"This doctrine of six day creation was ... the consensus of the theologians, ministers and elders at the Westminster Assembly"

There are 83 Comments

Kirk Mellen's picture

I agree with the author concerning a literal six-day creation and found the article quite helpful, but I was a bit disheartened to read that all fundamentalists are ignorant. Smile

dgszweda's picture

This is an awesome article, because it hits all of the points.  A few comments


But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day creation.

I am not sure how he defines "time", but I don't believe that time will come until the return of Christ.  I don't believe science will ever reach this conclusion on it's own.


Yet the whole structure of God’s design for the history of mankind, according to the apostle Paul, can only be rightly understood as the (true) ‘story’ of two Adams.

This in my opinion is the whole crux of the theological argument.  You can't get around a literal Adam, without taking huge theological leaps, or even doctrinal slips.


The author did not need a Creation Museum or resort to the teachings found in a Creation Science book.  He took the argument straight from the Scriptures.  Exactly planted where it should be.  The foundation must always be Scripture and the Truth must always start and end there.



Todd Wood's picture

Thanks SI for the link.  It's a good read.

Just some sidenotes:

****Our church family in 2013 is using the Answers (AiG) Sunday School curriculum from kindergarten to adults.  As I have been teaching the teens, I have been pleased with the lessons.  Being in the 2013 3rd quarter, I just spent a four weeks with the teens on the flood.  Worldwide, mind you, and not a regional as ESV study Bible might suggest.  If we can believe in humans living to almost a 1,000 years, why can't we believe in a universal flood?

****On October 4-5, our church, Berean Baptist Church will be hosting a Creation Conference.  Don Landis, the President of Jackson Hole Bible College and chairman of the board for Answers in Genesis, will be our speaker.  You are all invited.

****Though some OPC men might consider Douglas Wilson, Christ's Church, and New Saint Andrews College in Northern Idaho, out of bounds on some particular issues,  the ministry up there is stalwart on 6-day creationism.  Canon Press provides a good read or two on the topic - http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Six-Days-Defense-Traditional/dp/1885767625


Darrell Post's picture

"The author did not need a Creation Museum"


Its seems prerequisite now that a week cannot go by on SI that there is not at least one swipe at Ken Ham and AiG. There was a thread last week opened regarding the ark encounter, just for the purpose of belittling it. Now this swipe. I really do not understand this. I do understand that many here don't agree with Ken Ham's approach to ministry. That's your privelege.  But I do not understand how it benefits the body of Christ to use a public forum like this to just keep beating on a brother. I can think of many churches and para-church organizations populated with professing, and I assume genuine believers, but with whom I have a disagreement as to approach to ministry. It would be wrong for me to bring up their names only for the purpose of belittling them or attempting to encourage others to do the same. After all, God might very well use such ministries, and accomplish eternal fruit, while I am instead throwing rotten tomatoes. I am not bringing this up to start an argument, but rather to graciously remind everyone that we fight against the darkness of this sin saturated world, and that sinners will know we are genuine by our love for one another.

Todd Wood's picture

For what it's worth, Darrell, I see the discussion as Christian debate.  AiG will debate with brothers fighting against darkness who interpret with "day-age", "analogical days", or "literary framework" views, etc.  That is good.  Likewise, it is both fair and good, that Christian brothers may challenge AiG on a quarter of a billion dollar projects presented to brothers and sisters.

Of course, for me living in the LDS corridor, there is a core fundamental being systematically destroyed which I desire all the brothers to throw their back toward in support.  God created ex nihilo, separating God from the creature.


dgszweda's picture

Darrell Post wrote:

"The author did not need a Creation Museum"


Darrell, for me it is not a swipe at Ken Ham and AiG, but a swipe at the approach.  I have no doubt that Ken is a Christian and that both he and the organization have great intentions.  I also have no doubt that people are impacted by what he has done.  What I am concerned about is that many of our young people have just missed the deep Scriptural basis and the theological and doctrinal constructs around a literal creationism.  Instead we resort to the arguments about how science disproves evolution.  I have seen way too many young people, even in our bible colleges who were caught up in the arguments on how radio carbon dating is wrong, and how canopy theory proves the flood.... and then once they got older and studied science realized that it all fell apart.  http://biologos.org/ is filled with these young people as well as other institutions.  I have spent a long time combating these young people who grew out of creation science, and studied AiG materials and went to churches that taught this and have since abandoned a literal 6-day creation, yet they had no clue on really what the Bible stated.  That is what we are missing.  They have no clue that if they abandon 6-day creation they have a host of other Scriptural problems.  They feel the two (theistic evolution) and Scripture can live in harmony.  This is what you don't need a $50 million + museum to tell you.  The article above is the type of things we should be teaching and not a model showing a dinosaur.

If Ken Ham wants to do this, all the more power to him.  I have no fault with him.  I just think we are focusing on the wrong stuff and I as well as others have been combating it and will be combating this approach for years to come.

Darrell Post's picture

I hope you would agree there is a difference between a face to face debate, and an internet blog where someone can be unknowingly named over and over by unknown adversaries and receive harsh and critical comments. If you do not agree with the projects Ham has launched, then donate your monies elsewhere. But beware that God might use AiG, and even the Ark Encounter in ways you did not anticipate--which is a good reason to be careful with our words toward a brother. But however God uses or doesn't use AiG, I see no point in the repeated criticisms.

Darrell Post's picture

dgszweda, have you been to the creation museum? I think you have wrongly lumped AiG in with other groups who have used other approaches.  The creation museum is largely a walk-through gospel tract. The basis of his whole approach is the authority of Scripture, not about how science disproves evolution. They start the museum in the very FIRST display talking about the basis for the Christian is the authority of the Scriptures, and based on this starting point, different conclusions are reached versus those whose starting point is evolution.  

Todd Wood's picture

I grew up being taught the canopy theory.  A couple weeks ago, an AiG teen lesson taught me to steer clear from this theory because of problems.  So we have two biblical sources for the water:  (1) foundations breaking up, (2) rain coming down from the windows of heaven.  AiG got me thinking of water being projected into the skies from explosive magma and then coming down.  We will be reforming in our understanding until the day we die. 

And teens do like to ask questions.  Like when a couple weeks ago, when an 8th grade homeschooler asked, "Did Noah and his family have a hard time breathing in the ark?  How high up where they in elevation?"

But with any Sunday School lesson, creationism hermeneutic, or scientific interpretation, let us continually be Bereans who are thrilled to behold God through the face of Jesus Christ.

TylerR's picture


You are quite correct about the Creation Museum. They have done a first-class job with it. It is anything but a shallow presentation. It should give anyone who ridicules a literal interpretation of Genesis something to at least think about.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Darrell Post's picture

The very first display at the creation museum is a scene with wax figures - two archeologists on a dig. The video playing on screens above the scene present them as "friendly" colleagues who are working together on the dig. They present one of them as a scholar whose starting point is evolution, and they present the conclusions about what he is seeing in the dig, and these conclusions are based on his starting point of evolution. Then they present the conclusions of his colleague, whose starting point is the authority of the Scriptures. Their conclusions were different, even though they had the same data and materials in the dig, because they had different starting points.


That is the first display at the AiG creation museum. Then there are multiple displays that deal with origins, and where the Scriptures came from, so that the authority of Scripture is clearly shown...then the displays show how in recent times culture has abandoned the authority of the Scriptures and the fallout that naturally follows. Then the museum takes you to the garden of Eden, and walks the visitor through a gospel tract, starting with Adam, the fall, the flood, babel, and it ends with a very well done video drama "The Last Adam" which accomplishes the exact vision expressed in the link at the top of this thread...connecting the first adam to the last Adam, Jesus Christ.


So I conclude based on my own visit to the creation museum last fall, that it is in complete harmony with what the Presbyterian/Reformed author in the link above was advocating.  When I attended the creation museum, I had no idea what to expect, but after I walked through it, I concluded they hit the right tone, and presented a Scripture-saturated case for Christ and His creation.

