Talk:Ken Ham

Nationality

The Infobox says Ham's Nationality is Australian. The lead also describes him that way. But he has been living and working in the USA for over 30 years. Surely he would have to be an American citizen by now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's now a naturalized U.S. citizen, though I don't have an RS at hand to prove it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In the absence of further information, I have boldly edited the article accordingly. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, I sense a severe COI on your part here... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And I sense a possible absence of good faith in that comment. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why Australians would want to disown a wacky homophobe like Ham. However, AIG itself claims him to now have American citizenship [1] and I believe that Christian News Wire is also an RS [2]. Note however "also has American citizenship", so dual citizenship. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are excellent sources. It would therefore seem that we should describe his Nationality in the Infobox as being both Australian and American. Though "American" seems a little informal. Would it make sense to say "Australia and United States of America"? And to simply call him Australian in the first sentence of the lead is now also misleading. I'd be happy with "Australian born" or "Australian American". (Although that style of labelling is not so common in Australia.) Thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia refers to most, if not all, American public figures as "American", so using that term for Ham would be fully appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nah, just trying to be funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

He certainly was an Australian citizen, and there is no reason to suppose that is no longer the case. That would suggest "Australian born" is insufficient. We would need a reliable source to say that he's American (which I think does imply citizenship). StAnselm (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Picture

Could we add an updated picture? The current one is over a decade old now, it could still be included but maybe a new one for the main picture? The current one is also just overall bad quality, looks really washed out Detectev (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Great idea. You know Æsop's fable about belling the cat? John Foxe (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with adding an updated photo, but we would first need to get one that's available for us to use with the appropriate licensing. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding “Pseudoscientist”

Hi all. I have boldly added that Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist to the article, and perpetuates pseudoscientific claims of a young Earth model through his organizations and books. As someone who has read his books and been to the Creation Museum, I felt it was reasonable to attribute this statement to Ham when he denies the age of the Earth and universe and then attempts to serve “evidence” in support of these claims that no scientist agrees upon. Chrisallen87 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, but sorry, I have to oppose as written now. The lead summarises the main, and the main text is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Nothing in the main currently discusses the issue of pseudoscience, so described, and we haven't identified reliable secondary sources that call him a pseudoscientist. I would expect there are sources that look at creation science and cogently argue it is pseudoscience, but we have to get that in the main text first. Then it will be uncontroversial (yeah, right) to add that to the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Let’s locate a source that calls him a pseudoscientist. I’m sure they exist. I’ll look around. Chrisallen87 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s my first round of looking:

ScienceBlogs.com talks about the Creation Museum peddling lies and pseudoscience several times.

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/27/the-creation-museum

Kentucky Lexington Harold piblishes Oped from David MacMillan who was featured in PBS documentary “We Believe In Dinosaurs” that is a film critical of the Ark Encounter.

https://amp.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article240509141.html

Humanist.UK publishes letter sent to local government that awarded The Noah’s Ark Exhibit at the Creation Museum the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge that denounces the action of promoting Creationism, and encourages others to write similar letters that “request that the CLOtC changes its assessment criteria to properly consider whether awardees promote pseudoscience, and reject those that do.”

https://humanists.uk/2014/02/04/alice-roberts-bha-complain-michael-gove-noahs-ark-zoo-farms-quality-badge-breaching-creationism-policy/

The Guardian writes about how pseudoscience does not deserve an equal platform with mainstream science in a criticism of Bill Nye for giving Ken Ham visibility and credibility he doesn’t deserve. It states, “Professor Alice Roberts and the British Humanist Association have – rightly – complained to the government over this, as it gives further legitimacy to evidence-free pseudoscience.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/05/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-creationism-science-debate

Article from Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis themselves acknowledging that others are calling them Pseudoscientists

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2007/02/19/pseudoscience-and-creation-museum/

America Magazine addresses that Ken Ham has gotten caught up in culture wars and has confused questions about theology with science, stating, “The pseudo-science behind the beautiful exhibits (Eden is lovely, full of lush greenery and gentle vegetarian dinosaurs) has been sufficiently refuted by more qualified experts.”

