Creation Of The Earth (Photo: Unsplash)


Oct 24, 2018 by Alyssa Duvall

Ken Ham Responds To Matt Walsh's Claim That Young Earth Creationism Is An "Unnecessary Stumbling Block"

On Saturday, Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis offered a rebuttal to the latest episode of Catholic author and commentator Matt Walsh's show on The Daily Wire in which he proclaims his stance against young earth creationism (YEC) and referred to the belief as an "unnecessary stumbling block" rooted in a misinterpretation of both Scripture and science.

"Walsh's main points were that the days in Genesis could not be 24 hours and that science has proved the Earth is billions of years old," Ham said, summarizing Walsh's 44-minute video. 

"The fundamental point that Mr. Walsh is making is that he is more willing to rely on man's fallible word than to trust God's infallible word. He repeatedly cites 'science' as the reason the Earth cannot be young," Ham declared. "Yet, when observational science is performed, there are mountains of evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, archaeology, and so on that the Earth is indeed young."

While Walsh clarified in his video that he doesn't "question the sincerity or the faithfulness of six-day Creationist folks," something Ham and AiG are frequently accused of doing to their old earth creationist (OEC) brethren, he stated that YEC can "inadvertently do some harm" and "put obstacles in the way, especially for non-believers."

"There are many Christians who insist that Genesis describes a literal six-day Creation, as in a literal 24-hour day. You know, six days in a week, and they cite as their proof the fact that it says 'day.' That's pretty much it," Walsh said.

"I think the Bible does not require us to believe in Young Earth Creationism," he added. You can draw that conclusion... but there's a reason why faithful Christians for 2,000 years have arrived at different conclusions on Genesis," he continued.

Walsh continued to argue that the beginning of Genesis is "not a simple text, it is not easy to understand, it's quite dense, quite mysterious and theologically, you can justify multiple interpretations," and that science shows that some interpretations offered for Genesis, such as a literal six-day Creation, are "less tenable" than others.

Ham, in response, rebutted on the basis that Walsh's defense of OEC is rooted in a denial of the infallibility of Scripture: "By accepting secular interpretations of the past, Walsh completely ignores what a 'day' means in Scripture. He is right that the word 'day' in the Bible has multiple meanings, but not when it is combined with evening, morning, and a number as it is in Genesis 1. Every single time it is used with those words, it means a literal 24-hour day, something he completely ignores."

Follow us on Facebook: