| Revision as of 21:36, 19 January 2006 editMoanzhu (talk | contribs)1,591 edits →Removing the "Cash Cow" section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:36, 12 September 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,921 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 5. (BOT) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
It seems that certain people are hell-bent on censoring any kind of comment on these talk pages. |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, the Creation/Evolution controversy, or the reality/actuality of either}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Ham, Ken| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=Low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low |baptist-work-group=yes |baptist-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=|importance=mid |attention= }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low |KY=yes |KY-importance=low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=Mid|Young Earth creationism=yes|Young Earth creationism-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low |QLD=yes |QLD-importance=low |literature=y |literature-importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Ken Ham/Archive |
|
|
|format= %%i |
|
|
|age=360 |
|
|
|maxarchsize=150000 |
|
|
|numberstart=1 |
|
|
|minkeepthreads=4 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives |auto= short |index= User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{FULLPAGENAME}} |search= yes |bot= ClueBot III |age= 15}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Picture == |
|
While I agree that the main pages should be kept clean and that damage caused by vandals should be repaired, these pages should not be censored and any opinions expressed here should not be oppressed in the way in which they are being. Otherwise, what is the point of having talk pages? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could we add an updated picture? The current one is over a decade old now, it could still be included but maybe a new one for the main picture? The current one is also just overall bad quality, looks really washed out ] (]) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
All I did was ask a simple question. Clearly, some people did not like the question and think of themselves as superior. Clearly they have an ego problem. Clearly, anyone who points out that they have an ego problem is automatically in the wrong because we don't want to admit to themselves how conceited they really are now do we! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Great idea. You know Æsop's fable about belling the cat? ] (]) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
No doubt that this comment will also be removed because it offends one of those conceited people. I truly pity them. They are small people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with adding an updated photo, but we would first need to get one that's available for us to use with the appropriate licensing. --] (]) 04:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:If you want a home page, you know where to find Geocities. Meanwhile, what was removed was removed because it was very rude and had no apparent bearing on Ken Ham. |
|
|
:If you don't like that, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. -- ] 09:04 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding “Pseudoscientist” == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all. I have boldly added that Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist to the article, and perpetuates pseudoscientific claims of a young Earth model through his organizations and books. As someone who has read his books and been to the Creation Museum, I felt it was reasonable to attribute this statement to Ham when he denies the age of the Earth and universe and then attempts to serve “evidence” in support of these claims that no scientist agrees upon. ] (]) 19:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
: ]s are ''not'' for general chit-chat, and ''certainly'' not offensive comments about other users. These pages are to discuss the article & ways to improve it. -- ] 09:12 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems reasonable, but sorry, I have to oppose as written now. The lead summarises the main, and the main text is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Nothing in the main currently discusses the issue of pseudoscience, so described, and we haven't identified reliable secondary sources that call him a pseudoscientist. I would expect there ''are'' sources that look at creation science and cogently argue it is pseudoscience, but we have to get that in the main text first. Then it will be uncontroversial (yeah, right) to add that to the lead. ] (]) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. Let’s locate a source that calls him a pseudoscientist. I’m sure they exist. I’ll look around. ] (]) 21:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Here’s my first round of looking: |
|
|
:::ScienceBlogs.com talks about the Creation Museum peddling lies and pseudoscience several times. |
|
|
:::https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/27/the-creation-museum |
|
|
:::Kentucky Lexington Harold piblishes Oped from David MacMillan who was featured in PBS documentary “We Believe In Dinosaurs” that is a film critical of the Ark Encounter. |
|
|
:::https://amp.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article240509141.html |
|
|
:::Humanist.UK publishes letter sent to local government that awarded The Noah’s Ark Exhibit at the Creation Museum the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge that denounces the action of promoting Creationism, and encourages others to write similar letters that “request that the CLOtC changes its assessment criteria to properly consider whether awardees promote pseudoscience, and reject those that do.” |
|
|
:::https://humanists.uk/2014/02/04/alice-roberts-bha-complain-michael-gove-noahs-ark-zoo-farms-quality-badge-breaching-creationism-policy/ |
|
|
:::The Guardian writes about how pseudoscience does not deserve an equal platform with mainstream science in a criticism of Bill Nye for giving Ken Ham visibility and credibility he doesn’t deserve. It states, “Professor Alice Roberts and the British Humanist Association have – rightly – complained to the government over this, as it gives further legitimacy to evidence-free pseudoscience.” |
