‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.’– Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Principia (1687)

---

My daughter gave birth to a beautiful baby boy after a complicated labor, which ended with a C-section. I will spend the week with my daughter, her husband, his parents, and my first grandbaby. Jesus called his mother “Immah” (sounds like eema.)I am told it means something like “Mommy.” So, I am putting a G in front of Eema ( easy for a child to say), and I will be called Geema. I fear some language expert will tell me I’m incorrect, but it’s too late!

Lee Anderson shared the following post with me. AIG often brags about its “peer review” for its articles. However, this former insider gives us another POV. Todd will post sometime this week, and I may post a short one to discuss: a Calvinista’s Calvinism.

In the meantime, TWW readers might want to pursue this interesting article by Francis Collins, a particular favorite of mine, dealing with similar issues. God at the Bottom of the Glass: An excerpt from “The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust” on discovering the hand of God in the science of his creation. He’s proof that a great scientist (and Collins is one of the greatest of our generation) can also believe in evolution and be a committed Christian.

---

Creation to Babel: A Cautionary Tale about Peer Review

Lee Anderson Jr.^[1]

Published in 2021, Ken Ham’s book Creation to Babel: A Commentary for Families represents an interesting approach to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. While it is more of a devotional and apologetic reflection on key elements in Genesis 1–11 than it is a true commentary, one commendable contribution of the work is in demonstrating how theological themes introduced in Genesis connect to the rest of Scripture. Unlike other works which look at Genesis 1–11 as some sort of detached prologue, Ham excels in highlighting the interconnectedness of these chapters with the broader scope of the Bible.

However, this point of commendation is insufficient to overcome the many problems with Ham’s work, as the book manifests numerous, obvious factual errors that prevent it from being a useful, reliable study aid. Moreover, for a commentary, the book evidences scant interaction with earlier theological works, and contains material drawn from dubious sources, raising serious questions as to the veracity of its truth claims.

Unconventional though it is, I am going to limit my critique largely to a discussion of material contained in the pages freely available for preview on the publisher’s website (Master Books: https://www.masterbooks.com/amfile/file/download/file/1157/product/4188/) and Ken Ham’s ministry website (Answers in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/creation-babel/). My aim is to ensure that readers are able to check the validity of my claims without committing to purchase the book. I want others to be able to independently verify my claims and, likewise, I want it to be plainly evident that I am not trying to manipulate Ham’s words in order to surreptitiously ground my criticisms.

After raising these concerns, I intend to offer a proposal as to why these problems in Ham’s work exist. To be fair, most authors—provided they write any substantial volume of material—will occasionally make errant claims or repeat inaccurate information. But the fact that Ham’s work is so conspicuously riddled with errant content evidences a major problem with fact checking and peer review. As a former employee of Answers in Genesis whose primary duties centered on editing content and managing peer review (for the Research Division), I can testify that these problems were systemic. They extended far beyond Ken Ham’s writings—though they might be especially pronounced in his work because many of his employees often were reticent to voice any concerns about material he produced.

I should also point out (and it will be fairly obvious) that none of the criticisms I offer below expressly concern the young-earth creation perspective for which Ham advocates. That is simply not my point here. Were I, or anyone else, to focus on critiquing that area of Ham’s work, it would likely be chalked up to bias. Answers in Genesis and its supporters then would probably dismiss my criticism as being rooted in fundamental worldview differences stemming from two distinctly different ways of interpretating evidence based upon differing sources of authority (ostensibly, that is, God’s infallible word versus man’s fallible opinion). While I acknowledge the reality of people forming different views about Scripture and physical evidence due to having different presuppositions (different “starting points”), it is also necessary to highlight that some claims are just plain mistaken.[2]

I want it to be crystal clear that my concern is not with the young-earth perspective, as such, or with whatever sound exegetical or theological arguments are adduced in its favor. Rather, my concern—and I stress this—is with individuals who purport to be reliable and trustworthy authorities on biblical and theological topics, but who actually teach falsehoods about God’s word and so mislead their followers.

Obvious Errors

Some of the most blatant errors in Ham’s work concern his handling of Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament Scriptures.

On page 78 of his commentary, Ham states, regarding Genesis 1:20, that “the word ‘living’ is translated from the Hebrew word ‘nephesh.‘” But this is simply not the case. Rather, the word in question (נֶפֶשׁ) is a Hebrew noun meaning “soul.” Some English versions translate it as “creature” in Genesis 1 (or “being” in Genesis 2:7). The word that is actually translated as “living” is the Hebrew adjective ḥayyāh (חַיָּה). These two words are quite distinct and there is no understandable reason for their confusion by Ham.

