Christian Apologist: Christianity Being Exchanged for Secular Humanism

imagesbannerscp_120x1201Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

America once stood on the foundation of God’s Word. But that foundation is crumbling – even in the church – and being replaced by man’s word, observed one Christian apologist.

“Whatever we (America) once were, we are no longer. We have changed,” said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, in his second State of the Nation address on Tuesday.

The Young Earth creationist was citing President Obama’s well-known mantra that America is no longer just a Christian nation as he delivered an hour-long speech outlining where America and Christianity stand today – just weeks after Obama’s State of the Union address.

He sees Christianity being thrown out of the public sector and mocked and generations of Americans building their worldview on secular humanism.

“Most of the founding fathers of this nation … built the worldview of this nation on the authority of the Word of God,” he said. “Because of that, there have been reminders in this culture concerning God’s Word, the God of creation.”

Prayer in schools, Scripture passages carved on government buildings, traditional marriage, the sanctity of life and the teaching of creation in public schools served as some of those reminders, he noted.

But those reminders have been and are progressively being removed, said Ham, who leads the Creation Museum near Cincinnati. And with that, younger generations are increasingly abandoning God’s Word and making “man’s word” their foundation.

Part of the problem stems from what students are learning in science class, Ham believes.

Students are being told that science can only explain things and events using natural causes and that supernatural explanations of natural events “are simply outside the bounds of science,” as one science textbook reads.

“Do you realize what they’re saying to the students in this nation?” Ham posed to a live audience at the Creation Museum and to webcast viewers. “They’re saying ‘when you look at the universe, life, mankind, all of reality, the supernatural has nothing to do with it. Everything is explained by natural processes.'”

“That’s the religion of atheism, naturalism,” he pointed out. “They’ve actually thrown out Christianity and replaced it with a different religion.”

From the Creation Museum

“In all sorts of ways the Bible is being thrown out and replaced with what, some neutral position? No, with man’s ideas that everything has to be explained by natural processes.”

The foundations in America are shifting from moral absolutes (the Word of God) to moral relativism (man’s word), Ham indicated.

The shift was recently typified by a GAP Christmas commercial, he noted. In the brief ad, consumers chant “You 86 the rules. You do what just feels right. You do whatever you wanna-kah and to all a cheery night.”

That’s the philosophy of the age, Ham lamented: “You do whatever you wanna-kah.”

The apologist pointed to the cover of the latest edition of Free Inquiry, a magazine for secular humanism, that reads: “Fading Faith: new trends show secularism is booming, even in the seemingly pious United States.”

He quoted one article as stating: “A historic transition is occurring, barely noticed. Slowly, quietly, imperceptibly, religion is shriveling in America, as it already has in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan – across the developed world. Increasingly, supernatural faith belongs to the third world. The first world is entering the long-predicted Secular Age, when science and knowledge dominate.”

With that transition, Ham predicts the secular humanist will become much more aggressive because now they have a foundation – one of naturalism and man’s word – to build upon. And it’s already happening as atheists and humanists press forward with advertising campaigns, public speaking events and books.

Where is the church in all of this? Apparently, not standing on the right foundation, according to Ham.

Christians are slowly shrinking back and compromising the Word of God, Ham lamented.

There’s an “incredible spiritual battle” between Christianity and secular humanism, he noted. “Unfortunately, the church by and large is on the side of secular humanism.”

“The church needs to repent,” he said.

Churches have undermined biblical authority by rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture and compromising the account of creation with belief in evolution.

“We’re taking man’s ideas from outside the Bible and imposing compromised positions on the Bible,” Ham pointed out.

Many believers have also set the Bible aside to try to meet secularists on “neutral ground.” But there is no neutral ground, Ham stressed. You’re either for or against Christ, he said, citing Jesus’ words.

Meanwhile, younger generations are not being taught the Word of God or being equipped to be ready to give a defense for their faith. As a result, droves of young people are leaving the church.

Challenging Christians, Ham asked, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Who is prepared to stand unashamedly on God’s Word in this nation?”

“We need generations of God’s people to start standing unashamedly on God’s Word,” he said, as he called Christians to restore the foundation of biblical authority.

Ham’s latest formal address echoes a similar message he presented last summer during his first State of the Nation speech where he stood firmly on the literal interpretation of the Bible, including the six-day creation account in Genesis, and the inerrancy of Scripture. Answers in Genesis is a biblical apologetics ministry and a nonprofit Christian organization dedicated to confirming the validity of the Bible from the very first verse.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

20 Responses to “Christian Apologist: Christianity Being Exchanged for Secular Humanism”

  1. Ken Hamm is too hard core in his apologetics. In a interview with Ron Cooper he proudly describes his wife Molly as a ' very, very submissive wife '. That is one thing I abhore about his paternalistic Biblical apologetics. . I know Christians will say that 'in spirit' and in the eyes of God that women are equal, but when it comes to the house and home leadership, the man should prevail.Baloney.