|
|
:::https://amp.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/05/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-creationism-science-debate |
|
|
:::Article from Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis themselves acknowledging that others are calling them Pseudoscientists |
|
|
:::https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2007/02/19/pseudoscience-and-creation-museum/ |
|
|
:::America Magazine addresses that Ken Ham has gotten caught up in culture wars and has confused questions about theology with science, stating, “The pseudo-science behind the beautiful exhibits (Eden is lovely, full of lush greenery and gentle vegetarian dinosaurs) has been sufficiently refuted by more qualified experts.” |
|
|
:::https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/01/30/creationism-isnt-about-science-its-about-theology-and-its-really-bad ] (]) 22:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Most of these sources don't qualify as ] (blogs, op-eds, non-independent sources, etc.), and they don't actually label Ken Ham a "pseudoscientist" (] applies here). I oppose making such a change to the introduction. --] (]) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
: I originally made a comment about someone else's comment. It got removed because someone didn't like it. I've got webspace, thanks. This page is not even close to a homepage and I wouldn't even consider having a homepage on Wiki, I'm not that sad. If you think that I should sod off because my comment is not realated to the page about Ken Ham then perhaps the same people who originally made comments which were directed at me should also sod off because they are the conceited ones. I merely defended myself. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I initially removed ] as a "see more" link because Ken Ham and AiG generally do not support ID from my understanding of them (ID is '''not''' the same as ]). But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. --] 00:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am no fan of Ham's, but must point out that he has a real Applied Science degree from a real, mainstream Australian University. That means he is qualified as a scientist. We would need very good sources to declare he is a pseudoscientist. ] (]) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
FastFission, while I agree with you that ID is not the same thing as YEC, it is however related to the creation/evolution controversy, and thus probably should be included. But I agree, it's not worth an edit-war. :-| |
|
|
|
::Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Fred Hoyle was both, for example: scientist on astronomical mattters, pseudoscientist on biological ones. And Ham is clearly a pseudoscientist, and notable as such. He is not notable as a scientist. So, "pseudoscientist" would be correct but as long as we have no reliable sources calling him that, it has to stay out. --] (]) 06:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes. ] (]) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So as per Hob Grading, I don't think his bachelor's degree in environmental science prevents him from being a pseudoscientist, and neither does it make him a scientist. At least, not one who hasn't published any scientific research (which is a pretty good definition of a scientist, if not perfect). Thanks to Chrisallen87 for these sources, but I am not sure we have found the best ones yet. Blogs are self published. Sometimes they are self published by well respected people, but they remain self published. Newspapers are often primary sources. So, for instance, the Guardian article is primarily a piece occasioned by a debate, and the report of that debate is primary. It's a bit of a grey area, that one, because it also includes opinion, but inasmuch as the opinion is the opinion of Etchells, the author, it is also primary. You could argue the toss on it, but it comes down to the fact that quoting that is essentially siding with Etchells and ignoring others. We really need the very best quality secondary sources here, and if we cherry pick from newspapers and humanist magazines and other magazines, we are amplifying an opinion but perhaps have not given good reason as to why that opinion should be amplified. Sources should argue from the very definition of the scientific method that creationism is pseudoscientific. I think an excellent source would be: |
|
|
::::* {{cite book |last1=McCain |first1=Kevin |last2=Kampourakis |first2=Kostas |title=What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science |date=11 June 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-33660-4 |language=en}} |
|
|
::::This book discusses Ham briefly, and shows how, by Ham's own statements, his epistemology is pseudoscientific. He says, inter alia: {{tqb|Now achieving ‘fit’ in this manner can be misleadingly packaged as doing genuine science. For isn’t science all about developing theories that ‘fit’ the evidence? And hasn’t our Creationist shown that their theory can be made to ‘fit’ the evidence? The emphasis on achieving ‘fit’ leads proponents of Young Earth Creationism like Ken Ham to conclude it is, indeed, scientific.}} |
|
|
:::::{{tqb|Increasing numbers of scientists are realizing that when you take the Bible as your basis and build your models of science and history upon it, all the evidence from the living animals and plants, the fossils, and the cultures ''fits''. This confirms that the Bible really is the Word of God and can be trusted totally. (My italics)}} |
|
|
::::{{tqb|According to Ham, Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists do the same thing: they take the evidence, and then look for ways to make it fit the axioms of the framework theory to which they have already committed themselves: }} |
|
|
:::::{{tqb|Evolutionists have their own framework … into which they try to ''fit'' the data. (my italics)}} |
|
|
::::{{tqb|This strategy, which I have previously dubbed ‘But it Fits!’ (Law, 2011), often crops up in pseudoscientific thinking. One of the obvious problems with it, of course, is that it conflates achieving consistency with the evidence with being confirmed by that evidence. Any theory, no matter how absurd – even the theory that dogs are Venusian spies – can be made consistent with the evidence. That’s not to say it’s confirmed by that evidence.}} (McCain, 2019:109). |