Arguably, this error is of little consequence to the point that Ham is making about Genesis 1:20. And, while it might appear unimportant, his error is roughly equivalent to confusing the meaning of the words “cautionary” and “tale” in the title of this article, just because those words appear next to each other. Such is simply inexcusable. Although Ham presents himself as an authority on the book of Genesis, he displays real ignorance of basic Hebrew lexicography, which is fundamental to grasping the message of the text of Genesis. This is an elementary-level mistake which betrays a profound lack of expertise.

Errors elsewhere in the book extend beyond Hebrew lexicography and more acutely impact an accurate understanding of theology. Consider, on page 187, in Ham’s discussion of Genesis 7:1, where he argues that the Hebrew word bô’ (בּוֹא, Qal imperative of בוא) should be understood as “enter in” or “come in,” with the implication that “God invited Noah and his family into the ark” (and, by extension, that God was present with Noah in the ark). However, bô’ simply means “to enter/enter through”; it is not directional. To suggest that God was uniquely present in the ark inviting Noah in overreads the meaning of the word and resultantly clashes with the theology of Genesis 8:1 and Psalm 29:10, where the implication is that God is outside the ark sovereignly presiding over the Flood event. (Of course, God is, theologically speaking, omnipresent; but the emphasis in the Flood narrative is that He is in full control of the judgment taking place outside the ark, while also “remembering” Noah.)

Sometimes Ham’s theological errors are not related to efforts to explain specific verses, but are merely stated or assumed. For example, on page 21, Ham maintains, “Because the Bible is God’s Word, it gives information God had written down for us (by inspiring special people over the years) . . .” (emphasis added). This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of inspiration. The Scriptures teach that the text is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16); those who wrote it were uniquely “carried along” or “moved” by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). But these individuals themselves were not inspired or infallible (as the text is infallible) and, outside of their agency in penning Scripture, they were prone to error. Peter, for example, was noted for his profound theological error and corrected by Paul (see Galatians 2). Understandably, this may seem like a matter of mere semantics; however, it should again be emphasized that this sort of theological imprecision shows serious ignorance by Ham, a presumed authority.

Sometimes the book’s mistakes are not of a theological sort, but are raw factual errors related to biblical content. Consider Ham’s argument concerning the Hebrew word yôm (יוֹם), which he alleges on pages 35 and 36 always means a literal, 24-hour day when accompanied by the words “evening,” “morning,” “night,” or a cardinal or ordinal number. So too, he claims, “Even the use of the word “light” with yom in this passage [Genesis 1] determines the meaning as an ordinary day.” Again, I stress that I do not want to contest Ham’s view of the sense of “day” in Genesis 1. But his argument is fallacious. What about Zechariah 14:6–7, which uses “day” in a non-literal sense to speak of the future time period, “the day of the LORD,” but still is accompanied by the words “light” (twice), “night,” and “evening”? What about the use in Hosea 6:2 of the ordinal “third” with “day” in what virtually all scholars understand is a non-literal temporal reference? Oddly, Ham has made these assertions related to the word “day” for decades, but apparently has not addressed the exceptions to his claim.[3]

While it might be argued these errors are not critical, the fact is they are highly problematic—because Ham, who presents himself as an authoritative expert, has made elementary mistakes in addressing extremely basic issues in biblical and theological studies. Errors of this sort rightly undermine his claims of expertise. If he cannot get these sorts of basic facts correct, how is he to be trusted with more complex subjects?

Questionable Sources

In addition to these factual and theological inaccuracies, Creation to Babel evidences a general lack of attention to theological literature. There is very little interaction with quality resources, whether other commentaries, works on Old Testament theology, or biblical studies generally. At the same time, there is conspicuous reliance on dubious sources. For example, on page 249, a series of charts is reproduced from a book by William Cooper (a creationist with questionable academic credentials and some very “unique” perspectives). Aside from the facts of publication for the source being partially omitted (both the publisher’s location and the date of publication are missing), a quick investigation reveals the material in these charts is reproduced entirely from a dubious work put out by a fringe publisher.

Assuming Ham truly is an authority on Genesis, it is to be expected he would know the value of relying on quality source material for whatever research underlies his writing. And, while it may be argued that such a basic devotional resource need not interact with advanced scholarly works in conveying its message, Ham should certainly know that relying on highly questionable source material seriously undermines the credibility of his own writing. And yet, such is the very sort of
source material that features in his book.

