Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lede: Suggest amend "not supported by any physical evidence" to "contradicted by the physical evidence"

In the lede, I suggest we amend "is not supported by any physical evidence" to "is contradicted by the physical evidence", because the physical evidence does not just fail to support his theory, rather it is the case that the physical evidence actively disproves his theory. We're not just talking about an absence of evidence here, but rather about evidence that shows his theory is wrong (pace omphalism, solipsism, the dream argument, the evil demon, the brain in a vat hypothesis, the Matrix, and other epistemological arguments which cast doubt upon the existence of the world of physical evidence or our ability to perceive it). Also we should add the reference to astronomy discussed above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not a fan of litotes, I'm guessing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not averse to their use but 'not supported by' isn't really equivalent to 'contradicted by'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

support the change to the more accurate presentation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd also be happy with "not un-disproven" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Refuted" would be better than "contradicted." Science is contradicted by creationism, but not refuted by it. But, Creationsims is refuted by sicence. Greater specificty is more informative. Howunusual (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive quotation

The position that anything but a direct quotation does not closely adhere to a source has no support in WP:VER or WP:NOR. This was completely unnecessary, and quotes an excessive length of text. This article is in danger of becoming a quote farm. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy to state the equivalent of Ham is undermining science education and U.S. science literacy in Wikipedia's voice without the direct quotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. Oh, and DLE, please do not misrepresent my edsum. It said "closer adherence to source" and did not at all imply the position you ascribe to me. Writegeist (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuff that's not in the sources

In this edit, DavidLeighEllis changes "His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his belief in biblical literalism, is not supported by any physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records" to this: " The mainstream scientific view of his claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his belief in biblical literalism, is that it is not supported by any physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records." Fine, but look! None of the sources it's cited to say anything about "mainstream" science. Is this not unsourced negative material being added to a BLP? Or is he taking Ham's word for it that they're mainstream?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already changed it back. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Attribution of POV is not considered to be original research or unsourced. Example: Source: Organization Y website: X is true. Wikipedia, citing source: Y believes X. But the source only asserted X as an unqualified fact, not that Y believes it!!! If we go down this rathole, then we can't use any source that isn't NPOV itself... We're dealing with the volatile nexus of mainstream science and mainstream Christianity. It is certainly not Wikipedia's place to take sides in this epistemological struggle. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't take sides, we report the facts. There is no POV in a scientific fact which makes this edit misleading, and against WP:FRINGE. See the threads above, this has been discussed at length already. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a POV in saying science=fact and religion=fiction, don't you think? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I really don't. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You either made up the "mainstream" descriptor for the scientists or you took it from Ham's characterization of them. Either way it's not acceptable. Personally I'd like to see the whole sentence deleted, but consensus seems to be for it to stay. Thus it should be verifiable and neutral. Your insertion of the word "mainstream" is unsourced. It's possibly not neutral, but that's not important in relation to the fact that you just put it in in front of some footnotes without bothering to see whether the sources supported it, which they don't. Attribution is not OR, but the decision of who to attribute to can be OR. How about if I wanted to say that the "devil-worshipping scientific view of his claim is" whatever? Are you claiming I don't need a source for "devil-worshipping"? If I do, why doesn't "mainstream" need one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference between "mainstream" and "devil-worshipping" is the difference between proper, obvious attribution, and just making stuff up. The scientific POV is a POV, and requires attribution in contexts in which other POVs (millions of young-earth creationist Christians) are relevant. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. the "scientific POV" is not a "POV" that needs attribution on overwhelmingly and well documented and long proven facts. see WP:ASSERT and Wikipedia:YESPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We evidently disagree on what constitutes "fact" and what constitutes "opinion". Let's consider the following: should Book of Genesis contain any exposition of the evident conflict between a literal interpretation of the events recounted therein with modern cosmology? (I'm sure we can find sources for that...) If so, should the scientific view be asserted as unqualified fact, or attributed as opinion? Let me remind you that efforts to equate "neutral point of view" with "scientific point of view" have been firmly rejected. Do we assert in the Wikipedian voice that scientists have facts and the religious are living in fantasy land? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith. And no, a scientific fact is not a POV and this particular religious nonsense also happens to be WP:FRINGE which makes it WP:UNDUE to try to make it sound like there are "two opinions" on the matter. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Purely in terms of headcount, there are two opinions on the matter. The epistemological struggle between analytic and intuitive reasoning is hardly new. I'm sure Epicurus must have had a quite similar debate with believers in the Greek pantheon. You propose that one side is so far right that it has "facts" and the other is so wrong that its beliefs are "nonsense". But so far as Wikipedia policy and practice are concerned, I invite you to try the same procedure on Book of Genesis or a similar article, and see how much traction you get. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No there aren't two "opinions" on the matter. There are scientific facts and WP:FRINGE nonsense. No idea what you are talking about with the Book of Genesis, WP covers lots of written fiction, the issue here is that Ham believes his fiction is reality and that's what we state as per WP:NPOV. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you're incorrect, but for different reasons than my old friend RPoD. Calling "science" "mainstream science" in this context connotes a possibility of non-mainstream science (but still science) disagreeing with the attributed view. That's what there's not sourcing for.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you deny that the article currently has a footnoted quote in reference 3 stating, amongst other things "Some mainstream scientists have calculated the age of the earth at approximately 4.5 billion years"? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That's a quote from Ken Ham. I discussed it explicitly in my original comment in this section. You're proposing to let Ken Ham define mainstream science in Wikipedia's voice, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As Sam Harris stated in a different context, "This is how you play tennis without the net." Ken Ham's book is a reliable source insofar as it concerns what mainstream scientists believe (that's one of the reasons we're citing it), but only to the extent that the scientific point of view is described as unqualified fact. Lol. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So your claim is that Ken Ham, criticized by some people, is a reliable source for a description of those people and their views in Wikipedia's voice? Ken Ham thinks scientists are atheists. Is it your position, then, that it would be OK to use Ken Ham's words as a source to state in Wikipedia's voice that "mainstream scientists don't believe in God."? Ken Ham has said explicitly that "scientists are not objective truth seekers." Is it your position that we could state in Wikipedia's voice that scientists are not objective truth seekers because Ken Ham is a reliable source on what mainstream scientists believe, i.e. in not being objective truth seekers? Is that an accurate characterization of what you're asserting? Is it based on some general principle? Perhaps you can expand on it? This is really a tangential issue, anyway. Wouldn't you rather discuss the issue in the section above?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ham's book is a reliable source to source his nonsense and absolutely nothing else. That's the reason we cite it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant editing is best effectuated by editors who claim that the article subject "believes his fiction is reality" and describe his beliefs as "his nonsense"? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

