One of the pastors at my church called me to express concern at recent material appearing on the John Mark Ministries website, stuff emanating from one Ken Smith (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14602.htm and http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14614.htm ). My pastor asked me if I could respond in some way. Having checked the posting myself, I understand his alarm.

We have no issue with dealing with the arguments, but Ken Smith does not deal much with the arguments; rather, his writing is riddled with ad hominem stuff. I suggest that it is quite inappropriate for an organisation espousing Christian principles, and especially considering JMM’s stated objective of encouraging unity amongst Christians, to be publishing scuttlebutt (innuendo) about other Christians and Christian ministries.

Ken Smith resorts to innuendo about the scientific qualifications of the founding board (1980!) of Creation Science Foundation and tries to make capital of the fact that the board was not elected by an open membership of some kind.

Firstly, board members do not need to be competent in the activities of an organisation; they just need to be committed to the vision/objectives of the organisation and have integrity and wisdom. A board exists independently of the employees to provide accountability for the CEO in particular. A board will appoint a CEO who is competent to fulfil the ministry’s objectives and then let the CEO run it. Christian school boards, for example, would normally have few, if any, members with teaching qualifications. Is this something sinister or irregular? Hardly. But as a matter of interest, one of the founding members of Answers in Genesis was John Rendle-Short, who was Foundation Professor of Child Health at the University of Queensland. I would have thought such a man would have some claim to competency in biology? Ken Smith is a mathematician with no qualifications in any field of science.

Secondly, the procedures regarding the appointment of members to the CSF/AiG board are just like many other parachurch organisations. Does World Vision, or John Mark Ministries, for that matter, have a membership that votes for board members? Smith seems to be trying to “poison the well” with all this innuendo. Ironically, what he complains about is exactly true of most Skeptic organizations around the world too.

But why does Ken Smith carry on about the 1980s? Perhaps it would not suit his purposes to let it be known that AiG currently employs a number of qualified (PhD) scientists to carry out the objectives of the ministry. In Brisbane we have Drs Pierre Jerlström (molecular biology), Jonathan Sarfati (physical chemistry), Tas Walker (mining engineering and geology), David Catchpoole (plant biology) and Don Batten (plant biology). By the way, all these doctorates were awarded by top secular universities-I point this out because this is another tactic of Ken Smith’s Skeptic mates, to try to denigrate the qualifications of creationist scientists. Our CEO in Australia, Carl Wieland, is a medical doctor, so he has considerable formal training in human biology. We have others qualified in zoology, geology and theology in other AiG offices in the US, Canada, UK, South Africa and New Zealand. On top of this we have over 450 specialists from around the world who have volunteered their specialist knowledge to help us disseminate the message of the historical reliability of God’s Word from the beginning.

And what about the change of name to Answers in Genesis? Sinister motives again? The reasons for the name change were given in a newsletter in November 1997, which can be read at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/523.asp#name. The major reason was ongoing confusion of Creation Science Foundation with ‘Christian Science’, which is a dreadful non-Christian sect. When Ken Ham started the ministry in the States, the confusion was a huge impediment to getting established-hence the name change. In Australia, discussion had been going on for some time about the inappropriateness of the CSF title, with a desire for the name to reflect the Biblical presuppositionalism (a corollary of inerrancy) of the ministry. CSF/AiG has always been a Christian ministry and has never pretended to be otherwise, contra Smith’s insinuation. The name change had nothing to do with any threat of litigation from Ken Smith’s mates in the anti-Christian Australian Skeptics (one of Ken Smith’s Skeptic heroes, atheist Ian Plimer, former Australian Humanist of the Year, was (by his own written statements to that effect) itching to get AiG into court, but he ended up in court with Allen Roberts, who is not associated with AiG-Plimer lost, by the way, both the first case, and his appeal in the High Court).

