Posts Tagged ‘Ken Ham’


Background: Ken Ham runs the Answers in Genesis ministry. He and his ministry preach young-Earth creationism. They are therefore incredibly conservative, religiously. They operate the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

And that’s fine. They have a private museum, built with private funds, and they are a private entity. They can preach whatever they want. They can even require employees to have a religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Private. Simple.

Then, they decided they want to build a theme park about Noah’s Ark. And, they applied to the state of Kentucky’s tourism board to waive around $16M in taxes once it’s operational because they’ll bring in tourism money to the area. Now we get more complicated.

To get this money, they cannot enforce religion on their employees. That’s because they are now getting state rebates, therefore the state is effectively helping them, and therefore they must abide by state laws for the public money. Since the government cannot enforce a religion on someone, the entire project must abide by those rules.

AiG was told about this. They ostensibly agreed to it. Otherwise they couldn’t get the money. And we all knew that AiG wouldn’t be able to do it, and we were watching.

And, of course, AiG didn’t disappoint. There was a job posted on the AiG site for the Arc Encounter that required AiG’s standard: You had to be Christian, you had to submit a statement of faith or belief in their version of young-Earth creationism, etc. Clearly violating the rules. And, people brought it to the attention of Kentucky’s Tourism Board, as WND reported on October 9, 2014: “Noah’s Ark Theme Park Warned Over Hiring Practices.” The subtitle is, “‘We expect all of the companies that get tax incentives to obey the law.'”

The way AiG tried to skirt the rules was by saying that all people working for Ark Encounter were employees of AiG, even though Ark Encounter was not part of AiG … somehow.

And, if AiG had followed what top-commenter “The Guest” wrote, they’d’ve been fine: “Time for real Christians to say, “No thank you. God doesn’t need your help. You can take your 501c3 tax status (shackles) and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.” No one owns God, and no one can take Him and His word away from us. In the rest of the world they discriminate against Christians by prison, torture and beheadings. Here they do it by using the laws (which they make) and public pressure (discrimination).”

While I disagree with that last sentence, the overall idea is one I agree with: If you don’t want to abide by the non-religious-discrimination laws that are required when receiving any public money, then don’t take the money (tax waivers). Plain and simple. And “hmolsen” had a similar comment to “The Guest”: “What’s more important to the owners of this theme park? Their faith or their tax credits? Tell the authorities to take the tax credits and stick them where the sun won’t shine.”

I also like “Lowe Webber”‘s response to “The Guest”: “I agree on the tax statement you have made, but of course they don’t deserve it in the first place. I am certain God can fund his own projects.”

Then, in mid-December, Kentucky basically told AiG that they blew it. WND’s Bob Unruh got the easy story on December 11, 2014: “Kentucky Goes ‘ACLU’ on Noah’s Ark.” Right Wing Watch (among others) posted about this, and they headlined it as, “Ken Ham Demands Taxpayers Pay for ‘One of the Greatest Evangelist Outreaches of Our Day.'” Kinda sounds different when you put it that way, and a little less legally defensible.

I’m going to quote extensively now from the WND story:

A Christian organization building a replica of Noah’s Ark has announced possible legal action against Kentucky after state officials demanded it give up certain religious rights in order to participate in a tax-incentive program for organizations that attract tourists to the state.

Answers in Genesis, which is building the life-size version of Noah’s Ark – 510 feet long, 85 feet wide and three stories high – announced Thursday it was informed by the state that it could participate in the tourism program on two conditions.

The organization is required to “waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring” and “affirm that it will tolerate no ‘proselytizing’ at the theme park.”

Not possible, AiG responded, on billboard messages and elsewhere.

AiG said Kentucky officials bowed to pressure from secularist groups when it denied the Ark Encounter theme park an opportunity to participate in a popular tax rebate incentive program offered by the state’s tourism office.”

The restrictions demanded by the state are “unlawful,” AiG asserted.

There are several issues here to point out. Well, two. First, the law is very clear, in place because of of the First Amendment: Government must stay out of religion, therefore government money cannot be used for religion which means that if you’re getting the money, you can’t discriminate on the basis of religion. That’s in direct contradiction to the last sentence in the above quote.

Second, while I know that atheist / separation of church and state organizations brought this to Kentucky’s Tourism Board’s attention, the “pressure” (if there was any) was to enforce their own rules and the law. This wasn’t a capricious decision. AiG has to follow the rules that everyone else does.

