Talk:Ken Ham

---

Blather

It seems that certain people are hell-bent on censoring any kind of comment on these talk pages.

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?

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!

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.

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. -- Salsa Shark 09:04 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Talk Pages 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. -- Tarquin 09:12 Mar 27, 2003 (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I originally made a comment about someone else's comment.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that I should sod off because my comment is not realated to the page about Ken Ham then perhaps the same people who originally made comments which were directed at me should also sod off because they are the conceited ones.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 Intelligent Design 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 Young Earth Creationism). But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. --Fastfission 00:27, 6 Jul 2004 (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. :-|

Unrelated sections

Removed 'see also' as it pertains to Answers in Genesis, not Ken Ham agapetos_angel 09:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Ditto for the 'creation museum' section; it was already present (and better written) on the AiG article, the more appropriate place agapetos_angel 01:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Contradictions in the Bible

In response to the recent edits on contradictions in the Bible.

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.

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.

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.

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 Christianjb 15:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Right you are, CJB. AiG has links to alleged contradictions Bible ‘contradictions’ and ‘errors’: What Biblical errors do skeptics claim to have found? How can these claims be answered? The issue is covered on biblical inerrancy.58.162.252.67 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, Answering a List of Biblical Contradictions is, what, exactly?58.162.252.67 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 [1] 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.58.162.252.67 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.Christianjb 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a biography page should not be filled with debate about issues covered elsewhere.58.162.252.67 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 Wikipedia 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)? Christianjb 04:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, most of your information is (or should be) already available on the Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and other more appropriate pages. Let's just link there. Christianjb 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. [2] and [3]) 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, Answers in Genesis has addressed this issue [4], 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, Answers_in_Genesis#Criticism.

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. AnDrew McKenzie 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. Christianjb 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? Falphin 01:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... [5] says "President of Answers in Genesis-US" and "Joint CEO, Answers in Genesis International"; I edited the page to reflect both those titles. AnDrew McKenzie 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.

--Jerom 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. Ashmoo 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is typical of the double standards of anti-Christians. They dismiss AiG's arguments, even those that appeal purely to scientific data, on the grounds that AiG is evangelical Christian. But they also claim that the rabid atheism of Stear and Dawkins has nothing to do with their anticreationist and pro-evolution arguments. 220.245.180.134 05:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that he's an evangelical Christian is an explanation for his arguments, not the reason of dismissal. Secondly, being able to accept scientific theories is far different than appealing to a book you believe is in every convenient sense the Word of God. Oh, and please don't assume that frowning upon sites like AiG is at all being anti-Christian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.176.213 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 December 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. Pal sch 13:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, we could be as darn civil as we possibly can and that's still how you liberal evolutionists are going to interepret it. If you would just open your eyes, you would see that relative morality is dangerous. How? Oh, the list goes on and on, but crime is at the top. When people start thinking to themselves "there isn't a God, and I'm not accountable to Him, so I can do what I like!" then they start doing whatever they like, which includes robbing banks and killing people. And as for the "Christians hold that only absolute, Christian morality has any place", well, have you looked at evolutionists' philosophy? "We only allow people who are civil and tolerant of everyone else's ideas and views, yet we can be as darn intolerant as we want." don't deny it, it's the truth! Evolutionists demand that Christians tolerate their views, yet they simply can't stand a Christian perspective. Scorpionman 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should end now. This type of discussion has no place on a wikipedia talk page. Regards, Ashmoo 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that before I made my comment? Is it because you can't take Creation, either? Scorpionman 15:28, 14 February 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. Dennis Fuller 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, but my podcast feed is called "Around the World with AiG's Ken Ham". Is this just a diffent title/another name, or are there two? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Askbros (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 January 2007 (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 CEO compensation study, 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. 58.162.255.242 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. Drew 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 Talk:Answers in Genesis#Removing the "Cash Cow" section. I'm removing the section from this page as well. Drew 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As explained in AiG talk, please do not vandalize the articles. 58.162.255.242 00:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken Ham is joint CEO of AiG

See this webpage. DennisF 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall on my sword about this. I'm sure that this is outdated information but I'm having trouble locating the source that I saw announcing the recent change. agapetos_angel 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ext. link: current news / biography

I've added Their Own Version of a Big Bang - Los Angeles Times directly under the ext. links heading as it's pretty neutral and didn't fit any of the subheadings. ...dave souza, talk 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Writings

To do list: MoS the 'Writings' section to 'Bibliography' (with ISBN) and 'External links'. agapetos_angel 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some of what Ham teaches to children (from the LA Times article) in the Teachings category. I was not logged in when I did it. Oops. Mr Christopher 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ham teaching children distrust

The recent edit in the section criticizing Ham for teaching children to distrust evolutionists needs to be reworked. I think it is a valid criticism but needs to be written correctly. As it stands, this section is a violation of No Original Research. As editors, we should not be gathering information to criticize Ham and make an analysis that reflects our POV, we should find other reliable sources that make the charge and report their analysis. DennisF 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike the fact that this article makes it sound like Ken Ham is the only one who teaches children to mistrust evolution. It's not scientific, and there are others who think the same as he does! Scorpionman 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made quotes Ham so the evidence that he has children choose between God or science is obvious. Have you read his web site or his literature? And quoting him and what he teaches is not criticizing. You might try studying the guy this is not the first time he has made statements like that. And the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes evolution as the best explanation for biology.

Sure there are other like Ham who reject scientific answers there are also people who believe the world is flat or that magnets can cure cancer. That does not make either notion true. The fact remains the bible is not a science book, dinosaurs predated mankind, and the world's age is measured in billions of years and not thousands. Pointing out Ham feels differently is not criticizing him nor does it reflect a POV, the evidence supports it.