Again, it is necessary to emphasize that this collection of inaccuracies, misstatements, and raw factual errors represents only those found in the small number of pages available for preview. Enumerating and explaining the problems evidenced throughout the book as a whole would be a much greater task. Yet the main concern with all of these problems is basically the same: They evidence marked irresponsibility, negligence, and ignorance in the way Ken Ham engages with the high calling of teaching God’s word—a task that should always be done with the utmost care and prudence (see 2 Timothy 2:15). Additionally, they demonstrate Ken Ham is not the reliable authority on the book of Genesis he presents himself to be.

However, the cause of these problems extends beyond Ken Ham and concerns his ministry as a whole. This is not simply a case of one person writing and publishing errant material, but of the conditions present in the Answers in Genesis ministry that allow such errors to reach publication without being challenged and corrected.

Peer Review at Answers in Genesis

Arguably, the problem plaguing Answers in Genesis, which allowed these embarrassing errors to make it through to the publication of Ham’s work, concerns the ministry’s ability to properly fact check the claims contained in their many web and print materials (books and articles) by means of robust peer review (whether internal or outsourced).

The problem with peer review at Answers in Genesis is multifaceted, but I will attempt, in brief, to break down some of the most serious concerns.

The Root of the Problem

Answers in Genesis is a very large ministry, with many content production divisions that prepare material for online publication, books, periodicals, videos, curriculum, and numerous other resources. Nearly all these resources get filtered through a small controlling body, called the Editorial Review Board (historically comprised of between three and five individuals appointed by the Answers in Genesis leadership) which is tasked with overseeing and managing the peer review of almost all content produced for the ministry.

The Editorial Review Board’s principal purpose is to ensure the consistency of the ministry’s message across all materials it produces. Unfortunately, this goal is sometimes diametrically opposed to the task of seeking accuracy. The Editorial Review Board concerns itself with the question of what the ministry has said previously and, for this reason, is prone to overlook any inaccuracies in newly produced material if those inaccuracies align with what the ministry has previously taught. Consequently, errors related to matters on which the ministry has historically taken a stand (such as Ham’s statements about the use of the Hebrew word yôm; see above) will not be contested or corrected.

As a result, while the Editorial Review Board is supposed to guard against errors by overseeing the fact checking and peer review process, its inbuilt bias (aimed at upholding consistency) severely cripples its ability to do so effectively.[4]

The Trouble with Outsiders

Answers in Genesis conducts a lot of its peer review internally, which is to say, that pre-press drafts of articles, books, and other resources will be vetted by individuals who work for the ministry. This is not inherently a problem, and there are some advantages. For example, doing internal peer review can help expedite the review and editing processes when time-sensitive material is scheduled for publication.

However, there is a downside to this method, especially when it comes to material that involves more advanced or technical content. Oftentimes, the best reviewers of such content work in other organizations (namely, colleges and universities). Keeping peer review internal, thus, often means not sending the work to the people best qualified to review the content and instead relying on those with a lesser understanding of the subject matter.

Answers in Genesis maintains a network of outside reviewers regularly entrusted to review content. Still, speaking from my own observations during the time that I worked for Answers in Genesis, this network of reviewers is underused. The ministry relied too much on internal peer review when decidedly more competent and knowledgeable individuals outside the ministry were available and willing to help.

Additionally, Answers in Genesis had delimiting requirements of its outside reviewers. Often, they were required to give assent to the ministry’s mission and specific doctrinal views. This sometimes would encumber the review process—especially, again, where it concerned the review or more advanced or technical content. Having published numerous academic papers, I cannot begin to stress how important it is for reviewers to be thoroughly acquainted with the specific content being addressed. For instance, in a work I wrote concerning Hebrew narrative text segmentation (yes, I know that is a mouthful), the main concern was whether the potential reviewers had in-depth knowledge of the topic. The question of who were the most capable reviewers regarding that topic was arguably quite distinct from any other questions concerning, for instance, their views on creation or the age of earth.

Yes, reviewers who do not hold to one’s exact theological views may display bias in engaging with the content under review (especially where strong assertions are made about the theological views in question). However, they can still offer extremely insightful information. Moreover, engaging with differences of opinion in the review process tends to make the final presentation of the content stronger, not weaker.

Experts . . . but about What?

Concerning the internal review of content that took place at Answers in Genesis, the ministry often touted that their materials were vetted by their own experts. However, this claim may be deceptive. Yes, Answers in Genesis employs several individuals with terminal degrees in their fields, some of them having graduated from prestigious universities. However, it needs to be understood that being recognized as an expert (and having the academic achievement to back it up) in a particular field does not translate to that person having comparable expertise in other fields of study and research. And, unfortunately, Answers in Genesis regularly had its experts review content outside their respective fields.

