing how it's an allegory, what the allegory means and how old this interpretation is, will be immensely helpful. More importantly, showing that the Bible has more meaning than a history or pseudoscience textbook will help people to see our Faith in a better light and appreciate the wisdom that we--and the Bible--have to bring to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwendolyn
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
First, let me apologize to any young earthers who may read this. I don't mean to offend you, but I just can't hang...

Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous. I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take. My church (and I BELIEVE the EOC) teach that Genesis should or can be taken to be an alliteration.
It seems to me that to ask people to believe something with so much proof against it based on a limited interpretation can actually hurt the cause of evangelization.

But then, I bet they said the same thing when the apostles talked about the resurrection.
Haven't gotten to your question yet, so bare with me. I saw your thread title, and my first thought was "Who the heck is Ken Ham?" ^_^

I may come back with an answer if I have one, later. :)
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Basically Ken follows the Christian tradition of asking people to accept his claims on faith. However, his claims (to ME, anyway) are ridiculous.

Yes.

I won't go into that debate, but to ask people to disbelieve all science and to believe HIS interpretation of the bible, saying the earth is 6000 years old is tough to take.

No.

It basically comes down to you thinking Ham is wrong, and I agree. But there is no reason we must bow to science. It is not a superior truth that trumps the truth of Scripture. It may raise questions about our interpretations, may shed light in some areas, but it does not answer the kinds of questions people attempt to answer in these debates.

As such, I think those looking to science to answer these questions are also wrong.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
It basically comes down to you thinking Ham is wrong, and I agree. But there is no reason we must bow to science. It is not a superior truth that trumps the truth of Scripture. It may raise questions about our interpretations, may shed light in some areas, but it does not answer the kinds of questions people attempt to answer in these debates.

As such, I think those looking to science to answer these questions are also wrong.

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,468
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,670.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I did not see the debate, but I have heard discussions like this. personally, I think it is just as silly to use science to prove something like Fall, just as much as it is silly to use science to disprove it. this was a superbatural change to the whole cosmos, so using modern science always comes up short.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
By the way, thank you all for letting me be a member of this forum. There is no Catholic forum I know of that I could go to and ask this question. I'd get condemned and banned...

Just curious, why can't you ask this in an Rc Forum?
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This looks to me like a continuation of the recent thread on evolution.

On that, I think it has already been established that it is not unreasonable to reject modern scientific claims as authoritative, certainly not on the level of Holy Tradition.
Neither does that necessitate belief in a young earth; we only see the idea of human evolution that effectively denies the Fall as false, and for us, heretical. If Man did not fall from an ideal state, then our Faith is in vain.

On the title question, I think a better one would be whether WE help or hurt Christian evangelization...
 
Upvote 0

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟18,216.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This looks to me like a continuation of the recent thread on evolution.

On that, I think it has already been established that it is not unreasonable to reject modern scientific claims as authoritative, certainly not on the level of Holy Tradition.
Neither does that necessitate belief in a young earth; we only see the idea of human evolution that effectively denies the Fall as false, and for us, heretical. If Man did not fall from an ideal state, then our Faith is in vain.

On the title question, I think a better one would be whether WE help or hurt Christian evangelization...

Two questions:

Must an EO believe that human evolution denies the fall?
Why does human evolution imply that man did not fall from an ideal state?
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Two questions:

Must an EO believe that human evolution denies the fall?
Why does human evolution imply that man did not fall from an ideal state?
Your first question is a deep misunderstanding of what I said, which was that generally speaking, the understanding of humans as evolved beings that are continuing to "evolve" logically and objectively contradicts the doctrine of the Fall REGARDLESS of what you happen to believe. A person may sincerely believe in evolution AND in the Fall. They are merely self-contradictory in their thinking without realizing it.

Speaking of the theory, not merely as changes or adaptations observed now, but as applied to the entire cosmos throughout space and time, as scientists actually do, we can determine that if man is constantly changing, then there IS no "man" as a permanent thing to speak of. There are only ever-changing states. Therefore, Christ could not be the perfect Man, as He, too, would only be an evolving being. Man could not have Fallen from an ideal state, as there would be no ideal state to fall from.

Death would have to have existed from the beginning of the appearance of life, prior to any Fall, were this theory true. It could not have been both introduced by the Fall AND pre-existed, with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men killing each other and being presumably inferior, ape-like forms of men.

One does not need to be a scientist to grasp the philosophical and theological implications, and being a scientist does not grant any special ability to do so, for true philosophy and theology are almost not taught at all in our time.

And hopefully that answers your second question as well! :)

Is it possible that modern scientists have nearly completely misinterpreted the data they study? I think so. How? They began with bad philosophy and no theology. They assumed that there could be no time when the universe was other than it was. They can only imagine a Fallen world (and don't even see it to be Fallen), that all processes now are and always have been what is, and project all understandings backward onto all history, both real and imagined.

