Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Ken Ham recently used a new study on eggs and Alzheimer's risk to argue that science is too unreliable to trust — but this argument does real damage to thoughtful Christians. I walk through why the egg/nutrition example actually backfires as a critique of science, explain the category error at the heart of Ham's reasoning, and show why the willingness to revise conclusions is a feature of good science rather than a flaw. I also address the pastoral harm this argument causes when young people in the church are handed a false choice between faith and evidence — and why the Christian theological tradition itself has far more room for scientific revision than Ham's post implies.
This video is based on my blog post from a week ago: thenaturalhistorian.com/2026/05/19/science-keeps-changing-one-of-the-most-misused-arguments-in-yec-apologetics
Chapters
0:00 Introduction: The misused argument
1:23 Ham's claim and what's genuinely right in it
1:52 The rhetorical move — and why it fails
2:00 Why nutritional science is especially hard to get right
4:07 Science revising itself is not science failing
5:13 The real targets: age of the earth and evolution
6:28 Ham's category error
7:02 The self-undermining logic of YEC science skepticism
10:06 Why I'm MORE confident in science because it revises
14:50 The Reformed tradition and semper reformanda
15:46 The pastoral harm: a false choice handed to young believers
18:22 Closing: what egg science actually teaches us
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources:
About: joelduff.org
Blog: thenaturalhistorian.com
Twitter: twitter.com/NaturalHistoria
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thenaturalhi...
Photography "Portraits of Creation:" beechnutphotography.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ham recently used a new study on eggs and Alzheimer's risk to argue that science is too unreliable to trust — but this argument does real damage to thoughtful Christians. I walk through why the egg/nutrition example actually backfires as a critique of science, explain the category error at the heart of Ham's reasoning, and show why the willingness to revise conclusions is a feature of good science rather than a flaw. I also address the pastoral harm this argument causes when young people in the church are handed a false choice between faith and evidence — and why the Christian theological tradition itself has far more room for scientific revision than Ham's post implies.
This video is based on my blog post from a week ago: thenaturalhistorian.com/2026/05/19/science-keeps-changing-one-of-the-most-misused-arguments-in-yec-apologetics
Chapters
0:00 Introduction: The misused argument
1:23 Ham's claim and what's genuinely right in it
1:52 The rhetorical move — and why it fails
2:00 Why nutritional science is especially hard to get right
4:07 Science revising itself is not science failing
5:13 The real targets: age of the earth and evolution
6:28 Ham's category error
7:02 The self-undermining logic of YEC science skepticism
10:06 Why I'm MORE confident in science because it revises
14:50 The Reformed tradition and semper reformanda
15:46 The pastoral harm: a false choice handed to young believers
18:22 Closing: what egg science actually teaches us
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources:
About: joelduff.org
Blog: thenaturalhistorian.com
Twitter: twitter.com/NaturalHistoria
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thenaturalhi...
Photography "Portraits of Creation:" beechnutphotography.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