Consider more specifically: Yes, a person may have a Ph.D. in biology and be able to speak to the issue of creation versus evolution from that angle, but that in no way qualifies that person as an expert to speak authoritatively (or supply peer review) regarding the interpretation of Genesis’ creation account and the attendant theological issues. Similarly, a person with a Ph.D. in geology may be able to confidently address questions about rock formation, strata deposition, and the age of fossils embedded in rock layers. However, such a person is, quite understandably, terribly ill-suited to authoritatively speak to issues surrounding the intricacies of the narratival structure and theological emphases of Genesis’ Flood account.

To state it bluntly, when Answers in Genesis claims that a given resource has been produced or reviewed by experts, it is imperative to ask whether the expert in question was actually an expert on the subject matter addressed in the resource. Additionally, because so much of the material produced by Answers in Genesis is (at least in theory) interdisciplinary (meaning that it engages with multiple fields of study), it is necessary to ask whether experts knowledgeable of all fields addressed in the resource were involved in peer review. It is of no good if an article addressing, for example, “astronomy and the Scriptures” has its content on astronomy carefully checked by competent authorities, but leaves the content addressing Scripture to receive substandard review by those without theological expertise.

I have said before that it is time that research scientists—along with the many medical doctors, engineering professionals, school teachers, and general enthusiasts—associated with the young-earth creationist movement stop presuming they can do the work of theologians and Hebraists. At the very least, content that is produced in these areas should see peer review from individuals with meaningful academic qualification in the appropriate fields.^[5] Until this cautionary remark is heeded, however, ministries like Answers in Genesis will continue to fall short in these areas of their content production.

Compromised Peer Review

What is arguably worse than inadequate peer review is when the peer review process is ethically compromised. Generally speaking, peer review should be conducted double-blind (that is, with the review being managed by an editor who conceals the identity of the work’s author from the reviewers and conceals the identity of the reviewers from the author). Additionally, for most works, a plurality of qualified peer reviewers is often vital. The more advanced or technical a work, the more important these standards are.

In actual practice, in my time at Answers in Genesis, these standards were violated so frequently they may as well not have existed. I observed numerous cases of authors selecting their own reviewers (in some cases, all but guaranteeing that questionable content would not receive any negative feedback). Similarly, when, as sometimes happened, authors functioned as their own editors, it allowed the authors to quietly dismiss negative feedback rather than correct their work. (This problematic circumstance was partially to blame for Bodie Hodge’s highly questionable work, which I critiqued previously: https://thewartburgwatch.com/2024/08/14/deception-at-answers-in-genesis-will-the-real-david-abrahams-please-stand-up/). Even with an independent editor, that editor, when under pressure to quickly pump out content, sometimes would seek out reviewers the editor knew would offer minimal critique. Consequently, factual errors, invalid arguments, sketchy data, incomplete source references, and many other problems would make it through to publication.

In other cases, a failure to conceal identities allowed reviewers to assert an unhealthy measure of pressure on authors to conform their perspectives to those of the reviewer. This was especially problematic with internal review—namely in cases when an author worked under and reported to the person tasked with reviewing their content!

All these problems involve, essentially, the compromising or manipulation of the review process in order to publish content that should be rejected.

Weaponized Peer Review

While, on the one hand, the peer review process can be manipulated so as to allow questionable content to pass through, on the other hand, it can also be used to block quality content from being published. Often, this is done because an editor (or another invested party) fears how the views expressed or criticism offered in the piece being considered for publication may affect public perception of their own research and prior publications.

This weaponization of peer review affected me very personally. In 2015, I submitted a paper that offered a scholarly critique of the Tablet Model (a fringe theory about the literary authorship of Genesis adhered to by some young-earth creationists, but which is almost universally rejected by theologians, Hebraists, and ancient Near East scholars—including those who identify with the young-earth creationist position). It is important to note that I wrote this paper in the area of my academic field and that, in spite of the criticisms the paper contained, it said nothing at variance with the official doctrinal position of Answers in Genesis. The paper critiqued a particular model, not the young-earth creationist position.

This paper was then sent to four reviewers holding advanced degrees, all qualified to assess the content and offer critique. The feedback from these reviewers was exceedingly positive—all recommending publication and suggesting only minor changes or additions. However, the fringe view I critiqued happened to be held by Ken Ham and a few of the other representatives of Answers in Genesis. Concerned about how they might react to my critique, my editor also sent my paper to an additional internal reviewer—in this case, someone who (1) he knew held to the view I critiqued, and (2) was academically unqualified to engage with the paper’s content (his terminal degree was in branch of history, not theology, Hebrew, ancient Near-Eastern literature, or any related field). As was to be expected, this reviewer provided the negative review my editor sought, not based on anything substantive, but based upon his reaction to his perspective facing criticism. My editor then used this biased and ungrounded review to demand heavy material changes to my paper. Knowing how drastically those changes would alter the substance of my arguments (and, arguably, undermine the integrity of my work) I refused to continue with the publication process. This quite negatively affected my relationship with my editor (who was also my supervisor, despite the obvious conflict of interest that posed) and probably negated any chance I had for advancement professionally.