And yet, somehow, Ken Ham is playing the victim card: “Moreover, the government cannot show hostility toward religion or discriminate against persons or organizations who express religious viewpoints.”

Then, there was this: “We have been working on this project with Kentucky for more than two years, so this just-received denial announcement is as disappointing as it is costly for our ministry without the expected rebate,” he said. “Our construction has already begun at the Williamstown, Kentucky, site, and it must proceed. We are fully prepared to defend our fundamental rights in court if necessary, as this issue is of huge importance, not only to us, but to every religious organization.”

One wonders (I do, anyway), why they need this for construction purposes? The money (tax waivers) only come after the park opens and they take money. They get to keep some of the state tax that is charged on purchases, like entry. That’s how this works. So how were they going to build it to begin with? This development doesn’t change anything. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps they had taken out loans and needed to repay them by a certain time and they won’t be able to do that without the tax waivers. Maybe.

Oh, and I should add that when the tourism board announced this, the Republican governor came out and stated that he fully supported the board’s decision.

The story has 538 comments, the most recent being posted a month ago so that’s not going to change. The next-to-last poster, “LDScowboy”, kinda echoes my sentiment: “Oh poor Ken Ham is crying religious persecution because he can’t have his millions of dollars of tax payer subsidies for his religious theme park. The man needs to grow up. Disneyland and other similar theme parks pay taxes. So should he and his ridiculous theme park.”

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately since this post is already over 1200 words, the top comments are run-of-the-mill WND. Many of them refer to an almighty god who shall not be mocked. Which raises an interesting question, now that I know that I have at least one semi-regular reader who is a proud Christian and self-described/titled Tea Partier: Isn’t demanding that the state help pay for your religious theme park mocking God in itself? Why does he need state support for his religious endeavor? Why should he get state support for his religious endeavor? How is it mocking God by rescinding tax waivers when Ham refuses to comply with the law, which (assuming he agreed originally in order to get the offer originally) means he bore false witness by lying or being misleading to originally get the money?

Edited to Add (January 21, 2015): I should’ve waited a day before posting this, apparently. The Friendly Atheist has a post that explains that Ken Ham apparently has lied about this Ark Encounter before, not just in what I wrote above, but in the projected attendance of the park. He had to do studies to show how many people they expect per year to attend in order to qualify for the tax waivers. Those numbers are in the 100s of thousands. And yet, publicly, he has stated he expects 1.6-2.0 million people per year. As Hemant points out, Ham usually has issues with shrinking numbers, but here he’s clearly inflated them.

Edited to Add (February 3, 2015): Aaaaannnndddddddd … Ken Ham is suing Kentucky to get the money. Which, again, wouldn’t have any impact on funds now, just potentially on other loans due to tax offsets after the park opens.

Edited to Add (February 6, 2015): Hemant at The Friendly Atheist blog has more on Ken Ham’s whining and trying to spin this into religious oppression.


I’ve been watching the Bryan College saga unfold over the last two months. “CreationDebate Roils Christian University was put up by WND on March 9, and it points out that the college was named for William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer who defended the state in the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925. He defended the Biblical account of, well, everything, and Bryan College was founded 84 years ago as an evangelical nondenominational institution.

As is typical of most universities/colleges except for those under the strictest of guidelines, rules, regulations, and oversight, it turned relatively liberal. While it was founded and still upholds a Christian Biblical world view, it turns out that – gasp! – many of the faculty and students held a more theistic evolution stance, where God is real, but so is science, and God is more the “ghost in the machine” who guides everything.

That didn’t sit none too well with some of the Administrators, who during that first week of March decided that the current Statement of Faith was not enough. The current statement says: “[We believe] that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death; […]”

But on February 28, 2014, school officials told faculty members they had to sign a clarification to that statement which eliminates theistic involution: “We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms.”

Some point out that Answers in Genesis’ CEO may have had something to do with this, since he used Bryan college as an example of a Christian institution of, well, “learning” was compromising on “God’s word in Genesis.”

That wouldn’t be surprising, given the tenor of the over 200 WND comments, such as by “NatanElias” who wrote: “”The reality is that evolution is not a theory teetering on the edge of collapse.”
FALSE — it is being supported only by the desire of athiests, and it is a denial of Christ to side with them over the Scriptures.”