If you have evidence that Ham teaches children legitimate scientific principles or that he encourages children to trust the scientific method then bring that evidence to this article. Mr Christopher 15:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He teaches trust in God and distrust in scientists. I'm sure he'd say so himself (he does in the LA Times article), and there's nothing POV in mentioning it. Bcasterline 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, what if we put some stuff in like "Like other young earth creationists, Ham distrusts the scientific method and therefore believes in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genisis. In some of his speeches he encourages children to share his distrust for science and science teachers" and then quote him? Would that seem more accurate? Mr Christopher 15:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure he distrusts the scientific method. He distrusts scientists and science -- but he uses the scientific method (by, for example, emphasizing anomalies such as fossilized hats) to try to push creationism. That's bascially what AiG (and the ID movement) is all about: countering scientific theory with observed phenomena explained supernaturally. It's pseudoscience, but the methodology is guised as science. In other words, I think he would say the problem is the people controlling science, not scientific methodology itself. Bcasterline 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the statement "quoting him and what he teaches is not criticizing" because the entire section appears under the criticism section. To present facts as a criticism without linking it to a reliable source is a violation of no original research policy. I have read and reread the LA Times article. I don't see any criticisms made there of Ham teaching distrust. The charge that Ham teaches children to distrust science and their science teachers is simply not true. I have no problem with the article explaining what Ham teaches but I do have a problem with the commentary that is not linked to a reliable source. DennisF 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ham, as quoted in the LA Times: "So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?" In other words: trust God, and not scientists. That's definitely something he teaches. But I agree that this was misplaced because it's not a "criticism". I've gone ahead a moved it to the Beliefs section, where I think it belongs. Bcasterline 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ham was asking the children who they can "always trust". This is not the same as teaching distrust. I am going to edit the article to correctly reflect this distinction. Whether or not this LA Times quote deserves as much attention as it is being given I will leave up to the other editors. DennisF 19:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not emotionally attached to anything I have written, so if it can be improved feel free to work with it. I hear some of your disagreement(s) with some of my comments and I have some ideas on how to rework some of it but I am short on time right now so if you have some ideas on improving it, by all means hop in there. I think what Ham teaches and who he teaches it to is very relevant yet I recognize I might not be articulating that very well. And from what his literature and published quotes of him suggest he is above all promoting the bible as the final authority on all matters, and in this case science. That is neither good nor bad, it is simply relevant I think. Mr Christopher 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Ham teaches the Bible is the final authority that is more trustworthy than the knowledge of any man. This is not the same as saying he tells children to distrust their teachers. DennisF 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's a distinction, it's a fine one. He scoffs at scientists and says to challenge every mention of evolution or the Big Bang (from teachers, textbooks, and museums) because such theories are the roots of (virtually) all evil. He says to trust what is written in the Bible instead, but he doesn't leave it merely at that: he's trying to garner hostility for scientists and their discoveries. That's teaching distrust. Bcasterline 22:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not teaching children to distrust science. He's teaching children to distrust evolution, and evolution and science are two different things. I know that you think evolution is science, but it is unobservable and is therefore unscientific. Science is everything that can be observed about the natural world, and the rest is up to belief. Some beliefs have more evidence supporting them than others, but if they are unobservable they are beliefs. Ham is teaching children to trust science, but to distrust evolution. So you're right, Bcasterline, he is teaching distrust, but not of science. Scorpionman 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is still fine. Teaching distrust of the basis of science (everything from geology, to evolution, to the Big Bang) is teaching distrust of science. Evolution, by the way, is absolutely scientific: and the theory of evolution (natural selection) is definitely empirical. (Note, however, that science is no longer based exclusively on empiricism.) In any case, we all seem fairly satisfied with the wording of the article as is, so this is a debate for talk.origins. bcasterline^talk 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ham is a Young Earth Creationist. As such he disputes mainstream theories not only of biological evolution, but the study of genetics, cosmology, geology, archaeology and much of physics. Being a YEC he has a problem with virtually every area of mainstream science. --Davril2020 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, but mainstream science isn't actual science. It's what a good majority of the "scientific" community percieves as science. Anyway, let's not turn this into a debate on the theory of evolution; and I'm already aware that evolution exists inside individual species (i.e., a grapefruit being different from the pummello, its parent). The article's fine. Scorpionman 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mainstream science is actually science. It's science whose validity is so well-demonstrated that it fits all the known facts and no longer carries any significant measure of academic scientific debate. Evolution is a factual process and the theories which explain its mechanisms are as well-established and agreed-upon as atomic theory and Einstein's relativity. There is no mainstream scientific debate whatosever - creationism is only fairly described as a fringe religious belief amongst American evangelicals which has not gained more than a foothold in other parts of the world (Australia being probably the only highly debatable exception). Less than 0.15% of American scientists working in relavant fields believe in creation science, and that number is less than 0.1% in all other countries (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html). And you can repeat until you're blue in the face that we haven't observed speciation (the emergence of new species) and only evolution 'within species,' but it's simply untrue. It wont become any truer the more you repeat it, it will simply become even more annoying and retarded than it already is. I suggest you read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html for a list of examples of speciation, or alternatively go to Google Scholar and type 'speciation.' In a more general sense, I'd advise you drop this creationism nonsense and start viewing evolution as it is - as well-established and uncontroversial as the existence of gravity or genetics. JF Mephisto 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may, I propose to simply change the word "science" in the disputed sentence to "scientist." This is Ham's own word, as used in the quote. I think that this would serve as an adequate compromise. It still alludes to the evolutionist criticism of trusting the Bible as an ultimate standard, but the way it's worded allows the reader to look at the quote and determine the meaning for themselves. I would respond to the opinion expressed here by saying Ham does not speak against science, only the men interpreting it. Even if science is infalliable, the men who understand it aren't. I won't change it yet, but if no one brings forward any objections I'll make the change soon.

Note that "what is recorded in the Bible", is POV, though presumably Ham's POV, and would be more neutral as "what is described in the Bible" ...dave souza, talk 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the Bible is recorded. It's not merely "describing". See my comment below entitled "controversy". Ratso 14:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Education

Are honorary degrees considered education? Is there a reference to a standard within Wikipedia? Ted 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a soure in MoS, but I've looked around at other entries. From the entries I have located that listed honorary degrees, they have been in a section on Honors. I'll do the same here.Ted 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I question if Ham was ever a faculty member at Liberty. Are there any sources for this? DennisF 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Honorary degrees should not be included under "Education." They are not education in any real sense of the word. I have put them back in "Honors." I wouldn't feel bad about deleting them entirely, since most of the entries of people I have looked at who I know have honorary degrees don't have them listed. Ted 05:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to have separate sections for two lines. Hence it has been renamed "education, awards, and honors." The honorary degrees have been added because some creationists tend to call themselves "Dr" when they simply have an honorary degree. By showing the distinction between earned and honorary degrees, the reader can judge for themselves the virtue of the person's education. Arbusto 08:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ham (and other creationists) believe...". We should not write this unless all other creationists also believe this, which I hope it is obvious that they do not. Can I remove it? DJ Clayworth 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I really don't think that the criticisms of Ken Ham are valid. His question "were you there?" is quite literate. We can see changes in the fossil record, but we can't witness them happening now. And that wouldn't debunk creationism, because, in Ken Ham's own words, "I know someone who was there." Do evolutionists know anyone who "was there"? Ratso 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First, this page is for discssion of the article and how to improve it, so this is slightly off topic. Second, if we followed that logic, would you be willing to convict for murder someone who denied commiting the murder but had a large amount of evidence against the person? By Ham's logic, the answer would be no. Third, his comment is highly non-literate, since a literate individual would know that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. Fourth, Ham implicitly assumes that he 1) definitely knows someone who was there and 2) that he has interpreted the relevant statements correctly; neither assumption is at all justified. JoshuaZ 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the policy on criticism sections is, but all of those criticisms are answered on the Answers website--wouldn't NPOV be better served by making that clear? Also, each of your statements here ignores a vital part of creationist (young earth) belief that removes any problem, except, of course, the basic idea that creationists do start with assumptions, just as evolutionists do. Ham and other staff on the website are the first people who will make this clear, such as in this quote: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation, while evolutionists must create a story to explain origins without the supernatural." That is from here, just as one example. Possibly this information should be included in the article.

Your second point is irrelevant since creationists believe the evidence better fits their theory. The third point ignores that the Bible claims that God cannot lie, and does not, and knows everything so therefore cannot be wrong--that point applies to humans, but God is not claimed to be a mere human. Using observations about humans as a rule to apply to all living beings including one that is outside of time is highly illogical. Again, it boils down to whether the Bible is accepted as true or not. On the fourth point--1) You are absolutely correct! Ham and others from Answers make this clear themselves, 2) of course he believes that he has interpreted them correctly--many articles on the website show the reasoning behind it. And 3) to your last phrase, in order to back up that bold claim, you would have to present an argument that invalidated the reasoning actually presented for the two assumptions, which you have not done. However, as you said, this page is meant to discuss updates to the article, which you were not there doing--therefore you would also have to source the arguments, and find a reliable source who was able to provide them.

Anyways, the main issue to me is--wikipedia does have an NPOV policy, which says that both sides need to be presented evenly, as I understand it. Therefore any rebuttal to criticism should be included--as should rebuttals to the rebuttals if they exist (I have never found any, myself). --Bonesiii 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've added a tentative countercriticism paragraph. Please note, since I do agree with Ham/AIG on those issues, it's possible I haven't worded it neutrally enough; please check that, anyone, though I tried to fit NPOV as best I could. Also, anyone have a citation for the Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham public debate? The only Ross debate with actual AIG staff I'm aware of was with Dr. Lisle, not Ham, at least as far as I can find. It's possible whoever wrote that was confusing Lisle for Ham. Also, if there are any countercriticisms to the countercriticisms, those should be included, as I understand it, so general callout if anyone knows of any (as said above, I've never found any myself). --Bonesiii 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a debate between Ken Ham and Jason Lisle on one side and Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser on the other side. See here. Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Adding citation... --Bonesiii 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is No Answers in Genesis listed here? They are far less respected the AiG. I tried to remove it, but someone reverted the change.--Djdpmd 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

Hey! Ken ham goes to my church! PopiethePopester 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC) PopiethePopester

Ham's Wife

What does the quote "very, very submissive, supportive wife" add to this article? The article is not about Ham's wife, nor about his opinions of family life. It is about Ham, and his role as an advocate of Creationism. I have not seen anything like this on other biographical articles, and there are dozens of equally (ir)relevant quotes you could add to the article - such as the one I added. I see the selctions of this particular snippet for inclusion, and the exclsuion of other quotes about his wife from the same source, as a subtle attempt to poison the well. WaysAndMeans 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Ham, so his opinions of family life belong. The quote isn't an essential part of his biography; but it does say something about him, and it's sourced, so I don't think it's irrelevant either. Since it's presented without judgement, the reader is free to be impressed or disgusted with Ham's family values depending on the reader's own values. It seems fine to me. -- bcasterline • talk 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This quote has been there for a very long time and whilst this doesn't mean it is necessarily appropriate, you seem to be the only one concerned about it. It provides an insight into Ham. If the source is accurate than let it stay. Maybe if you think it poison's the well, then add a further quote which you think provides balance, rather than taking out this quote which you don't like. Maustrauser 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