|
|
::::This, to my mind, is better. The whole book discusses science and the epistemology of science, and it shows here and elsewhere why what Ham pushes is pseudoscientific, and in this passage he applies the label "pseudoscientific" particularly to Ham. This is what we should build the material on. ] (]) 14:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Once again, we need reliable sources that directly label Ken Ham as a pseudoscientist. Per ], we can't take sources that describe YEC as pseudoscience and then extrapolate them to label Ham himself as a pseudoscientist, even if they name-drop Ham, and regardless of how reasonable the extrapolation might appear to us. --] (]) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Unrelated sections == |
|
|
|
::::::The point is to make the article better, not to shoehorn a word into the lead. Thus: "this is what we should build the material on." We have nothing in the article that challenges the term "creation science" with reference to the epistemology of science. What we do with the lead comes later. ] (]) 07:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Removed 'see also' as it pertains to ], not Ken Ham ] 09:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::While I agree with your conclusion, I have to disagree strongly with your usage of Wiki policy Synthesis of published material as grounds in favor of it. If it is well established that Ken is a YEC and if a source says the YEC is a pseudoscience, it would be fair to say that Ken believes in something that source implicates is a pseudoscience. Since someone who believes in it would be by definition a pseudo-scientist, that is a valid word to describe him if we accept the source. It is not be a case of If A and If B, then C, it is the much more logical If A is B and If B is C, then A is C. |
|
Ditto for the 'creation museum' section; it was already present (and better written) on the AiG article, the more appropriate place ] 01:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::Using your logic 1990sguy, it would be invalid to say that an ant is an insect and all insects have 6 legs, therefore ants have 6 legs. No sane person would have an issue with that logical chain, therefore if I were to say I believe in and promote the study of jack-o-lopes and it was established that the study of jack-o-lopes is crypto-zoology, it is not an inference that I could be called a crypto-zoologist, it is simply applying the definition of the word (someone who studies crypto-zoology). ] (]) 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too Argumentative == |
|
==Contradictions in the Bible== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the section on his beliefs should be solely about what he believes. I think that there should also be another section called “criticism” where we can put what modern scientists think ] (]) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
In response to the recent edits on contradictions in the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Per ], criticism sections may themselves not be neutral. ] (]) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
1) If you spend as much time as I have looking through the Answers in Genesis website then you'll see that AiG has addressed at least some of the apparent contradictions in Genesis. Sorry I don't have the references at the moment- if you're really desperate I can look for them. |
|
|
|
::may “reactions” would would be a better header? ] (]) 12:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think "Reception" is commonly used. ] (]) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Scientific consensus == |
|
2) I'm not certain whether it's NPOV to claim that there exist 'contradictions' as opposed to 'apparent contradictions'. In a literary text such as the Bible- context is everything and it is usually possible to argue that black is white given context and interpretation. I'm not saying that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as scientific consensus. The two words are mutually exclusive of each other. ] (]) 18:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
3) To be scrupulously fair- there are many apparently contradictory phenomena in science- that doesn't mean that they're wrong- it sometimes means that we just aren't smart enough to understand the situation. For instance quantum mechanics and general relativity are almost universally acknowledged to be contradictory in some situations. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the worth of either. |
|
|
|
:You err. See ]. ] (]) 18:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
4) Biblical literalists don't always claim that they have all the answers and will sometimes openly admit that they aren't smart enough to explain a contradiction. I think credit is due to them for that. There's a big difference between that position and the one of actively ignoring the problem and misdirecting people. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're almost there. It's appropriate to cite skeptical sources which point out (apparent or not) contradictions in Genesis. Be a little bit careful about accusing Ham or AiG of ignoring these contradictions (whatever you think of Ham, I'm sure he knows Genesis inside-out). |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your input ] 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Right you are, CJB. AiG has links to alleged contradictions The issue is covered on ].] 15:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Response== |
|
|
1. Some contradictions are, as you say, addressed on the AiG website (go there and search for 'contradictions'). However, Ham insists upon literal interpretations when they suit his point of view, and disputes the text when it doesn't suit. Apart from the contradictions in the text, his approach to the reading of it is contradictory too. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. The contradictions are quite straightforward, there's not much to be ''apparent'' about! |
|
|
|
|
|
:So your refutation of, say, is, what, exactly?] 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add some reference material to his assertions about belief in evolution 'causing' the evils in society, specifically, to back up my claim that these 'evils' are more common in states where a belief in creationism is more common. See and elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
