Thanks for the affirmation that this is indeed the correct Scriptural information. The author of the article says some of the same things Ham brought up such as :
.... they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility.
"we must hold to the teachings of Scripture, rather than the ever-changing doctrine of man."
Ken Ham was a delight to listen to. A few years ago I started questioning this whole issue for myself when I realized that I now have to really decide what exactly I'm going to teach my children in this area. While I've always leaned in the direction of the 24-hour literal days, I was curious about those out there like Hugh Ross (a progressive creationist). So I got a couple of his books out of the library to see what he had to say. He seems to make quite a case, and I can see why he's popular, but my discernment kicked in when reading his materials and there were many "red flags". Hugh Ross addresses the issue of the "days" in Genesis and of course has to re-interpret things to fit his view. Ken Ham just simply pointed out the simple exegesis of Scripture. It was interesting too that he gave examples of some famous theologians who didn't hold a literal view of the days in Genesis also. Very interesting.