well, that's not exactly true, and you should know. At least one other editor removed this quote back in Jan 31, and you reinserted it, with somewhat of a smart-aleck edit summary. so it appears it's not just me. The quote has also not been there that long, in relative terms. The article was created back in March 2003, and the quote was inserted last November. But to the point: the length of time a quote has been in the article says absolutely nothing about its appropriateness, as you seem to agree above. We are left with the argument that since this is an article about Ham, any quote by him gives an insight into him - and is thus relevant. I've already addressed this argument: there are dozens of such quotes by him, all of which provide similar insights into him, from that source alone. If we look at other sources, we'll have thousands such quotes. will we add quotes that show his opinion about broccoli? about global warming? where will it end? For starters, I will follow your suggestion and add a few quotes from that same source which are just as relvant, and we'll see where this trend takes us.WaysAndMeans 02:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, WaysAndMeans, your comments suggest that you are planning on editing wikipedia to make a point. Please don't do that. If you weren't, happily ignore this comment. Regards, Ashmoo 02:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make a point, but adding balancing quotes was suggested by those who belive the existing quote should stay. Since you seemto agree with me - how do you suggest we address this issue? WaysAndMeans 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If Ham talks about his private life in public then that's fair game for Wikipedia to discuss it. — Dunc|☺ 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be, but that is not responsive to the question I asked. WaysAndMeans 19:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the simplest answer might be to include the sentence Ham said after the 'very, very submissive' one.(it's in the linked cite) It puts the term 'submissive' into context as being about supportiveness. Ashmoo 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. WaysAndMeans 04:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What does the quote "very, very submissive, supportive wife" add to this article? Good question. Including this quotation gives the reader a bit of insight into Ken Ham's worldview. The reader can then make her own inferences regarding what kind of person Ken Ham is. The reader can then decide whether or not the man — or his ideas — are worthy of respect or admiration. This is one of the primary functions of any biography.

If this was some sort of miss quote, slip of the tongue or a comment made during some sort of journalistic windup during an interview then I would agree that it should go. But it wasn't, I bet if you were to ask him in a very relaxed setting whether his wife was 'very, very submissive' and whether this was something virtuous then he would say yes. He would be quite proud of this comment and the context that it was used. I think that's a valuable incite into his family life and his views on women. I suspect if this quote was in reference to Joseph Smith or even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran) you wouldn't mind. Smooshable2 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let Us Be Civil

Way too many people are angrily berating Christians and Creationists because they disagree. Please, everyone be civil. If you can't handle an opposing argument, start your own blog and blast creationists all day. Keep it to the facts here, not heresay.

• I suspect that biologists, scientists and other interested parties react angrily to Ham and his organization because they believe that both are slandering, demeaning and deliberately misinterpreting the work, honesty and intellectual capacity of university-trained biologists who, as a general rule, earn far less than the (honorary) Dr Ham. How many times do you think that a professional biologist can listen to a religious preacher claim that the biologist's work, for example on the evolution of Drosophila melanogaster leads directly to the Jewish Holocaust, before the biologist gets upset? That's pretty much the core of what Ham is saying and I don't really blame people who've had to work for their qualifications, or who've made the effort to understand the topic, for getting pissed off at people who haven't done either. The requirement for honesty and civility extends also to those who make a lot of money by claiming they sit upon the high moral ground. Robindch 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? We need to focus on Wikipedia's policies, especially the NPOV one, here, not debate each other endlessly. For the record, your comment doesn't make much sense to me--it's a historical fact that evolution was used to justify Nazi policies. Christianity was also used. And these perspectives are made clear on the AIG website so they can be sourced; that it isn't as if evolution causes evil, but that it can provide a justification for it (just like twisted religion can). But regardless, that criticism would need sourcing to go into the article. And it has nothing to do with the real issue; of creation vs. evolution as scientific theories and worldviews, so at best it's an Ad Hominem arguement anyways. Criticism needs to have sourcing. --Bonesiii 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• My edit to this talk page is in response to the anon edit which implied that there is some form of intellectual or philosophical equivalence between evolution and creationism, where each side being equally honest in its presentation of the arguments. This is certainly not the case and it does not constitute an Ad Hominem attack to point out that this is so. FYI, this page (one of many similar) states that eugenics has been rebranded as 'human genetics' -- an egregious lie which grossly offends my relatives who work in human genetics, specifically on gene therapies for people with life-threatening diseases. Ham and his website ought to be ashamed of themselves for slandering the work of people who contribute to society. Robindch 11:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As well as being civil, let's also be careful with criticism, to make sure it's accurate.

FYI, this page (one of many similar) states that eugenics has been rebranded as 'human genetics' -- an egregious lie which grossly offends my relatives who work in human genetics...

Contrary to your assertion, a search of the AiG site shows about 13 references to "human genetics", and this appears to be the only one that equates it with eugenics, and it is actually quoting journalist Edwin Black as making that connection.

Philip J. Rayment 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, to this: "[saying that] eugenics has been rebranded as 'human genetics' [...] grossly offends my relatives who work in human genetics [...]", you're making a logical mistake in confusing a category header with everything in that category. The journalist was stating that eugenists, not AIG or the journalist himself, had carried out eugenics in the name of genetic research. I have no idea if Black's statements are accurate or not, but if they are, that has nothing to do with insulting all genetic research. Instead, it is trying to justify eugenics by listing it as one item under the category "human genetics", as a euphemism. If you find that offensive, then shouldn't you be offended at those guilty of eugenics who labeled it that way? Not at the people who are pointing out the attempted euphemism and who are similarly offended by it? I've no idea what the anon editer may have intended to "imply", but all it states is that we should not flame each other and should focus on the facts--in terms of Wikipedia policy, we would need sourcing for any criticism, again. As far as your post not being Ad Hominem, you did not attempt to argue against the logic of any AIG position, but simply overall accused them of being slanderous, etc. That is Ad Hominem. For it not to be, you would need to provide sourced logical criticisms that attack the AIG argument. Not their personal character. Such criticism can then go in the article, and then we will have actually accomplished something here... --Bonesiii 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• PJR - The phrase 'one of many similar' refers to that page being one of many which are similarly dishonest, not to pages which duplicate each others' content. Here's another page of lies to add to the previous one -- evolution caused the Columbine massacre (see the fourth para). Robindch 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• bonseiii - Read the last paragraph again of the Sarfati article again and see if you can spot the bit where he says that modern biology and Nazism are unrelated. Robindch 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• With this, I rest my case concerning Ham's dishonesty -- I've more enjoyable things to fritter my time away with on a Friday evening. Take it easy folks :) Robindch 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PJR - The phrase 'one of many similar' refers to that page being one of many which are similarly dishonest,...

That may be what was in your mind, but that's not what you wrote.

Here's another page of lies to add to the previous one...

