Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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I originally made a comment about someone else's comment.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that I should sod off because my comment is not realated to the page about Ken Ham then perhaps the same people who originally made comments which were directed at me should also sod off because they are the conceited ones.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)

Ban all of these stupid people. 24.144.51.28 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (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)

The problem I have with this quote "very, very submissive" is the implied contact. Ken was asked to talk about his wife and family. His response is over 400 words describing his appreciation for his wife and family supporting him and supporting the fact that he is often on the road. The entire sentiment of the reponse is one of appreciation for support. Boiling it down to "very, very submissive" is misrespresenting and misleading the audience. I expected to go to the article and read more about how Ken felt the wife should be a submissive partner, because that is how the quote reads, but that the type of response he gave. I believe a more approriate discreption is in his summary statement "a very special wife who wants to always support me and support the children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcatgrad (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 January 2011 (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)

Wait, do you mean that people want more pics of Ken Ham but can't get any? I went to the Creation Museum last Summer and have two pics, if anyone wants to post them or something.Dinotitan (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (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)

ICR "one of the oldest"

I have double-tagged the claim that "one of the oldest[10] American Creationist organisations" as:

1. I could not find that claim in the cited source; &
2. There are a number of US organisations that are far older.

Therefore, unless somebody can come up with a quote showing the source said this, or an alternative source, I intend downloading this claim fairly quickly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Malicious Edits

I came this article after a Google search. There were several childish edits I replaced with copied original sentences from the reference material. Duensing11 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Should not "Further Reading" section be removed entirely?

The Further Reading section is out of control. There should of course be external links to KH's own website, a biography (if it existed), etc. but the current KH-minded, YEC-friendly "reading list" seems completely out of line with WP standards. George Washington, Billy Graham, or Robert Oppenheimer have nothing like this.

I'd remove it at once but I don't want to be seen as a vandal by making such a sweeping edit so I'll wait a small period for discussion/consensus. --Petzl (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

None of these books appear to proffer any information on the topic of Ken Ham, so none of them are appropriate 'Further reading'. They appear to be works by Ham, so the more prominent of them may be appropriate for a 'Works' section. In the meantime, I'm moving the list here to talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• 101 Signs of Design: Timeless Truths from Genesis Master Books (2002, ISBN 0-89051-365-1)
• A is for Adam Master Books (1995, ISBN 0-89051-207-8) (Children's book)
• Foreword to All-In-One Curriculum for The Pilgrim's Progress (published by Answers in Genesis, USA)
• Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it Master Books (co-author Britt Beemer, with Todd Hillard, 2009, ISBN 0-89051-529-8)
• Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium, retitled Why Won't They Listen, Master Books (2002, ISBN 0-89051-378-3) (Online chapters)
• Did Adam Have a Belly Button? and other tough questions about the Bible Master Books (2000, ISBN 0890512833)
• Did Eve Really Have an Extra Rib? and other tough questions about the Bible Master Books (2002, ISBN 0890513708)
• D is for Dinosaur Master Books. (1991, ISBN 0-89051-193-4) (Children's book)
• Dinosaurs of Eden Master Books. (2000, ISBN 0-89051-340-6) (Children's book)
• Genesis and the Decay of the Nations Institute for Creation Research (1996, ISBN 0932766234)
• The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved! A Biblical View of These Amazing Creatures Master books (2000, ISBN 0890512825)
• The Lie: Evolution Master Books. (July 1987, ISBN 0-89051-158-6)
• One Blood—the Biblical Answer to Racism Master Books (with Don Batten and Carl Wieland, 1999, ISBN 0-89051-276-0)
• Foreword to Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati (1999, ISBN 0-89051-258-2)
• The Revised & Expanded Answers Book (ed. Don Batten; co-authors Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, ISBN 0890511616)
• Walking through Shadows—Finding Hope in a World of Pain Master Books (with Carl Wieland, 2002, ISBN 0-89051-381-3)
• Foreword to Welcome to Life Welcome to Life After Eden Genesis Publishing. (2003, ISBN 1893345157) (Children's book)
• What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? (with John Morris) (1990, ISBN 0890511594)

[End of removed material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC) ]

Beliefs

Sorry, but I screwed up the last sentence in an attempt to fix it. Please, somebody who knows how to get rid of box, help.Desoto10 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed Superfluous External Link

Removed "Dear Emma B a response to Ken Ham at Pharyngula" from the External Links section, as it is a blog post of a personal view on a comment of Ken Ham.

If we add such polemical links there, we should balance that we the inclusion of arguments of the other side (at least a post such as Are “Science” Blogs Really Science Blogs? pertaining to the topic).

Aoszkar (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I see the point to listing Ham's 2008/9 tax return numbers

During the 2008-2009 U.S. federal tax year, Ham received compensation and benefits of $176,018 from Answers in Genesis (up from $80,367 during the previous tax year)[19] and also had three of his children and one son-in-law working on the Answers in Genesis payroll during the 2008-2009 federal tax year: Danielle Ham (staff member compensated at $27,170), Jeremy Ham (staff member compensated at $34,380), Renee Ham Hodge (staff member compensated at $31,395), and son-in-law David Hodge (staff member compensated at $51,978).[20]

Not sure I see the point to including the above paragraph in the Biography section of Ken Ham's article: it shows Ham's salary increase and the fact that he has several family members on the AiG payroll. Yes, we can infer much from this data. Nevertheless, I don't see how this data and the inferences are wikipedia-worthy.--Petzl (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I'm sure this sort of information is not included in any other article on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing college education statement

Most of what I've found on the Internet seems to have been copied verbatim from Wikipedia and the statement here is copied whole-cloth from this page at Answers In Genesis. Which is indeed used as reference in outdated mirrors of this page elsewhere. As such some sleuthing in the revision history shows this to be the point at which the pertinent reference and the framing statement were removed. I see no problem in reinstating these again albeit having rewritten them. Do note however that doing a site search via Google on the pertinent universities' sites brings up no relevant results. As far as the extent of my capabilities go, there is no relatively straightforward independent verification. It may just be the case that the pertinent records haven't been released online. Dracontes (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that it matters that Ken Ham flunked science in college, but sure go for it. Universities, at least in the USA, cannot release information publicly about any current or former students. I believe they need to get a release from the student or alumnus to advertise or mention them; well, no real university is going to advertise that Ken Ham was an alumnus, but I'm sure some bible college might. As for reinstating it, as long as it comes from a reliable source, you should be fine. Since AiG is Ken Ham's mouthpiece for his anti-evolution rantings, we can assume it should be mostly accurate about his background. Although, people do lie, especially pseudoscientists. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the website isn't a reliable source for this particular statement - it's not such an amazing claim. So I would support removing the word "According to biographical notes at Answers in Genesis." As to the honorary degrees, I removed "for his creationist efforts", which smacks of POV. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added an additional citation. It no doubt takes AiG's claim at face value, but at least it's from Harvard University Press. StAnselm (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that Ham's honorary degrees (i) should not be included with our own editorial context, but (ii) should not be included at all without a reliable WP:SECONDARY source demonstrating noteworthiness (particularly for the case of Temple Baptist College. -- is it in fact Tennessee Temple University, or possibly its Temple Baptist Seminary, that AiG is referring to?) and offering some context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything on any other websites, although there is a nice photo of Ham receiving his degree from Jerry Falwell. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Denialist

Noticed a really good addition to the lede today while viewing my watchlist. I went and read the citation left to prove this edit. "an evolution denialist viewpoint that is unsupported by scientific evidence." I see now that it is being contended. I think it is totally supported and wanted to stop lurking and give my two cents. Sgerbic (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I said on your User:Saedon's talk page, we should discuss it here first - and possibly post a question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If, of course, we decide that it is appropriate, then that will have implications for articles about other creationists. StAnselm (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

His views are incontrovertibly those of an evolution denialist, I don't think that's a contentious statement in the least since he rejects evolution. Still, I have no desire to label him as a denialist or not, just stating that his views are contradicted by fact is good enough for me. SÆdon^talk 00:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the editors concerned with this topic can deal with the issue here, and not wait for people at the Biographies of living persons to get over here and get up to speed. I think it is pretty obvious he is an evolution denialist. Sometimes you just need to Be Bold and edit. Sgerbic (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, we are discussing it here. What exactly are the objections? SÆdon^talk 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In the preceding sentence, he is called a creationist Young Earth creationist - creationism Young Earth creationism is evolution denial. Evolution denial currently redirects to Creation–evolution controversy. But the sentence also seems to go against WP:OPENPARAGRAPH - criticism doesn't belong in the lead. People can follow the wikilink to find the evidence against creationism. Finally, Ken Ham gets the barest mention in the NYT article. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with clarifying for readers who may not understand the intricacies of biology. If it were a paragraph I would understand but it's a few words explaining a position. I think it's a given that many people don't realize that creationism (at least YEC) is a denialist viewpoint, which is unfortunate but Americans by and large are severely uneducated in the sciences. If WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says that there's not supposed to be criticism in the lede I'm not seeing it (firefox search goes red after "crit"). Rather it says to indicate for what they are notable, and we do that, but since he's notable for holding a position contrary to established fact it makes sense to explain that. SÆdon^talk 00:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't specifically there, but the guideline said what should be in the lead. If I can use climate change as an analogy, the lead of the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article ends with "In recent years he has come to public attention for holding sceptical views about man-made climate change." This is followed by several footnotes, but not by a statement about the scientific evidence for climate change. StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that article should mention that his views are contradicted by fact. WP:OSE, yes, but that's rarely a good argument. Regarding WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, it's a guideline, and a stylistic one at that. It is a very general outline of how articles should look (also not a policy), and of course it cannot account for the millions of variables that inadvertently exist depending on the article in question; there will be variation, and as I said: since he holds a viewpoint contrary to fact, and since millions of people are uneducated in the subject, it makes sense to have 5 or 6 words clarifing it; we're not talking about a major addition to this article here. SÆdon^talk 01:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh also, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a poor example because he is obviously notable for reasons irrespective of climate change denial. What is Ken Ham notable for except being a denialist? I'm starting to think that the article itself should put more emphasis his incorrect world view. SÆdon^talk 01:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect world view? You're not a postmodernist, then? Anyway, perhaps George Vithoulkas might be a better example. StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

God no. Postpositivist maybe, but I don't look at philosophy as the type of thing you subscribe to, but rather I consider many philosophies when making decisions. Look, you can probably find examples of this or that somewhere on WP but it's not a great argument, hence why I pointed you to WP:OSE. I think I've given some good reasons as to why this should be included and I'm not the only editor who thinks so, and so far the reasons you've given against inclusion have been quiet weak. Unless you have a novel objection I don't think much more discussion is possible without just going in circles. SÆdon^talk 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• You've got to find another wording than "an evolution denialist viewpoint not supported by science" it is bad writing, clearly non-neutral and frankly makes wikipedia look stupid and pointy. We cant put "this viewpoint is not supported by science" disclaimers onto all descriptions or mentions of non-scientific or religious beliefs. I would propose striking the phrase all together - with the link to Young Earth creationism people who are not aware that this is incompatible with science will find out. Also WP:OPENPARAGRAPH does not say that criticism doesn't belong in the lead, but that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Criticism clearly belongs in the lead if it is a significant part of the article following WP:LEAD (lead must summarise contents). But it should be presented in a matter of fact neutral way. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I think we need a bit more help to achieve consensus. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think we can "put 'this viewpoint is not supported by science' disclaimers" where the beliefs are anti-scientific, and where the level of scientific rejection of them is incontrovertible. In fact per WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance it would appear that we are required to "document (with reliable sources) the current level of [such views'] acceptance among the relevant academic community." This is especially true on an article on somebody like Ham, whose whole career and notability is centered around rejection of science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Can" is not the same as "should". The responses to Ham's ideas can come in the body of the article and then be briefly summarised in a neutral way in the lead. "Like those of other young earth creationists, Ham's beliefs are considered by scientists to contradict scientific knowledge about the origin and development of the earth and it's lifeforms" for example. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - I think we have to be careful in our use of WP:FRINGE here - it is clearly talking about articles and sections that discuss fringe theories - it is only tangentially related to biographies. Certainly it is appropriate for the linked article (Young Earth creationism) to have that sort of disclaimer in the second paragraph of its lead. Although even then, it is creation science that is discussed. Presumably it is this that is regarded as unscientific, rather than YEC as a religious belief. Interestingly, though, there is no link to creation science in this article - has it ever been there? StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of "whose whole career and notability is centered around rejection of science" did you fail to comprehend? Ham is only prominent for YEC. Failure to (prominently) mention the fact that the only thing he is prominent for is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community would appear to be misleading the reader. It would be a bit like failing to mention in the article on Charles Ponzi that Ponzi schemes are criminal fraud. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Except disbelieving science isn't a crime in most countries. Should we mention in the article on David Copperfield that the only thing he is notable is rejected by science as fraud? Ham's career is not rcentered around the rejection of science (even though it may feel like that for someone whose worldview is centered artound science) - it is centered on christianity (which is a religion and not a science).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks:

1. "Except" I'm sure you know what an wikt:analogy is, so you must be aware that the fact that "disbelieving science isn't a crime in most countries" is a complete non sequitor.
2. "Except" David Copperfield is an illusionist, and I would expect there has been a lot of work in the fields of psychology and/or neuroscience on the subject of illusions, plus I would be very surprised if Copperfield ever (for example) claimed that it was possible to make a 747 really disappear, or a similar 'fraudulent' claim. This is again a non sequitor.
3. Ham's professional career has centered almost purely on rejection of the Age of the Earth and Evolutionary biology -- i.e. rejection of science. Neither of these rejections are core Christian teachings, and in fact the largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, accepts both. From Ham's professional output you would have difficulty in realising that there are any books in the Bible after the Book of Genesis, and would see very little evidence of Christ's core teachings ('love thy neighbour', 'turn the other cheek', etc).

Maunus: I find your argument to be utterly tendentious and without merit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take stylistic advice from you when you learn to spell non sequitur (which my arguments by the way are not, so apparently you also don't know hat it means). So if my argument is tendentious what is my tendency Hrafn, pray tell me? I'll tellyou my tendency is to follow ikipedia's core policies and give fair treatmentof biograhies of living persons, also when I don't agree with their viewpoints. I don't think you can claim that same tendency. You have been on a misguided crusade against religion and religious people's biographies here on wikipedia as long as I've known you. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that young Earth creationism and Creation Science are largely interchangeable (and the most prominent historian of creationism, Ronald L. Numbers does in fact use them interchangably). The former emphasises the commitment to a young earth, the latter emphasises the scientific pretensions, but YEC has, since its origination by George McCready Price, pretended to be scientific, and creationist pseudoscience is largely divided into YE 'Creation Science' and into Intelligent design (which vehemently, if disengeuously rejects the label "creationism"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is clearly against the scientific consensus, and the linked YEC article should say so, but I don't think each and every biographical article on a creationist needs a lengthy pro-evolution disclaimer in the lede. I've noticed a disturbing trend where defending the consensus view becomes so important in biographical articles that providing accurate information about the actual person takes second place. -- 202.124.72.243 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do have to point it out. Evolution denialism is a perfect descriptive. Everything else is a POV statement. Case closed. Let's move on to fixing the neutrality on other religious nut jobs, like Behe. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't see just the faintest trace of irony in that last sentence? StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

— WP:LEDE (my emphasis)

• Is anybody disputing that as (i) the majority of Ham's career, (ii) the majority of his prominence & (iii) the majority of this article, has involved the promotion of YEC (and particularly the pretence that it has a scientific basis), the fact that YEC is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community counts as a 'prominent controversy'? That further, this rejection is a critical piece of the "context" that the lead is required to "establish"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the majority of Ham's career has involved the promotion of YEC, which is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. But that's no reason to add the controversial denialist tag, it's simply a reason to state that Ham promotes YEC, which is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. -- 202.124.73.123 (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  ...which is the definition of a category of denialist. I'm missing your point. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any standard definition of "evolution denialist." We can treat it just as a label and say he's been called one, if we have sources that pass WP:BLPSOURCES -- but I can't find a single book or journal article using that term in relation to Ham. It's much easier to find sources supporting a more specific statement like "Ham promotes YEC, which is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community," and that's what I would recommend. -- 202.124.72.41 (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The varied Wikipedia intelligentsia... especially those who defend Evolution Denial as vehemently as some of our editors do... have a history of objecting to the accurate label of "scientifically inaccurate" when this phrase is applied to some of their personal heroes (and yes, I use that phrase purposefully). See the Kirk Cameron talk page for another example, wherein I pointed out that Mr. Cameron's beliefs were, in truth, unscientific, and was suddenly told that making this utterly accurate statement, this factual truth, about Mr. Cameron's views on evolution and the age of the earth, was a violation of the NPOV policies. Apparently, the mere fact that something is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETE TRUE is somehow a POV violation now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jon Stewart mention

Alright, let's discuss it. I don't think the sentence "In 2005, The Daily Show poked fun at Ham's question." should be included in the Beliefs section of this article because Ham's comments have been made fun many times, and this is just one of them. In this case, nothing of importance is being added to the conversation. The video clip just shows a clip of Ham in the Moment of Zen section of The Daily Show, a segment where a bizarre/funny/ridiculous video is played without any commentary whatsoever. So where is the relevance of including this bit of information here? Trinitresque (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support removal. Thanks for taking this to the talk page - too many people simply edit war in a situation like this. I agree that its irrelevant - and I would want to see evidence that the segment itself is notable. Talk shows are transient by nature - not all what is said there is notable and important. If this incident is important, it will have been picked up in other sources. I see some mention on blogs, but nothing in news or books. StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevance aside, the moment of zen clip simply fails to support the statement being made. SÆdon^talk 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight (600 radio stations)

Per WP:SPS we can believe Ken when he says he does a radio show—but the 600 radio stations is an extraordinary claim beyond the normal so it is an undue weight problem. I believe him, but the source is insufficient for the claim. Could editors please find a source not connected with Ken's work that notes this (a Christian organisation outside of Ken's own organisations would be sufficient). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think other Christian sources would make this fact more certain; many websites probably automatically assume that what's on AiG's website is true. But I believe we can still rely on the original source to be accurate. The source used to say that he was on 600+ stations, but now says 500+, implying that they're willing to admit losing stations. And you can find out exactly which stations carry him by going here and clicking on "Show all stations". If they were deliberately listing stations that didn't carry the show, they could have easily been exposed by now. Lastly, his show is only sixty seconds a day. It's probably very easy for a lot of stations to fit that into their schedules one way or another. Trinitresque (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality references

Almost half of the references here are to his own websites? Article desperately needs some reliable third party references.Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I have removed the recently-added "pseudoscience" paragraph that another editor has objected to. Skepdic.com is not an appropriate source for a BLP. While it may be better to find a better source for the claim, any such criticism should be specific to Ham himself. This sort of thing has been discussed before, (e.g. Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Evolution Denialist) and controversial additions that have been challenged should not be re-added until a consensus can be reached. StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's quite the game you played. Revert. Put a lame rude warning on my page as if I'm a fucking dumbass, completely ignoring civility while completely forgetting WP:DTTR. And then get YOUR way with the article by pretending that you actually care about anyone's opinion AFTER you've reverted. If you were slightly honorable, you'd revert yourself and discuss it here, but it appears that you're going in with assuming no good faith whatsoever. What the fuck ever. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to know of others who advocate civility :)--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor, I use warning templates all the time, and I mean no insult by them. DTTR is an essay not a policy or even a guideline; one can choose to accept its premise and follow it or disagree and ignore it completely. If someone templates you incorrectly, my advice is to simply remove it. If they make a habit of it, then bring the harassment to ANI, and someone will deal with it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm missing where NCSE is an unreliable source, SA. If you object to Scepdic, there are tons of other sources to support the sentence "The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which "shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing." It isn't as though ScepDic made that up. It's well established, to the point that I'm thinking this is almost a WP:BLUE situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As you say, the material is gratuitous, and it also makes no specific mention of Ham.--John Foxe (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

NCSE is a reliable source, but skepdic.com has no place in a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ScepDic has been on the RSN multiple times, and every time the finding was that SkepDic is reliable enough to be used, but must be attributed. I disagree that BLP has anything to do with this; however I agree that SkepDic is a crappy reference for this instance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference with two which meet our RS standards, and rephrased the sentence to better conform to those sources, removing the quotes etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read the RSN discussions, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Skeptic's dictionary is hardly an endorsement. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my removal of that cite? I'm missing your point here. You're complaining about a source I called crappy and removed. Did you miss that this has already been addressed? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving proposal for this talk page

I propose auto archiving for this talk page, using MiszaBot for threads over 180 days with 7 threads remaining. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I second that proposal.--John Foxe (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. StAnselm (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to use ClueBot III as MiszaBot is out of order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of Ham's beliefs?

I think the phrase "implying that knowledge of unwitnessed events requires direct observation rather than inference" is misleading about his intent. Based on my (non-NPOV caveat) understanding of ideas, he means more along the lines of "the lack of direct observation of events leaves doubt." In other words, he believes that our present scientific knowledge cannot fully account for unobserved events. I do not have a third-party source to back that up. (two cents) 76.125.24.47 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing the lead without discussion here first

Discussion occurring below on proposed edits to the article. Please direct your attention there instead.