    Men and women are of equal intelligence and reason, and a man and a wife should be able to sit down and each have an EQUAL SAY.No person in marriage should ever have to 'submit' to another in any shape, form or fashion.It is a Biblical falsehood that a couple can't compromise if a conflict arises.

    It is this Biblical submissiveness philosophy that has kept women out of leadership roles( until recently), inferred they couldn't do certain jobs( like in my profession-doctor) etc. , because it was ingrained in them that they aren't capable of head to head leadership among men. More baloney. I do prefer the secular humanic approach that all are TRULY equal in all aspects of life.

    Even the idea of a Gina Miller putting her thoughts down and have them publicly published, would have been unheard of in the founding fathers days when this submissiveness was rampant.The woman had to be not only submissive in home leadership, but publicly as well.Women had to be so submissive that they weren't trusted to vote. Think about it all you women out there who subscibe to this.

    And poor Mr. Hamm's science doesn't have a leg to stand either

  2. You have shown yourself to be pretty knowledgeable in some areas. But apparently what's being discussed here is not one of them.

    Take a look at this article from Ken Ham's own site:

    As for his science not having a “leg to stand on,” well… we've touched on that before. Ham's site & ministry, and those of the associated CMI, are constantly poking gaping holes in the pretensions of the evolutionary “science” whose popular but misguided bandwagon you have, for whatever reason, jumped on.

    BTW, CMI has announced that they'll soon be coming out with a book rebutting Richard Dawkins' collection of logical fallacies — excuse me, “book” — called “The Greatest Show On Earth,” whose claim to conclusively present the “evidence for evolution” shows just how hopelessly weak said “evidence” really is. Should be interesting.

  3. The problem will persist and exacerbate as long as Christian parents keep sending their children off to government schools. We can talk to our kids, pray with them, take them to church, etc., but when the “educators” get hold of them they will systematically undo what we have tried so hard to inculcate. That's why almost 80% of college freshman that have been raised in the church, fall away in the first year away from home.

    Home-schooling is probably the best option for Christian parents at present, but I think Christian churches need to understand what is happening to our youth and instead of devoting money for missionaries to other parts of the world, we need to start educating our children in Christian schools organized and run by local congregations at little or no cost to parents.

  4. Brian, your idea of submission is quite different than a Biblical view and it cannot be explained or understood in a few sentences or without an understanding of what a relationship with Jesus means to Christians.

    The Lord tells us in Scripture: “Husbands, love your wives. Woman, honor your man.” Now if that were understood and practiced in a truly Christian manner there would be no need for marriage couselors and divorce courts.

    I have heard Dr. Ham speak on a couple of occasions and have read several of his books and essays, and I would say he has a pretty good handle on the science of the creation vs evolution debate. His arguments for a literal interpretation of Genesis are quite compelling, both theologically and scientifically.

  5. Yes, Dr. Theo. The Bible tells husbands and wives that their relationship should be much like that of Christ and his Church. The church is “submissive” to Christ, but in no way does Christ run roughshod over his church (even though he is infinitely higher and more pure than his church); Christ sacrifices and gives himself up for his church, and so should a Biblical husband. No husband who is even attempting to be a Biblical husband will treat his wife like a second-class citizen, and no wife of such a husband who is herself attempting to be a Biblical wife will have any qualms about “submitting” to his God-instituted servant leadership.

  6. I do understand that the 'submissive wife' concept concerning leadership, comes from the example of the relationship between Jesus and the Church.And you're right that this concept certainly doesn't advocate that the wife should be treated like a second class citizen etc., but it does advocate that the wife submit to the husbands leadership.

    If Christians, Ken Hamm and even Charles Darwin subscribe to women playing second fiddle to men in leadership roles, that is their perogative. But many men( Christian and not) display general and very poor judgement, lack of common sense, poor leadership etc. when it comes to making decisions about what is best for the family. But the woman is still to submit to the mans judgement and leadership ?

    That, in essense, says the man is always right as a leader , even if he has inferior leadership skills.Christ was perfect, so why shouldn't the Church submit to him. But to extend that to mean that a fallible, imperfect man should lead over a wife is problematic, because she might well be a superior leader and thus help the family more than a foolish, Christian man.

