Ken Ham's The Lie: What's new (plenty) in the 2024 version

The following is a review of The Lie, by Ken Ham (Master Book, 2024), and a comparison of the 1987, 2012, and 2024 editions. A longer article appeared here in 3 Quarks Daily.

Let me first remind you of the scale of Ken Ham’s political significance. He has among his friends Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, whose law firm has represented AiG pro bono. And among the contributors to its magazine is Calvin Beisner, director of the Cornwall Alliance, whose entire purpose is to deny the importance of human-caused climate change. Cornwall in turn has direct links to the Heartland Institute and to the Heritage Foundation, authors of Project 2025.

Readers here will be familiar with the destructive and anti-scientific approach of the modern creationist movement in the US. But that’s only half the story. It is not only about the beginning of the world, but about its ending. Genesis is pivotal, but so is Revelation. So are the many hints of the end of the world that are explicit in the New Testament, and can be discovered with sufficient ingenuity in the Old.

Such thinking underlines the apocalyptic tone, repeatedly echoed in AiG’s material, that underlies current US right-wing politics. If the Earth does not have a deep past, we cannot expect it to have a prolonged future. We should not be concerning ourselves with conservation, but with righteousness. This perspective has political implications, and comparing the 1987 and 2024 versions of The Lie shows the political aspect becoming increasingly explicit. Otherwise, there is not much difference between the two editions, though The third edition is more repetitious and, where direct comparison is possible, less vigorous in its use of language, and more hectoring, than the original.

A decade before The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris had written a much shorter book, The Bible and Modern Science, whose final chapter is devoted to claims that biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in our own times, and are signs of Christ’s imminent return. Prominent among these is the return of Jews to their ancestral homeland. Similar thinking explains why US fundamentalist evangelicals are now among Israel’s most unquestioning supporters.

I have recently reviewed at length the 1987 (1st ed.) and 2024 (3rd ed.) versions of The Lie, and the differences between them. Here I will use material from that review to comment on some of the most extraordinary aspects of the work, draw attention to the narrowness of Ham’s portrayal of Christianity, and discuss the changes between the two editions.

Ham himself tells us that it was The Lie that positioned Answers in Genesis as a biblical authority ministry. That’s not true. When it was published in 1987, Ham was still an employee of Morris’ Institute for Creation Research, while his own organization was not incorporated until 1993, amid much unseemly and litigious infighting, and its title, Answers in Genesis, only dates from 1994.

Ham’s approach is unsubtle, uncompromising, and unburdened with excess erudition. It is also completely devoid of originality, since all the ideas he expresses are already there in the writings of Henry Morris and his precursors. The book describes itself as concerned with “the foundational nature of the book of Genesis to all Christian doctrine.” By “the book of Genesis,” Ham means a plain literal meaning, with a 6-day 24-hour creation, ignoring two millennia of exegesis and two centuries of literary and archaeological scholarship, and reducing the beautiful, complex, many-layered text to a cardboard cutout.

The title of the first chapter tells us that “Christianity is Under Attack,” or, in the third edition, “Under Massive Attack.” Modern society has moved away from Christ, but the book promises to outline “a Biblical (and therefore successful)” approach.

The third edition takes the opportunity to claim victimhood for Christianity, and to attack an unspecified secular wokeness, signaling the book’s political tendency. It then shows the attached figure listing what it regards as our contemporary ills, all caused by a falling away from Ham’s version of Christianity.

This is an extraordinary list. Something very strange is happening when those who call themselves followers of Christ object to the idea of social justice. Of the 16 items on this list, seven (CRT, Inclusion, Identity Politics, Social Justice, Mandates, Intersectionality, and Woke) express political views, with some of which one might have expected a follower of Jesus to sympathise, and none bear any relationship to the book’s ostensive agenda.

It gets worse. The third edition at this point questions the concept of separation of church and state, asserts that the public education system is not neutral, since it teaches naturalistic explanations, quotes Matthew 12:30 that one is either for Christ or against him, and says that

To help parents understand the reality of the situation, I suggest we say “anti-God schools” instead of public (secular) schools to remind us of what these institutions really are.

Since the public school system teaches naturalistic explanation, says Ham, it is indoctrinating into a religion of atheism, thus undermining Christianity and Christian morality.

Here we have the reason for creationist advocacy of voucher schemes, designed to use public funds for children to be educated at creationist schools, and for homeschooling. The upsurge in political support for voucher schemes, which incidentally starves the public sector of funds, is now a major problem; see, e.g., here.

The discussion of sexual behavior, especially homosexuality, is a fine example of Ham’s reasoning: We know that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuality is condemned in numerous Bible verses. But without the Bible, we would not have convincing reason for calling it wrong, although it clearly is. Thus homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, and the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality confirms that biblical morality is correct.

Ham uses the familiar creationist argument that the study of the past, as in evolution science, is not science at all. For science involves repeatable observations, and the past is unrepeatable. He boasts of how he used this argument, in his school-teaching days, to undermine his colleagues’ teaching. It is also very attractive argument, since those who accept it believe that they have been granted a superior insight.