Two years later, I left Answers in Genesis with a very bad taste in my mouth, brought on not just by this incident, but by a host of others like it, where truth, sound biblical scholarship, and Christian ministry ethics were sacrificed to preserve the image of the ministry’s leadership. It was truly sickening to see, but I digress.

I did eventually publish my paper in another journal (surprisingly, another creationist journal): https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq-2017-volume-54-number-1_critical-evaluation-of-the-tablet-model. I invite you to read it, not because I have an axe to grind on the topic, but because it shows how easily offended some people can be about their pet theological views. Note, again, my original editor would not publish the paper as it reads for fear of how sensitive others might be to the criticisms I offered. It was that sensitivity, arguably, that led to both the compromising and weaponizing of the peer review process at Answers in Genesis.

The Need for Better Peer Review

It is no small irony one of the first articles ever published by the Answers Research Journal (the online journal managed by the Research Division of Answers in Genesis) was a paper entitled Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review. The paper was written by four Christian university professors (all of whom had a good reputation in research and publishing) and offered needed discussion about the biblical principles underlying peer review (such as honesty,accountability, and correction of error). It also offered much practical wisdom on how those principles should be implemented, with considerations about things like editorial standards, reviewer selection, and confidentiality. From my firsthand experience, I can confirm that Answers in Genesis did not take the advice offered in this paper very seriously. My experiences showcase just how flawed their implementation of the peer review process was. Not only did it notserve to protect against publishing serious error, but it was cruelly manipulated to bar quality material from publication and thereby shield certain ministry leaders from criticism.

Returning to Ken Ham’s commentary, Creation to Babel, it is clear that proper fact checking and peer review would easily have caught the numerous obvious and embarrassing factual errors that I pointed out earlier. However, in light of the many problems that I highlighted concerning the approach Answers in Genesis takes to peer review, it is not at all surprising these errors made it through to the book’s publication.

This warrants two observations. First, readers of Answers in Genesis’ material and supporters of the ministry need to exercise proper discernment about the content of its resources. Just because the author is a recognized figure with a long track record of publication does not mean that their work saw proper fact checking and peer review. (Sadly, all it might actually mean is that their material markets well.) And, more broadly, in the case of authors who have some measure of “celebrity status,” it is worth pondering just how well their work is fact checked. As I found, there is sometimes a far greater concern for some people to stay “on message”—especially when that message concerns something they have promoted for a long time—than it is to verify that all they have written is accurate and truthful.

Second, to Answers in Genesis, do better! These problems are fixable, but only if real changes are implemented to ensure the integrity of the peer review process. Peer review and fact checking are principles widely recognized in secular and religious institutions alike. How much more should those principles be followed in a Christian ministry that prides itself on upholding and proclaiming the truth of God’s word.

[1] Lee Anderson Jr. holds a B.A. and M.A. in Biblical Studies, as well as an M.A. in Biblical Apologetics. He is the author of numerous articles on the topics of biblical interpretation and theological method.

[2] It is also necessary to point out that critiquing or rejecting a scientific or interpretive model advocated for by those in the young-earth perspective is not the same as rejecting scriptural truth or even the young-earth creation position, broadly defined. That said, whenever a particular interpretive model has been elevated to the point that it cannot be questioned in any way, there is cause for serious concern.

[3]  An odd story is worth mentioning here: In August of 2013, I was in attendance at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburg as a part of my official responsibilities for the Research Division of Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham was the keynote speaker for the opening session. Prior to his presentation, Ham’s personal assistant and ghostwriter asked me to quickly peruse Ham’s PowerPoint slides. I noticed Ham’s mistaken argument concerning the use of yôm with “evening,” “morning,” “night,” etc. and explained the problems to his assistant, who corrected the error for Ham’s talk that night. However, in subsequent presentations and writings, when addressing the matter, Ham reverted to his earlier (errant) claims about yôm.

[4] This approach, arguably, may also hamper new research initiatives.

[5] Naturally, as many readers will observe, there is also a need to take similar care as it concerns scientific claims. I do not desire to dismiss this concern. However, given that my background is in biblical and theological studies, I believe I am underequipped to competently address that issue here.