well there isn't very much point in avoiding it. Holding such a literal and firm interpretation in anything is almost always a less than ideal position. Why would allow something that's causing conflict in the path of "human development" to keep existing? Hell, half the things being portrayed in the media as Christian issues aren't even essential to the supposed heart of the religion. It doesn't make sense to me. Why would you need to accept dogma any further than, "dont be a dick to other people. Seriously, its hard, but just try not to be a dick."
"Don't be a dick to other people" is a moving target and isn't actually as helpful of a sentiment as many would think. Anyway, I'm not really interested in defending Ham, only in maybe shedding some light on what drives the theology of him and his readers/listeners. When you boil it all down, much of the confusion regarding Christianity has to do with the fact that it's a rather old (especially since we think we're worshiping the same God that the ancient Hebrew people did) Middle-eastern religion that is being shoehorned into a western mindset. It does NOT fit very well in many respects. For instance, people like Ken Ham try to treat the creation accounts in Genesis as if they were a history book. They are not.