Answers in Genesis Responds to my Critique of their Museum
(The following is an archived version of a post originally made in 2013. I've since published a book critiquing the Creation Museum here.)
Before we respond to this piece from them, let’s take a moment to recall all the things Ham and Purdom simply have not attempted to address that my blog brings up:
1) Anachronistic Moses: They were silent about their display with Moses holding the Ten Commandments in a script which wasn’t adopted by the Jews until the 5th century and dotted with vowel points which were invented in the Middle Ages. A museum should be interested in avoiding anachronisms in their exhibits like this.
2) Leviathan: They have not defended or mentioned their identification of Leviathan as a literal fire breathing marine reptile. This is a claim Ham is famed for. I can’t emphasize enough how much I’ve seen expressions of this idea articulated in evangelical circles. Leviathan can’t be a plesiosaur because the Psalms tell us he has multiple heads (Psalm 74:1 sadly doesn't get much lov'n from them for obvious reasons). Psalm 74 demands Leviathan is a west Semitic chaos deity because it inserts YHWH into the Babylonian account of creation as a literary polemic. Job tells us he breaths fire. Isaiah tells us he was killed in conjunction with the creation of the world but that he will be killed (i.e. “punished”) again at the eschaton. That notion is contradictory if Isaiah has a member of the animal kingdom in mind.
If that isn’t enough, the Ugaritic texts come right out and inform us he is a chaos deity. This should stop being ignored. (See my academic Leviathan article for the Ugaritic parallels). Answers in Genesis would have discovered this years ago if they more highly valued interpreting the Bible in its historical, particularly Babylonian-exilic, context rather than interpreting it to serve modern scientific polemics. It’s easily accessible in modern commentaries. As an example, I refer readers to the note on Psalm 74 in the NET Bible.
3) Behemoth: They did not touch the subject of Behemoth or the fact that the poetic couplet parallelism in that passage assumes that behemoth's tail is a euphemism for his sexual anatomy.
4) Isaiah’s Flying Serpents: They said nothing defending their comical identification of Isaiah’s flying serpents as pterodactyls. My post gained readership from professors Michael S. Heiser and James McGrath particularly due to this claim by AiG.
5) The Voltaire Sign: I noticed in the museum that a sign perpetuates the pulpit legend that Voltaire’s mansion was turned into a Bible printing house after his death. AiG on their own website warns against believers using this very argument. I don't care to vaunt this mistake in their faces anymore after this post since everyone makes flubs like this, but I do hope they change the sign. While they are at it, it would also be nice on that same sign if they would remove the image of Socrates with the accompanying description implying he rejected the afterlife. Plato (also an Athenian) in his Phaedo happily presents Socrates as convinced in the afterlife. Again, not a hill to die on and totally ancillary to my hermeneutical focus, but I offer it as a courtesy to the museum.
That’s roughly half of what I wrote. Now on to the main headings Purdom (a geneticist) raises in her response to me.
Presuppositions about Dragon Legends
I brought up Adrianne Mayor’s influential thesis as an object lesson demonstrating why modern dinosaur legends should not be used as a weapon to bolster our exegesis. You can be an old earther, young earther or secularist and still affirm Mayor’s general thesis that dragon myths are the result of ancient paleontology. The museum parades these legends as scientific evidence of their exegesis when the reality is the data could comfortably be accommodated by an old earth or even secular perspective. As I said, “In many cases it is certain that ancient people were offering extinct animal fossils as the origin of mythological creatures.” Purdom takes umbrage with my tone of certainty:
Notice the phrases, “it is certain,” “mainstream view,” and “extremely powerful and convincing.” But Mayor’s views are based on her ideas about the past (she wasn’t there) and she does not presuppose the Bible as truth. She interprets the evidence of fossil beds and dragon legends in light of her presupposition that man’s ideas about the past—including evolution and millions of years—are true and God’s Word is not.
I wasn't conjecturing. There is high certainty this sort of thing was going on in the ancient world, and it’s no accident these legends sometimes correspond with known fossil beds. Jason Colavito refers me to the case within the Kassandra peninsula, “where the giants lost the war against the gods.” “The story is found in Solinus 9.6-7, with lesser references in Pausanias 1.25.2, Apollodorus 1.6.1, Ptolemy Hephaestion in Photius Photius, Myriobiblon 190, and about a dozen other sources. In 1994, paleontologists decided to go looking for the site and discovered a giant bed of Pleistocene fossils, mostly mastodons.” It’s likely these sorts of remains informed the Cyclops myths.
