Ken Ham Is Luring Public Schools to His Creationist Museum

Aug 4, 2016

By Zack Kopplin

Ken Ham, the owner of the Creation Museum and also a recently built life-size model of Noah’s Ark, has dropped his price of admission. It is now nearly free for public school field trips, which, legally, should not be visiting this very religious attraction.

“If coming as a public school class, students pay only $1 each and their supervising public school teachers come free,” Ham wrote on his Answers in Genesis website.

Field trips to the Ark are unconstitutional. Public schools aren’t allowed to promote one religion over another. Taking a field trip to a 500-foot Noah’s Ark would promote one very specific version of Christianity, a version that takes the Bible’s Book of Genesis literally. The version that says God sent a flood to wipe out mankind for being evil but first told Noah to build a giant Ark hosting a male and female of each species so that life could continue after the flood.

Ham, who opened his $100 million Ark on July 7 after nearly six years of planning and building, thinks this actually happened.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

61 comments on “Ken Ham Is Luring Public Schools to His Creationist Museum

  • @OP link – Ham seems to know his attraction shouldn’t make the cut, which is why he’s fallen back on another traditional creationist justification for it—that a visit would also teach students how to think critically. (Louisiana and Tennessee also have laws that allow creationism to be taught in school based on this premise that it promotes critical thinking.) Presenting the Ark “objectively” would help schools “to develop the critical thinking skills of their pupils,” Ham said. Of course, the only critical thinking skill that could be learned on these field trips is how to debunk bad science.

    Louisiana and Tennessee clearly have laws passed by politicians whose concept of “critical thinking”, is sniping at science because it debunks their uncritical circular thinking from biblical preconceptions!

    Still, Ham’s statement is a small improvement over his past statements about creationism in public schools. In response to a previous Slate investigation about field trips to his Creation Museum, he claimed that he didn’t promote creationism to public schools. “We’ve never tried to get creation taught in school,” he said. At the time, it was clear he was lying. He’s finally dropped the pretense.

    Just a regular liar for fundaMENTALISM, – as if AIG’s promotion of ID had nothing to do with public schools and earlier creationist deceptions!

    I suppose trying to induce public schools to bring children to loony ark-parks isn’t trying to teach creationism as part of school education!!

    The compartmentalism and denial of reality in the delusional Ham-brain, are only too obvious!

    Report abuse

  • @OP picture – Ken Ham speaks at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for his life-size Noah’s Ark replica on July 5 in Williamstown, Kentucky.

    I love the bonded bowsprit and keel put together from a composite of (epoxy?) glued planks after the style of plywood or blockboard.

    Given that bronze-age fixings were wooden dowel pegs, and bronze nails, with joints sealed with tar or beeswax, are there any engineers posting who can calculate the deck loadings and the height of the waves and swells (in millimetres??) which such a structure would survive for more than a few seconds in open sea?

    (BTW:- We know the Ham “replica”, has hidden “gopher steel” brackets and bolts, and is supported on concrete foundations which impose zero flexing (hogging) on the structure.)

    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, geologists have found evidence of yet another flood myth which has a basis in a local food for which there is geological evidence!

    The flood occurred after a landslide dammed the Yellow River in Jishi Gorge
    Geologists have found evidence for an ancient megaflood which they say is a good match for the mythical deluge at the dawn of China’s first dynasty.

    The legend of Emperor Yu states that he tamed the flooded Yellow River by dredging and redirecting its channels, thereby laying the foundations for the Xia dynasty and Chinese civilisation.

    Previously, no scientific evidence had been found for a corresponding flood.

    But now a Chinese-led team has placed just such an event at about 1,900BC.

    Writing in Science Magazine, the researchers describe a cataclysmic event in which a huge dam, dumped across the Jishi Gorge by a landslide, blocked the Yellow River for six to nine months.

    When the dam burst, up to 16 cubic kilometres of water inundated the lowlands downstream.

    The evidence for this sequence of events comes from sediments left by the dammed lake, high up the sides of Jishi Gorge, as well as deposits left kilometres downstream by the subsequent flood.

    Lead author Dr Wu Qinglong, from Nanjing Normal University, said he and colleagues stumbled on sediments from the ancient dam during fieldwork in 2007.

    Report abuse

  • up to 16 cubic kilometres of water

    about 1.6e+13 litres of water…..That would be a serious amount of water , truly a great flood! (but nowhere near enough to flood the entire world!!!)

    Report abuse

  • America is screwed up and will never recover. Despite the Constitution, religious shit is still distributed and
    encouraged in the Veterans hospital. I got out after eight days and all I could take.
    They are handing out quotes from the bible and holding “church” in sight of the “nonbelievers”.
    This shit needs to stop.
    We have to “surrender” to a higher power or we will not get well.
    This doesn’t look like my country any more.

    (excuse my anger and foul mouth…)

    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #8
    Aug 5, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    We have to “surrender” to a higher power or we will not get well.

    That is the essence of “faith” (and faith-healing)!

    Surrender your brain to the “representatives” of a “higher” delusion, hold yourself to be inferior and subservient to these alleged “representatives”, and surrender your body, life, and probably your money and assets, to them and their causes!
    They get these services in exchange for giving you delusional beliefs, dependence, and false assurances!
    That has to be a highly profitable enterprise with mega-mug collections of “believers”!!!

    Think of all the Xtian donors, and those who have “invested” in Hams’ unsecured junk bonds which are financing this farcical monstrosity!

    He got government grants, so I wonder what the accounts will show at the year end?

    There is probably a government accommodation space available for Ham, now Hovind snr. is being let out at the end of his term of incarceration for fraud!

    Report abuse

  • Were I a Biology teacher in one of these schools, I’d lead a contingent of students to the Ham scam, and let ’em loose on him!

    Dream on, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference; the religious mind is in a bind of its own making without realising it.

    The religious are “nutty”.

    Report abuse

  • Cairsley; “All that wood would make a splendid bonfire.”

    It could also have made housing for the poor….or a decent built boat.

    100 million=one hundred million dollar homes, or one thousand homes at one hundred thousand.
    The title should have been “Ken Ham builds one thousand homes for the poor.”

    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #11
    Aug 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    Cairsley; “All that wood would make a splendid bonfire.”

    Who knows? It might! ! –
    After the “Gopher Steel” structure, and the “interpretative Biblical Engineering”, perhaps Ham used creationist “science” for wiring the lights and the animatronic dinosaurs?

    Report abuse

  • Hi, Alf!

    What’s up? I just wanted to say hi.

    I’m finished with that genetic engineering thread. (I hope Phil’s still speaking to me.)

    Here’s a thought: Trump and Pence should make a campaign stop at the Creation Museum. Not to do so would be remiss, a slap in the face to all those evangelicals that Trump loves.

    Report abuse

  • Doing fine Dan, Thanks for asking.
    Howz are you?
    I’m still trying to get well. I’m getting better by the day.. I’m two weeks behind in my chores. Not so easy to catch up.
    I found out on Friday from the VA doctor, I had been taking one stimulus med at night by error.
    Fifteen years later and dozens of doctors, no one caught it.
    No wonder I have had trouble sleeping and HBP problems.
    That’s the care we give our Vets.

    Report abuse

  • Alf, (Phil)—

    I’m doing okay. Up and down, but on the whole, good.

    Man. That’s reprehensible. I have a relatively good psychiatrist, who I see every three months. The first think he does when I see him is ask me what I am taking and when. Your doctors – at least one of them – should have done the same. I am glad they finally caught it.

    I am glad you’re doing better, Alf.

    Hillary is ahead in the polls, thank Gawd. Lately they’ve been chanting: “Build a wall! Kill them all.”

    As for the topic, Ham is a sick asshole. I am so sick of all these stupid, ignorant people who have no insight, no observing egos. (I try to be understanding, but it’s hard.) Pence is one of them, a creationist – and he’s a VP candidate! Pathetic. It’s 2016.

    Why can’t these fools educate themselves? Education can’t be the answer if someone doesn’t recognize that he needs to be educated! Right, Phil? Science education and critical thinking should start at the pre. K level. Get them before the parents do! And homeschooling should not be allowed, if the parents are not qualified to be teachers. Homeschooling is very problematic. I am not opposed to it in all cases, of course.

    Report abuse

  • Hi Alf, Dan

    Glad you are on the up, Alf. That meds thing is a disgrace. Being interested in your own (or friends or relatives) treatment has been a huge education for me. I argue with doctor, sometimes even successfully. However, I have now had, by my own reckoning, every major disease type. I have become a professional hypochondriac.


    Yep, very early clean and clear education. If home schooling is the least bad option for your child then a local community is fundamentally broken and you should get out now.

    Fortunately kids are not exclusive about the grown ups they copy and offering genuine nondogmatic alternatives to parental nonsense or school nonsense will go a long way to keep the doors of reason open for future use.

    On a personal note about education, as important, almost, as nurturing reason and clear thinking, is mutual working. I believe, from reading accounts of great experiments in Italian schools that 4, 5 and 6 year olds are fully capable of working together. (Before most could read a class was given the task of improving their school in some way. The kids decided that getting more birds into their schoolyard would be really nice. Those that could read found out about birds feeding habits, those that wanted to helped build feeding tables or pendent food bags, others thought of different food and the problem of cats, others documented with pictures or counted birds at break time and had it put on a graph etc. More to the point the sense of collective achievement was enormous and the differing and complimentary skill levels was seen virtuously…) Most educationalists believe this can happen only much later, but there is a chicken and egg aspect to culture in this. A functional and productive mutuality cultivated early may build richer societies than those that laud individual self-sufficiency-or-die. Productive societies, built of the diversely and narrowly able is our biggest trick.

    Trump, Clinton latest with analysis.

    Report abuse

  • I would be most grateful if anyone out there can help me identify the link between critical thinking skills and the study of creationism.

    According to the OP:

    Louisiana and Tennessee … have laws that allow creationism to be taught in school based on this premise that it promotes critical thinking

    Where are these arguments published please?


    Report abuse

  • Note to Zack Kopplin:

    It’s great to see your unrelenting efforts!

    I think I can see a point where your argument could be improved, to wit:

    Public schools teach evolution, because as a country we want students to understand the science behind the diversity of life on Earth

    I don’t think that’s true. Or, to be more precise, I don’t believe that’s the whole story. I’ll come back to this.

    In addition, when you pose the argument in this way you give an advantage to the creationists because you’re effectively arguing on a premise of their choosing. Creationists love to base their creation versus evolution pseudo-debate on the idea that this is a clash of equal ideas. In the above response you have conceded that part of the argument because “we want students to understand … the diversity of life on Earth” is identical to the creationist’s argument.

    Which brings me back to: What is the whole story?, or: Why do we teach evolution?

    There are several answers that we could give and they nearly all take the form:

    Because we want to teach what is true – or fact. This has the benefit of being honest, but it too is arguing on the creationists turf. This leaves us with all the heavy lifting still to do: What scientists call fact and what creationists call fact is different because [insert here your favorite argument – a long tedious explanation of verifiability, falsifiability, confirmation, systemic systematic expert review , etc. etc.].

    Okay, now I’m being long-winded [loud chorus of ‘no change there then’ from regular readers].

    If I may, I suggest an alternative:

    We study evolution because that’s how nature works. If we want to improve our crop yields by understanding why plants and animals and insects interact with each other the way they do – evolution explains it. If we want a better cure for disease – evolution tells us how and why diseases work and why some of our ideas for fighting disease work, and some don’t. If we want to understand how nature can be harnessed in new ways to solve the future energy crisis, say, we need to know how nature works – evolution is how nature works. We know this because of [insert your favorite statistics on biology papers here].

    The foundation for this different thinking is: Look forwards, not backwards

    When we look forwards we avoid the trap set for us by creationists, the canard of the ‘clash of worldviews’.

    I urge you to try and avoid repeating creationist arguments – even in print. To do so is to concede that they have an argument. They do not.


    Report abuse

  • I urge you to try and avoid repeating creationist arguments – even in print. To do so is to concede that they have an argument. They do not.

    No…not for a moment.

    Dan Dennett has it that Darwin’s idea is probably the most profound idea yet had…ever. Understanding how the appearance of design is possible, how the processes of increasing entropy may be reversed, has the broadest and most humanly significant of applications.

    His book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, reveals a plethora of areas where “Darwin’s Acid” may yet aid us, for instance, in understanding culture (memes grown into science one day) and the rapid unconscious evolution of our very own thoughts, amongst them.

    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon #18
    Aug 7, 2016 at 5:30 am

    I would be most grateful if anyone out there can help me identify the link between critical thinking skills and the study of creationism.

    It would be possible to use creationist arguments as material for critical thinking analysis of circular arguments and other fallacies, but this is very unlikely to be productive with creationists present and involved in muddying the waters to confuse those in need of education in logical evidence based critical thinking skills.
    It is a prime example of the political pretence of promoting rational education, while doing exactly the opposite.

    As with creationist claims to “examine the facts”, they are just (without openly saying so). redefining “facts” and “critical thinking skills”, to mean, ” using YEC preconceptions and circular thinking to snipe at science and pretend there are “other forms of reasoning” apart from the logic of scientific methodology!
    We have also discussed in the past, YEC and Vatican pseudo-science re-definitions of “trrrooooo” scientific methodology based on consistency with faith dogmas!!

    The flocks are de-educated in the meanings of words as part of the smoke-screen wall defending the indefensible, the unscientific, and the irrational!

    I had a shot at your question back @#2.
    It is the classic creationist semantic shuffle introducing redefinitions of words to create confusion over the meanings.

    Alan4discussion #2
    Aug 5, 2016 at 5:38 am

    Louisiana and Tennessee clearly have laws passed by politicians whose concept of “critical thinking”, is sniping at science because it debunks their uncritical circular thinking from biblical preconceptions!

    Creationism is about substituting pseudo-facts for evidenced facts, pseudo-meanings on scientific terminology, and substituting fallacious pseudo-reasoning for logical thought processes.

    This is well illustrated by indoctrinated fundamentalist YEC posters, who come with their strong beliefs in the “show-stopper arguments” they have copied from junk websites and junk-thinkers!

    Report abuse

  • STW #21

    That is why I say studying and arguing the religious books is pointless. Turn it back to science and forget arguing religion on a blow by blow basis.

    Report abuse

  • 25
    bonnie2 says:

    @ # 11 &13

    The fit has his hit the shan – yes, not too late to deconstruct / refurbish the wood, e.g. Habitat for Humanity.

    Laying in the shadows, yet Ham’s underlying theme for his museum ( and now this ark thing) is “god’s message”. The museum’s ‘Corruption’ section features stark, dark images such as snarling wolves (that’ll learn you heathens). – Kentucky Fried Creationism

    Report abuse

  • 26
    bonnie2 says:

    @ #5

    A quote from a recent program about Koko (sign language gorilla): The public wasn’t particularly interested with double-blind tests and such, but, the photo of Koko with her baby kitten sure got their attention (which in turn, allowed more research, now that the public was interested).

    Unfortunately, emotions are luring the susceptible to the Ark, but not in a good way.

    Report abuse

  • 27
    Pinball1970 says:

    I always think of Wendy Wright when I hear that phrase.
    “Teach the controversy”
    It is probably one of the worst things they do, deliberately withholding information or distorting well documented science to children in order to preserve their delusions and keep the club going.
    I really do not think they believe half of OT stuff, it is simply not possible.

    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #27
    Aug 7, 2016 at 11:13 am

    I really do not think they believe half of OT stuff, it is simply not possible.

    I would not be too sure of that!

    The difference between intelligence and stupidity, is that intelligence has limits!

    Report abuse

  • 29
    Pinball1970 says:

    I was a theist once and I ignored the silly stuff and put it down to metaphor or whatever excuse they gave. The flood was one of those “its just a story” parts.
    All the jesus stuff was the main focus so I kept my faith till my early twenties.
    We’ve been over this lots of times, the US government need to stand up and state what the scientific community agree on.
    Zero evidence for a flood
    Evolution is a fact
    Old earth / universe is a fact.
    Any other debate going on is nothing to do with science.