:You're completely underestimating the ingenuity of Biblical literalists to explain any part of the Bible as fact. I suspect I'd need a doctorate in divinity to out-argue Ham and his ilk when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible. In any case- I tend to take the view that people should have an entitlement to their own theology, no matter how self-contradictory. It's only when they make pronouncements on the physical real world that I start asking for proof and evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, it means understanding the Bible according to its historical and grammatical context, and not reading it like a 21st-century newspaper.] 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As to your second point. It's very tempting to try and draw conclusions like this. I've been sent various emails linking voting patterns to average state IQ's. As far as I know, most of these are pretty much urban myths- but people want to believe in them so much. Maybe it's worth mentioning- but I think the philosophy is misguided. Are you going to stick to Ham's definition of evil, or are you going to use another definition? What about the obvious get-out clause that anyone who is evil doesn't sufficiently believe in the Bible? It's hopeless! Linking divorce rates with religious belief is tenuous at best. What if Ham doesn't believe in divorce? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe your planned edits would be better suited for some other page. I'd like to hear others' comments on this.] 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yeah, a biography page should not be filled with debate about issues covered elsewhere.] 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edit by anon 61.88.7.202 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly I strongly disapprove of anon edits and the news today shows that Misplaced Pages feels the same way. This especially holds true for controversial pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly, you can't win here (in my opinion). You're arguing against Ham's theology, which is his interpretation and subjective view- not yours. Yes it may be entirely inconsistent- but isn't every theology (at least to others)? ] 04:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, most of your information is (or should be) already available on the ] and other more appropriate pages. Let's just link there. ] 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of "Contradictions" section, etc. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I made a number of edits today -- most of them superficial, style, etc., such as moving & resizing an image, clearing up the external links section, removing lonely subsections (to clarify reading of the table of contents), and so forth. I made a number of edits that seem to be reflecting the consensus of talk page commenters, but may not be entirely -- I had a little trouble following the discussion through some of the juxtaposed comments. I do not intend to start an edit war. So, concerning the more major edits: |
|
|
|
|
|
A. I renamed the "Criticisms" section "Criticisms of Ham", so that it is more clear that that space is not for general criticisms of creationism, Young-Earth creationism, or Answers in Genesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
B. I removed this block of text: |
|
|
|
|
|
"The text of Genesis contains apparent contradictions (e.g. and ) and critics claim that a literalist interpretation of the text cannot therefore be possible, as it requires some of the text's assertions to be discarded in favour of other ones. This is sometimes countered by the philosophy that in an inerrant text it must be the interpretations which are wrong, and it is usally possible to find interpretations which resolve the contradictions. In particular, ] has addressed this issue , but skeptics generally view such explanations as post-hoc rationalization." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Critics of Ham also express concern that the Book of Genesis can be used to promote a 'pro-family' agenda. Genesis firstly contains the story of Cain who killed his own brother Abel in a fit of envy. In the story of the Ark, Noah fails to plead for the lives of any of his relatives and family members when told by God of the flood that is to envelop the earth. This is in marked contrast to Abraham who asks God to reconsider the punishment against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah should ten good men be found. One of Noah's sons then discovers his father naked while drunk and calls for assistance from his brothers to bring some dignity to the old man, for this he is cursed by Noah. Later on we find Abraham taking a concubine in Hagar when his own wife cannot have children. When Sarah does conceive, Abraham sends Hagar and his young son Ismael into the desert and almost certain death (had God not saved them). In the story of Joseph, Dinah is raped but her father Jacob shows almost no concern. There are many more instances in Genesis that suggest the promotion of traditions against modern day 'family values'." |
|
|
|
|
|
for the following reasons: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Block A discusses Genesis contradictions and issues of biblical inerrancy, but does not even mention Ham. This would be better on the Answers in Genesis page or on the articles about Genesis or Biblical Inerrancy. It is my understanding that other users agree that this section does not fit with a biographical article, hence, why I'm proceeding with the removal. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Block B mentions Ham only in passing -- "critics of Ham also express concern" while focusing on stories in Genesis. Not only would this be more approriate on another page, but it also cites no external references that contain this critique. This text would be better on the Answers in Genesis page, for example, ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