Except that both I and Bonesiii have pointed out that the first one did not contain a lie. And I fail to see how the article not containing something answers that.

...-- evolution caused the Columbine massacre (see the fourth para)

Neither the article nor the fourth paragraph say that. David Catchpoole is making a case that some particular evolutionary teaching is a factor in the Columbine massacre. Now you may not agree with him on that, but to simply dismiss it as a lie without providing a counter argument is misleading at the best and is perhaps dishonest.

Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to all parties, this talk page is not for arguing about Ham or AIG. It is about discussing ways to improve the article. Also note that Ham is still alive, so WP:BLP applies to this talk page. JoshuaZ 06:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs and 'kind'

I have an issue with the sentence in the Beliefs' section: Ham does accept that natural selection can give rise to a number of species from an original population, provided that all of these species are of the same kind (a term borrowed from Genesis 1:11 and elsewhere). '...A term borrowed from Genesis...' needs to mention a translation, as obviously, not all translations use the word 'kind'. And what does 'elsewhere' mean? Ashmoo 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding his beliefs, Ham has told audiences, "If you disagree with what I'm going to say, please do not give me your opinion, because I'm not interested."[21]"

This is incredibly misleading. I'm no fan of the guy, but I checked out the link assigned to footnote 21, and he's speaking specifically to people who want to justify racism on the grounds that black and white people are a different race. It was to those people that he said don't tell me your views, I'm not interested. It's not true that he said here that he was uninterested in diverse beliefs in general, as this passage tries to imply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurkeDevlin (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hat?

Wasn't it a picture of a ham instead of a hat? I don't think a hat can be a fossil since it is nonliving. If I'm wrong please correct me.

'Twas a hat. "Ham" is his last name, not a fossil. Memory is faulty on this part, but I believe it was a cloth hat, and cloth is often made from organic material. --Bonesiii 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn that it was a ham. It's been over a year since I've seen the videos though. Maybe I'm just getting old.--Jim Shorts 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Jim Shorts

I don't know which video you are referring to, but there are two fossil hats I know of that he could be referring to. See pictures here and here. You were possibly also confusing the fossil hat with petrified flour, which bears a passing resemblance to a ham I guess. Philip J. Rayment 13:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm not sure why AiG's cricitism of Kent Hovind is present under the "criticism section," given that Hovind himself did not criticise Ken Ham or AiG. Find a secondary source which states that "certain critics do not endorse AiG's criticism of other YEC orgs" or something if you want it to be in the article.

Yoda921 05:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

It should be noted which ones that critique and why. That is, what sets it apart. Arbustoo 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the section on Talk.Origins. This is a biography on Ham, not what others think about him.--Djdpmd 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on there--criticism of a particular person does belong in that person's page. I don't see a reason to remove that; perhaps turn it into a link, but what reasons are there for removing it? The one reason you gave does not seem to me to apply; where else would criticism of Ham go? --Bonesiii 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am manually undoing the edits by Abiller68 regarding the AIG-CMI dispute. They are uncited, inaccurate and POV. The CMI lawsuit was filed on 31 May 07 (according to the copy of the actual claim filed), and the Creation Museum ribbon cutting ceremony was on 26 May 07 (according to AIG and Wikipedia’s own article on the Creation Museum). Something that occurred AFTER an event cannot possibly have occurred on the eve of that event. The addition of the “on the eve…” comment is almost a direct quote from AIG and is highly emotive, which makes me wonder just who Abiller68 actually is. There has been no documentation provided or referenced to indicate that AIG initiated binding arbitration of any kind at any time, or that CMI refused such. There is documentation available (already referenced in the article) which indicates that the opposite is true (i.e. the actual roles are reversed), although this documentation is provided by CMI themselves. Ultimately, we now have a situation where both parties have claimed that the other party has refused arbitration. Until something is published that firmly establishes one party’s refusal to enter binding arbitration, reporting this whichever way around amounts to POV. As a Christian and Young Earth Creationist I find this whole dispute tragic and frankly nauseating. However, since it is going to be included in Wikipedia articles it should be dealt with in the proper NPOV manner. I do notice that Abiller68’s only contributions were this same edit in the AIG and Ken Ham articles, and there is no user page. Again, I wonder who Abiller68 actually is. LowKey (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undone a couple of edits at the beginning of the criticism section. The edits inserted POV by asserting that creationism (and/or ID) is not accepted by "any" or "any major" scientific organisations. This gets into the problems of defining scientific. Many anti-creationists assert that any individual or group cannot by definition be both scientific and creationist. Then there will be the edit wars about creationists not being scientists because they do not publish in peer reviewed journals, as long as we disqualify any journal that publishes creationist research on the grounds that it if it does, then it is not scientific. The discussions (and indeed the individual arguments) become circular. Also, define major – if you dare, more edit war fodder. The entry was fine as it was. It made the point that creationism is scientifically unpopular. It allows readers to insert their own assumptions AFTER the text (which is where they should be).LowKey (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

LowKey: read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity" & WP:UNDUE. Your position is completely untenable. To pretend that only "most" scientific organisations reject his views is to give his totally discredit viewpoint undue weight. Oh and "major" means that, while we cannot be sure that the Junior Science Club of Outer Mongolia (or an organisation of similar prominence) doesn't support him, no scientific organisation of any notability does (believe me, we would have heard if it had). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. "no scientific organisation of any notability" ICR?, CMI? both notable enough. 'totally discredit' [sic] - your POV. You invoke undue weight. Acknowledging that a viewpoint exists in the scientific community (especially in the passive double negative sense of the entry - i.e. not saying it doesn't exist) hardly gives it undue weight. What are you afraid of? You invoke fringe theories. Maybe the article should simply state that KH’s belief is a fringe theory. You invoke pseudoscience, but did you actually read the definition, and leave your assumptions at the door? This is where it gets to the circular arguments that I anticipated. What is the statement even doing in a criticism section? Since when does lack of support equal criticism? Why don’t you just say “nobody much likes him, because he has cooties” and be done with it? Well that about does it for me. I thought WP was intended to be an encyclopedia, but the editing habits of many leave it with about as much credibility as a tabloid magazine. I had high hopes, but I have come to consider WP a failed project. See you round. Somebody give me a nudge if WP finds its way again.LowKey (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief indeed! Legitimate scientific organisations don't have statements of faith. Both ICR & CMI are overtly religious institutions that conduct little if any legitimate scientific research. Their primary function is Christian apologetics. That creation science is not legitimate science is the opinion of the scientific community and a number of supreme court decisions, so live with it. KH's claims are NOT "a fringe theory" -- they are totally, repeatedly, unequivocally and robustly discredited. Therefore to claim that they merely have a "lack of support" is disingenuous. Given the credibility to date of your opinions, I hope you won't mind if I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys for your opinion of wikipedia in general. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR as one of the oldest and most prominent orgs?