Jim's picture

Darrell Post wrote:
Its seems prerequisite now that a week cannot go by on SI that there is not at least one swipe at Ken Ham and AiG. There was a thread last week opened regarding the ark encounter, just for the purpose of belittling it. 

For reference here is the thread from last week

  • Since I was an early poster on that thread
  • My comment was not to belittle Ham and AIG
  • I take exception to Ham's statements:

    • "the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation": My response: No need of a full-sized ark for this purpose.
    • "an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word": My response: ditto
    • "Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation": My response: Good for him. He believes "God has called" AIG to construct an Ark. I find this statement incredulous.

Not sure how many have seen the GIANT roadside crosses. I gather there may more than two of them. Here's the ones I've seen:

I regard Ham's mandate and call the build the ark as silly as Steve and Bobby's! I'm not buying that!

Ron Bean's picture

There have been fundamentalists who have held to a literal six day creation but not to that of a young earth.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Darrell Post's picture

"We believe that God has called..." I would suggest you might be reading a little too much into this. People use this sort of language all the time...."I believe that God has called ... me to this pastorate....or....us to open a seminary....or...us to start a mission board."

You have made it quite clear that in your view AiG / Ken Ham is to some extent misguided and wrong-headed. My point is why use a blog to keep beating this drum? [A similar thread was also opened a few months back in response to a CT article.] There are all sorts of ministries, churches, para-church orgs that I do not whole-heartedly agree with, and yet there is no compelling reason to name them, and criticize them in this format. It does nothing to edify the body of Christ, and in the end such criticisms could turn out to be going against a place where God has chosen to produce eternal fruit.


Jim's picture

On "We believe that God has called  .... "

  • I get excited when some "believes God calls him" to something the New Testament mandates like:

    • Taking the gospel to the nations (missions) OR
    • Church planting
  • I find it folly to claim God called one to build roadside novelty architecture

You see that this blog is used to "keep beating a drum". I think you misunderstand the purpose of filings. You have an opinion about Ham's Ark. If God has called you to buy a peg or to support it in some other way - go for it. I think that pointing out the folly actually "edifies the body of Christ"!

For anyone who would like to celebrate "Bless be the Tie that Binds", I suggest you visit us here in Minnesota

Darrell Post's picture

"Taking the gospel to the nations (missions)" -- EXACTLY what Ham believes he is doing by opening these venues. Bring unbelievers into the venue and presenting them with the gospel. You do not believe that its wise - fine, that is your opinion. I don't know if the ark is wise or not, because it has not been fully built yet and I have not gone to check it out. I also didn't know enough about the creation museum to form an opinion, so I went, saw it, and formed an opinion. Nowhere did I suggest anyone should "buy a peg" or anything. I do not consider myself an apologist for Ken Ham or AiG.  I am calling into question the idea of using a blog in such a way where a brother is unknowingly, but publicly mocked. It just doesn't sound very New Testament to me.

Jim's picture

Darrell Post wrote:
It just doesn't sound very New Testament to me.

Well let's get New Testament. God made the Apostle Paul the "chief architect" of the church: 1 Corinthians 3:10, "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder (ἀρχιτέκτων (note the transliteration (architektōn) which looks very much like the word "architect" ), I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon"


  • Why didn't  Paul build Arks?
  • Why in the entire history of the church (with peaks such as the Reformation) no one thought building an ark was the way to witness?
  • Ham should be warned: "take heed how he buildeth thereupon"
GregH's picture


I see your point. I would have more sympathy for it but for two reasons: first of all, some believe that Hamm does more harm than good. Speaking for myself, I am wary about exposing a lot of his teaching to my children. I think using shoddy science to try to prove Creationism is a mistake because what will happen when that shoddy science is disproved? It is better in my opinion to just teach Creationism as a matter of faith.

The second thing is Hamm is always blasting away at Christians who don't believe just like him. If anyone should be able to take some criticism, it is Hamm. You might want to express your concerns to Hamm because he is more guilty of using a public platform to blast other Christians than anyone here for sure.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

For those who think that Answers in Genesis promotes "shoddy science" or think that if you use AiG materials you will "have no clue that if they abandon 6-day creation they have a host of other Scriptural problems" - well, I would simply say that I do not think you are actually familiar with Answers in Genesis or their materials. As to the first claim, AiG utilizes world-class scientists and scholars in their resources and presentations. As to the second claim, it sounds like you are actually on the same side as AiG, but simply have not taken the effort to investigate the materials you are criticizing.

I suggest you read Ken Ham's book, Already Gone.

If you believe in Biblical creationism but don't like AiG's approach or don't want to use their materials for whatever reason, that's fine. Just make sure your criticisms are rooted in facts - especially if you count yourself on the same team.

For what it's worth, Dr. John Whitcomb is an ardent supporter of the Ark Encounter project.

God's Blessings!


Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry 

DwightD's picture

So some consider Ken Hamm confrontational?  Big deal.  Jesus was confrontational.  If we are going to share the gospel in this day and time, we must all be confrontational.  Perhaps if over the years Christians had been more confrontational our once-great country wouldn't be going down the drain today and headed toward hell in a hand basket.  And for someone to accuse AIG of using shoddy science? the only conclusion one can then come to is that person hasn't researched the website and their beliefs and doctrinal statements.  I have absolutely no problem with Ken Hamm blasting so-called Christians who deny the Biblical account of creation and who promote some sort of evolution.  To promote any form of evolution is to promote satan's agenda.  I know this first-hand; I used to believe in the gap theory.  If I can't take God at His word, that He created everything in 6 days, then I can't believe anything else recorded in His written word.  It's either all true or if any part of is a lie, then it's all a lie.  There's no middle ground.

Darrell Post's picture

Only one M in Ham,



"Speaking for myself, I am wary about exposing a lot of his teaching to my children."


The teaching of Ken Ham is rooted in the gospel and the authority of the Scriptures. I assume you wouldn't mind teaching those things to your children. Please see my comments above about what is on display at the creation museum.


"Why didn't  Paul build Arks?"


Paul also didn't build Bible colleges, Seminaries, and Christian camps. Probably he never preached in a church with rows of padded pews either. These are things called tools. And right or wrong, Ken Ham believes a life-sized ark is a way to draw people in to give them the gospel and present an alternative message as to origins. I for one get a little confused by the modern generation of fundamentalists. They cry out for new and dynamic ways of doing things, rather than the same-old stuff, and so along comes Ken Ham and he does something bold and different, and is mocked for it by the same people.


After seeing the quality of the creation museum, I am more than willing to wait and see what he does with the ark, and then pass judgment on its usefulness to the cause of Christ. If, after I attend, I find it was not designed with any missional purpose, and the gospel was not clearly presented, and it seemed to accomplish little, then I will form a negative opinion about it.



"Other "God called me" to programs:"


Your comparisons seem hardly fair, and again, I have always viewed the language "God called me" simply as an expression that recognizes God's role in accomplishing ministry fruit through you the tool. Some might build a Christian Camp that God can use, others might build a college campus that God can use, and others might build a center that specifically highlights the book of Genesis so as to get people to think about origins and the fact that life has meaning when God is brought to mind as Creator of all things.


But again, the primary reason I began posting on this thread at all was my heartfelt desire to see the love of Christ displayed in the way we speak of brothers in Christ, and the specific ministry that God has burdened their hearts to pursue. We are all different and have a variety of talents and abilities, and even when we find ourselves having a different view, and find disagreement with the choices other believers make, we always need to remember that God might just use the things you consider foolish to accomplish great things.


"The second thing is Hamm is always blasting away at Christians who don't believe just like him."


If Ken Ham has inappropriately and publicly commented negatively about brothers in Christ without their knowledge, then he is just as accountable for those words as any posted here against him.  I don't know everything he has ever said, and he like all of us is not perfect, but a work in progress. As I said, I am not his apologist. I would just like to see the grace of Christ at work in the words posted here.