    Report abuse

  • Hi Phil [#19],

    The Wiki page you link to does not discuss critical thinking. It further links to a Wiki page on the Discovery Institute (DI) that discusses a DI tactic they call Critical Analysis of Evolution.

    However critical analysis and critical thinking are entirely different things.

    Critical Analysis
    To quote Southeastern University (Louisiana):

    The purpose for writing a critique is to evaluate somebody’s work (a book, an essay, a movie, a painting…) in order to increase the reader’s understanding of it. A critical analysis is subjective writing because it expresses the writer’s opinion or evaluation of a text

    Emphasis added.

    Critical Thinking
    To quote Rational Wiki:

    Critical thinking is a [continuous] process [wherein] even ideas that one feels are well-supported need to be occasionally re-evaluated to see if new information might change one’s mind. Critical thinking uses many aspects of formal logic and informal logic. It … focuses on discovering bias, propaganda, delusion and deception both in the sources of one’s information and one’s own views and approaches to reasoning problems out.

    Emphasis added.

    One encourages us to use our subjective internal dialog, while one teaches us to question our internal dialog – because we may be led astray by our unthinking prejudices and by having ‘learned’ false premises or facts about the World.

    One uses logic, one eschews logic.

    One embraces our emotional and personal reactions. One actively avoids them.

    The Critical Analysis of the Arts Departments, and the Critical Thinking of the sciences, including Geography, History and other subjects, are polar opposites.

    So my question remains:

    Please help me identify those arguments that link critical thinking skills and the study of creationism – those arguments which were used to persuade the legislatures of Louisiana and Tennessee to pass laws that allow creationism to be taught in school based on the basis that it promotes critical thinking – because that is the claim that is made


    Report abuse

  • Stephen, I thought your question on critical thinking entirely rhetorical…a jest. There is no decent argument. The link was for general information only rather illustrating the jest….

    Report abuse

  • ADDENDUM to #31:

    The last paragraph should read:

    Please help me identify those arguments that link critical thinking skills and the study of creationism – those arguments which were used to persuade the legislatures of Louisiana and Tennessee to pass laws that allow creationism to be taught in school on the basis that creationism promotes critical thinking – because that is the claim that is made.

    On a related note: No story or post ratings, no post editing capability … Firefox users are being treated as second class citizens here.

    Report abuse

  • Mr DArcy #33
    Aug 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    The very fact that Ham has REDUCED his entrance prices within a month of opening tells me the sinners are staying away !

    Entry numbers seem to be low.
    Prices for looking a false information and a few stuffed animals seem very high.
    The reviews seem to indicating a poor low interest show, with little to inspire or offer anyone except the dedicated trooo YEC believer.
    Ham’s junk bonds which the gullibles “invested” in, are secured against, and repayable from, the takings on the gate, so even with his public money tax allowances, the whole thing could go pear-shaped fairly soon when some annual report and accounts are published for his “investors”, if gate numbers stay low!

    Report abuse

  • Hi Phil [#32],

    No worries. I’m making the same point – without jest. Or so it seems because; there must be an argument of sorts …

    This seemed like the ideal opportunity for those of us who know a tad about rhetoric to help Zack – who I admire, what a very impressive young man. If only I could persuade my Daughter to seek out someone similar …

    But I digress.

    The DI is all about marketing and legal shenanigans – anyone who visits this site on a regular basis quickly learns that creationists have more hot air in them than a Montgolfier balloon. For Zack to win his arguments he, in the main, needs to be at least as good as they are at rhetoric. So clear is this to me that I’m even thinking of campaigning for a revival of rhetoric in high schools and universities.

    I think you may have already found the ‘argument’ Phil – a deliberate conflation of Analysis with Method – in which case my work here is done.


    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon #34
    On a related note: No story or post ratings, no post editing capability … Firefox users are being treated as second class citizens here.

    I am watching the minutes and seconds tick away on the Click to Edit – 5 minutes and 15 seconds of my Firefox posting @#35, – just next to the “Like” button!