you have a very incorrect notion of what Wikipedia's WP:NPOV is a about. It is NOT about providing a false WP:BALANCE. and so yes, when the subject is spouting nonsense that is contradicted by all science, calling it nonsense is absolutely appropriate NPOV and since BLP is conditioned on NPOV if you are not also assessing nonsense as nonsense you are in violation of BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to add any heat to this discussion, I have added one reference from the AiG site for a list of evidences claimed to support a young age.Cpsoper (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Refs formatted, notes split from refs

I have uniformly formatted the references, added archives where needed and split the notes out of the references. I have also split up the bundle of references in the lead. I suggest access dates be changed to straight numerical format (yyyy-mm-dd). I have added website parameter to citations that are published exclusively on the web. I also formatted the bibliography. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC) An editor has formatted all dates in references to dd mmmmmmm yyyy. I have no strong objection, but I think the reference section would be more concise if access dates and archive dates were in straight numerical format (it ISO compliant also) yyyy-mm-dd. I am just expressing my preference and looking to see what the consensus is. I am not suggesting changing the date of the content, just the access date and archive date. I don't consider this of paramount importance and more than willing to follow consensus or yield to an editor with a strong opinion. I do appreciate the effort to establish and maintain uniformity in the references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article would be better, and simpler to maintain, with all dates in the same format. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem for me. I guess its a consensus of 2, "same format for all dates dd Mmmm yyyy". - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Rv of edit in lead cited to Courier-Journal

I reverted this edit to the lead. As explained in my edsum, careful reading of the source shows that the edit inadevertantly misrepresents what is actually only the reported opinion of anonymous attendees; as such it is probably inappropriate to this BLP and certainly not sufficiently important for inclusion per WP:LEAD. Also I can't find discussion of this addition anywhere on this talk page, contrary to the clear implication ("see talk") of the edit summary that accompanied it. I hope my revert is agreeable to others editing the article. If not, please open a discussion of reasons to support reinstatement per BRD. Writegeist (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The content removed was added to the article on 13 April diff by TheRedPenOfDoom modified the same day diff and then removed on 22 April by an IP editor diff. I restored the content diff and it was then removed again diff with the edit summary "(Undid revision 605278598 by MrBill3 (talk) Reported opinon(s) of anonymous attendees (read source) not important per WP:LEAD; contrary to previous edsum, no discussion of this text at talk AFAICT)". I apologize for my edit summary "see talk" I mistakenly thought I remembered some discussion of this content.

The source specifically says,

"Although Nye made a withering critique of Ham's brand of creationism and found a public platform to warn that its dismissal of established science would harm the education of children and hamper the nation's ability to innovate, some attendees said, the debate still faced criticism."

What part of the sentence is the author's analysis/summary and what part is attributed to some attendees? If the author found the summarized statements of some attendees appropriate to report does that make it appropriate WP content? Both DavidLeighEllis and Writegeist have raised the issue of DUE in LEAD. I think it is good content and belongs in the article. I appreciate this discussion being opened and hope EW can be avoided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

something in the lead needs to specifically address the source of Ham's notability: the reaction to to his advocacy of tossing actual science out the window and teaching non-science as science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. His notability rests on widespread RS coverage of his advocacy of young Earth creationist views etc.; also his presidency of AiG and connection to the Creation Museum. My understanding is that notability is a criterion for the existence of an article, not for its content, e.g. in this instance Ham tossing actual science out of the window etc., but not the reaction to the, um, tossing. Maybe I misunderstood you? Writegeist (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy about the coverage of content- we cover in proportion to what reliable mainstream sources consider worthy of covering- the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it hinges on UNDUE, not notability. I see now that you were prolly using "notability" in the normal rather than the WP-specific sense. Writegeist (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@MrBill3:The part of the sentence from 'Nye" to to the first comma represents the opinion of anonymous attendees ("some attendees said"). I don't think the fact that a publication reports anonymous opinions legitimizes inclusion of anonymous opinions in WP articles. But if there are RSs for Nye's actual critique (there are), and for him saying that KH's brand of creationism with its dismissal of established science would harm the education of children and hamper the nation's ability to innovate, that's another matter. Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the confusion from MrBill3 confusion is that the previous section on excessive quotes is about this quote in my head, as in this quote showed up then that section showed up. That seemed one to one to me, and maybe not but would not be surprised is MrBill3 is also remembering that. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Writegeist's interpretation. I also tend to agree that a RS for Nye's actual critique and content developed directly from that is more appropriate than the current content. I agree that a newspaper writer's summary of some audience members interpretation is not the strongest source for including the "harm to education and hampering of innovation". Is there a more RS that states that? Certainly as Writegeist said there are RS's for Nye's critique being withering and what Nye specifically criticized. The content should be better sourced. I also agree with TRPoD that something about this belongs in the lead. The analysis of and reaction to Ham's "tossing" is important. I appreciate the civil, policy based discussion going on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the removal of this content. Not only is it WP:UNDUE, but it misattributes anonymous attendee's views as the newspaper's. I'm surprised the material lasted as long as it did. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside for a moment the form in which Nye's critique was presented in the content now deleted (i.e. by reference to opinions from anonymous sources), do you think any mention in the lead of the views Nye expressed in the debate, if verifiable in RSs, would be in violation of the UNDUE part of WP:NPOV policy? Writegeist (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Nye's views on Ham aren't so significant a constellation in the universe of RS on Ham to justify mention in the lead. This is material for the body of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nye's views as Nye's views are probably UNDUE, however, Nye's views as appropriately representative views of the mainstream scientific community are appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. That Ham chose to debate Nye and much of the coverage support the contention that Nye represents the mainstream scientific consensus' views and response to Ham and his ideas. Not sure how DLE missed the massive coverage from a wide spectrum of the scientific and other communities of Nye's participation, his presentation and it's implications. I'd think more of galaxy than a constellation in the universe of RS on Ham. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I just moved the article Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate, which I had started in my user space a while ago, into the main space. Not as complete an article as I had hoped to eventually write, but it might give those interested some source material on Nye's actual comments in and about the debate, since that seems to be of interest here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time

107.178.34.115 has twice removed well sourced stable content diff, diff. This content was just previously removed by 107.178.34.109 diff. It has been restored three times by two different editors. I also support the inclusion of the content. As mentioned it is well sourced. This material should not be removed without discussion and consensus. The repeated removal in a short period of time is edit warring and rapid edits from more than one IP are suggestive of sock/meat puppetry especially in the absence of discussion on this page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's time for semi-protection again. I note that a request has already been made on RFPP. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of pseudoscientist category