    I can't imagine a loving God watching over a couple where the wife has superior leadership skills and not wanting her to use them to help the family, even if it meant the man had to repeatedly take a back and submissive seat.Surely, God is bigger than that

  7. dr theo

    I have read a fair amount of Ken Hamm and I know that he doesn't accept a lot about cosmic and biological evolution. But what I am waiting for is his own scientific studies or postulates, that show evidence that…..oh…. the earth is 6000-10,000 years old.Punching holes in others ideas doesn't mean yours is correct as you know. His claims to have science to back that statement up about the earth's age. Where is it ?

  8. dcm

    It is good that CMI says they are poking holes in evolution and an old earth. But science is more than that.It is then incubent upon CMI to produce scientific work to back up their own theory or belief of a young earth, of which they adhere. Could you please refer me to the systematic, scientific work done by CMI that shows the earth is young? What data are they using to scientifically confirmed their ideas?What technique are they using ? Some dating method etc ?

    Everyone seems to clam up when I ask that question-Where is their science that supports their hypothesis of a 6000 year old earth?

  9. You haven't done much looking if you can't find any evidence for a young
    earth. I'm currently at a location where I only have slow dialup, but I
    suggest you take a look around Ken Ham's website at
    That evidence includes a variety of scientific facts which indicate the age
    of the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old. These facts are
    also in harmony with the Biblical genealogies which trace the ages and lives
    of the generations from the time of Christ back to the first human being and
    finds that family tree runs approx. 4000 BC. What's more, there is no
    reliable evidence on earth that this planet is any older than 6,000-10,000
    years, and certainly not 4.5 billion years.

    Go to and…bon appetit!

    2010/2/18 Disqus <>

  10. It is now over a month since the earthquake in Haiti. We know the earthquake was caused by the movement of tectonic plates under the surface of the earth. This is accepted by the millions of Muslims, Christian, Judaists and others who believe in a creator god.

    They also claim that their god is benevolent so they need to explain his purpose in designing a world with tectonic plates.

    As their god could have designed and created a world without tectonic plates why did he not do so? They need to explain.

    Why are they strangely silent on this question? Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and they stay silent.

    Humanists want to hear their explanation.

  11. I have to echo the comment that you must not have done much looking if you don't know what science backs up YEC. You also seem to be quite unaware of how much scientific “knowledge” you accept that is not knowledge at all, but merely assumptions regarding what “must” have happened if everything somehow came into existence without a Creator. Such assumptions are what evolutionary “science” comes down to, and in spite of how it's presented to us it's nothing like the “systematic, scientific work” that legitimate science involves. It no more deserves the respectability accorded real science than a tapeworm deserves to be considered part of its host.

    Maybe for a start you should inform yourself about how wildly unreliable radiometric dating methods really are — how unsafe its assumptions are, how ridiculously out of whack its results on objects of known age inevitably are, and how out-of-sync the results of different methods on the same object tend to be. Or maybe you're already familiar with this, and have accepted the excuses and explaining-away that the holes in evolutionism routinely get hidden with.

  12. They are not “strangely silent;” you haven't been listening for an answer. You should take a look in the Bible for these answers; they are really fairly simple, and Ken Ham's website goes even further to explain this and many more things. I highly encourage you to check them both out.

  13. Dr. R, it seems like you and I have been here before…maybe just deja vu. Anyway, it is not necessary for me to prove the earth is 6000 years old (though that one day may happen), the issue is the counter-claim that the earth is 5 billion year old (give or take). What have the scientist given us in terms of hard evidence? Radiometric dating? Not good enough as dcm has remarked. Until Darwin's theory was introduced there was rarely any question among scientists about the age of the earth. Several thousands of years seemed to be about right. But with Darwin came a need for time–and lots of it–to satisfy the need for gradualistic evolution. And wouldn't you know it, evolutionary geologists soon found that the earth was BILLIONS of years old! I don't know what would have happened to Darwin's theory if that fortuitous fact had not been discovered just in time.

    There are plenty of observations and scientific data that make a billions-of-years-old-earth, questionable, at least: Polonium halos, the Grand Canyon, contemporaneous dinosaur/human fossils, helium in the atmosphere, Carbon-14 dating of coal and petroleum (10-20,000 years), earth's magnetic field, unfossilized T. rex bones with attached ligaments and blood vessels, the sun, the moon's recession, short period comets, and on and on.

    You may not agree with the interpretation or you may simply dismiss the claims as unworthy of your consideration, but you cannot claim that YEC's have no basis for their beliefs beyond their faith in the Bible, Brian.

    (I just KNOW we've covered much of this before.)

  14. dr theo and dcm

    I have read and researched about Hamm, AIG, Kent Hovind, ICR, Henry Morris, Plunonium halos etc and even the ID'ists Meyer and Demski. I happen to think it has little merit scientifically, although agree ,dr theo, that they DO have a non-theistic basis that they base their science on. That is fine.The only thing I object to is when they try and mesh their science with their religion and CLAIM science should incorporate their religion and the supernatural..

    They should go back in time and see how it was their Christian brothers who started Scientific Naturalism.The famous Christian cleric scientist,Jean Buriden(1300's ) said we should look for 'appropriate natural causes' to explain why flowers bend in the wind or unusual astronomical events take place. The Catholic Bishop Oresme( 1300's) said there is no reason to to turn to the heavens when we can ourselves explain the marvels of nature. Gallileo, Copenicus, Newton, all pious, studied God's natural laws, without involking God in their scientific methodology.

    Modern naturalistic science just picks up on that Christian belief on of studying science naturally without involking the supernatural. Gallileo and Darwin both knew their findings would upset the Christian Church and delayed their writngs because of it. Newton was wary of explaining away the belief that when an object fell off a structure and injured someone, that it wasn't the work of God or a Demon, but merely gravity.Naturalism !

    All I am saying is that science should restrict its methodology to the study of the natural world,like the early Christian scientists did, and let religionists, non-religionists, philosophers make whatever assumptions they want to. If science doesn't restrict it's methodlogy, then it will have to again make room for astrology and alchemy

  15. dr theo

    Forgive me for adding this additional fact, but your somewhat revisionist and slightly conspiratorial comment that ' evolutionary geologists ' began speaking of a very, very old earth AFTER Darwin to accomodate him, is incorrect. James Hutton( Father of Geology ), Charles Lyell, and others had proposed the old earth before Darwin even developed the term evolution.It was Darwin who actually read them.There wasn't some scientific collusion as you seem to have intimated.

  16. Yes, Hutton and then Lyell laid the groundwork for the emergence of the concept of “deep time” (Hutton thought a few million years), but their primary theories had to do with uniformitarianism as opposed to catastrophism. But it was only after Darwin's theory gained wide acceptance that geologists found “evidence” to push the age of the earth back several billion years and I submit that it was done to accommodate Darwinism (and still does). No evidence of a younger earth, of which there is plenty, is given any credence because we KNOW the earth is billions of years old because evolution demands it.

    According to the website
    “Darwin's views were directly informed by Lyell (Darwin took a copy of volume 1 of Lyell's Principles of Geology with him on the Beagle voyage, and received volume 2 en route), although Lyell at the time was, in E. Mayr's words, 'an essentialist, a creationist, and his whole conceptual framework was adamantly opposed to Darwin's.' Lyell and Darwin were good friends and Darwin sought to gain Lyell's approval.”

  17. dr theo

    I know you believe that most geologists use geologic science that 'accomodates' evolution, which requires an old earth.But then you must also agree that those who use young earth geology do so to accomodate a literal, 6 day creation 6000 year genelogical version from the Bible as their a priori young earth premise for their science. Would you say that is fair ?

  18. I think it would be fair to present the truth without interpretation or extrapolation, except to say that there are different points of view. Instead of ignoring contradicting evidence, it would be enough for me that these points are discussed openly and either refuted or accepted as something that, as yet, geologists cannot explain.

    For instance, it could be mentioned that fossil fuels (coal and petroleum), when tested by Carbon 14 dating techniques, are found to date between 10,000 and 20,000 years. This contradicts the theory that these deposits formed between 65 and 125, million years ago. This has yet to be fully explained by geologists, but some people believe this to be evidence of a much younger earth.

    What would be wrong with that? Is there anything I said that is untrue or misleading. What are the chances of seeing a similar passage in any high-school or college textbook?

    I would say the same about evolution. I don't want government schools teaching theology, but it would be nice if they would try to teach the truth.

  19. dr theo

    I wouldn't say that that anything you said was 'untrue' about C-14 dating of coal, but maybe misleading. C-14 dating does measure the C-14 isotope and only that. What you don't mention is that Uranium is also found in these same coal/petro samples and since it's half life is so much longer than C-14, then that indicates sample is indeed very old.

    When Uranium degrades over millions of years, studies show it produces the by-product of C-14.It is the same basic argument of the Polonium rings. Polonium is certainly found in earth samples, but Uranium is as well found in these same samples and Uranium does degrade to Polonium.

    It is just like geneology tables of humans. You don't date the age of mankind by going by your age. You date it by going on the time line of your ancestors i.e. the parent compound, that you came from.

    The analogy is C-14 and Polonium dates only dr theo's age( daughter compound), but Uranium dating dates your ancestors age( parent compound) which gives the old, old earth age. So Geologists/Physicists do have an explaintion indeed of why just using a dating method that dates only 'young' isotopes( C14, polonium) is not valid in assessing the overall age, because the parent compound( Uranium) found in the same samples is how you determine the age of the lineage