    Sometimes The edit and Like features appear late appearing after the comment, and a week or two back they had a spell when they were missing, but today they are visible, pasted here, and active.

    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon #38
    Aug 7, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Hi Alan [#37],

    Many thanks that’s valuable feedback! I’ll review my browser settings.

    The site seems to load bits and pieces from various different services (Avatar etc.) so on a slow line some bits can take a long time or get lost.

    I improved the performance of my system a couple of weeks ago, by switching off my router and letting it find a new server link.

    Report abuse

  • Teach the controversy. As someone said, that reminds me of Wendy Wright. Pure evil, if you ask me. Perhaps that is too simple an analysis, but that’s what I choose to call that kind of maniacal and willful defiance of truth. And behind it all is a wicked agenda – probably laced with white supremacy (racism). I suspect that creationists have murder in their hearts. They are very, very sick and dangerous people.

    How would a science teacher even teach Intelligent Design, let alone creationism? There’s nothing to teach. You’d be finished in a few sentences.

    Report abuse

  • 43
    Pinball1970 says:

    @42 And others

    Does anyone know what “normal Christians” are saying about this?

    Surely this sort of circus stunt does not do an awful lot for the positive message they want to put forward.

    Report abuse

  • Does anyone know what “normal Christians” are saying about this?

    What is a “normal” Xtian?

    Am I a Xtian? (I was baptised without my consent at 6 months old) – and am I NORMAL, haha.

    I see Ken Ham as a typical USA bible-thumper – seem’s to plenty of them in the southern half of the US of A.

    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #43
    Aug 8, 2016 at 2:58 am

    Does anyone know what “normal Christians” are saying about this?

    I think you would have a wide range of diverse answers to that question from a very wide range of “Christians”! !

    They would probably come in 3 rough groupings;

    YEC approval,
    Old Earth creationists, who may be fence sitters,
    and an assortment of more educated views, disapproving of what must be an embarrassment to better informed more rational Christians.

    Report abuse

  • 46
    Pinball1970 says:

    @#44 and 45

    Yes more of the last response I was after Alan

    A quick google

    20% of the 70% of the Christian population of the USA are Catholics which equates to about 40 million people.

    They should be aware that the vatican is fine with evolution.

    So I would expect at least some of them to being saying “Come on guys, you are making the rest of look like idiots!”

    As to M27s point, I know what you are getting at but a child thinking a man walked on water and came back from dead is not as bad a thinking the earth is 6000 yrs old (AND thinking a man walked on water…)

    I know, I was that child/man!

    Report abuse

  • 47
    Pinball1970 says:

    @40 and 41

    I would like to think they are insanely terrified of death than just evil.

    What they are doing is incredibly wicked I will grant you that, it can take years to recover from indoctrination of that sort.

    Some children never recover from this of courseand end up financing and building very large, expensive, unseaworthy boats.

    Report abuse

  • @45…
    The list of flavours and nuances that represent Christianity merely accentuates the absurdity of monotheistic religions!
    Who knows, maybe people with religious mania taste better than non-believers and when the factory ships arrive to collect their cargo the faithful will all be happy with being slaughtered in their billions. Turned into human packages of protein and shipped back across the gulf of space to be enjoyed as bar-snacks when the creatures of pollypus 12 have beers when enjoying the intergalactic pod-racing on the 3D telepathycasting equipment.

    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #46
    Aug 8, 2016 at 8:03 am

    20% of the 70% of the Christian population of the USA are Catholics which equates to about 40 million people.

    They should be aware that the vatican is fine with evolution.

    Many of the educated Catholics may well be “fine with the scientific theory of evolution” by way of natural selection, but those who are, are way ahead of the Vatican, which is certainly NOT fine with natural selection. IT is heavily into “God-did-it-by-intial-creation-and-persistent-fiddling-in-the-evolutionary-process”, – along with miracles and exorcisms!
    While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[4]

    The Church’s stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. Commentators tend to interpret the Church’s position in the way most favorable to their own arguments.

    The RCC says it does not accept what is commonly referred to as “intelligent design”, but nevertheless postulates its own vague version of a god fiddling with evolution to create human worshippers! – This is just an example of theistic double-talk!

