Australian Ken Ham is one of the most in-demand Christian conference speakers in the United States. He is the executive director of Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization based in Kentucky, which emphasizes the relevance of the Book of Genesis … see full wiki
Answers in Genesis is an organization dedicated to support and search for scientific evidence in support of the Biblical Genesis account of
creation in a literal six days
A "young earth" 6 to 10 thousand years old
a catastrophic global flood
creation of species with natural selection driving only evolution within kind, not generating new species
Ken Ham is the editor for this collection, the first of three, of questions and answers about creation, evolution, and the Bible. Ham and the authors of all the articles are transparent and open about their worldview. All of the writers are credentialed scientists in their fields, so while some may question their worldview, their scientific abilities should be beyond gainsaying. And the point is repeated several times throughout the book that when it comes to evidence of origins, all scientists are working from the same evidence, the only difference is in the theories that interpret the evidence, and while all the theories strive to fit the evidence to a reasonable explanation of origins, worldview will make a difference in the theories.
I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God and Genesis 1 should be taken literally. I am intelligent and well read, and I'm not a nut case. There are millions like me, including the scientists writing these articles. The creationist arguments are logically sound, especially strong on DNA as evidence against molecules-to-man evolution--mutations in the DNA may decrease the information encoded in the DNA, it can never increase it.
The weakest link is the young-earth argument against radiometric dating that shows the earth to be millions of years old. A study is cited that shows that radiometric data is inaccurate and can reasonably be interpreted to show a young earth. My curiosity piqued, I googled the study, and found a sharp attack that criticized the author's techniques and accused the study of several faults that invalidated the results, but I also found the author's rebuttal that verified the original young-earth findings and counter-accused the accuser of failing to address the key scientific findings of the original article. While both the study's author and his attacker used logical arguments, as I'm not a scientist I couldn't vouch for the accuracy of either position, so it boils down to a he-said, she-said argument.
The question and answer format is easy to read and follow, but isn't arranged in any kind of topical sequence. And while many of the articles are illustrated with photographs, diagrams, or data that are useful, many others have cartoonish line drawings that seem targeted to young readers, not adults. I think that AIG would be well served to lose the cartoons and rewrite the answers into a single topical narrative documenting the evidence of origins in a logical presentation of the data.
In the end, what you believe will probably depend on well, what you believe. While Ham and AIG state that one of their purposes is to convince non-Christians of the truth of the Bible and the need for redemption, it is unlikely that the answers provided here will convert anyone's soul or mind. This is an unfortunate fact of human nature that no amount of logic or evidence will change.
What did you think of this review?
Fun to Read
What's your opinion on The New Answers Book 1 (Answers Book Ser...?