So while I don't insist on a literal interpretation of Creation, I do say we ought to not have such rock-solid faith in modern science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟18,216.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your first question is a deep misunderstanding of what I said, which was that generally speaking, the understanding of humans as evolved beings that are continuing to "evolve" logically and objectively contradicts the doctrine of the Fall REGARDLESS of what you happen to believe. A person may sincerely believe in evolution AND in the Fall. They are merely self-contradictory in their thinking without realizing it.

Speaking of the theory, not merely as changes or adaptations observed now, but as applied to the entire cosmos throughout space and time, as scientists actually do, we can determine that if man is constantly changing, then there IS no "man" as a permanent thing to speak of. There are only ever-changing states. Therefore, Christ could not be the perfect Man, as He, too, would only be an evolving being. Man could not have Fallen from an ideal state, as there would be no ideal state to fall from.

Death would have to have existed from the beginning of the appearance of life, prior to any Fall, were this theory true. It could not have been both introduced by the Fall AND pre-existed, with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon men killing each other and being presumably inferior, ape-like forms of men.

One does not need to be a scientist to grasp the philosophical and theological implications, and being a scientist does not grant any special ability to do so, for true philosophy and theology are almost not taught at all in our time.

And hopefully that answers your second question as well! :)

Is it possible that modern scientists have nearly completely misinterpreted the data they study? I think so. How? They began with bad philosophy and no theology. They assumed that there could be no time when the universe was other than it was. They can only imagine a Fallen world (and don't even see it to be Fallen), that all processes now are and always have been what is, and project all understandings backward onto all history, both real and imagined.

So while I don't insist on a literal interpretation of Creation, I do say we ought to not have such rock-solid faith in modern science.

OK brother - but I think I disagree with you. When men fell from the ideal state - I don't take that to mean an ideal physical state. I take Genesis to be not literal, and the "perfection" of man, the ideal state, to be about man being in perfect relationship with God and made in the image of God. I don't take it to be a physical characteristic but a spiritual one.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Two questions:

Must an EO believe that human evolution denies the fall?
Why does human evolution imply that man did not fall from an ideal state?

Sayre, EO do not have to believe that human evolution denies the fall.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,491.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sayre, EO do not have to believe that human evolution denies the fall.

This can be said to be true. I think God gets around a lot of our goofy beliefs, which may or may not include literal belief in Creation in seven 24-hr days, or belief in a man who evolves (from man to man?), neither of which do I especially subscribe to. I only say that the logical conclusion I find in the idea of evolving man is effective negation of the possibility of the Fall. The believer does not intend this, as he does believe in the Fall; it does not make him "non-Orthodox". I only say he is going around with a self-contradiction in his head, one that he is unconscious of. I see no way in which man could possibly have evolved, and died repeatedly in the process, developing from Lucy to Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon etc, AND at some point in that process, Fell. That is what it comes down to. It further means that he is not man even now; that what we call "man" is a temporary convention for a thing that will be quite different in X million years. At what point could he EVER have been the ideal Man? With evolution (again, talking cosmic theory, not observed adaptation or change), there can BE no ideal; only continual change and adaptation. God created all things and they were GOOD. Evolution says they were not good enough.

But you can not see that and be in good standing in the Church. One is not in intent or will denying the Fall; they accept it because the Church teaches it and that much at least they have right.

That's my firm opinion, based on my limited human reason. I can even imagine being wrong. I just don't think so. Whenever any of us find that the teachings of the world contradict the teachings of the Church, I hope we go with the Church.
 
Upvote 0

truthseeker32

Lost in the Cosmos
Nov 30, 2010
1,066
52
✟16,510.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I only say that the logical conclusion I find in the idea of evolving man is effective negation of the possibility of the Fall.
I would like to see that logical formula.

I see no way in which man could possibly have evolved, and died repeatedly in the process, developing from Lucy to Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon etc, AND at some point in that process, Fell.
Depends on what "the Fall" means. If one insists that it must mean and event in which man fell into physical entropy, then your conclusion follows, but this isn't the only interpretation.

It further means that he is not man even now; that what we call "man" is a temporary convention for a thing that will be quite different in X million years. At what point could he EVER have been the ideal Man?
Two things: 1. Just because one believes evolution has happened it doesn't necessarily follow that men will continue to evolve. 2. If my descendants are taller than me, more inteligent, and no longer develop wisdom teeth, does this mean they can no longer carry the image of God? What, essentially, makes us "man"?

Two good articles on this topic:

MYSTAGOGY: Orthodox Bishop Answers 4 Questions on Science and the Theory of Evolution

Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause | Glory to God for All Things
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums