Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 3

05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Several sources describe Creation Science as "pseudoscience." None describe Ken Ham as a "pseudoscientist." In my view, adding such a category breaches

To use an analogy, homeopathy is pseudoscience, but a pharmacist selling homeopathic "medicine" should not be called a "pseudoscientist." -- 101.117.58.97 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

One who presents creationism with a purported scientific basis is practicing pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Just as someone who writes popular books on mainstream science is not, by virtue of doing so, a scientist. -- 101.117.58.97 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

One who opens a museum and engages in "scientific" debates is practicing pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

One who opens a museum is a museum-owner, not a scientist or a pseudoscientist. One who engages in debate is a debater (Bill Nye is not a scientist, for example). And, apart from breaching

WP:BLP, I really question what value this "attack tagging" is supposed to have. It would be better to have articles debunking Creation Science (a number of such articles have recently been deleted, in fact). -- 101.117.58.97 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)— 101.117.58.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

outside this topic.

One who opens a "Creation Science" museum (museum definition: A building or institution dedicated to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, cultural or artistic value.) which "aims at smuggling pseudoscience" and purports to study and provide educational interpretation of objects having purported scientific value is indeed practicing pseudoscience not merely being an owner. One who cites evidence as historical fact in a scientific debate is engaging in pseudoscience. One who publishes books providing pseudoscientific explanations is engaging in pseudoscience. One who forms an organization to study and promulgate a pseudoscientific view as scientific is engaging in pseudoscience. One who purports to support their analysis with what is described by multiple sources as pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here:

1. Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of
   WP:BLP
   ;
2. Even if we grant this, do reliable sources explicitly say that Ham engages in pseudoscience - I don't see how any of the twelve sources qualify, since they are all (mostly explicitly) opinion pieces;
3. If we grant that reliable sources do not need to explicitly state that Ham engages in pseudoscience, is his connection with
   Creation Science
   enough? The Creation Science article states that it is "commonly characterized" as pseudo-science - that doesn't seem to be enough for a BLP.

StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Harris 2014 not an opinion piece but a news story by a leading news program on a major network states that Ham's Creation Museum is "A place that has been a high-tech mechanism for pseudoscience". Thus Ham has been described as operating a high tech mechanism for pseudoscience. How is that not explicitly stating that Ham is a pseudoscientist? - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Explicitly" means a statement like "Ham is a pseudoscientist". Since it is basically a form of name-calling, it is something the reliable sources generally avoid. StAnselm (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources generally avoid oversimplification they provide detailed analysis which we paraphrase and use to categorize.

One who publishes a book that is widely described as pseudoscience has produced pseudoscience according to RS. One who produces published pseudoscience is clearly a pseudoscientist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly you don't understand what the word "explicitly" means. Explicitly stating that Ham is pseudoscientist would involve the phrase "Ham is a pseudoscientist." And the characterisation of Creation Science as pseudoscience is not in dispute here, just the label "pseudoscientist" attached to specific people. A TV station that shows scientific shows (or pseudoscientific shows) is a "high tech mechanism" for science (pseudoscience), but the owner of the station is not a scientist (pseudoscientist). Your word "clearly" seems a flag for

WP:RS explicitly calling Ham a pseudoscientist; most people are too aware of libel laws to do that. -- 101.117.28.73 (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)— 101.117.28.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

outside this topic.

that there is any question that someone whose entire notability is promoting a pseudoscientific idea is a "pseudoscientist" needs an "explicit" statement is completely absurd, but [1] [2] there you go specific identification of ham as practitioner of PS.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you go, a published source that explicitly refers to Ham as a pseudoscientist: "as the pseudoscientist Ken Ham accurately states". Link to the book in [http://www.amazon.com/The-Divine-Default-Faith-Answer/dp/1628940069 Amazon]. Can we have the category back now please? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem there is the book is not about much except to debunk religion - it is a bit of a screed in fact. JJ Dyken sets out to debunk many of the most common religious assertions from the power of prayer to the seemingly inseparable bond between religion and morality. In so doing, he presents a persuasive case as to why the clash between faith and reason is not just irrational, but potentially deadly for mankind. is clear, and as such it is not really usable as a reliable source for much at all. I suspect much better sources may be found, but this one ain't it. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS if one reads their manuscript submission rules etc.. It is per [3] Poor contract. Not recommended. A publisher. Better sources should be found.Collect (talk

