Obviously this, from a paper recently approved by their general board…
The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation. In attempting to reconcile the Bible and the theories and conclusions of contemporary scientists, it should be remembered that the creation accounts do not give precise details as to how God went about His creative activity. Nor do these accounts provide us with complete chronologies that enable us to date with precision the time of the various stages of creation. Similarly, the findings of science are constantly expanding; the accepted theories of one generation are often revised in the next.
As a result, equally devout Christian believers have formed very different opinions about the age of the earth, the age of humankind, and the ways in which God went about the creative processes. Given the limited information available in Scripture, it does not seem wise to be overly dogmatic about any particular creation theory.
Whatever creation theory we individually may prefer, we must affirm that the entire creation has been brought into being by the design and activity of the Triune God. Moreover, we also affirm that the New Testament treats the creation and fall of Adam and Eve as historical events in which the Creator is especially involved. We urge all sincere and conscientious believers to adhere to what the Bible plainly teaches and to avoid divisiveness over debatable theories of creation. (“The Doctrine of Creation,” 2010, http://ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Doctrine_of_Creation.pdf)
Brain has a take on Ham‘s silliness:
via The AG paper on Creation and Ken Ham « συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life.
Let me say, if one is to be upset with the AOG, it is not about asking if we had the interpretation of the Word of God, while maintaining the Word of God as inspired and/or inerrant, wrong. What Ham and others are doing is to push a certain interpretation, and much like other interpretations, are subject to humanities position in the universe. What the AoG did was nothing compared to what Ham has said they did, but after reading his book, I can understand his, um, foggy notion of a very fuzzy view of the sorta truth.
But, if you are going to be mad at the AOG and accuse them of heresy, etc… blame them for William Branham (which they did expell) and a few other heretics, such as all of those involved in the Latter Rain movement.
