Biblical apologist Ken Ham explains why he thinks the Washington University researcher's op-ed, despite subtleties in the word choices, means the same as "attacking Creationist Colleges."
In his column for Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham addressed Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass' propositions in his commentary titled "A Compromise on Creationism" published on the Wall Street Journal. Ham, likewise, acknowledged Swamidass' claim that he's also a Christian, but that he supports the evolutionist's view.
Following the previous report on the professor's argument that "creationist institutions" must be held to the same standards as that of other academic institutions, the apologist pointed out the contradiction between that and Swamidass' belief on Adam and Eve as real people.
"He claims that he's for Christian schools and 'academic freedom' but that's not really what he means," said Ham who also read Swamidass' commentary in full.
The "National Norm" Means "Teaching Evolution"
Conclusively, that's what the scientist was getting at in his opinion piece, Ham said.
In his commentary, he's ultimately saying that Christians can have the "academic freedom" to believe what they want but, really, they should be required to teach evolution as fact," observes Ham. "And, if they're going to teach creation (he specifically singles out young earth creation) to students, those classes should be "prominently disclosed, tracked and reported," including on students' transcripts."
Evidently, this approach will nullify the hard-earned credits of those students who studied from Christian Colleges. They will need to take more classes should they want to transfer to secular schools. For these reasons, Ham declared that the professor was "not really 'for' Christian colleges or academic freedom."
What the "Christian" Researcher Missed
Ham broke down two fundamentals that Swamidass missed in his writing. First, is that if you're a Christian, there's no "neutrality." A Christian worldview covers everything including science.
"If you don't have the foundation of God's Word, you explain everything without God. That's the foundation of naturalism which is based on atheism. Evolution is a religion grounded in naturalism and atheism!" said Ham.
Second, is the nature of science in which Ham explains that there are two kinds of science-observational and historical.
"Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It is what drives medical and technological innovation. Historical science deals with the past. It's not directly testable, observable, or repeatable," he said.
"Evidence must be interpreted," he continued. "And what you believe about the past (evolution and millions of years vs. the history given to us in God's Word) provides the framework, the worldview, through which you interpret the evidence."
Beware of Deceptions
Ham confessed that he agreed that Swamidass' ideas are dangerous when he was asked during an interview for a Christian radio program.
"...Because he's hiding what he's really trying to do behind academic-sounding words, and people who are Christians will think he's on side with these colleges. But he's not at all. It's all deceptive," he explained.
Ham added that the secular majority could also use his "critique" against "creationism" as taught by Christian schools as an added stimulant to their attacks to these Colleges.
"Yes, this is a dangerous and deceptive way of thinking and it's very sad to see it coming from someone who professes Christ-someone who should start his thinking with the Word of God, from the very first verse, and not with outside ideas," sighed the defender of the Biblical Creation model.
(Update: Edited text to accurately present Mr. Ken Ham as an apologist and Dr. Swamidass as professor and scientist.)