) 13:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume that the issue here is whether he claims to be a scientist, as clearly he is espousing pseudoscience. He may walk a fine line of whether he claims to be a scientist of not. But in his bio he states that he has a science degree [4]. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think using the "pseudoscience" category rather than the "pseudoscientists" category works appropriately. Ham is actively engaged in the promotion of pseudoscience, but he is not engaged in the practice of publishing pseudoscientific papers in pseudoscientific journals (as are many of his colleagues at AiG). They are pseudoscientists; he is merely promoting their pseudoscience. But by all means, cite away on that point. :) Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

He certainly IS in the business of presenting both his written works and the content of the museum as "science". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. A person writing about science is not necessarily a scientist. Ken Ham performs no research and presents no findings. His position is an administrative one and his (admittedly prolific) writing comprises commentary on pseudoscience and religious dogma. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That might be correct, but pseudoscience is not science, it is just the appearance of science. Stating in your bio that you have a science degree in biology while writing, talking and disseminating pseudoscience to the world seems like they are at least implying they are a scientist. What really makes someone a pseudoscientist? XFEM Skier (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A pseudoscientist is someone who does something that looks like science but isn't. Ham just writes, and not very sciencey-ly at all. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is just plain nonsense to claim the Ham is not attempting to pass off his pseudoscience as if it were science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course that is precisely what he is doing. But doing that doesn't make him a pseudoscientist any more than writing about science or debating about science makes you a scientist. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

complete nonsense. any attempts at a false analogy comparing science and scientists to pseudoscience and pseudoscientists is not worth stooping to.

shilling non science as if it were science is precisely what pseudoscience, and what a pseudcientist does, and is what Ham does. And there are sources confirming it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscientist: an adherent or practitioner of pseudoscience, or a person who falsely or mistakenly claims to be or is regarded as a scientist. That's the definition. Multiple sources give repeated descriptions that equate with this definition while explicitly using the term pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The real problem comes where Religion is the clear basis for beliefs - and this might be used by some to call anyone who holds "non-scientific religious views" as "believing in pseudoscience" which would appear to be barred by prior ArbCom dicta. Would you grant that "riding a flying horse" is "not science"? Would you call anyone who believes in such a thing who is otherwise a "scientist" by training a "pseudoscientist"? Do you note that making such a judgment which is clearly a matter of religious belief might be viewed as being an attack on that religion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ham presents his position as science (a museum, publications and debates, advocacy of inclusion in Science curricula in public schools). RS consistently describe his position and its presentation as pseudoscience and pseudoscientific. The category is not being applied to someone who holds a belief but to one who presents the belief as scientific. A trained scientist who asserted that "riding a flying horse" is supportable by science would be a pseudoscientist. A biologist who believed in a virgin giving birth would not be a pseudoscientist unless they asserted it was supported by science. The distinction is clear. In the case of Ham it is abundantly clear in his own assertions that he is purporting that his ideas are scientific in nature when in fact they are pseudoscience. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That whole argument is essentially

WP:RS uses the label "pseudoscientist." And such a pejorative label is unencyclopedic in any case, and has no benefit; the way to combat pseudoscience is to calmly and rationally explain why it's wrong. -- 101.117.1.11 (talk

) 06:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference. The body of the article is mostly opinions and quotes about the subject. Not facts. There is a quote from an obscure Australian news source only because it rips Ken Ham and Christianity. I get it. Let's only post quotes and sources we agree with. I don't think Wikipedia editors care about anything but POV pushing and this talkpage history shows that. The majority here thinks Its ok to ignore BLP on this article because they don't like Ken Ham and recognize Creation Science. Do whatever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.34.161 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in stating that an obscure former Australian whose sole notability is his peddling of pseudoscience is a pseudoscientist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm one of the

WP:SYNTH. Put him in the Pseudoscience category, by all means, but don't put him in the Pseudoscientist category. Physicsandwhiskey (talk

) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the category description "This category includes biographies of people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience." [5] he clearly qualifies. If there is an issue with that definition that should be carried out on the categories page not here. Also as the category is up for deletion here so there might be revelavent discussion there as well. But as currently defined it is pretty clear that Ken Ham qualifies to inclusion in the category. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the second paragraph from the lede. It's redundant (saying he's a YEC suffices), and it's argumentation and criticism that belongs later in the article, where it already is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal Jpgordon. The 2nd paragraph is the result of extensive TP discussion and consensus (look above or in the last archive). The readers are better served having this information (which is why this person is known for) in the lead. Ham is not just "a YEC", he is the most vocal and public supporter of the nonsense that comes with it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but why does his fame in this field necessitate a refutation of his theories in this field in the lede? It's somewhat coatracky; there's nothing special about his form of YEC that isn't generic to all YEC advocates. Basically, there's no reason in the lede to point out how full of shit he is; in what way does it help the reader, who can be assumed (a) to have the ability to click through the links provided; and (b) to have the ability to continue reading the article where a fuller discussion of the issues takes place anyway? (By the way, I fully expected it to be reverted; I was rather curious what the rationale would be.) ----jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it does. His wild and highly publicized claims about the bible being literal (with the age of the Earth being the most visible) are what made him notable beyond other YECs, thus a clear refutation of his nonsense is necessary in the lead as per

WP:LEAD should summarize the contents in the article, especially "its most important aspects", so having this short paragraph there is recommended. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

23:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for sake of discussion, lets look at other articles about Full Of Crappers. For example, the lede at

birthers. The lede at David Irving doesn't enter into a refutation of holocaust denial. Trofim Lysenko doesn't enter into a refutation of Lysenkoism. Other pseudoscientists: Rupert Sheldrake does have a refutation in the lede. Immanuel Velikovsky just says he's been ignored or rejected. Kevin Trudeau mentions his fraud convictions, but doesn't go into the details of the fraud (that's below.) Erich von Däniken just says "rejected by scientists and academics]]. Terence McKenna describes "novelty theory]] as a pseudoscience in the lede, leaving the deeper discussion and refutation for the main body...Maybe someone else will come along and explain what's so special about this one phony that the details of his phoniness need to be spelled out in the lead, when a summary would simply say "his theories are considered unscientific by the academic community" or something like that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

In my opinion those articles you bring up should mention explicitly the refutation of whatever nonsense these people claim, just like this one does, not the other way around. I welcome anyone else chiming in but I can explain you why this article's lead is written like it is: because that was the result of extensive discussion in the talk page. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're so familiar with it, please point to where in the archives my particular points were raised. ----jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, when did I say your points had already been raised? The archive where the current lead was mainly drafted is Archive 2. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 10:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What became of the proposed RFC? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It sort of died off after some days of discussion, mainly because the consensus version currently up (or a very similar version, can't recall if subsequent minor modifications were made) was sort of agreed upon, at least to the extent that the edit-warring stopped. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I support retaining the content. Lengthy discussions were had. I agree with Gaba "articles ... should mention explicitly the refutation of whatever nonsense..." and it should be in the lede. Particularly if the notability of the subject is primarily for "whatever nonsense". Also per TRPoD we follow the sources proportionately and representatively. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What MrBill3 said. The introduction is good as-is. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Ken Ham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Intro summary sounds a slight bit biased against the subject. Should edit the last sentence to read:

• He claims that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the genealogies in the Bible. This directly conflicts with the modern scientific model due to evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records.

A small, but significant difference.

I can't place a name that differentiates a creationist model of the universe from the prevailing model. Creationists mostly only differ on the time taken. They accept expansion, and (many accept) the Big Bang. Obviously, for the formation of the Earth it is easier to name the differences. MicManGuy (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this edit. The current version was extensively discussed and agreed not long ago. There's no need to whitewash Ham's nonsense making it seem like there are two equally valid views on the matter and his just disagrees with the other. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the category "Pseudoscientific biologists" belongs here. A "Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology" doesn't qualify you as a biologist, whether pseudoscientific or otherwise. The category is not referenced and should be removed. 121.219.8.176 (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since no-one has responded/objected to the above suggestion, please remove Category:Pseudoscientific biologists from this article. It is completely unreferenced. Generally speaking, only people advanced degrees or extensive publication records are considered "biologists", and there is no indication in the article that Ken Ham can be considered one, whether "pseudoscientific" or otherwise. 120.144.196.69 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please also remove the Category:Advocates of pseudoscience category, since that category states "This is a container category, which must not include articles." -- 101.117.90.16 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have place Ken into two new Categories following the ruling from on high that he can no longer be called a "Pseudoscientist" even though that is squarely what he is. Due to his fake biological writings and utterances, and his fake historical writings and utterances, the two cats I have added will do the job that "pseudoscientist" used to do. I note the comment from an IP editor above, to which I reply of course he isn't a biologist, nobody is saying he is, he is a pseudobiologist. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So despite the fact that Young Earth creationism is a subcat of Pseudoscience (and quite correctly too, since it is), we can't put a Young Earth creationist into the category Pseudoscientists? That's priceless. You've gotta love Wikipedia sometimes. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tis a done deal which cannot be undone. The Fringe Theories Noticeboard has some discussions (two) and links to the process and discussion that was the decision making process. I agree that abandoning the category is rather daft. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The logical thing, in light of the decision that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is a container category, is to put the subject into Category:Young Earth creationists or something with a similar name, and put that category in Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. And the decision was quite sensible, given BLP and sourcing concerns. -- 101.117.56.130 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems sensible. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am wondering if we can come to an agreement and come up with a phrase we both agree with in lines 3-4. I added in a claim I thought was reasonable, "Ham believes his claim that the earth is around 6,000 years old is supported by observational science, and that historical science is flawed & based on past events that may or may not have happened"

Could we include both this passage and your claim that the young earth theory is "contradicted" in some way? While you indeed are correct that secular findings have contradicted Ham's word, other science supports hams findings.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixit12345 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

uhhh, no.

