Talk:Ken Ham

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
While I agree with your conclusion, I have to disagree strongly with your usage of Wiki policy Synthesis of published material as grounds in favor of it. If it is well established that Ken is a YEC and if a source says the YEC is a pseudoscience, it would be fair to say that Ken believes in something that source implicates is a pseudoscience. Since someone who believes in it would be by definition a pseudo-scientist, that is a valid word to describe him if we accept the source. It is not be a case of If A and If B, then C, it is the much more logical If A is B and If B is C, then A is C.
Using your logic 1990sguy, it would be invalid to say that an ant is an insect and all insects have 6 legs, therefore ants have 6 legs. No sane person would have an issue with that logical chain, therefore if I were to say I believe in and promote the study of jack-o-lopes and it was established that the study of jack-o-lopes is crypto-zoology, it is not an inference that I could be called a crypto-zoologist, it is simply applying the definition of the word (someone who studies crypto-zoology). Gloern (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, since wikipedia supports a neautral point of view, and thousands of people respect Ken Ham and look up to him and think highly of him, calling Ham a pseadoscientist would directly violate wikipedia's policies so it should probably not be done. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pseudoscience literaly means "false science" and Ham isn't a false scientist. He just interprets evidence differently. The definition of "scientist" is a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator according to Merriam-Webster. Ham fits this definition. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support any changes based on this late to the party response. - Walter Ego 20:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok bro, I wasn't looking at the dates I see now AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per WP:CRIT, criticism sections may themselves not be neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
may “reactions” would would be a better header? Cannolorosa (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Reception" is commonly used. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be necessary to do that at all. Do you have to post stuff just to prove him wrong and oppose him? The article is about him, not opposition to him. And their is a reception section already that critics him. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the article is about him, including his dedicated opposition to established mainstream fully consensussed science. Walter Ego 20:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess that makes sense AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus

There is no such thing as scientific consensus. The two words are mutually exclusive of each other. 71.34.163.230 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You err. See scientific consensus. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually many sceintists who disagree with evolution, including Ham. It should not say "scientific consensus" but should rather say "contrary to the evolutionary point of view" or even, "contrary to the beliefs of most scientists" AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to more carefully define what a scientist is. Like me, Ham has a science degree from an Australian university, but in my view nothing else about him makes him a scientist. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the exact definition of "scientist" is a person learned in science and especially natural science, or a scientific investigator, according to Merriam-Webster. Ham does fit this definition. He just has a different interpretation than maintstream scientists, and I don't think that makes him not a scientist. It just makes him a different kind of scientist-a creation scientist. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can have "learnt" something, and completely ignore that learning. Ham does that.HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He still uses methods of a normal scientist, but just interprets it differently. The learning he recieved in evolution goes contrary to his faith, so he rejects it, but believing evolution isn't necessary to every aspect of being a scientist. Being a creation scientist makes him radically different from most other scientists, but only as far as creation vs. evolution is concerned. In my mind it goes like if you have the sun, and then you have a white dwarf star, they both are stars but very different kinds of stars however they each still fit the basic requirement of what is necessary for something to be classified as a star. In the same way Ham is still a scientist, he just rejects evolution, making him a different kind of scientist but not a false scientist or pseudoscientist. Also it's important not to fall into ad hominum fallacy with this, and mainstream science has definately been wrong before in the past. I don't think he should be called not a scientist just because he opposes an idea mainstream science accepts.
That said, I have considered the "scientific consensus" thing and recieved feedback from other editors and since it actually links to an article about what scientific consensus means, I think it is fine to keep it and it probably isn't going to be that misleading as I originally thought especially because it has that link I wasn't paying much attention to before. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dont really mind what you believe, but trying to impose your evidence free beliefs on us isn't cricket. or Science. Walter Ego 04:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
evolution goes contrary to his faith, so he rejects it – that's not how science works. – bradv 16:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well he also believes that there is strong evidence against evolution AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? See the second para of the lead. - Walter Ego 16:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be outliers, the word consensus itself makes clear that the opinion, based on scientific evidence, is shared among "most scientists". It is that evidence that the source discusses. There is no need to attribute it to a particular "point of view", which is not what the source says. General Ization Talk 20:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
right, but not everyone realizes that right away. The source link should be changed or removed since it doesn't match the new edit. I would recommend changing the source link from "scientific consensus" to an article about evolutionary science or something. AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such a change is not necessary, the current cite is fine. - Walter Ego 20:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientific consensus" could be misleading and make it sound like it is established fact agreed to by all scientists that the earth is billions of years old even though there are many who disagree with that conclusion, including Ham himself AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed and agreed concerning the meaning of the word consensus. Anyone unclear on its meaning can simply click the link. General Ization Talk 20:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i guess that makes sense AnonymousEditor366 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Ham