This is why I put “learning” in “quotes.”

But the bru-ha-ha (is that how you spell it?) is that the faculty and students are revolting. Not in that they don’t shower, but that they are saying, effectively, “Pres. Livesay, this is bulls–t.” As in, the entire faculty voted 30-2 for no-confidence in him and a petition drive gathered over 300 student signatures.

But, they don’t seem to be backing down. As WND copied via the AP on April 5, “Christian College to Lose Faculty Over Creationism Flap?” The 50 comments to this one seemed kinda boring and more philosophical or debating young-Earth creationism vs. not, so they didn’t seem worth copying over.

But, I don’t think this story is over. At least if Ken Ham has anything to say about it. He wrote on his AiG website that even that “clarification” statement isn’t enough, he’s demanding they go to young-Earth creationism. As Hemant noted on his blog (The Friendly Atheist, the above link), Mr. Ham used perhaps one of the most obvious examples of circular reasoning to make his argument: He quoted from the Bible, and then he wrote, “the above verses are enough for us to know with 100 percent certainty that Eve was created from Adam (and not through some previously existing animal), and that Adam was made from dust.” In other words, the Bible is true ’cause it says it is.

I guess we’ll see what happens.


Even though everyone else has weighed in on the “Great Debate,” of course I had to, as well. More in the context of what World Net Daily wrote than a balanced view, though.

For those who were under a rock the last few months, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” debated against Answers in Genesis CEO, Ken Ham (termed by the media for this, “The Creation Guy”). It must be stated that many of us on the science and/or atheism side of the non-debate were against this because it is, as I just said, a non-debate. I’ll use the comic that most have been using to illustrate my point:

Comic of Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate

Comic of Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate

So, not only is this NOT a debate among people who don’t take the Christian Bible literally but it also gives the wrong impression to the public that science is decided in a debate format like political debates (in fairness, the other Abrahamic religions also have their young-Earth creationist adherents, but they are MUCH more in the minority). Not only that, but it elevates creationism to give the impression to the public that there actually IS a debate among scientists on the issue of evolution … and there isn’t. Yes, there are debates about what, in layperson terms, would be minutia. But, the overall false dichotomy argument of evolution versus creationism is non-existent among scientists, and it is only existent among YECs. Even most theists who are not YECs tend to accept evolution, it was just guided by their deity.

With that all said and done, many on the science side were reasonably impressed and their reluctance somewhat mollified by how the debate went. I could refer you to any dozens or hundreds of articles, but perhaps I’ll just take three: Who Won the Big Evolution/Creation Debate via “Why Evolution Is True,” The Nye/Ham Debate Was a New Win for Science via “The Friendly Atheist,” and even a poll on “Christian Today” that shows 92% of 47.5 THOUSAND respondents thought that Nye won the debate (poll is on left side near the middle). There are of course some detractors. But, you know you’re on the wrong side of crazy when even Pat Robertson thinks you’re crazy.

Meanwhile, if you want a running commentary of the debate, Time has one posted. I kinda, in my own snarky way, think the debate went a bit like this:

Debating the Flintstones

Debating the Flintstones

And that brings us to World Net Daily. Prior to the debate, they published at least four articles:

Afterwards, at least another four were written:

I’m not going to bore you with what the articles say. You can pretty much get it from the titles. What I would say is that, in the end, WND (if you can call it a “major news source”) is pretty much the only major news source that said Bill Nye “lost” and Ken Ham “won.” The debate ended with both being asked what would convince them they were wrong. Nye responded, “just one piece of evidence.” Ham responded, “no one would convince me the word of God is not true.”

As goes Ham’s thinking, so goes much of WND’s. The comments — between all the posts, there are thousands — for the most part also tow that line of thinking. In skimming them for a minute or two, one of the common themes really seems to be fear: Creationists think that non-creationists are “afraid” to teach “both sides” (there are not two even sides to this issue, as I said, and that also sets up a false dichotomy). But it seems to me when reading these that it’s really the creationists who are afraid: Their view of God is so small that it is wholly incompatible with evolution, and their reading of the Bible is so literal that evolution cannot be fit into it, and if evolution were for realz, then that means other parts of the Bible – such as salvation and life after death – may also not be true.

At least, that’s my take on it.