WP:FRINGE claims are treated as fringe claims. just because he doesnt believe in science does not mean we go all stupid and close our eyes and pretend that science doesnt exist nor elevate his nonsense to some state of actual relevance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

04:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You'd be happy, but he wouldn't. To him science is what scientists say science is, nothing more, nothing less.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well apparently it is the original posters way or the highway, which is NOT the way this works sorry to break it to ya. It's a page about KEN HAM, I think it is reasonable that we list his rebuttal to his claims, rather then just the secular talking point & leave nothing to balance it with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixit12345 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh... You're the original poster in this thread. And if you think that science is just "secular talking points" and that we should

give the same validity to delusional charlatans as we give to the light by which all scientists now see biology, guess again. Ian.thomson (talk

) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

^ This. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been requested due to high levels of newbie, IP, and sock vandalism. This article is under ArbCom's Discretionary Sanctions due to its extremely controversial nature (evolution/creationism controversies). Creationists continually vandalize, delete properly sourced content, and add unsourced editorializing. --

Ham earned a Bachelor of Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.[7] ???? No reference, no dates. Are you really thinking that a guy able to believe earth is 6000 y age A guy who does not understand the measure of the aged by radioisotope measures has a scientific diploma... if this guy has a scientific diploma can you tell where, when, and precise the title received in order to be able to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:684:F66:A0E0:B1A4:85CF:C5E0 (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

See that little [7] after the sentence? That's a footnote to the citation. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I did see that before asking the question, In fact I was expecting a more serious reference than a book called " Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age" When you come to think about it it's even strange to give this sort reference instead of a simple date and name of school. I mailed the queensland university ... I got no answer, even on his facebook's page there is nothing about this diploma.

The source cited was published by

reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines, regardless of your opinion after judging the book by its cover (or in this case, the title on its cover). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Moreover when a scientist is able to say the following: [Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn't mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here] Only one conclusion can be taken out this: This guy can't be a scientist! and the school from which he could come should not be proud of this publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.77.135 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But that was Einstein's position. The amount of time dilation depends upon the reference frame chosen, and an equally valid reference frame for the time of the events is the observer's reference frame (i.e. no time passed during the passage of light through space in a vacuum, or practically no time in space using this reference frame) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

1) where do we say that he is a scientist? 2) do you have any evidence that he put [Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn't mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here] on his exam papers and the schools gave him degrees anyway? 3) Is there any evidence that anyone other than you does not believe that he has the degrees mentioned? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Answers to 1, 2, 3 1) may be my knowledge of English (i'm french speaking)... so Correct me if I'm wrong but "bachelor in science" is somewhat to to with "engineering or so" => that's scientific or scientist? isn't it? 2) He did not tell it during his exams (unfortunately) but to a child on his website on 2 september 2010 ("answer in genesis"). As an engineer myself I can confirm that if one student could be so ignorant about science to say this, he should restart his study in a ... different ....way 3)You are confusing the problem. The problem I've is that I've no evidence that he is "bachelor in applied science" from queensland unsity :I'm looking for this evidence... do you have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.77.135 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

1) saying that he got a degree is saying that he got a degree. period. 2)

not a reliably published source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

02:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.77.135 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disregarding your marginally coherent rant about Noah, I will provide another source for the material you question.

• Chowdhury, Sudeshna (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye versus Ken Ham: Who Won?". The Christian Science Monitor.

This source – which is secular despite its name, as you can see from its Wikipedia article – says: "Ham holds a bachelor's degree in environmental biology from Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia and a teaching certificate from the University of Queensland."