Anyone have a cite for this comment about the ICR? I don't know a lot about creationism, but this article from Contra Mundum at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html just slaps it into a "Other Creationist Groups" heading. Random name 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg

Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added the following fair use rationale to that image:

• Image is a promotional image of the subject, Ken Ham;
• Image is very low quality;
• There are no other images of the subject available for use; and
• It is used in the encyclopedia to identify the subject in his own article and other closely related ones (i.e. Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum

Does that look good? Jacob1207 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is Ham still an Australian citizen? Or has he gained U.S. citizenship during the two decades that he has lived in the states? Or is he just a permanent U.S. resident? Not that it makes much different, but if he has gained American citizenship it'd be worth including in the biographical portion of the article. Does anyone know? Jacob1207 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have done some more research first. A quick search turned up on this Ham quote: "I continue to be an Australian citizen, and I still hold an Australian passport though I am a legal resident of the United States."[6] That's from a March 17, 1999 letter. Worth putting in the article? Jacob1207 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm the article now says he's just annouced he has obtained US citizenship, but I can't find this anywhere. Ref anyone? Random name 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that line, pending a reference to the contrary. ornis 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Creation Museum description

I added a brief description of the Creation Museum, since Ken Ham was prominently featured in virtually all the publicity surrounding its opening, and I linked to the main Creation Museum entry. I tried to be as NPOV as possible, and I would defend my phrasing that an essential feature of the Creation Museum is that it uses the "vocabulary, if not the methodology, of science". Happy to entertain suggestions for improvement, however. Talkingtomypocket 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to interview prank

A link to a prank interview with Ken Ham was recently added to the entry. I am going to remove it, as I believe it has no place in an encyclopedia. Also, it is not "Offical and Pro Ham", the title of the section. Self-congratulatory stunts have plenty of other places to be featured. This is not a blog or a place for links that a particular crowd finds amusing. Talkingtomypocket 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To anon 67.186.72.63

Are there any particular cites you feel are being used which don't actually match up to the areas they're in? The article has certainly gotten cite-heavy, as it seems like every time I visit this page, someone has placed requests for cites on yet another area of the page, often in areas where a cite hardly seems worth the trouble. (The number of children he has seems like an obvious example.) Random name 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Christian ministers

I have removed the Ken Ham article from Category:Christian ministers since the assertion appears unsupported. Per AiG, "Ken Ham is not 'Rev.' Ham. He is not a pastor, does not lead a church, and has never been ordained."[7] That Answers in Genesis identifies itself as an "apologetics ministry" does not make it's head a minister. As the term is used in contemporary Christianity, a food bank would usually be considered a ministry, but the person handing out for food wouldn't therefore be a minister in the sense one usually uses the word. Jacob1207 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In 2006, Ham received $178,991 from AiG

Is this important? It seems to me that it was put in the article to make ken ham seem corrupt. I don't see how his income is really relevant to the article in any other way. --BenSven _Talk 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a secondary source to give this context, this does not appear to be worthy of inclusion (as a bald, orphaned fact). I am removing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As explained on the edit page, I think citing a person's salary really ought to be justified. It is not sufficient to cite a source that confirms the accuracy of the information. The source ought to demonstrate that the information is relevant, and the formerly-cited Charity Navigator source fails to do so. I conducted a cursory scan of dozens of other biographical wikis and I found zero articles that cite a person's salary, aside from Ken Ham's. Considering the controversial character of this article it would be prudent to avoid appearance of bias.

I propose that we follow the typical biography pattern, unless someone cites a reliable source that demonstrates the relevance of this additional information. DummySean (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We should give the salary. There are two reasons why your arguments are wrong: (1) It is not appropriate to expect an independent source that demonstrates that the figure is relevant. The source can be used to justify the figure, but not necessarily its relevance. It is up to the editors of wikipedia to consider its relevance. (2) Unusual, interesting or controversial salaries and earnings are often given in wikipedia. Steve Jobs' salary is $1. Sol Trujillo's salary was $13 million. Members of the Canadian House of Commons received $155,400 in 2008. Interpret those figures how you will. In my opinion, Ken Ham's salary is relevant information to readers---in my view, it is interesting because it is unusually high for someone with a teacher's training; others may find it interesting for different reasons. DJP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

