Ken Ham’s Climate Claims: Separating Science from Ideology

 

Introduction

Ken Ham, a leading advocate for Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the founder of Answers in Genesis (AiG), frequently frames scientific and secular perspectives as "religious" systems. Whether discussing evolution, climate science, or secular governance, Ham categorizes these viewpoints as ideological faiths that compete with "biblical Christianity." While this rhetorical strategy resonates with his followers, it oversimplifies complex discussions and can obscure genuine scientific inquiry.

One area where this framing becomes particularly misleading is climate science. Ham has repeatedly referred to climate concerns as part of a broader secular "religion," characterizing environmental advocacy as a faith-based ideology rather than an evidence-driven discipline. This article critically examines Ham’s climate change claims, clarifies why climate science is not a religious system, and explores why combating climate change is not inherently opposed to Christianity or even YEC beliefs.

Ken Ham’s Climate Change Claims

Ham has long positioned himself against mainstream climate science, dismissing concerns over climate change as alarmist fearmongering. AiG articles and social media posts frequently paint environmental advocacy as an ideological movement rather than a scientific field. For example, Ham argues that "secular climate alarmists" treat climate change as a form of religious doctrine, claiming that their advocacy is centered around "saving the planet" as an alternative to spiritual salvation. (1)

Ham asserts that Young Earth Creationists do not deny climate change but reject the assumptions underpinning mainstream climate science. (2) AiG acknowledges that climate fluctuations occur, yet Ham emphasizes that historical changes—particularly those caused by biblical events such as Noah’s flood—play a significant role in shaping climate trends. (3) 

However, this characterization misrepresents the motivations and methodologies of climate scientists and environmental activists. While some environmentalists may use moral language to frame their concerns, the overwhelming majority rely on empirical research, climate models, and extensive atmospheric data rather than spiritual conviction. The urgency surrounding climate change is based on measurable evidence—such as rising global temperatures, extreme weather patterns, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions—not on religious dogma or ideological zealotry. Moreover, while Ham often dismisses climate science as biased, the data supporting human-driven climate change is extensive. Organizations such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on rigorous research and peer-reviewed studies to assess climate trends. Their findings do not stem from ideological bias but from observable changes in global temperatures, carbon emissions, and environmental degradation.

Climate Science Is Not a Religion

Ham’s tendency to label opposing viewpoints as "religions" serves to shift debates away from evidence-based inquiry and into ideological territory. By branding climate advocacy as a "secular religion," he avoids engaging with scientific arguments and instead portrays environmental concerns as worldview battles.

This framing is misleading for several reasons. First, science operates through testable hypotheses, falsifiability, and peer-reviewed research, whereas religious faith primarily engages with historical and doctrinal evidence. Climate science, in particular, is rooted in data collection, statistical analysis, and physical observations—not dogma.

Second, while some activists are undeniably passionate about the importance of combating climate change, this does not equate environmental action with spiritual salvation. The goal of climate advocacy is to mitigate ecological harm and preserve Earth's habitability, not to offer a path to redemption. By conflating the language of activism with religious conviction, Ham misrepresents the practical motivations behind climate research and policy efforts.

Ham has also repeatedly defended AiG’s stance on environmental skepticism, pushing back against criticisms of climate alarmism and claiming that secular climate advocates misrepresent creationist views. (4) This approach allows Ham to paint climate activists as ideological opponents rather than researchers working with empirical data.

Combating Climate Change Is Not Opposed to Christianity

A frequent assumption among YEC circles is that environmental activism contradicts biblical teachings, particularly the idea that God sovereignly maintains the natural order. Some cite Genesis 8:22—"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease"—as evidence that climate change concerns are unwarranted. However, this interpretation overlooks the broader biblical mandate for creation care.

Genesis 2:15 states that God placed humanity in the garden "to work it and watch over it," emphasizing an active responsibility toward the environment. While YEC proponents may believe that God ultimately governs the earth’s fate, this does not negate human stewardship. Proverbs 18:15 reminds believers, "The mind of the discerning acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks it out," reinforcing the idea that wisdom involves thoughtful engagement rather than passive dismissal.

Additionally, responsible environmental care aligns with biblical teachings on wisdom, justice, and stewardship. Throughout Scripture, God entrusts humanity with the earth—not as something to exploit without consequence, but as a creation to maintain in accordance with His wisdom and order. Ignoring climate concerns under the assumption that God's creation is disposable and that divine intervention will correct human negligence is not a biblically defensible position. Instead, a faith-driven approach to environmental science recognizes the importance of both theological truth and practical responsibility.

