Book Review: The Lie by Ken Ham

Book Review: The Lie by Ken Ham

Reviewed by Barry Pendley

[amazonify]0890514461[/amazonify]Creationism is alive and well. If you were to search for books on Creationism (pro & con), you would find 205 books on the topic. The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other organizations are equipping the modern believer to do “battle royal” against the evolutionist pundits.

You should note well that not all Creationist material is created equal. Some creationists think that by proving Noah’s Ark exists that unbelievers will be convinced that the Bible is true. Ken Ham’s approach is different. He assumes, rightly so, that unbelievers already know that the Bible is true when it speaks on matters of creationism. They merely suppress that truth so they will not find themselves accountable to the Creator God (Rom 1:19–23). Taking this approach, Ham exposes the evolutionist’s assumptions and teaches the believer how to biblically respond to those presuppositions. By reading this book, not only will you gain a greater understanding of Creationism, but you will also be introduced to the study of Apologetics (the study of defending one’s faith).
The Lie shows how evolutionism has reframed society’s ethical structure. Evolution contributes (and promotes) the moral ills of abortion, suicide, homosexuality, and racism.

Many Christians are trying to blend Genesis 1 and evolutionary thought. Ham’s book exposes the fallacies of the gap theory, day age theory, and the local flood theory.

The Lie is a good introduction to Creationism, providing a solid theological, biblical approach.


  1. Concerned Believer says:

    Ken approaches this subject with dishonesty, pride, and division. I do not see how you can have a good introduction to creationism if all you will read is a single approach. Assuming that non-believers already know God's word as truth is the height of fallacy.

  2. Concerned Believer says:

    Absolutely. Would be too long to include inline and these are but a very few number of observations. Please read at your convenience.

    One a book review, like yours:

    And one a lengthy dis-invite to a Christian home school convention:

    Attacking others as heretical for the simple reason of them disagreeing with "fallible" man's singular interpretation of special revelation is hypocritical to say the least. We are called to be one body in Christ, to test everything, and to seek unity, not division. There is room in Christianity for more than one view on creation while still believing in the inerrancy of the Bible and the message of salvation.

  3. All you are doing is bringing secondary accounts of what other people are saying about Ken. Isn't that dishonest? Should you not bring the full issue to the table?

    Since you have posted the above links, I think it is instructive to link to what set off the current homeschooling issue. Ken posted this:

    I must ask… since Peter Enns denies a historical Adam, does not Ken Ham have the right to point that out? When people set aside a grammatical/historical interpretation of Scripture in favor of scientific/archaeological opinion, there is a real danger. It is not orthodox and it is rightly called compromise.

    BTW: NONE of the above has anything to do with this book review. You may not agree with Ken's Creationism beliefs. That does not mean you should take an opportunity to slander him on this site using third party information.

  4. Concerned Believer says:

    Secondary references are the nature of the internet. I could have rewritten what others have done, but instead I link to it. How is that dishonest in any way? I've revealed several of my sources. What is this "full issue" that is not being addressed?

    Ken has every right to point out and disagree with Peter Enns. In fact, I would be right behind Ken in supporting the historical Adam. I, likewise, would be entirely behind Ken in opposition to naturalistic evolution (or even theistic evolution, but I digress). The issue with the Cincinnati home school has more to do with why they dis-invited him, even though they share his perspective on creation. Specifically, "Dr. Ham was removed for his spirit not for his message… In short, a proud, ungrateful and divisive spirit was projected from Dr. Ham." This coming from an organization that supports his efforts and perspectives. I do not say that Ken cannot express his views, only that he is operating counter to the Spirit in the way that he does it.

    When you accuse me of slander, I'm assuming that you actually mean libel, since it's written. However, in both cases that is incorrect. For slander is to make "malicious, false, and defamatory statements". In that case, I have provided two of my sources for evaluation.

    Finally, you are correct. I have taken us far afield from the book review. So to take it back to the source the main argument I would have against this book are that it is intellectually dishonest of Ken to associate all other valid creation perspectives with naturalistic evolution and compromise. Additionally, when I read Ken's work I find it "proud, ungrateful, and divisive". I disagree that this is a "good introduction to Creationism, providing a solid theological, biblical approach" except that it is a good introduction to Ken Ham's Creationism. I would take the perspective and opinions of Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds in support of Creationism any day over Ken Ham simply because of their professionalism and humility.

  5. Whether something is the nature of the internet or not, charging someone with being "proud, divisive and dishonest" WITHOUT corroborating evidence from Ken's writings is wrong.

    I have given you a couple of opportunities to give us solid evidence that this is the case with Ken. I have read the book above and do not find it to be proud, divisive and dishonest. Therefore, since you will continue to be divisive and malicious on my site I have now blocked any further comment from you.

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.