POV

I added a POV tag to the criticism section. I especially have a problem with the statement "His arguments have not gained acceptance with any major scientific organization." Unless a source is provided this statement should be removed. It seems this section has just become an area to talk about how much you don't like Ken Ham. It should be balanced out and reworded to meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The section does have a slant, but maybe we should just go ahead and fix the bump? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So the criticisms segment is unbalanced? Do you mean something other than "only containing criticisms?" Although I'm not a big fan of criticism sections myself, they are by nature anti-subject. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that Ken Ham is not sufficiently high on the scientific radar for there to be far-reaching scientific condemnation of him specifically. However, his arguments lie within the field of creation science, which as a general field has received wide-ranging condemnation including by 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists in an amicus brief in Edwards v. Aguillard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I remove the tag due to lack of discussion. I agree with Aunt Entropy. Paper45tee (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold. Kristamaranatha (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been reverted already. Good luck with that, I made a minor change to that sentence once, based on the wording being too POV, negative and sweeping. The reaction was so amazingly over the top that I just gave it up, and the sentence wound up the way it is now, which is even more POV and sweeping. The problem is that some editors honestly can not see that their POV is a POV. Their assumptions are so basic to their view that think that their view really is neutral. Now I am not specifically saying that about the reverting editor in this instance, but that has generally been my experience on ANY article with the slightest controversy attached. LowKey (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The first statement is POV and shouldn't be included unless you can actually provide a reputable source that supports the claim. You cannot just make a blanket statement "all scientists think this guy's out of it" without a source. Otherwise, thanks for letting me be bold and keeping the rest of my edits. Kristamaranatha (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has cleaned up the statement. It is actually more balanced now than when I first came across it. I still do not like "No Answers in Genesis" being cited (at least by implication) as some sort of scientific organisation or site (the owner is a retired mathematician IIRC), but I would recommend leaving that first statement as Hrafn currently has it, since that user's edits are far less likely to attract aggressive attention than yours or mine. LowKey (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources needs to apply, re: "No Answers in Genesis". Ham has no substantive background in science either (being no more than a high school science teacher), so has no expectation of his rebuttals coming from higher up in the food chain. A more accurate characterisation of NAiG might be in order however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the rewording of the sentence. I think the current version is more accurate and a better reflection of the issue at hand. Point taken about the "food chain" of rebuttals, but I think that because Ham has gained notice and even influence worldwide, his "being no more than a high school science teacher" does not mean that there shouldn't be a higher-up-the-food-chain source here. Kristamaranatha (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the NAiG reference has been moved. Thank you, Hrafn. LowKey (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Literal v Straightforward

I have just reverted an edit attributing to AIG (and by extension Ken Ham) the endorsement of a "literal" belief in God's Word. As Ken Ham, AiG, CMI and other YEC orgs and individuals have stated repeatedly, they subscribe to a "straightforward" or "plain" interpretation, which is very different to "literal". "Straightforward" means that one treats texts according to their literary features. Imagery is treated as imagery, poetry is treated as poetry, and histrocial narrative is treated as historical narrative. This means that there are texts which are to be read literally, and texts which are not. Open a magazine and start reading any random page, and you very quickly determine whether you are reading poetry, fictional narrative, historical narrative etc. You read the page in a straightforward manner but you may or may not read it literally. LowKey (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is called Biblical literalism. Ham may want to distance himself/AiG from that term, but the consensus of the people who study this call it "literal." Your attempt to play semantics fails. We66er (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I am attempting to avoid playing semantics. Defining a belief in plain or straightforward interpretation as "literalism" and THEN using the definition to claim that the interpretation is thus "literal" is playing semantics. I have no knowledge of KH's opinion of the term Biblical literalism. The term was not invoked, addressed or otherwise discussed in the edit that I reverted. The "literal" DESCRIPTION was the issue, as it was imprecise and inaccurate. The problem with the term Biblical literalism is that it is used to encompass a broader range of interpretive practice on the one hand, but to invoke a very narrow and specific range of interpretive practice on the other. A semantic shoe-horn, if you will. If we are going to describe what a person claims or states, we must be precise and unambiguous about it.LowKey (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationists are Biblical literalists. So Ham chooses to say its a "Straightforward" reading, fine. His attempt to redefine his own reading of Genesis will not be painted in a manner different than what the accepted meaning of the word means.

You have not demonstrated a real difference between Biblical literalism and a "Straightforward reading" (note how on has an article and the other doesn't) and you can't because literalism is the common usage of arguing that a deity literally created Adam and Eve. Basically, what I'm saying is your strawman definition of Biblical literalism wasn't convincing nor is it or Ham's claims conform with common understanding of the literal.

Just because Holocaust deniers claim they are Holocaust revisionists doesn't mean we call them revisionists. The use of words is based on common usage. Not because someone, in this case Ham, wants to play games with words. We66er (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are apparently responding to what you think I wrote, instead of what I actually wrote. My revert was NOT repeat NOT (REPEAT NOT!) about the phrase “biblical literalist”. Nor was I defining the term. The word “literal” was used in a way which implied more than it should in the context. It made a statement less clear instead of more clear. That is what I addressed. As you introduced the term “biblical literalism” to the discussion, I will take your word for it if you say it is a straw man. I explicitly stated that, “I have no knowledge of KH's opinion of the term Biblical literalism.” Whether he is a biblical literalist or not is not relevant to the edit (and BTW I never claimed that he wasn’t). Any and all discussion of the term here has only arisen from your insistence on injecting it into the conversation. You have now twice accused me of bad-faith editing, which is unwarranted and uncivil.LowKey (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. By using the abnormal phrasing of creationists you are not making anything more clear. Of course, one reads in context. That's how reading is done and it is assumed unless someone takes something out of context. Let me recap: 1) When you believe in Genesis, God created the world in six 24-hour days that's a literal reading. 2) No one, to my knowledge, other than Ham calls it a "straightforward reading." 3) Using the phrase Ham uses gives WP:UNDUE to his phrasing. 4) He is a creationist that believes in a literal reading. Its very relevant because literal v metaphorical is what theologians debate about. Not straightforward vs unstraightforward, which are terms that do not get used in Literature. We66er (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a debate, find a forum. Otherwise read the actual article and realise that the edit AND my revert had nothing to do with the actual phrases "straightforward" in the article, or "Biblical literalism" for that matter. I did use the terms "straightforwad" and "plain" to explain the revert. I agree with what you said about context, but don't know why you said it. I mentioned context only show that the addition which I reverted was inappropriate in its context - i.e. i tmight have been fine elsewhere in the article. Regardless, in response to your points 1) Absolutely. But you specifically mention Genesis as the text being taken literally, and not the entire text of the bible, which was the point that I was explaining in the very first place and the actual reason for my revert. So thank you for backing me up on that. 2) part 1. Your lack of knowledge does not undo a fact. A straighforward or plain reading of Scripture is the official explicit policy of a number of YEC organisations and many local churches. part 2. I called it that and you know that I called it that and I am not KH. 3) As the statement in the article was ABOUT what KH actually says, it is absurd to suggest that including what KH says in the statement gives undue weight to his phrasing. If it is his claim that is being reported, then to knowingly use other than his phrasing in reporting it is intentionally misleading (i.e. lying). In my explanation of my revert, I used both the terms "straightforward" and "plain", but you have ignored the second term. It is specifically mentioned in the Biblical literalism article that you referenced, so you should have no problem with it. The two terms are essentially interchangeable. 4) He IS a creationist and he SAYS that he believes in a plain or straightforward reading of the Bible. This does include a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis, but also treats the poetry as poetry and metaphor as metaphor - and that was my whole point in the first place (see point 1). The edit that I reverted implied (but for the record did not state) that KH endorses a literal reading of the whole Bible. I reverted ONE SINGLE WORD to remove the implication without substantially weakening the statement. I could have added modifiers or elaborate with additional sentences but I prefer to be straightforward and went with the single word removal instead. The idea was avoid a whole lot of unnecessary addition. I gave a reasonably detailed explanation here in the talk page so that others could see my reasoning. I don't much mind if you disagree with my reasoning, but I was not inviting debate about the terms that I used in my explanation. I was after all merely explaining my reasons. I'm done. You may have the last word if you wish. No further discussion from me on this - a single word edit is just not worth this much work. LowKey (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, you seem not to have read your own position on this talk, which I responded to. Above YOU wrote: "they subscribe to a 'straightforward' or 'plain' interpretation, which is very different to 'literal'." I replied that this is mere semantics that should not be in the article.