YEC Objections to Climate Science: Biblical Assumptions and Political Influence

In short, the Young Earth Creationist rejection of mainstream climate science is largely shaped by their interpretation of Genesis. Many YECs adhere to a strict literal reading of the biblical text, particularly Genesis 1-11, which they believe establishes both a recent creation and a divinely maintained natural order. This perspective leads to skepticism toward environmental concerns, as YEC proponents often argue that climate change fears contradict the biblical assurance that the earth’s cycles will persist as long as the world endures (Genesis 8:22).

For YECs, rejecting climate alarmism is not merely a scientific debate—it is a defense against what they see as secular encroachments on biblical authority. They often argue that environmental concerns promote human autonomy over God's sovereign control of creation, reinforcing their broader stance that secular worldviews seek to undermine scriptural teachings.

Beyond theological objections, YEC climate skepticism is also shaped in no small part by political alignment. In the United States, conservative Christian movements—including fundamentalist and evangelical groups—have increasingly fused theological convictions with Republican political ideology. Climate skepticism frequently aligns with conservative priorities, particularly opposition to governmental environmental regulations, which are often framed as overreach that limits economic freedom.

This intersection between YEC beliefs and political ideology means that climate science is not merely viewed through a theological lens but also through a partisan framework. Many YECs see climate advocacy as linked to liberal political agendas that promote environmental policies they view as excessive or economically harmful. Consequently, their rejection of climate science often mirrors broader conservative opposition to climate regulations rather than stemming solely from biblical principles.

Yet, as previously discussed, biblical stewardship is not incompatible with responsible environmental care. While Genesis affirms God's sovereignty over creation, it also entrusts humanity with the duty to "work it and watch over it." Viewing climate responsibility through a partisan lens can obscure the biblical mandate for creation care, making environmental engagement seem like a political concession rather than a faithful response to God's command.

Understanding this theological-political dynamic is key to navigating discussions about climate science within YEC circles. Many objections are not strictly scientific but are intertwined with broader ideological concerns, requiring careful engagement that acknowledges both their theological convictions and political motivations while encouraging a biblically grounded approach to stewardship.

Conclusion

Ken Ham’s repeated framing of climate concerns as part of a "secular religion" reflects a broader trend within fundamentalist and evangelical Christian thought—one that merges theological conviction with political ideology, making it difficult to separate faith from cultural narratives. This entanglement often leads to skepticism toward environmental advocacy, not because climate science contradicts Scripture, but because it has been framed as part of a larger ideological battle.

Yet, biblical wisdom urges believers to engage with knowledge and stewardship rather than dismiss them outright. Proverbs 2:6 reminds Christians that "the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding," emphasizing the value of thoughtful inquiry. Scientific research, when pursued honestly, does not threaten faith—it provides insight into the complexities of God's creation.

Moreover, combating climate change is not a rejection of God’s sovereignty but a fulfillment of the stewardship mandate given at the beginning of creation. Genesis 1:28 entrusts humanity with responsibility over the earth, and that responsibility remains relevant regardless of eschatological beliefs.

By shifting the conversation from ideological opposition to careful evaluation, believers can cultivate an informed and balanced perspective—one that recognizes the value of both scriptural truths and scientific understanding. A biblically grounded approach to climate issues does not require skepticism of science but rather encourages faithful engagement with the world God has entrusted to us.

Postmillennialism vs. Dominionism: A Covenant Distinction

Introduction

Within contemporary Christian discourse, debates often arise over how the Kingdom of God should be realized within society. Two influential perspectives in this dialogue are dominionism and postmillennialism. Although both envisage a future marked by predominant Christian values, their approaches differ significantly. Dominionism is frequently associated with a politically driven agenda that calls for the imposition of biblical ideals through state power, whereas postmillennialism posits a gradual, organic transformation of society through the spread of the Gospel.

Historical and Theological Background

Dominionism:

Dominionism finds its roots in an interpretation of Genesis 1:28—a mandate to "have dominion" over creation—as a divine injunction for Christians to govern society according to biblical precepts. Over time, this theological view has been adopted by groups advocating for explicit political control over social institutions. Variants of dominion theology include Christian Reconstructionism, which seeks to apply Old Testament law to modern society, and strands within movements like the New Apostolic Reformation that emphasize modern-day apostles and prophets as key actors in this process. Critics argue that dominionism mirrors aspects of Christian nationalism by prioritizing political power over the free, transformative reach of the Gospel.