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/01/30/creationism-isnt-about-science-its-about-theology-and-its-really-bad Chrisallen87 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of these sources don't qualify as WP:RS (blogs, op-eds, non-independent sources, etc.), and they don't actually label Ken Ham a "pseudoscientist" (WP:SYNTH applies here). I oppose making such a change to the introduction. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I am no fan of Ham's, but must point out that he has a real Applied Science degree from a real, mainstream Australian University. That means he is qualified as a scientist. We would need very good sources to declare he is a pseudoscientist. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Fred Hoyle was both, for example: scientist on astronomical mattters, pseudoscientist on biological ones. And Ham is clearly a pseudoscientist, and notable as such. He is not notable as a scientist. So, "pseudoscientist" would be correct but as long as we have no reliable sources calling him that, it has to stay out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

So as per Hob Grading, I don't think his bachelor's degree in environmental science prevents him from being a pseudoscientist, and neither does it make him a scientist. At least, not one who hasn't published any scientific research (which is a pretty good definition of a scientist, if not perfect). Thanks to Chrisallen87 for these sources, but I am not sure we have found the best ones yet. Blogs are self published. Sometimes they are self published by well respected people, but they remain self published. Newspapers are often primary sources. So, for instance, the Guardian article is primarily a piece occasioned by a debate, and the report of that debate is primary. It's a bit of a grey area, that one, because it also includes opinion, but inasmuch as the opinion is the opinion of Etchells, the author, it is also primary. You could argue the toss on it, but it comes down to the fact that quoting that is essentially siding with Etchells and ignoring others. We really need the very best quality secondary sources here, and if we cherry pick from newspapers and humanist magazines and other magazines, we are amplifying an opinion but perhaps have not given good reason as to why that opinion should be amplified. Sources should argue from the very definition of the scientific method that creationism is pseudoscientific. I think an excellent source would be:

• McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (11 June 2019). What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-33660-4.

This book discusses Ham briefly, and shows how, by Ham's own statements, his epistemology is pseudoscientific. He says, inter alia:

Now achieving ‘fit’ in this manner can be misleadingly packaged as doing genuine science. For isn’t science all about developing theories that ‘fit’ the evidence? And hasn’t our Creationist shown that their theory can be made to ‘fit’ the evidence? The emphasis on achieving ‘fit’ leads proponents of Young Earth Creationism like Ken Ham to conclude it is, indeed, scientific.

Increasing numbers of scientists are realizing that when you take the Bible as your basis and build your models of science and history upon it, all the evidence from the living animals and plants, the fossils, and the cultures fits. This confirms that the Bible really is the Word of God and can be trusted totally. (My italics)

According to Ham, Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists do the same thing: they take the evidence, and then look for ways to make it fit the axioms of the framework theory to which they have already committed themselves:

Evolutionists have their own framework … into which they try to fit the data. (my italics)

This strategy, which I have previously dubbed ‘But it Fits!’ (Law, 2011), often crops up in pseudoscientific thinking. One of the obvious problems with it, of course, is that it conflates achieving consistency with the evidence with being confirmed by that evidence. Any theory, no matter how absurd – even the theory that dogs are Venusian spies – can be made consistent with the evidence. That’s not to say it’s confirmed by that evidence.

(McCain, 2019:109).

This, to my mind, is better. The whole book discusses science and the epistemology of science, and it shows here and elsewhere why what Ham pushes is pseudoscientific, and in this passage he applies the label "pseudoscientific" particularly to Ham. This is what we should build the material on. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, we need reliable sources that directly label Ken Ham as a pseudoscientist. Per WP:SYNTH, we can't take sources that describe YEC as pseudoscience and then extrapolate them to label Ham himself as a pseudoscientist, even if they name-drop Ham, and regardless of how reasonable the extrapolation might appear to us. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is to make the article better, not to shoehorn a word into the lead. Thus: "this is what we should build the material on." We have nothing in the article that challenges the term "creation science" with reference to the epistemology of science. What we do with the lead comes later. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Too Argumentative

I believe the section on his beliefs should be solely about what he believes. I think that there should also be another section called “criticism” where we can put what modern scientists think Cannolorosa (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIT, criticism sections may themselves not be neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

may “reactions” would would be a better header? Cannolorosa (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "Reception" is commonly used. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)