GregH's picture

Well, a few thoughts. First of all, I remember when Hovind's shoddy science was taken at face value by conservative Christians. Not just Hovind either. There was plenty of junk science used to try to prove creationism. 

Secondly, depending on what survey you read, between 95% and 99.9% of all scientists do not believe in creationism. They consider it unscientific. Paul says AiG has world-class scientists. I am not sure who has labeled them world-class but for sure, not the mainstream scientific community. I think it a bit naive to believe that Ham's handful of scientists is just smarter than the overwhelming majority. I suspect that in 20 years, people will look at their theories the same way Ham looks at Hovind's theories.

So, I am very comfortable saying that man's understanding of science in 2013 is not compatible with creationism. I see little point in trying to force the issue as various creationists including Ham have tried to do for the past few decades. 

I am a creationist but not because of Ham's attempts to make science compatible with creationism. I don't think he or his team is capable of that though ultimately, his underlying premise is correct. No, I am a creationist because of faith and I think that is a far safer approach.

Darrell Post's picture

"Paul says Hovind has world-class scientists"


Paul said AiG has world-class scientists, NOT Hovind.



"I am very comfortable saying that man's understanding of science in 2013 is not compatible with creationism."


I believe we all, Ken Ham included, agree that this is a true statement. And again, if you visited the Creation Museum, you would see first hand that Ham's approach starts with the Scriptures, and presents the gospel, and the museum ends with the Last Adam, Christ.


Ed Vasicek's picture

There are many things we do not need, but are blessings. We do not need video projectors, organs, hymnals, or kindles.  But they can be great blessings.


IMO, AIG is a great blessing.  Do we NEED a museum to know God create the heavens and earth in 6 days?  No.  But does the museum help us stop and consider how he did this and how this contrast with what secular humanism teaches?  Yes.   Does it answer questions that may help satisfy us? Sometimes.  Do we need to have those questions answered?  No. But is it a blessing?  Yes.


I don't get enthused with words like "sufficient" or "adequate."  Sorry.  How many of us are content with sufficient food, adequate housing, or a workable vehicle?  Some of us are, but most of us prefer much more than the minimum.  I don't know what to call this, but "psychological stinginess" might be the best term.


I don't agree with so much of the condescending reasoning I am reading.

"The Midrash Detective"

Jim's picture

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark ... not the museum


  • "the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation"
  • "an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word"
  • "Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation"

So is the Ark a God-directed necessity like Ham claims?

Todd Wood's picture

Jim, I have to tell you that I am uncomfortable with how Ken manipulated Genesis truth in that article to raise money.  And yet Ed, I would like to take a trek from Idaho in the church van to visit the museum for the first time.  If the ark were finished, I would even step inside of it and take a gander.


****One of the most stinging attacks that I have ever read against AiG came from a Jew.


****One of the most brilliant creationist biologists in America that I have read is named Todd Wood





Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Jim wrote:

Interact with these Ken Ham statements about the Ark ... not the museum


  • "the building of a full-size Ark can stand as a reminder to the world of salvation"
  • "an Ark would also stand as a warning of coming judgment—to condemn those who reject God’s clear Word"
  • "Yes. It’s time! It’s the right time to rebuild Noah’s Ark. We believe that God has called AiG to construct an Ark according to the dimensions in the Bible, to remind people of the truth of God’s Word and call them to salvation"

So is the Ark a God-directed necessity like Ham claims?

Not Ed, but I think the operative word is in the first bullet - "can". I don't think Ham is implying that the ark project is necessary as a reminder of salvation or a warning of judgement, but that it can be useful toward these ends. Personally, I have no problem with the museum and would like to visit some day. I appreciate a lot of AiG's materials. I am not personally a fan of the ark project because I personally think the investment outstrips the return, so I will not contribute to it. But I hardly think we can sit in blanket condemnation of those who support the project. If I could offer my counsel to Mr. Ham, I would advise against this project, but that is not the same as saying it is inherently, identifiably wrong.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?