The sentence, "His claims of the age of the earth that are counter to all scientific reports have been widely criticized and debunked." has been repeatedly removed from the lead without discussion here. First once an edit is reverted it is appropriate per WP:BRD to bring the subject to the talk page. Second the sentence is supported by four sources. Third it is a summary of substantial content in the body of the article. Fourth it reflects a significant aspect of the subject. Please present policy based rationale if you wish to remove or edit it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Everything on there that is a fact I don't dispute and is in the criticism section of this article already. This is a living person article and criticism like that does not belong in the first lead paragraph. Also it is an opinion not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.43.177 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) It is factual and is supported by sources. What do you contend is not a fact? The lead summarizes what is in the body and this sentences summarizes a substantial part of the content. BLP does not state that criticism does not belong in an article or lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) That is from one point of view. The whole sentence seems to bring it to a conclusion. I don't dispute that he has widespread criticism even from christians. He does. If it has been debunked when why would Bill Nye bother debating him? How about a compromise edit? Thank you for your willingness to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.43.177 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) No, his wild claims (to call them something) about the Earth's age have been debunked by pretty much every branch of the scientific community in existence. No possible compromise here. Regard. Gaba (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I think the content of that sentence is well supported. I think the sentence is clear and concise. I think it provides a good summary of the content later in the article. I don't think there is a significant viewpoint that needs inclusion. I see no need for a change. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Repeated reversion without reaching a consensus here is edit warring. This has been brought to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Debunked" is not a word that should be used in this context. If I say the universe has always existed or that it was created yesterday, you can criticize or condemn those notions, you can call them silly, but you can't "debunk" them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "you can't "debunk" them", why not? Debunk:[8] To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of. to expose the pretensions or falseness of, esp by ridicule to expose as being false or exaggerated. I'd say this is a word used quite precisely in this context. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with Gaba p. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Per policy "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. " To NOT clearly call out that his position is on the fringe of the fringe of the fringe would be a violation of our policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Comment: I appreciate that MrBill3 has started a talk page discussion, but the words in question were recently added (here) and so should stay out of the article until there is consensus to include them. StAnselm (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I see rationale and consensus here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) The sentence was removed again here. It is clearly a summary of material supported in the content of the article as mentioned in the edit summary when it was added here. Rationale for support has been given in this discussion. Additional rationale is in WP:LEAD, "summary of its most important aspects", "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context,...summarize the most important points", "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Consensus is demonstrated by this, this, this and this as well as the above discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with MrBill3, there's a clear consensus to keep the sourced material in the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You can't debunk the notion that the universe has always existed because there's no evidence that it's not true. We can say that the scientific community doesn't believe it, but WP shouldn't be in the business of "ridiculing" any idea. Why isn't it sufficient just to say that the scientific community believes the notion false?--John Foxe (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I agree that we shouldn't use the word "debunk". It is not in any of the sources provided and thus constitutes original synthesis. I think "rejected" would be better. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) WP:ASF is clear that we should simply state that his claims are incorrect. We don't need to go into more detail about opinions. His statements about the age of the Earth are simply incorrect. That's all there is to say. jps (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I will support the option offered by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV/jps. There is no one that is "condemning" his theory, they are just dismissing it as complete flakery. there are people condemning his attempts to institute such flakery in school curriculum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes that would be simplest & best. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC) There may be a more artful way to do it. "His beliefs about the Age of the Earth were shown to be incorrect more than one hundred years ago." would be one way of doing it. There are others. Basically we should not attribute the fact of the age of the Earth to the opinions of scientists. It is simply the age it is -- approx. 4.5 billion years old (give or take a few hundred million years). jps (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps, however, per TRPoD perhaps the opposition to his promulgation of his ideas should be mentioned in lead. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) If I argue that the universe has always existed, is that the same or different than arguing that the universe is only a few thousand years old? My point is that you can say that scientists don't believe that the universe never had a beginning (or will have an end), but that's all you can say. In my lifetime, the universe has gotten about 3 billion years older. Have we now arrived at Truth, or will the universe continue to age as needed?--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You need to base your positions and arguments upon the mainstream academic view which is that Ham's ideas are not worth the pixels they are written with. They are Not even wrong, and we need to represent that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You didn't answer my question—neither of them, actually. Here's what WP:PSCI says, "When talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly." So, all you have to do with Ken Ham's theories is provide a sentence something like what's there now. I probably should have written "dismissed" rather than "condemned"; but certainly "debunked" is beyond anything one should say about this topic on WP because "debunk" involves ridicule.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC) And you can't have it both ways. If the ideas are not even wrong, then we shouldn't say that they are incorrect. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agreed that Ken Hamm's statement aren't "not even wrong" in the classic sense. They are just simply wrong. In the same sense that 1+1 is not equal to one billion. jps (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Maybe what 107.178.43.177 is saying is that although Mr. Ham's beliefs certainly are not mainstream, some scientists do believe, such, as, for example, Science and Math Teacher David Shormann, Ph.D., who says that “A close look at the Bible reveals that God created for 6 days, and the earth is somewhere around 6 thousand years old. A variety of evidences support this age, all based on rate-related measurements”; Terry Mortenson, Ph.D., who says that “Scientific arguments for a young earth are numerous” and then gives a list of arguments ; Andrew Snelling, Ph.D ; etc. Although mainstream scientists believe in an “old earth,” there are at least some who believe in and defend a "young earth" model. Perhaps wording the sentence "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" as "His claims about the young age of the earth have been dismissed by the mainstream scientific community" would suffice for the mainstream point of view as well as all points of view. Unless Wikipedia prefers the mainstream point of view as opposed to the neutral point of view, I think this wording is an acceptable choice. —The Sackinator (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Your ludicrous references are not convincing that the Age of the Earth is not a fact. I have collapsed them as obvious soapboxing. Please step down. jps (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have uncollapsed the section. I am seeing propaganda on both sides in this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry, folks. If you cannot understand that the Age of the Earth is a fact and not an opinion, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. See WP:COMPETENCE. It's very basic. jps (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Well, I googled the issue and the top result was this debate.org page. This is obviously a higher order question than the question of the age of the earth - I wonder how many scientists would accept that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, but would hesitate to call it a "fact", because of what they believe about the very nature of science. For my part, I don't think we can call it a "fact". I would prefer to call it the "scientific consensus". StAnselm (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I would suggest that your googling and lack of competence in this matter have been demonstrated. The nature of science is that there are measurements. Do you question the measurement of your height to a certain accuracy? If someone said you were 1 cm tall, would you say, "No, I am not that height, and that is a fact"? Or would you say, "scientific consensus is that I am not 1 cm?" The fact is the Earth is not 6000 years old. We've known that for 100 years or more. jps (talk) 6:36 pm, Today (UTC−4) JPS, my point is not which age is true but rather that some scientists do believe in a young earth. Regardless, should the wording I purposed (neutral point of view) be used, or a different, more mainstream-point-of-view one? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) None of the links you provided show that there is any question about the age of the Earth. The neutral point of view is expounded upon here. We simply state the fact that the age of the Earth is not what Ken Hamm says it is and leave it at that. It is simply a fact that he is incorrect. jps (talk) 6:36 pm, Today (UTC−4) How about, His claims about the young age of the earth have been dismissed by the scientific consensus? That sounds a bit awkward, since it is the people and not the consensus that is doing the dismissing. His claims about the young age of the earth are contrary to the scientific consensus? StAnselm (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "His claims about the young age of the Earth are incorrect." works because it is in accord with WP:ASSERT. Your proposed wording is not. jps (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps. Fringe does not negate fact. Adequate discussion of policy above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you're assuming it is a fact, which it isn't. StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC) According to mainstream scientific consensus the age of the earth is factual. That's what WP goes with. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines. As has been noted this is not a forum. The issue is not one of debate in the mainstream academic and scientific communities. As there is no serious academic debate there is no need for debate on WP talk pages. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC) No - the Fact article uses the age of fossils as a particular example of something that (at least according to Kuhn) is not a fact. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Wow. That is a total misreading of that article and (by proxy) Kuhn. In fact, the age of fossils is a fact and is acknowledged as such by Kuhn and the page you reference. jps (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) It is just as much a fact that Ken Ham is incorrect about the Age of the Earth as it is a fact that you are not 1 cm in height. In fact, it is more of a fact than that! Ken Ham is off by nearly a factor of 1 million, but the difference between your height and 1 cm is only generously a factor of a 1000. Ken Ham's incorrectness is more than 1000 times more factual than the incorrectness of the statement that you are 1 cm. jps (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ———————— Lampstand49-These are my comments for consideration toward consensus. Please quit censoring (hiding) my comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) These four sources for the opening statement are arbitrary and require review. With the exception of Brett Grainger's book, these sources simply state opinions and not poll numbers. Here are the suspect sources that are simply one-sided. When the discussion becomes one-sided, it is merely propaganda. As it stands right now, the statement "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" is simply one-sided propaganda with no balance. I think we need to reveal where the ultimate authority for that statement resides. Here are the sources used to hand down a one-sided verdict using the old idiom as Judge, jury and executioner. : 4. ^ a b Greg Neyman. Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth!. Answers in Creation. 12 Sept. 2005 5. ^ Wilensky-Lanford, Brook (2011). Paradise Lust: Searching for the Garden of Eden. Grove Press. pp. 215–. ISBN 9780802119803. Retrieved 18 March 2014. 6. ^ Flank, Lenny (2007-01-01). Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America. Red and Black Publishers. pp. 73–. ISBN 9780979181306. Retrieved 18 March 2014. 7. ^ Grainger, Brett (2009-05-26). In the World but Not of It: One Family's Militant Faith and the History of Fundamentalism in America. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 147–. ISBN 9780802718648. Retrieved 18 March 2014. Here is the definition for arbitrary. 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. - "Source: dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary" We need to restore balance to the opening statement at a minimum. You cannot have an article that starts with a one-sided bit of propaganda. At the very least, many who read the first paragraph will simply dismiss it immediately for its obvious bias. We need to have an immediate review of these one-sided old earth sources. What do these four sources have to do with virtually all members of the scientific community? These sources are simply irrelevant with the exception of Brett Grainger's use of gallup poll data. Greg Neyman is giving his opinion from an old earth viewpoint about The Global Flood. This has nothing to do with a consensus or poll of those in the scientific community. Brook Wilensky-Lanford is simply writes some of his thoughts on the history of the young earth creation movement in the context of his search for The Garden of Eden. This has nothing to do with a poll or percentage of scientist who disapprove of young earth creation. This source is useless. Lenny Flank is simply writing his opinion on the Intelligent Design Movement. Again, this has nothing to do with a percentage of scientist who support "young earth creation" verses those who support "old earth views". Brett Grainger's book was the only book that I found any real data at the beginning which in fact does not support the opening statement of this article. Here is the data from Brett Grainger's book on page 141. He uses data from a 2004 gallup poll. 45 percent of Americans believe in a literal Genesis. 38 percent of Americans believe God somehow guided evolution. 13 percent of Americans held a purely naturalist view. As you can see, these four sources do not give evidence for what is concluded in the opening statement of this article. Nowhere in these sources did I find "virtually all members of the scientific community" agreeing on anything concluded in that opening statement. In fact the data from Brett Grainger's book would suggest that there are a great number of scientists who believe in a literal Genesis. That would be the most obvious conclusion from the poll data. After all, in 2004, 45 percent of Americans believed in a literal Genesis according to Brett Grainger's book which is one of your sources. Therefore, this article is at risk of being labeled as simply propaganda. The opening statement of this article needs serious scrutiny, and needs to be reviewed. I think this could be considered slanderous, a smear campaign, or perhaps a dubious claim at best. Here is the definition for slander. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. "Source: dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander" The opening statement simply falsely states its conclusion "virtually all members of the scientific community" without any evidence to support it. What are the poll numbers in actuality? Currently, this is an article with an opening statement that has false conclusions with arbitrary sources. Smear Campaign definition - 1. A plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations. "Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/smear-campaign" Dubious definition - 2 Not to be relied upon; suspect:, "Source: Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dubious" This page needs to cease using irrelevant sources. It needs to present facts. Here are the pertinent facts. The latest gallup poll numbers are given in the following article "Source: Gallup Politics, In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx" The gallup poll reveals that 46 percent of College Graduates believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years. It also reveals that 25 percent of Postgraduates believe God created humans in present form. Whereas, only 14 percent of College Graduates believe Humans evolved, God had no part in process, and only 29 percent of Postgraduates believe Humans evolved, God had no part in process. Here is the gallup poll data over time. "Source: Gallup, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx" The Pew Forum has collected data on this subject further showing the false claims of this article as it currently stands as well. "Source: Pew Research, Religion & Public Life Project, Scientists and Belief http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief" The Pew Forum has results on who actually believes in God. This is a broad statement about belief in God which makes up a majority of the population. The Pew Forum has also collected similar data on Evolution. "Source: Pew Research, Fact Tank, Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Are evolution and religion at odds? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-are-evolution-and-religion-at-odds" The National Center for Science Education reports on several different polls further showing the false claims of the opening statement of this article as it currently stands as well. They cover the Harris Poll in detail which shows that 60 percent of the American public believe in a Global Flood and 39 percent believe in Young Earth Creation. Therefore, this Wikipedia Article opening statement needs revision to correct its false claims and irrelevant sources. Here is the NCSE article. "Source: NCSE, Americans’ Scientific Knowledge and Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin, http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year" Therefore, the false claim of this article "by virtually all members of the scientific community" needs rapid revision according to the data above. The following sentence should be removed quickly. "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" because it is a false assertion. ——————— Lampstand49 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Lampstand49 (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ——————— Lampstand49 The following sentence should be removed quickly. "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" because it is a false assertion which could be considered slanderous, a smear campaign, or perhaps a dubious claim at best. You may give data from actual polls on the subject, but this page must cease from false claims. I have provided the poll numbers above.Lampstand49 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No of course not. And please stop posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT soapboxing religious nonsense, it's becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: The statement is well-cited, so it is not objectionable under our biographies of living persons policy. The exact wording may be open to debate, but to change it you need to find a consensus. Once there is a consensus on what wording to use, feel free to reopen this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, you need to quit hiding my "well-thought" out talk page comments that other users will be interested in hearing. This violates Wikipedia guidelines. It is a short well-thought out discussion that is relevant to the opening section. Please do not violate Wikipedia guidelines by censoring talk page comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Gaba, I have been well intentioned from the very start. However, those who have opposing views have chosen to label and collapse my well-thought out text which I had hoped would help reach a consensus. In regards to your supposed "Walloftext", here is what the Wikipedia guidelines read. "Not all long posts are walls of text, some can be nuanced and thoughtful. " - Wikipedia Not too mention, my comments all followed Wikipedia rules and were not very long, not the size of a novel. You should read the guidelines more closely. From the time I posted my comments, several of you immediately labeled and collapsed them. You repeatedly labeled and collapsed my comments. Why? Perhaps, so that they would not be included in reaching a consensus because they do not fit your point of view. What kind of concensus is that which includes only you? By the way, this is why Talk Pages are here? Discussions like these can build friendships. Your friend. Have a great day. Lampstand49 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old