My comments referred to your claims, NOT your edit. So your misguided and ill-informed attack doesn't fit here.

• 2) Those are fringe semantics that no academic would use. Thus, again back to my original point: WP:UNDUE. Just because YEC are uneducated doesn't mean we make the article that way. Above I wrote: "Just because Holocaust deniers claim they are Holocaust revisionists doesn't mean we call them revisionists." You seem to have not read that or failed to understand that.
• 3) You wrote: "As the statement in the article was ABOUT what KH actually says..." Not true. The article and your revert referred to "AiG believes...", which could be attributed to more mainstream sources (see: WP:RS) that describe the group. But again, this is not the point. My original comment was on your claim not your revert.
• 4) Again, my original comments were on Ham's silly semantics, which he contradicts in other essays (see below).
• 5) Lastly does Ham claim he takes Genesis 1 literally? Yes, he does. In fact, in his essay "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?":

Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.Ken Ham, December 20, 2007

and

There’s an inconsistency here in taking Genesis literally to accept sin to explain moral evil, such as the shootings at Virginia Tech, but not taking Genesis literally in their acceptance of millions of years of “natural evil” before man (e.g., death, violence, catastrophe, and extinction of animals).Ken Ham, President, AiG-US April 16, 2007

and the following is the very definition of Biblical literalism:

We need to realize that the Bible is God's Word. And as it is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator, God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting. Thus, we should always start with what God's Word says regardless of outside ideas. Only God's Word is infallible. Ken Ham, December 1995

If you want more quotes from Ken Ham about literal Genesis, I suggest you try google. If you want to play semantics, I also suggest a forum. We66er (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Show

The Daily Show statement makes WP look cheap. "Poking Fun" is not a criticism. Parody May be used as criticism, but it by no means safe to assume that it always is. What this needs is a RS ABOUT the Daily Show spoof stating what criticism it was making. Either a 3rd party review or a Daily Show summary of some sort would do the trick.LowKey (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CMI-AiG Dispute

I am thinking of working up a general description of the CMI-AiG dispute that covers the basics without getting into to much detail. I aim to replace the sections in the articles for CMI, AiG, CW and KH with this same general description, an emphasising the link to the Dispute article. The dispute article would then have all the relevant information in one place making it easier for editors to update, and to avoid inconsistencies. The sections get quite out of date the way they are, probably because it is a pain to go around updating the same info in at least 4 articles.

I would thus be moving some statements into the dispute article that are not currently included. I don't plan to drop any statements, so initially the dispute article will be a union of all the current sections. Any objections? This same "notice" is going into the other articles as wellLowKey (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Object. A vague description "replacing" each would not be good. Each page should emphasize each organization's or person's specific role and thus be specific to that article. We66er (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Lie Evolution.jpg

The image Image:The Lie Evolution.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The surname Ham

Since Ham is an Old Testament biblical name, from where does Ken Ham's surname originate? Is it his birth name? --83.253.250.70 (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ham posting pictures of people's license plates

This might be worth mentioning as Ken Ham's ministry took pictures of license plates/bumpers to and he posted them online. C56C (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PZ and Ken, how much do we need?

Is "Myers posted an account of the tour on his blog, and condemned the venue for "promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham." This led to post exchanges between Myers and Ham, who retorted, "Not only do we not teach such an absurd idea (that sadly has been used by some to promote racism and prejudice against dark skinned people), we teach against it."" necessary? This seems like a minor blog fight that doesn't serve much purpose havign all these details in. PZ's trip was covered in independent reliable sources but after that this is all just various blogs back and forth. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be to be a very minor point, and considering blog talk is cheap, I don't see it as very notable. I'd cut the whole f'rinstance there. Auntie E. 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. A blogged he-said/he-said argument isn't noteworthy (thousands happen every day). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Creation Science in lead

Given Ham's long track record of promoting Creation science (including founding or working for a number of organisations with 'Creation Science' or 'Creation Research' in their titles), it strikes me as incongruous that no mention of CS is made in the lead. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Section on PZ Myers visit

I don't see how this is relevant to Ham particularly so I've removed it. There is an article on Creation Museum and I see this is already there. I see no reason why it should be here as well. Auntie E. (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on the Creation Museum should ideally be a distilled version of the article on it. To have a whole paragraph in the section devoted to this visit is undue weight. Auntie E. (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - it's excessive detail for this biographical page, and really only needs to be in the Creation Museum page. Random name (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)