C. There were some duplicate statements made in the text on Ham's writings that were both out-of-place and already listed in the Criticisms section (for example, "None of Ham's scientific analyses have been accepted into mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and they lie completely outside of mainstream science", in the Writings section, was removed because "Ham's stance on scientific matters have not been subjected to peer-reviewed analysis in mainstream scientific journals" is the opening sentence in the Criticisms section. |
|
|
|
|
|
There might be a tendency to post criticisms of Young-Earth creationism, biblical inerrancy, or Answers in Genesis on this page when they should be focused on the aforementioned pages. As a biographical page, criticisms should focus on statements specifically made by Ham (including citations), actions undertaken by Ham, etc., rather than focusing on criticisms of more "widespread" beliefs Ken Ham holds ("widespread" in the sense that he is not the sole person holding those beliefs, and that those beliefs, therefore, have a separate page listing allegations about their own merits). |
|
|
|
|
|
This edit was in good faith -- please revert/revise if I've acted too rashly. ] 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the very detailed reasoning. As someone who disagrees with Ham on most things (I guess), I support your argument that this is not the place to hash out 1001 creationist/evolution arguments. ] 20:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==President of USA AIG?== |
|
|
Is Ken Ham the President of just the USA AIG. I know he is its founder but if he is not incharge of the Australia AIG and British AIG then who is? ] 01:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hmm ... says "President of Answers in Genesis-US" and "Joint CEO, Answers in Genesis International"; I edited the page to reflect both those titles. ] 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NPOV== |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the part where it is stated that Mr. Ham's arguments are hotly debated in the skeptic community is not only inaccurate, but a flatout lie. His arguments are the standard young earth creationist arguments (be they more carefully stated than the arguments by fellow YEC Kent Hovind) and do NOT form a hot topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly it seems to me that the addition of the word atheist (nearly as a form of slander) is of very limited value and gives the entire criticism section an inflammatory and slanted feel. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I agree about the 'atheist' bit. The fact that the current version has John Stear's atheism mentioned twice in the one sentence indicates that the anonymous editor is not exactly neutral on the topic. I forsee an editwar in getting it brought to any sort of better style though. ] 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Humanism== |
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence is baffling: "Ham believes that evolutionary theory has contributed to the rise of humanism, racism, eugenics, euthanasia, pornography, homosexuality, family breakup, abortion, and more". |
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with humanism? Was it supposed to be the bad "secular humanism"? Or was it to say "evolution sparks good and bad things"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, that is right. Creationists, along with most conservative Christians see relative morality (in particular humanist style morality) as dangerous. They hold that only absolute, Christian morality has any place, and should be above all human or relative concerns. |
|
|
] 13:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Radio Program == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just added the section about Ken Ham's daily radio broadcast. This is my first wiki contribution and I am open to criticisms of how I could have done this better. |
|
|
] 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing the "Cash Cow" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an encyclopedia entry not a blog for personal views. Encyclopedia entries don't make judgments on the appropriateness of someone's salary or discourage it's readers from making donations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Beside the blatant POV pushing, this section is poorly sourced. The NPTimes is a survey of 209 non-profits who voluntarily responded to the survey. CharityNavigator has a study from 4,000 charities that are required to make their financial information publicly available. If you look at CharityNavigator's , you will see that Ken Ham's pay falls right in line with the averages compared to other charities with similar revenue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the salaries that were posted for other staff members are not sourced. Even if they can be sourced, there is nothing extraordinary about what they are being paid. |
|
|
:See talk at AiG. Thanks for the charitynavigator link, which supports this criticism. ] 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agreed. I'm trying to salvage the information and remove the POV, since the information has been posted again. ] 21:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::After working with it for a bit, I don't think there's any relevant & salvagable NPOV info -- see comments on ]. I'm removing the section from this page as well. ] 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
Could we add an updated picture? The current one is over a decade old now, it could still be included but maybe a new one for the main picture? The current one is also just overall bad quality, looks really washed out Detectev (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. I have boldly added that Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist to the article, and perpetuates pseudoscientific claims of a young Earth model through his organizations and books. As someone who has read his books and been to the Creation Museum, I felt it was reasonable to attribute this statement to Ham when he denies the age of the Earth and universe and then attempts to serve “evidence” in support of these claims that no scientist agrees upon. Chrisallen87 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe the section on his beliefs should be solely about what he believes. I think that there should also be another section called “criticism” where we can put what modern scientists think Cannolorosa (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.