Issue resolved, let's close this and move on

We must not claim that this is an opinion. Where it appears, we must WP:ASSERT it plainly without regard for the chatter of those who are offended by such facts for whatever reason. This is not up for debate. jps (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Agree as above there is no significant academic debate, thus no debate on WP. Further disruptive editing should be referred to ANI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC) There is very significant debate about what constitutes a scientific "fact", quite apart from questions of the age of the earth. Feel free to post this at ANI, but perhaps an RfC may be a better way to go. StAnselm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC) That is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary sources to be taken seriously. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "the question of even what constitutes a scientific fact is anything but uncontroversial". StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I don't think StAnselm should be allowed to continue on in this manner. This is very problematic. He is essentially denying basic facts and that is inimical to writing an encyclopedia. I suggest simply ignoring him. Consensus is clearly not on his side. jps (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Are you rejecting the proposition in the quote I posted? Are you saying that the question of what constitutes a scientific fact is completely uncontroversial? StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I am suggesting that controversy is irrelevant. It is a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old in the same sense it is a fact you are not 1 cm in height. Please do not use psychoanalysis to claim support for your solipsism. It is directly opposed to the goal of WP:ENC. You ought to be banned from this discussion if you continue in this fashion. jps (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Of course there's no debate here, this isn't Conservapedia. The age of the Earth is a fact as much as its roundness is. Are there improvements still being made to those values? Of course. Are there people even today claiming the opposite? Of course. Should we give even a little amount of credence to these ideas? Of course not. StAnselm if you want to have a philosophical debate "about what constitutes a scientific "fact"", you're in the wrong place. And I have to say jps has a point, you seem to be completely failing WP:COMPETENCE here and your behaviour is dangerously close to WP:STONEWALL. Now that the article has been frozen (of course, in the wrong version]) we should come to an agreement on which version of the sentence should be up so we can show the admin who locked it that there's WP:CONSENSUS in a given version so he'll unlock it. I propose the one below: His claims about the age of the Earth are dismissed by the scientific community at large as being completely incorrect. Please post your proposed version (or your support with this one) so we can work towards a consensus one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I think that's a good start, but we could say it more succinctly as, "His claims about the age of the Earth are incorrect, and he consistently opposes any scientific consensus that is not aligned with his interpretation of the Bible." jps (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I support Gaba_p's suggestion above. I don't think we need the words "at large" though. (And I'm not sure what they mean.) This is more neutral of course, although for that reason some editors here might oppose it. It doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it has been dismissed as incorrect. That subtle difference is important. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Because it doesn't say it is incorrect but instead says it is dismissed as incorrect it may be mistaken for an opinion rather than a fact. We ought to be careful. jps (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Agree with jps. As below should be asserted clearly as fact. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I support the proposal by jps. I don't think we need to attribute the fact that Ham's claims are wrong or describe them as dismissed by the scientific community. As per jps these claims are simply wrong and we should clearly assert that in an unqualified way. The second half of jps' sentence is not as graceful as I would like but is acceptable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Very well, based on the comments and applying WP:ASSERT, here's a second stab at a new version of the statement: His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community. I tried to combine my proposal above with jps's proposal. Thoughts? Gaba (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No - once again, we assert facts as facts, but I dispute that this is a fact. I oppose this proposal and support your previous one. I note the Young Earth creationism article says "Young Earth creationism is contradicted by the scientific evidence derived from observations and experiments in multiple scientific disciplines", but says nothing about it being "incorrect". StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Yeah well, it is a fact by any measure of the word so I don't know what else to say to you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) That's OK. Perhaps we should have a RfC to get a few more people involved. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Nah. We have enough people involved. It's clear you're in the minority and wrong. jps (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Agree that an RfC is not needed at this stage. Also, an RfC about what? About whether the Earth is millions or thousands of years old? That'd be like making an RfC asking if 1+1=2 or 1+1=Pootie Tang. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. Well done. jps (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) support Gaba's second proposed edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit. Makes sense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Support Gaba's second proposed edit, without "at large".Can't believe that in the 21st century this is being discussed at all!Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Theroadislong there's no "at large" in the second proposal. Do you support it as is or would you like to propose some changes? Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) My apologies it's a bit cluttered above...I am happy with the second proposal. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) No worries, support noted. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Seeing as there is broad consensus for the statement above (6 to 1) I'm requesting the second proposal above be added to the article. To make it clear, the edit is the sentence: His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community. to replace the current one in the lead: His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, you cannot state as a fact that a young age for the earth "is incorrect". You do not know that from Radiometric Dating, the fact is most geologists should know better. You should remove "is incorrect" stated as a fact. This will just drive people to other information sources. It shows extreme bias in this particular article. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) We can, and should, state it as a fact. see WP:V / WP:PSCI. If people don't want to see the facts laid out infront of them, they are certainly welcome to go elsewhere for non facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I want each of you to know that I love you guys regardless of the outcome here. I know we have very different points of view, but most importantly I want you to know that I love you guys. Seriously. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you, but I do not need or want your love. What I do need and want is for you to not be a disruptive editing force on this talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Who was disruptive? Lampstand49 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community.

Violation of WP:TPG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
——————— Lampstand49 I have an interest in geology because my father was head of The Petroleum Engineering Department at The University of Tulsa. He later became one of the lead Petroleum Consultants at OGCI in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He formed his own Oil and Gas consulting company as well before he passed away. He taught at Imperial College in London, and he also consulted for most of the major oil companies. I have a great interest in geology. Did you know that you cannot confirm the age of the earth from Radiometric Dating? I will ask anyone here to give me the slightest evidence that any of these rock layers are old. That is my challenge to you. When you post your evidence, you should expect my repsonse. Then, we can investigate if a Young Age of the Earth has been debunked as has been stated in this article. A Young Age of the Earth is exactly what we would expect given that The Bible is true. Radiometric Dating simply analyzes decay rates of isotopes. It does not return dates. Any geologist knows this. Every informed geologist also knows that Radiometric Dating has assumptions and faults. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are unprovable and plagued with problems. Rocks may inherit isotopes from their sources, and / or they could be contaminated when moving through other rocks to their current resting location. It is possible that inflowing water may have mixed parent or daughter isotopes into the rocks. Radioactive decay rates may have changed or not have been constant. New research does indicates that radioactive elements have decayed at much faster speeds in the past 6,000 years. Since these dating techniques are based on faulty assumptions and lead to unreliable results. For example, they have found "Supposed" 45 thousand yr old fossil wood inside "supposed" 45 million yr old basalt. Obviously, the dates are incorrect. Therefore, these radioactive dates of "Supposed" old ages should not be trusted, not only for these reasons, but they contradict what is written in God's Word for God is the Creator and Eyewitness of the original Creation Events. When you trust in God and you understand some basic science, you can see how these faulty assumptions lead to incorrect dates. The age of the earth is not settled. All of the following men believed in a literal Genesis: Galileo Galilei (Improved the telescope, supported Copernicanism and the father of modern physics), Johann Kepler (third principle of planetary motion, contributed to the field of optics,analyzed the workings of the human eye,the volume of solid bodies), John Wilkins(founder of The Royal Society), Walter Charleton(President of the Royal College of Physicians), Blaise Pascal(Theory of probability, Hydrostatics, Barometer and conic sections), Sir William Petty(Statistician and scientiest), Robert Boyle(Chemistry and Gas Dynamics), John Ray(Natural Histoy), Isaac Barrow(developer of infinitesimal calculus), Nicolas Steno(Stratigraphy), Thomas Burnet(Geologist), Increase Mather(President of Harvard University 1692-1701), Nehemiah Grew(Physiologist and pioneer of dactyloscopy), Sir Isaac Newton(Calculus, Dynamics, Gravitation Law, Reflecting Telescope, Spectrum of Light, Three laws of motion, Theory of universal gravitation, Wrote extensively on The Bible),Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz( Law of Continuity and Transcendental Law of Homogeneity, infinitesimal calculus) and John Flamsteed(The first Astronomer Royal). Lampstand49 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Lampstand49 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC) If we were living in the 16th century, your post above might have some worth. However, if you look at any calendar, we are in fact living in the 21st century and the beliefs of dead scientist have been superseded by several hundred years of new evidence. If you wish to continue your hypothetical discussion of "What would dead scientists think about Ken Ham?" you will need to take it somewhere other than Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC) For those intterested, I've opened a thread regarding Lampstand49's disruptive use of the article's talk page edit warring to un-collapse his walls of text here: Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Gaba, I have been well intentioned from the very start. However, those who have opposing views have chosen to label and collapse my well-thought out text which I had hoped would help reach a consensus. In regards to your supposed "Walloftext", here is what the Wikipedia guidelines read. "Not all long posts are walls of text, some can be nuanced and thoughtful. " - Wikipedia Not too mention, my comments all followed Wikipedia rules and were not very long, not the size of a novel. You should read the guidelines more closely. From the time I posted my comments, several of you immediately labeled and collapsed them. You repeatedly labeled and collapsed my comments. Why? Perhaps, so that they would not be included in reaching a consensus because they do not fit your point of view. What kind of concensus is that which includes only you? Lampstand49 (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Attempting to base an argument about the current state of science based on the beliefs of 16th century scientists cannot under any circumstances be considered "well thought out". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC) You have not been well intentioned at all. You have been WP:DISRUPTIVE with your two WP:WALLSOFTEXT which do nothing other that WP:SOAPBOX religious nonsense and you have WP:EDITWAR them into the article over and over again breaching the WP:3RR. I'd advise you to collapse them yourself but it's quite clear that you won't so let's just wait for the outcome of the section I opened about your edits here: Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) My comments were thoughtful with poll numbers and information about past scientists which could really help the balance of the article. I appropriately put my comments on the Talk Page in a thoughtful manner. I am here to help the group reach a more informed consensus so that the article is balanced. As it currently stands, the article has false information. I never said anyone had to use the poll information that I have provided which show the current article to be false. With that said, I was censored by a couple of people in this group who were disruptive because they were collapsing all of my comments. Lampstand49 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) You were not "censored"- your walls of off topic text and declined request were collapsed per the WP:TPG so that they do not continue to disrupt the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Please add as the final sentence of the final paragraph in the "Career" section:

• Nye has publicly spoken out against creationism and agreed to the debate because creationism is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and miseducating a generation of students by teaching creationism will harm our country because "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future".

References

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm inclined to action this, but given the recent debate on this page, would like to see a few more people agreeing to it. If it's done, I suggest a couple more params for that ref: |newspaper=The Guardian|location=London I would also amend |last=Zack Kopplin to |first=Zack|last=Kopplin I would also avoid a generic name for the ref (i.e. name="Guardian") because that has a high potential for duplication; instead I would use a more specific name like name="Guardian20140204" or just omit it entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

the Guardian article is already in there as support for the existing sentence under the title of <ref name="TG-20140204"> and any improvements of citation details can certainly be incorporated.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support the proposed edit and the improvements to the reference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to me, although it may suffer a bit of WP:RECENTISM. That can be rectified at a later time when perspective is gained. jps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support with some changes. To avoid WP:COPYVIO we should try to WP:PARAPHRASE what the article says a bit more rather than copying it verbatim. Also the "spoken out against creationism" and "agreed to the debate because" appear to be WP:SYNTH. This is what I propose:

Nye has publicly spoken out to oppose the teaching of creationism stating that it is "completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe" and that "we need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future". He agreed to the debate with Ham to raise awareness that "this belief [in creationism] is still among us".

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom, MrBill3, and QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: If you are all happy with the changes suggested by Gaba p, please reactivate this (set |answered=no) and I'll do it. I unwatched this page because of the disagreements below. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2014

71.178.194.11 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) The sentence "His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect and dismissed as such by the scientific community" is bias towards evolutionist and untrue.

1) Being "biased towards evolotionsist" is in fact what we are supposed to do: represent the current mainstream academics. 2) The statement is in fact, true, not false. 3) we have just Talk:Ken_Ham#It_is_a_fact_that_the_Age_of_the_Earth_is_not_6000_years_old developed a consensus to use that wording. While consensus can change, it is unlikely that it has in the past 48 hours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Yep. Gaba ^(talk) 19:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the statement that Ham's views are "dismissed by the scientific community." But I don't understand how Ham's views can be proved "incorrect" any more than the beliefs that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed can be proved "incorrect." All are assertions of belief, incapable of proof.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We present well established scientific consensus as fact. The long- and well-established scientific consensus is that the earth is many magnitudes of time older than 6000 years. It is therefore a FACT that his claim of 6000 year old earth is incorrect. And we don't beat around the bush about declaring it so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

^ Yep 2. Gaba ^(talk) 21:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying it's a scientific consensus—it certainly is—but there can be no proof of the assertion anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof.--John Foxe (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can keep your fingers in your ears "nyaa nyaa nyaaa science i dont hear you nyaa nyaa nyaa", but that is not going to change the scientific consensus and how we present it. It IS a scientific FACT that the earth is NOT 6000 years old. Period. Such a claim is not even close, and we do not do our readers any service in pretending otherwise, and as you have been shown multiple times, our policies in fact prevent us from doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as you say the position is a "scientific consensus," I have no problem; but there can be no proof of the assertion anymore than there can be proof that that the earth was created yesterday or that the earth has always existed. It's an assertion of belief, incapable of proof. We can't prove that the world hasn't always existed; we just proffer a scientific consensus that it hasn't.--John Foxe (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

if you really want, we can change it to : it is the overwhelming scientific consensus held by everyone with two brain cells that can make a synapse, fine, but otherwise we do not need to couch in any manner what the scientific community has long and overwhelmingly held as "fact". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I do prefer that suggestion; it better clarifies that logic need not stand in the way of objective.--John Foxe (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

logic and objective point of view and sources state Ham is wrong. we do the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic wording in lead

Rehash of almost all of the discussions above

The current wording "His claim about the young age of the Earth, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is incorrect" seems rather unencyclopedic. Elsewhere on Wikipedia we have wording like: "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as a pseudoscience, having no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe." "Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." I would suggest that the previous wording "His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community" is better than what we have now. -- 101.117.77.33 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)