First off, I didn't watch all of the presentation. I watched about fifteen minutes of Ken Ham's presentation, a bit of the back and forth, and then some of the Q&A, about an hour in all. That said, having lived in the Bible belt in Fort Wayne for two years, I am already very familiar with Ken Ham, what he promotes, and his followers.
My main issue with Ken Ham isn't that he is a Young Earth Creationist, even though I think he's wrong. It's not even his fallacious arguments and faulty "scientific method". It's that Ken Ham elevates the means of creation to a primary issue, implying that "true" Christians believe in six day creation. In doing so, Ken Ham publicly presents a bastardized version of the gospel to the public, a gospel contaminated with non-essentials.
During the debate, when Ken Ham shared his "scientific" beliefs, he weaved in Jesus dying on the cross, forgiveness of sin, and the joy of living with God. At first, I was surprisingly delighted to hear the gospel presented to many who may not have heard it before. But then I realized/remembered. This gospel that Ken Ham preaches is one that seems to be contingent on belief in six day creation, a "confused gospel" which stains the beautiful truth of Jesus' death and resurrection. When asked why he believes the earth was created in 6 days, Ken Ham replies with something to the effect of "Because I believe the Bible to be true" and "Because I'm a Christian", implying that part of being a "Bible-believing Christian" is rejecting evolution and being a Young Earth Creationist. [src] [src2]
The belief in Ken Ham's head (and what all people listening to him will hear) is that the "fact" of six-day creation is on the same order as the fact of God's existence, the reliability of Scripture, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The elevation of a tertiary issue to a primary one is one that the conservative, fundamental church is prone to struggle with, but it's rarely as explicit as when Ken Ham shares what it means to be a Christian. Though Ken Ham may deny such theological narrowness, his behavior tells us otherwise. At one point in the "debate", Ken Ham was asked about all the religious and specifically Christian people who did not hold to six day creationism. Instead of affirming that Christians can legitimately differ on the issue of creation, Ken Ham skirted the question, as he seemed prone to do, and started talking about...something that I can't remember.
Some of you reading this may feel like this isn't such a big deal. So what if Ken Ham conflates Creationism and the gospel? He's just one guy, right? This may not feel like a big deal until you go to a church and hear the members talking about Christians who believe in evolution as heretics. It's might not feel like a big deal until you see a tract in a public place written by Ken Ham, including six day creation into the gospel narrative. It's not a big deal until you realize the deep roots the underdog, "they're out to get us" mentality that it shapes and the often anti-intellectual environment it fosters. As many of you know, I lived in Fort Wayne, Indiana for two years. Fort Wayne is Ken Ham country, and I've witnessed all of these things.
Ultimately, Ken Ham angers me not because of what I think are poor logical, philosophical, and scientific arguments - it's that those who listened in, Christian or non-Christian, left with a poor idea of what it means to be a Christian. To many non-Christians, Ken Ham is the reason they don't want to investigate what it means to be a Christian, even though every individual's eternal destiny has nothing to do with what he feels about evolution or creationism. Neither one's justification or sanctification is contingent on believing in six day creation. It has everything to do with what they think about Christ. And this is something that I have yet to hear Ken Ham say.