At this point, The third edition tells us that

At the Creation Museum, we summarize biblical history as the Seven C’s of History — Creation, Corruption, Catastrophe, Confusion, Christ, Cross, and Consummation.

As Susan and William Trollinger point out in their book about the Museum, these 7 C’s are strongly reminiscent of the 7 D’s of dispensationalism, a premillennialist interpretation of history.

Ham appears completely oblivious of the fact that his own interpretation of Genesis is heavily laden with assumptions. Or if he is, he no doubt attributes them to the operation within him of the Holy Spirit.

Ham argues that Christians who accept the findings of secular science are being inconsistent. If they choose to accept millions of years, they have succumbed to the disease of naturalism, of which evolutionism is merely a symptom. And naturalism is itself a religion, since by denying God’s role it is a form of atheism.

All this in the book’s first chapter. The remaining 150 pages add little new, and I will content myself with a few significant points.

Chapter 3, “Creationism is Religion,” tells us that the Creation took place in six days, and God called it “very good.” It follows that there was no death, all animals were vegetarians, the climate was mild from pole to pole, and there was no bad weather. However, this Edenic state of affairs did not last. Why not?

Because our first parents placed human opinion above God’s word (as we continue to do), struggle and death entered the world and God cursed the creation.

The wickedness of later generations brought on Flood, and the billions of fossils laid down the Flood sediments (all sediments, we take it, are Flood sediments) remind us of “God’s judgment on sin.” Nonetheless, after the Flood the earth once again became filled with corruption because of human sin. Christ’s death and resurrection conquered death, and through Him we may be born into eternal life.

Thus as surely as God created the world and judged the world with the Flood, our ungodly world will be destroyed by fire. For those who trust in Jesus, however, there awaits eternal life in the new heavens and new earth.

Note again the linking of the judgement of the Flood to the coming judgement of fire. This theme is developed further in the concluding chapter, as discussed below.

The third edition covers the same ground in greater detail, once again invoking the 7 C’s, and presenting Ham’s creative reinterpretations of specific verses as if they were God-given.¹

This is the core of Christianity, as represented by Answers in Genesis, and the movement of which it is part. It is a curious form of Christianity, reducing it almost to a commercial transaction. What you have to do, is trust in Jesus. And He in return will give you eternal life, after this world has been destroyed. Nothing here about love your enemies, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, who is my neighbor, I was hungry and you fed me not.

A computer scan of the third edition shows 180 references to sin, and just 35 references to love, of which only 8 refer to love between human beings.

Chapter 4, “The Root of the Problem,” accuses evolution of providing justification for rebellion against God. Moreover,

All the evolutionists have to do is to come up with one piece of evidence that conclusively proves evolution [emphasis in original].

I come across this kind of assertion all the time in social media. It is difficult to know how to deal with an argument so confidently presented while being totally at variance with reality (right now, the problem also arises in areas other than evolution). The evidence for the historical fact of evolution was conclusive, by all reasonable standards, over a century ago. Moreover, the time interval between the 1987 and 2024 editions of the book have produced further layers of evidence, based on DNA relationships. The creationist organizations themselves are well aware of these developments. However, as I mentioned earlier, Ham has set up his rules of evidence in advance, in such a way as to be free to ignore them. We see here the rhetorical device of demanding the impossible. Ham is asking for proof, but has already stated that the relevant evidence is unacceptable. He then uses the absence of proof that he would regard as acceptable, as conclusive evidence that his opponents are arguing in bad faith.

Chapter 5 gives a few other examples of what Ham claims, to my mind completely falsely, to be biblical teaching. For example, Genesis gives us the doctrine of marriage as the union between one man and one woman for life. I am reduced to wondering whether Ham has actually read Genesis. For if he did, what he would find there is arranged marriage to preserve the bloodline, fathers selling their daughters, concubinage, polygamy, women procuring their slavegirls as breeding stock for their husbands, and levirate marriage, whose purpose is to provide a dead man with an heir.

He also says that the Bible tells us that from the point of conception (in the 2024 edition, of course, this becomes the point of fertilization), we are human beings, so that abortion in all instances is killing a human being. Yet the Bible chapters that he himself cites (Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1) speak of the child being formed in the womb; the very opposite of what he tells us. He objects to women pastors, because (no verse cited) God created men and women for separate roles. There are also vague references, again with no verse cited, to the process of appointing deacons, and strict discipline (I think he means spanking) for children. Ham’s version of biblical Christianity is shot through with such nonbiblical opinions, in all their lamentable fallibility.

In Chapter 6, a great deal is said of the need for clothes, in order to curb sexual arousal, and about humanity’s inherently sinful nature. As further evidence of the growing politicization of AiG, the third edition goes out of its way at this point to mention President Obama’s and President Biden’s support for gay marriage.

Chapter 7 tells us that

All who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are received back to God to spend eternity with Him. Isn’t that a wonderful message? That is the message of Christianity [emphasis in original].

There are of course, as I mentioned earlier, other aspects to Christianity, such as loving your neighbor, but the book seems strangely unaware of these.

Chapter 8 tells us of The Evils of Evolution, which as we have seen include lawlessness, homosexuality, and abortion.

The third edition now goes out of its way to mention Planned Parenthood, which it describes as “one of the biggest child-killing ‘machines’ in the world,” and mentions in linked paragraphs that its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a fervent eugenicist, and that she promoted the use of birth control. As we have seen, the changes between the first edition and The third edition tells us very plainly how AiG is developing politically, and we must take the reference to birth control very seriously.

Next, with no sense of irony, Ham tells us in successive paragraphs that evolutionary thinking has been used to defend male chauvinism, and that Christian women should not be deceived by the feminist movement, which is anti-God, since God has given men and women different roles. The third edition even warns us of the danger that “women will abuse their role and want to usurp the authority of the man in regard to headship.”

He then summarizes his arguments to date by a cartoon showing two opposing castles. The castle of Christianity is wasting its ammunition by firing at specific targets, while evolution, guided by Satan, attacks the Christian doctrine of creation. Such at least is what we see in the 1987 version of the cartoon, which has been discussed here before. It is one of many such drawings scattered throughout the book, which do have a certain faux naïve charm. The 2024 version, by contrast, looks so bad that I wonder whether it is AI-generated. But notice the reference in the later version to Revelation.

Chapter 10, Wake Up, Shepherds! repeats the message that the only sound preaching is based on one particular interpretation of Genesis. Both editions go out of their way to attack and belittle Darwin, as is usual, but the third edition adds a remark so outrageous, that I cannot forbear from comment:

Since the time of Darwin, much research has shown that observational science (e.g., the study of genetics) does not confirm Darwin’s ideas but actually contradicts them.

Ham taught biology, and environmental biology was his degree major. He graduated in the early 1970's, and it is difficult to believe that he was unaware of the way in which the coming together of Mendelian genetics, classical paleontology, and the solving of the genetic code were placing evolution science on an ever-firmer foundation.

Chapter 11, Creation, Flood, and Coming Fire, concludes the book’s central argument by linking the creation of this world to its imminent destruction. It starts with a quotation also used by Henry Morris in his 1951 book, The Bible and Modern Science, and again in The Genesis Flood. Ham devotes particular attention to this passage, and so should we:

There is a prophecy in II Peter concerning the last days of this earth’s history, and it very much relates to the whole creation/evolution issue:

II Peter 3:3-7 (NIV) states: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers welcome, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this coming He promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water with water. By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

We see this prophecy being fulfilled in front of our own eyes. The people who tell us that “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” are the evolutionists and deep time geologists. They use the principle that “the present is key to the past,” and invoke the observed present-day processes of sedimentation and mutation in their discussions of geology and evolution.

In this, they are “willingly ignorant.” They have deliberately chosen not to believe in the Genesis account of creation, God’s judgement of the world at the time of Noah’s Flood, and coming judgment by fire. If they do not think that the geological record is convincing evidence of the Flood, that is because they do not want to be convinced. And the reason why they do not want to be convinced is that they do not wish to acknowledge God’s authority, obey His rules, and stand in awe of the coming judgment by fire. The very fact that the Biblical account is being questioned is itself a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, confirming (as if confirmation were required) that the Bible account is true.

The sun, moon, and stars are evidence of God’s creation. The sediments are evidence of God’s judgment in the Flood, and Last Day’s prophecies are being fulfilled before our eyes. And, just in case we haven’t got the point, a final quotation in bold from II Peter 3:11-12a:

Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming [emphasis in original].

How we are supposed to speed its coming, it may be wiser not to inquire. A longer version of this post has appeared on 3 Quarks Daily.

1. Ham repeatedly imposes his theologically motivated interpretation on the text. For those interested in exegesis, I pedantically present a couple of examples from the third edition, where we are given, in successive paragraphs without explanation,

The very first time the gospel is preached is in Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel [emphasis in original].

The set up of the sacrificial system and a picture of what was to come in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross is found in Genesis 3:21:

Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them [emphasis in original].

Ham is imposing, and is expecting his readers to impose, meanings imported from commentaries. In verse 3:15, the serpent has been equated with Satan, the woman’s seed with Jesus, the bruising of the heel refers to Jesus’s suffering in His human aspect, and the bruising of the head is Jesus’ triumph over Satan. The capital H’s correspond to nothing in the Hebrew text, but are inserted because Ham thinks the pronouns refer to Christ. In 3:21, tunics of skin imply that an animal has been killed for the purpose, and for reasons I do not quite understand this is a foreshadowing of the Crucifixion.

If you regard all this as contorted and arbitrary, I quite agree. Or you may regard it as serious exegesis, some at least of which goes back to the Church Fathers. But whatever your opinion, the point is that this is material added to the text, not found within it, and therefore, by Ham’s own criteria, part of man’s thoughts, here misrepresented as God’s.