    So I would expect at least some of them to being saying “Come on guys, you are making the rest of look like idiots!”

    I think that is a commonly held Catholic view of YECs and IDers, but then the RCC claims to be the only troooo “Universal” Christian Church anyway!

    Report abuse

  • “It ain’t a boat until it floats”
    “Ark the Herald Angels sing- who’s the dope that built this thing?”

    So, Ken- you’re gonna have to find a way to build one mother of a swimming pool around your “boat”, ballast it for basic stability [also the total mass of crew and contents] and leave it there for however long the bible said. Then we will see… notwithstanding all the modern materials you needed just to get the thing to stand up. Betcha it leaks, falls apart or founders within a very short time.

    Report abuse

  • Many (if not most) religious people unknowingly believe in the god of the gaps.
    Science and technology have been narrowing the gaps at an accelerated pace.
    That triggers fear, and one easy way to deal with fear is denial of what triggered it.
    That’s how you get phenomena like ken ham.

    Report abuse

  • To paraphrase Alan4, ” It’s evolution Dan, but not as we know it” ! To put it in more blunt terms RCC and Co E evolution is a nonsense. Darwin’s theory, on the other hand, is a bloody torpedo under their faith beliefs. They are not ‘fine with it’. But I am.

    Report abuse

  • 54
    Pinball1970 says:


    I think the fight should be brought to them, its time

    I know why RD said he does not like to debate creationists, they would thrive on the oxygen given to them and people may take them seriously

    They are getting this platform anyway though

    Let’s get some really good speakers lined up and take them on.

    They need exposing and publically humiliating so kids can this and realise how ridiculous this circus is.

    Someone like Krauss Matt Ridley and Steve Jones, they would make mincemeat of Ham, Wright, Hovind and Comfort.

    I would pay to see that.

    Report abuse

  • Pinball, any one with a secondary education could make mincemeat out of the listed fundies.
    You and quite a number of posters here could do a fine job of making them look like fools.
    But they are not open to facts, neither are their followers. Logic doesn’t work here.

    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #54
    Aug 9, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Someone like Krauss Matt Ridley and Steve Jones, they would make mincemeat of Ham, Wright, Hovind and Comfort.

    The problem was illustrated by Bill Nye – Ham’s web site, his followers, and their god delusions, with back-references to their preconceptions, will just proclaim him to have “won” the argument!

    When trying to explain the complexities of reality to the assertive profoundly ignorant, their brains will almost invariable take the line of least resistance and fall back on some simplistic, childish, fairytale narrative, which requires no mental effort or study.

    That is how they establish and maintain their condition of being “the profoundly ignorant”!
    If their stupidity causes some real world issue which causes grief, it is either “god’s will”, “the devil’s work”, or “somebody else’s fault”!

    Report abuse

  • Pinball1970 #59
    Aug 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    @56 & 58 I would never expect Ham & Co to realize they were wrong, kids watching may do though.

    You are quite right. The likes of Ham are lost causes!
    That is why their claims should be simply dismissed as unworthy of serious debate, with a mixture of mockery and pity for their delusional stupidity.
    Issues should be focussed on benefiting the third parties in audiences who are being targeted by Ham’s deceptions!
    Under no circumstances should he be presented as having views which merit equal status with honestly worked for scientific research results.
    What AIG comically calls “research” in its pseudoscience pseudo-journal, is all circular concocted semantics and fallacies, starting from biblical preconceptions, and totally devoid of any scientific methodology.
    Like the “ark”, the whole charade is delusionary fake, from start to finish, and should be called out as such!

    That is why Richard refuses to share a platform with them, and why Bill Nye was warned by other scientists about giving Ham the appearance of credibility and “respect” as a debater of science, when he is no such thing!
    Liars for Jesus, who have no respect for honesty and integrity in debate, have no respect for honestly reporting or presenting the details the debate afterwards.
    Habitual liars, frequently accuse their critics of lying – thus confusing the under informed, the biased, the naive, and the gullible, who have no idea who or what to believe!

    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.