Postmillennialism:

Postmillennialism is an eschatological framework characterized by the belief that Christ’s return will occur after a "millennial" period—a long era during which Christian ethics and values permeate and gradually transform society. This view underlines the importance of evangelization and the personal conversion of individuals as the engines of societal change. By emphasizing the organic, bottom-up influence of Christian witness, postmillennialism places its hope not in political conquest but in the redemptive power of transformative faith. Its focus on the internal change of hearts through personal conviction and the natural spread of the Gospel distinctly sets it apart from overt political agendas.

Key Distinctions

Methodology: Political Enforcement vs. Evangelical Transformation

• Dominionism is inherently linked to the concept of Christian nationalism, aiming for a society where biblical principles are legally and politically mandated. Proponents often favor legislation and governmental control as means to enforce Christian norms, making public policy a battleground for religious dictates.

• Postmillennialism, in contrast, views cultural transformation as a gradual process driven by personal conversion and voluntary adoption of Christian values. The postmillennial perspective holds that as individuals experience the transformative power of faith, society will naturally reflect Christian principles without the need for coercive state intervention.

Theological Emphasis: External Control vs. Internal Renewal

• Dominionism operates on a theological premise that the mandate in Genesis requires active, often forceful, assertion of Christian ideals upon all of society. This interpretation risks alienating non-Christians by suggesting that their behavior must be reformed through external political pressure.

• Postmillennialism emphasizes internal renewal and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in individual lives. It supports the idea that societal change comes as a byproduct of personal faith and evangelism rather than from the imposition of religious standards by governmental authority.

Scriptural Interpretations

One key discussion point centers on passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:9–13, where Paul delineates the distinct roles of the Church and the broader society in terms of moral accountability. In this passage, Paul underscores that those who have been called to follow Christ are bound to a higher standard—a standard that reflects the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Church is charged with self-discipline and the internal governance of its members, while leaving the judgment of those outside its community to God. This internal regulation underscores the expectation that believers, as participants in the New Covenant, are called to live as Christ (1 John 2:1-6), embodying a moral and spiritual standard that is not imposed upon non-believers.

This New Testament teaching resonates with the nature of the Old Covenant as described by Dr. John H. Walton in The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Walton explains that the covenant between Yahweh and Israel was a unique legal treaty—a vassal arrangement that granted Israel distinct rights and responsibilities (Walton, pp. 68–69). This covenant was not designed as a universal code for all humanity; rather, it was an exclusive relationship between Yahweh and Israel. In the ancient world, such an arrangement was unparalleled, and it clearly did not apply to those outside of Israel.

Thus, just as the Old Covenant was not imposed on or intended to bind those outside Israel, Paul’s exposition in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 establishes that a higher moral standard is meant only for those within the covenant community of the Church. Non-believers—lacking both this covenant relationship and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit—are appropriately left under God’s general judgment rather than being compelled to conform to the moral standards expected of Christ’s followers. This approach upholds the biblical distinction between a community called to live a holy, distinctive life and the larger society, which remains outside of that particular covenantal obligation.

In drawing this parallel, it becomes clear that the higher standards of the New Covenant are not meant to judge society but rather to guide believers in their commitment to God. The call for holiness within the Church is rooted in personal transformation and a commitment to live as Christ did—not in a mandate to enforce these standards upon an unredeemed world. This insight reinforces the argument that postmillennial advocacy for spiritual renewal and transformative faith operates on an intrinsic invitation rather than the coercive political imposition characteristic of dominionism.

Conclusion

While dominionism and postmillennialism both anticipate a future where Christian values shape society, they propose markedly different means to achieve this end. Dominionism’s approach is one of external imposition—aligning closely with political control and Christian nationalism—whereas postmillennialism insists on a transformation that originates within the personal realms of faith and conviction. By fostering change through evangelism and internal renewal rather than through legislative coercion, postmillennialism stands apart from the dominionist agenda.

This nuanced distinction is pivotal in contemporary debates about Christianity’s role in the public sphere. It underscores that the Gospel’s primary mission is to invite transformative personal encounters rather than to impose a rigid moral code on an unreceptive society.