Ken Ham, We Need a Better Conversation (Perhaps Over Dinner?)

I was troubled to read the recent blog post by Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, about Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe. I have known Hugh for years as a fellow astronomer and a fellow Christian. BioLogos has been in dialogue with Hugh Ross and other leaders at Reasons to Believe, including a public conversation he and I had last February.

To be clear, the views of BioLogos differ from those of Reasons to Believe. The two organizations do not agree on the interpretation of Bible passages; BioLogos typically discusses them in terms of the original non-scientific audience rather than a day-age concordism. However, both groups strongly agree that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is his authoritative word for our lives. The groups also do not agree about the best understanding of the evidence in God’s creation about the development of life—at BioLogos we present multiple lines of evidence for the common ancestry of all species, i.e. that God used natural processes to bring about life rather than a string of separate miracles. However, both groups accept the abundant evidence in God’s creation that the history of the universe and of life is far longer than 6,000 years, and have explained this on their websites. Yes, this long time scale raises questions about death and suffering (which both groups address) but Ham’s summary does not reflect the important distinction between animal death and human death. Neither group would say that evil is God’s fault!

What troubled me most, however, is the way this article attacks the character and integrity of Hugh Ross. Anyone who has met Hugh or heard him speak knows that he is a devoted and humble follower of Christ. Hugh is not “enamored with whatever else evolutionary secular scientists have to say.” He is committed to seeking the truths God has revealed in the Bible and the truths God has revealed in his Creation. Hugh is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met and his PhD in astronomy is well-earned. He is also one of the most humble people I have ever met. To say he “love[s] the praise of men more than the praise of God” is completely unwarranted.

All three organizations love the Bible and strive to follow Christ. While we disagree significantly on how best to interpret the Bible and the scientific evidence, we would agree that these are secondary issues to the gospel. We are all still believers together. Can we refrain from so quickly calling each other “compromised Christians” or flat-out “wrong”? Instead, we could work together to explain our differing positions to the church. BioLogos has begun joint presentations in churches with Reasons to Believe, and have found that Christians are thirsty for this kind of gracious and thoughtful conversation.

All three organizations are also concerned about the departure of young people from the church over origins issues. Each tends to think that the positions of the others are contributing to the problem! But studies have shown that it is the acrimony over this issue that drives young people away. We respect the commitment that Reasons to Believe has demonstrated to gracious dialogue with those of other positions. We completely agree with Hugh Ross that “If we Christians can resolve this issue in a peaceful way it’s going to attract non-Christians to enter into dialogue with us. But if we continue to fight…it turns them off.” Perhaps Ken Ham could join Hugh Ross and me for a friendly conversation over dinner? My treat.