Your correspondence with the Queensland Institute of Technology is

original research, which is not allowed for citing material on Wikipedia. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs}

) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If this school does not know him, I think that the first who wrote that this guy had a scientific diploma has made an horribble "original research". My correspondance with this school SHOWS that all poeple who copy paste that this guy has this diploma are seeding this horrible "original research" and I can and links to those you are doing that (but it is forbidden to do so here). Finally... My rant about "history" of Noha's arch was prehaps an original research ... but ... a plaisant one by the way for those you use logical to build up knowledge. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.77.135 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

your lack of results in searching do not matter to wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

02:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should dismiss correspondence from the University out of hand. If the university confirms that Ken Ham did not receive such awards from them as an institution and that correspondence could be verified it would trump sources which ultimately trace back to the word of the subject himself. That said I'm not sure how such correspondence could be verified. I will freely admit upfront my

bias in hoping that there is a methodology for confirming this correspondence and that it passes it. SPACKlick (talk

) 09:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Until you get the community to remove

WP:RS , we will continue to dismiss it out of hand. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

14:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the source the article claims to verify his qualification is a printed book unavailable to most of us, it would be nice if someone with access to the book could quote the relevant part of it here. Dismissing these concerns out of hand is not going to convince anyone of the truth in this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

url = http://www.amazon.com/Anointed-Evangelical-Truth-Secular-Age/dp/0674048180/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1411344490&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=The+Anointed%3A+Evangelical+Truth+in+a+Secular+Age. page 11 do search in book for "Ken Ham". --ErikWoodman (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see how to look at page 11 of the book from that website. What I do see are the words "Ken Ham, founder of the creationist Answers in Genesis, who has no scientific expertise". Probably not what you wanted to be the message. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, click first on "look inside" then do search..... --ErikWoodman (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's an even better source at Google Books, which often has searchable listings:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=VKyCOhWWHD8C&q=Queensland+Institute#v=snippet&q=Queensland%20Institute&f=false

BTW, I have no trouble admitting that someone (generic) even has multiple legitimate doctorates in science and multiple Nobel Prizes, and can still hold some pretty wacky, pseudoscientific ideas. We have some examples. Even a legitimate degree and education does not guarantee that the person doesn't somehow get off track, not really learn their stuff, or simply has become senile. Ergo, for someone like Ham, his degree means nothing, and the source makes that plain: "...Ham has the most limited of scientific credentials...." He only has what's needed to teach high school biology in Australia, although I wouldn't want him teaching my kids any of his nonsense. --

Hey, FWIW, I was in grad school at UC Berkeley with none other than Jonathan Wells, he in the molecular and cell dept and me in Zoology. He was a Moony, a creationist, and... got his PhD from MCB at Berkeley. a LOT of us objected to this at the time, but he did the work, and got his degree. He did no science afterwards of course, and has since only written anti-science books, but he DID get a PhD from Berkeley in biology. Moony stated he wanted to have an acolyte with the proper credentials, which is exactly what he got. I personally think Berkeley should have rescinded his PhD since it was obtained under false pretense, but that's not the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.124.180 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I have just one question: why is it so hard for you (I am not speaking to any one specific editor) to accept that a creationist like Ken Ham can get a scientific diploma? Just because one may not believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old doesn't mean that he or she is incapable of graduating collage and receiving a degree. You may not agree with what Ham believes, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to engage in personal degradation. You may not like it, but Ken Ham did receive a scientific diploma, and per

I have restored sourced content that has been removed twice. I support the inclusion of this content as relevant and notable. Further removal without getting consensus would be edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

TalkOrigins.org is a discussion group, not an authoritative source on the level of a peer reviewed journal. Besides Ken Ham would gladly agree that no one witnessed Creation and that both creation and evolution are scientifically unprovable theories. I don't think you want to go there.--John Foxe (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

See

WP:FRINGE I think you will find there is consensus support for including content from talk.origins. - - MrBill3 (talk

) 00:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking,

talk

) 01:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Why use TalkOrigins.org to defend mainstream science? After all, if it's mainstream, you should be able to draw on countless peer-reviewed sources rather than cite a discussion group.--John Foxe (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, FRINGE views never make it through peer review - they dont take kindly to strawman argumentation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Countless peer reviewed sources advance the scientific understanding of evolution, as stated they don't engage in analysis of

WP:PSCI. You won't find scholarly work devoted to debunking the flat earth theory or discussing creationism extensively. As stated that is why WP has the previously linked guidelines and policies. - - MrBill3 (talk

) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone asks me why I don't believe that ancient astronauts built the pyramids or that Moslems built mosques in pre-Columbian Cuba, I know where I can get peer-reviewed answers. I don't have to rely on internet discussion groups. Let me suggest that scientists don't engage with creationism unless absolutely forced to because those who would be the best apologists understand how shaky is their philosophical ground.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that sources should be academic, not popular quality. Surely there is something more than a statement of opinion on a blog. For the sake of credibility, we need to use good peer-reviewed academic sources, not just any sources. If they're not reviewed in academia, the whole issue of what is even claimed by the man may be relevant or worth discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Numerous sources from peer review to courts have declared creationism pseudoscience, but few of them have discussed Ham's specific arguments. If these clearly

Fringe theories. If your looking for references that discuss creation science as opposed to discussing Ken Ham look to that article. I would like to see some of the peer reviewed sources that discuss various individuals and their specific claims in regards to the other pseudosciences mentioned. As it is no better source has been proposed. - - MrBill3 (talk

) 07:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think any serious scholar is going to bother with "Were you there?" as a point of scholarly discussion on evolution or creationism? The question is so absurd in a discussion about a period of time that no person alive was there, specifically including the questioner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, serious scholars hope to ignore such questions—it puts evolution and creationism on an equal footing as theories that can't be proved, at least not proved in the same manner as what's done in laboratories and double-blind studies.--John Foxe (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's an opinion not found in reliable academic sources, there's no reason to include it. There's plenty of well-enough supported contributions with the same gist, why lower the reliability of Wikipedia to quota blog posts? It's just one reason university librarians recommend against using Wikipedia as a serious reference. I'd like to change that. But maybe it's a lost cause, as my good-faith contributions are reverted on apparently sentimental grounds. I give up. Make Wikipedia a rumor site that promotes self-published blog posts if you like, I've got insufficient time to keep it from going that way. 72.234.110.47 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See

WP:FRINGE. Ask one of those university librarians for a quality source on "Where you there?" as a part of the scholarly discourse on evolution, cosmology etc. - - MrBill3 (talk

) 08:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I question whether this edit [6] is appropriately encyclopedic. It is claimed the earlier edit transgressed guidance on in text attribution

• First, the original sentence already describes that this is evidence KH adduces to support his assertion the Earth is young, other parts of the article make it abundantly clear that this is disputed by the mainstream scientific establishment, this additional clause is somewhat tautologous.
• Second, it gives the misleading impression that what has been refuted is the actual existence of the soft tissue, (plus 'red cells' and biochemical components), not the young earth creationist interpretation of these facts. This inadvertently risks strengthening Ham's contention that interpretations are conflated with observed data.
• Third, the edit gives no impression of the widespread surprise of mainstream investigators at the discovery of such apparently 'young' material, not least the author of the paper herself, who repeated the examination 17 times before daring to publish it.[9]
• Fourth, the reference substituted [10] is less accurate than the creationist source originally used in four respects: first because the first reference comes from KH and represents his own opinion, second the talkorigins site [11] is currently both inaccurate and out of date, and only confirms why there should be widespread shock that proteins and short 10 bp segments of dsDNA should be found from ancient specimens 'DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaur' (in fact there are now 4 lines of evidence that short segments of DNA exist in dinosaur samples [12], as well as fragments from type 1 collagen, osteocalcin, probably some form of phosphoprotein, chondroitin sulphate proteoglycan, and possibly also cystatin have been found[13] amongst others. The creationist report at least give considerable time and detail to credit the counterargument given by the original discoverers for a multi-million year preservation of these samples (however implausible that explanation may appear).[14] Other creationist sites have also reported on this, [15][16] indicating that KH's view is widely held by other creationists.

I propose restoration of the original source (as RS for KH's opinion) and replacement of the partisan and inaccurate talkorigins reference[17] with the original publications given above. Cpsoper (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

DNA has NOT been found in 65 million year old Dinosaur fossils, nor should we expect to find it past 1million years old, regardless of what you claim about the misrepresented citations you have presented. Some of those are behind a paywall but MH Schweitzer has been on record confirming that those bones are old.--Adam in MO Talk 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Although there isn't evidence of DNA in dinosaur fossils, that doesn't mean that we can simply say "Oh, the claim is easily debunked". I agree with Cpsoper that the edit in question is unencylopedic and should not remain due to the reasons he mentioned above. Luthien22 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam, you may wish to discuss your opinions with the authors of the paper I cited, here surely we should stick to facts. They cite four lines of evidence that DNA has been isolated in bone. Even the abstract reads 'multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs'. This of course is not the same as sequencing. Cpsoper (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence seems highly questionable.

He supports his view with biblical scripture,[32] dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, collagen and evidence of DNA fragments[33][34][35][36] and claims of catastrophic inundation.

The sources are primary and an implication is given that these new, novel theories presented in primary papers are accepted fact rather than fringe theories that have not recieved substantial evaluation much less acceptance in their fields. Unless or until "dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, collagen and evidence of DNA fragments" have been reviewed and evaluated by secondary scholarly sources they should probably not be in the article or at least be qualified. Also I don't think he "supports his view" with the information in the studies cited but with his own proposed interpretation and questionable understanding of the ideas presented in the cited studies some of which he could surely not have been refering to based on dates. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it so that we focus on the rhetorical argument which is Ham's typical approach. jps (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit removes the substance of his argument, and replaces it with a vague general description. This serves to impoverish the information on the page. No one disputes that the interpretation of the data is at issue, nor that the data is the fruit of mainstream work, so why not mention what the data itself actually is? Cpsoper (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The clause 'claims of catastrophic inundation tied to his belief ' also introduces infelicitous repetition, 'he believes...tied to his belief'. As to the newness of the findings, the oldest paper is at least 10 years old, there has been considerable academic and media interest and widespread international comment. Try these for example [18], [19], [20], [21] Cpsoper (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Ken Ham doesn't have citable substance in his arguments about scientific data and scientific results because he can only refer to the rhetoric of his approach. He does not publish in the areas where one would find such arguments bing made. The relevance of the data to anything related to Ken Ham's beliefs is only attested to by Ken Ham and he admits that he likes to choose evidence that is mainstream. That's the major point (and, I would note, there are many more arguments he makes that have nothing to do with soft tissue). Also note that "he believes..." and "...tied to his belief." are in two different sentences. jps (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

He has no 'citable substance'? It's quite clear from the secondary sources I've quoted that these very findings were 'shocking' and 'surprising' to their discoverers. Creationists have 'hijacked them' as being convenient data to support their opinions, according to the Smithsonian magazine. You've removed the details of what the actual data is, not what the interpretation is, and impoverished the data in the page without proper justification, and on these grounds I have restored them. I would agree there is a case for adding general comment from mainstream sources on the same findings, and the citation from Ham's own centre describes the value of iron in acting as a preservative, per Schweitzer's work. Cpsoper (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ken Hamm has hijacked many stories in has rather voluminous blogs and talks. Highlighting this particular idea in the text is unwarranted. jps (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

4 references, including a secondary source the same editor had requested, have been removed, along with other details directly pertinent to the subject of the page's own directly cited views. Coatracking is illustrated by 'paragraph after paragraph' of material, in a way that obscures the subject, and it does not seem undue to outline in a handful of words explaining just what reasons this subject himself has repeatedly given for what he believes, this edit [22] serves to impoverish the reader's insight and understanding. Cpsoper (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ham has been an active creationist for decades. He has supported his view with a huge range of arguments, rhetoric, innuendo, and scriptural interpretations. To pick one or even a few out requires a strong source that says that such are his signature arguments. Since there isn't a lot of attention paid to Ham's ideas, there isn't a lot of analysis of this sort. Perhaps there is, in fact, none. jps (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not so difficult. AiG cites soft tissue data as 'no 3' in their list of evidence supporting a young Earth [23] after two geological phenomena. It's easy to see why, when you look at some reactions that Schweitzer's findings must be 'nonsense', because of the antiquity of the samples.[24] An editor at Talk origins also still believes DNA could not and has not been isolated in dinosaurs.[25] A short mention of the specifics is appropriate for the article. Cpsoper (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to find someone independent of Ham himself (that is not Answers in Genesis) which identifies this particular argument as relevant to Ham's biography. So far, you have failed to do that and this set of links certainly does not make your case. jps (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The AiG website and Ken Ham are notorious for taking valid references and distorting what they say. An example of this would be taking a comment by Neil DeGrasse Tyson from the series Cosmos, a worksheet from a site to help teachers and conclude that "Students told to worship the sun" <https://answersingenesis.org/public-school/students-told-to-worship-sun/> CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So Ham and AiG are not RS for Ham's opinion after all? As to the example you cite, CLU, there's extensive verbatim, contextual quotes from the sources they are critiquing, students are encouraged 'to revere the sun and stars' as the sole and entire sources of their origin and our sun-worshipping ancestors 'were far from foolish', that 'we ourselves are stardust'. That seems to come pretty close to encouraging worship to me. The quotes contain materialist fideism. It also flies in the face of historic theistic and deistic polemic against animists, and many monotheists of all categories see these statements idolatrous and blasphemous, as well as factually inaccurate. Can you indicate the distortion please? Cpsoper (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please. The argument is not that Ham and AiG are distorting Ham's opinions. The argument is that you are choosing your favorite claim of the many possible of Ham's to highlight in this biography without any justification from a reliable source that this particular claim is more noteworthy than any other. jps (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Revere... my humble opinion is synonym to be in "awe". I am in awe that the sun could "burb" tomorrow and kill all the satellites. "Fart" and kill the ozone layer but I sure do not pray to sun in hopes that it does not do so. When one knows the power the sun has you can't help but revere, or respect if you prefer, just how big that thing and powerful it is. Find me one... just one quote where scientists are teaching a prayer to the sun to students so that it does or doesn't do something and I'll agree with worship. In the meantime, it's just more "tribble droppings" from Ken Ham that instead of accepting the truth of science, he will find crap to vilify scientists for nothing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The referenced article by Ken Ham begins like this:

We’ve heard so many times from secular groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) or the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) that students in science classrooms in public schools can’t be taught about creation, as that would be teaching religion in government-funded schools. And yet, such secular groups do support students being taught religion in the public schools. In fact, the government is actually allowing a religion to be imposed on public school students, and using our tax dollars to do it. Imagine if public school students in their science classes were encouraged to worship the sun. And yet this is happening! But how do they get away with it? Well, they just call worshipping the sun “science,” and then claim they can teach this “science” in the public schools!

I would think it would be obvious to most people that Ham is distorting the facts to claim that students are actually being taught "religion" in public schools in this fashion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, on the contrary, it shows just how widely & unconsciously a well defined fideistic religious position, that of materialism/animism, has been embraced, often without regard to its long known and well mapped moral and spiritual consequences, and in remarkable disregard of the history of empirical science, but we digress. Cpsoper (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"God created the heavens and the earth". Ken Ham could have used Neil deGrasse Tyson's statement as "proof" that scientists have shown that it's one creator creating the earth and the sun but he can't do that. If science is right about that then they could be right about other stuff as well. He has to vilify science and scientists to show that his statements of pseudo-science are the one and only truth. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If I am reading you correctly then, you are in agreement with Ham's position, and believe that science is being taught as a religion in America's public schools? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Gents, amusing as these varied interjections and distractions may be, can we focus on the question in hand, 'you are choosing your favorite claim', with respect it is not mine, it is AiG's third claim, and one in which many mainstream observers have expressed difficulty if not absolute rejection of conventional explanations. What's inappropriate about including a brief reference to that in the text? Other than that it may be somewhat inconvenient data for now? Cpsoper (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on a list published by AiG but I don't see a source that indicates that it is Ken Ham's personal 3rd favorite claim. I do see you seem to have a particular fondness for it. The inappropriateness of including this particular claim is that it causes the BLP to serve as a

WP:COATRACK for this claim. Find a source (Bill Nye's book, perhaps) which details which of Ham's claims are most prominent and we can include a brief reference to that in the text. But just cherrypicking the #3 on an arbitrary "Top 10 List" that posts articles by people other than Ham is not appropriate for this biography. jps (talk

) 15:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've explained already why the description of coatracking is hardly appropriate to a few terms here. AiG is Ham's organisation, it's their choice to cherry pick, and their order of ranking. It's entirely fitting here, along with a brief description of the geological beliefs, which make up no.s one and two. Cpsoper (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Find the reliable, independent source which identifies this particular list as relevant to Ham's biography and we'll continue the conversation on how to include it. Until then, you're just

not getting it. jps (talk

) 14:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need an independent source when both Ham and AiG are RS for his opinions [26], and not the facts but the interpretation is in dispute. However since we've finding it difficult to reach a consensus I will put it out to rfc. Cpsoper (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an independent source to identify the

prominence of the claim in the context of the biographical fame of Ken Ham. AiG is a sprawling behemoth of a website and picking one or two pages from its archives to highlight is inappropriate unless we can identify that those particular pages are relevant to Ham's biography. They aren't relevant simply on our say-so. jps (talk

) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit changes

His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by

Earth's fossil and geological records

...

to

His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is refuted by the scientific consensus which cites evidence from astronomy

(Emphasis added.)

Is there a cabal of scientists refuting Ham? Or is there just scientific evidence? I'd say the latter. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The age of the Earth is not an "opinion". Evidence from geology, astronomy clearly shows that it's more than 6500 years old. There is debate to the actual number of years the universe is. (13.798 billion years plus or minus 370 000 years ). There is consensus AND evidence that clearly shows that 6500 is too small (even 10 000 years is too small). CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. All I was saying was that the edit by User:1990'sguy makes it sound like there's some entity, the "scientific consensus" which "cites evidence" disagreeing with Ham. When in reality, most scientists working on this stuff have never even heard on Ham. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Attempts have been made to

• agree - the mainstream scientific position is not under any question. Ham's position is definitely not one that shares any part of that stage and per
  WP:LEAD we present the subject as they are seen by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
  21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The article cited claims Nazism is rooted in Darwinism, as well as in other 'anti-god' ideas. He cites Arthur Keith, 'We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy'. To describe this as equating Darwinism with Nazism is a crass and inaccurate simplification, as though the two ideas were co-terminous and co-extensive, which is not the article's position. Cpsoper (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)