The Skeptics are quite anti-Christian (see How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?). Smith is a prominent Skeptic and was even honoured as Skeptic of the Year in 1986 for his co-authoring of an anti-creationist book with a vehement anti-Christian. The book even had a chapter denigrating biblical inerrancy and was full of mocking cartoons attacking biblical Christians. Smith in his public writings has personally endorsed the ardent atheists Dawkins and Plimer, heroes of the Australian Skeptics. This included a glowing review of Plimer’s book Telling Lies for God, which mocked the Bible and claimed that belief in life after death was evidence that ‘people have not been taught how to think’. Smith’s public opposition to their use of ‘science’ to push their atheistic religion has been conspicuous by its absence. He has never repented of his involvement in these anti-Christian actions.

What does Ken Smith believe? Where does he stand on the Bible? Smith is long on rhetoric in trying to poison the well regarding those who apply the traditional grammatical-historical hermeneutic to understanding Genesis, but what does he actually believe about origins? He strives with an apparent fanaticism to have other Christians, especially those in leadership, to kow-tow to everything that ‘mainstream science’ dishes up. That includes a big bang, billions of years ago, where nothing exploded and became everything, including you and me, all by natural processes. This includes the evolution of humans from apes, as per Ken Smith’s mate, Colin Groves of the Australian Skeptics. What about Adam and Eve? And where does God fit in? There was no real Adam and Eve and ‘God’ evolved (Richard Dawkins’ ‘god meme’ or gene). That’s the scientific consensus. How does that mesh with the big picture from the Bible? It doesn’t, and that’s why organisations like Answers in Genesis exist.

Readers should actually check out what AiG says, not the jaundiced views of atheists such as John Stear on the web site recommended by Ken Smith. Stear is a fanatical atheist, who has repeatedly fulminated against the perceived evils of monotheism and even against fellow skeptics who downplay overt attacks against Christianity. See Jonathan Sarfati critiques John Stear’s website.

JMM’s statement of faith says,

Jesus Christ is ‘God with us’, fully divine and fully human. He was the ‘human face of God’, teaching us by his words and works what God is like; dying for us to demonstrate his love for us, to defeat the power of death over us.’

Now if Ken Smith’s view is correct, then where did death come from? The whole Bible message is predicated on the history of the Fall in Genesis, where real bodily death came about because of the sin of Adam, the federal head of the human race. But according to mainstream science (evolution), death has always been here, ever since life evolved billions of years ago. Humans die because we are the descendants of animals. So how can death be the result of sin and how can Jesus’ bodily death make any difference? That is the conundrum for those who want to follow Ken Smith and ditch the historicity of Genesis.

In JMM’s statement of faith, it also says,

‘As Baptists we affirm . the authority of the Bible over human precedents and traditions’.

We at AiG uphold that principle. John Stear certainly does not, and nor do any of the people that Ken Smith recommends as authorities who should be listened to. Ken Smith is putting ‘human precedents and traditions’ in authority over the Bible. These are the same seeds of destruction that are right now destroying the Uniting Church and much of the Anglican Church in Australia. As Josef Ton, a Romanian pastor who suffered much under Communist persecution said,

‘I came to the conclusion that there were two factors which destroyed Christianity in western Europe. One was the theory of evolution, and the other, liberal theology. Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith.’

Smith tries to paint our view as being a fringe, tiny minority view. It is a minority view, for sure-that is, today. But it was by far the majority view of the Church Fathers and was practically unanimous among the Reformers. And even today, Creation magazine goes to some 140 countries around the world, for example. AiG is one of the largest parachurch organisations in Australia. Last year we did over 600 ministry engagements around Australia. Our view might not be popular amongst most academics, but that is not at all surprising. Jesus was not the flavour of the month with the academics of his day, including many of the religious leaders, either. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus say something about a narrow way and a broad way?

20th-century evangelical greats such as Francis Schaeffer and Martin Lloyd-Jones recognized the devastating effects of evolutionary indoctrination on Christian faith. To accept evolution might be academically respectable but is it true to the Word of God?

AiG stands with men like Schaeffer and Lloyd-Jones, not to mention Moses and the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, the church fathers (with rare exceptions)

and the Reformers in accepting the historicity of Genesis. Without it, there is no logical basis or necessity for the Gospel.

Sincerely,

Don Batten

Dr Don Batten,

lecturer, writer and researcher with Answers in Genesis

March 2005

Related Articles:

• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message
• Republicans/Democrats: Is there a Christian Alternative?
• Conspiracy theories

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.