There is no reason this same principal of ancient paleontological interpretation should not be entertained in explaining Scythian griffins, early dragons or even North American legends of the thunderbird, and anyone can review Mayor’s arguments for these identifications in her books. Dong Zhiming and other Chinese paleontologists have even documented the modern continuation of the practice in traditional Chinese medicine. Don't tell me it never happened in ancient times because the practice is still going on and is inspiring dragon myths today.
The Absolute Beginning
[Edit: Holmstedt was amused by this exchange and has given a response here.]
Mortenson’s quote concludes with an attempt to circumvent grammatical discussion of Gen. 1:1:
But, it should also be pointed out that neither Ken Ham nor any other creationist we know would ever say that we can “date the universe [only] with Genesis 1:1.” It is Genesis 1:1–2:3, Genesis 5 and 11, Exodus 20:8–11, and many other relevant verses that lead to the conclusion of a 6,000-year-old universe. But I guess this seminary student and his Hebrew authorities aren’t too interested in reading young-earth creationist literature carefully. (Bolding of verses mine)
None of those above texts Mortenson cites describes a creation of the universe or provides grounds for dating the universe. Genesis 1:1-2:3 does not parse whether the earth and sky were made of pre-existent matter. (That’s the whole point of Holmstedt’s piece.) You need Gen. 1:1 to be an absolute temporal clause to assert that. Genesis 5 is a genealogy. Obviously, the existence of the universe and the materials of creation predate Adam and so, it is irrelevant to the age of the universe. Genesis 11 is the Babel event followed by a genealogy starting with Shem. (How on earth does this text allow us to date the universe?) Exodus 20.8-11 states, “…For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Again, this text does not tell us if that creation of the heavens and earth was accomplished using preexisting matter (read: preexisting universe).
It’s very likely the formless void of Genesis 1:1-2:3 was preexistent, and we have no way of knowing how long it was there before the creation days. In fact, our evangelical lip service to interpret the Bible in its historical context would bid us to believe that’s what the author had in mind. In Enuma Elish it’s obvious the creation of the heavens and earth is accomplished by Marduk using a parallel preexistent watery chaos. I'm not just some pointy headed liberal making that connection because I believe the Bible is on par with Babylonian myth. That cosmological connection is overtly supplied by the exilic author of Psalm 74 himself.
Reconciling the Two Creation Accounts Nothing Purdom says addresses Heiser’s blogpost.
She only links a possible explanation of the “contradiction” between the two creation accounts in Genesis. I’m fine with that as a competing explanation. Heiser’s point is that it is possible to explain that contradiction in such a way that allows for two creations of man (one outside Eden and the other within Eden). This is a view neither Heiser or I am married to and which has its own history--being held for example by the Medieval Rabbi Rashi. Since she doesn’t offer anything which might exegetically disqualify the possibility, I have nothing to give in response.
A Question of Credentials
I made a mistake when I stated in my original post that Ken has only earned a bachelor in science academically and have since corrected the statement. As an aside, Purdom tells us his Australian diploma in teaching "is roughly equivalent with a Master’s." A kind educator based in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia with the same diploma has emailed me and informed me Purdom is incorrect about this "roughly equivalent with a master's" comment. Though, I don't care to belabor the issue since it's not my point. 
I hope the substance of my point is not lost. Ken Ham is not a Biblical scholar. He is not trained to interpret ancient Jewish literature. *I'm not saying* he can't interpret the Bible, but rather, that anytime he does he must, like me, be depending on Semitic and ancient Near Eastern scholars or else he will err.
There are a lot of other methodological subjects I could clamor about like their assumption of comprehensive mosaic authorship of the Torah, their inability to accommodate prescientific divine condescension in their doctrine of inerrancy (see my post on evil eye magic) or their assumption that the Holy Spirit operates to supply believers with the meaning as well as the significance of the text. (See my post "The Holy Spirit and Interpretation" which based on the Daniel P. Fuller article.) However, my message here has been much more simple: Evangelicals must learn to recognize the ancient Near East as the matrix for Bible interpretation and study. Not modern science and scientists.
 The reader informs me the Australian Qualifications Framework, available here states Ham’s diploma it is a level 5 qualification (p.38). A Master’s is a level 9 (p. 59). To be regarded as being equivalent to a Graduate Diploma it must level to an 8 qualification (p. 56).