The category pseudoscientist has been repeatedly removed from this article. The category is clearly supported as the subject is a young earth creationist and asserts that as scientifically valid, this is clearly pseudoscience (looks like, walks like..., scientific consensus etc.). This category was added by one editor and restored by two other editors. Repeated removal within a short period by a single editor with no discussion on this talk page is edit warring and not appropriate conduct on WP. This post serves both to notify the editors involved (QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, Theroadislong, StAnselm) and to open a discussion. As multiple editors have supported the inclusion of this category and one has removed it in violation of WP PAG the category should be restored pending policy supported consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of WP:PAG are you referring to? I removed it under WP:BLPREMOVE as unsourced contentious material. But also, the category was a recent addition, so, per WP:STATUSQUO you shouldn't have added it back without discussion and consensus. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to Edit Warring a very clear policy with a brightline rule which you are clearly in violation of. Your assertion that the category pseudoscience is not appropriate is not supported by two other editors or the sources, to wit: References that specifically use pseudoscience to describe Ken Ham's position. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Comment: " not a scientific project, nor even one much related to knowledge of the natural world" That should serve to resolve the sources issue for the category pseudoscientist. With the clear support of two other editors and this bulk of sources I am replacing the category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of these sources use the word "pseudoscientist" to describe Ham. StAnselm (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rosenau 2012: "Ham’s pseudoscientific BS". Stern 2014: "pseudoscientific theories". MacMilan 2014: "Creationism may be pseudoscience, but its grip on the American public is hard for a science educator like Nye to ignore." and "I want children to learn how to trust the scientific method... and, even more importantly, how to use the scientific method so their creativity and imagination won't be wasted trying to defend pseudoscience." in an article discussing the Nye-Ham debate. Harris 2014: "A place that has been a high-tech mechanism for pseudoscience." describing Ham's museum in an article about the Nye-Ham debate. McGrath 2014: "Let’s keep up the good work in exposing Ken Ham’s lies as pseudoscientific and unbiblical nonsense!" Schulson 2014: "If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky." and "Ken Ham, who seems to have made a career marketing pseudoscience" Stear 2007: "Mr Ham is keen to have his particularly distasteful brand of pseudo science". Etchells 2014: "By standing on a stage alongside Nye, Ham appears to have a legitimate and equally opposing viewpoint to him, suggesting that evolution is somehow controversial and poorly evidenced. This could not be further from the truth. Understanding evolutionary theory does not require an act of faith, it only requires an objective assessment of the available evidence. And the available evidence consistently points to life evolving by means of natural selection." (pseudoscientist is a fair paraphrase of this explanation). Uri 2014 compares the "pseudoscience" of the tobacco lobby to Ham's and states, "No matter what Ham may claim to the contrary, evolution is fact. Only two percent of the scientists claim otherwise in the United States. Ham's 'evidence' off the Old Testament of the Bible, which he cited throughout the debate as historical fact. Nye's evidence, however, is peer-reviewed science with mountains of evidence and thousands of experts to support it." (clearly paraphrasable as pseudoscience, especially given the specific comparison made by the author. He goes on to state, "Presenting two view points as equally valid when one is a fringe view" (in an article titled "Bill Nye Ken Ham debate doesn't further science."). Paz-y-Mino C 2014: "the enterprise envisioned by Ken Ham, president/CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, aims at smuggling pseudoscience". Bailey 2014: "I chose to sit at home last week and watch the “debate” over evolution between scientist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham. It was particularly illuminating the way that Ham, by the end of the debate, essentially just admits that his Young Earth Creationist beliefs are not based on traditional scientific observations. These types of pseudo-sciences are" (the lede of an article titled "America's pseudoscience problem."). As above in Stoker 2014. The category pseudoscientist is applicable to one who practices pseudoscience, we don't need sources to state "so and so is a pseudoscientist" if they do state what so and so does is pseudoscience. Your claim of a 3RR exemption flies in the face of substantial sources that have been provided. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis). StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference list

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 WP:BLPCAT. And the category is probably not justified, since Ken Ham isn't even pretending to be a scientist. -- 101.117.29.185 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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:OR in action. And I doubt that you'll find a single 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)

Algora Publishing does not seem onits own to meet 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:SYNTH; no 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:RS being cited as evidence that Ham is a pseudoscientist, and I disagree; it is 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)

site a reliable source please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this article doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies by saying it IS contradicted by science and astronomy, there is not a reliable source for this, show me one evidence.The K (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many thousands here are a few...

• Age of the Universe http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
• http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/bbage.html http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/bbage.html
• U.S. Geological Survey. 1997 http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
• Burchfield, Joe D. (1998). "The age of the Earth and the invention of geological time". Geological Society, London, Special Publications.
• Bennett, C.L.; et al. (2013). "Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results"

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2nd paragraph

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:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Furthermore the 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 Orly Taitz doesn't enter into a refutation of 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)

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." WP:LEAD "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ALL that is written about Ham, particularly by mainstream academics is that he is promoting nonsense. To not explicitly cover the context would be in contravention to the policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 16 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

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)

Unreferenced category

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)

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)

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)

"edit war" problem

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)

Well he does believe in science & we will not just have a one sided bias view. How about this. Your talking point "his claim that..............." Then mine, "However, Ham backs up his claims with observational science & believes historical science is flawed & based on past events that he believes did not happen."

Seems fair to me, your text is in, my bit is in. Were all happy.

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

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. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite question

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 Harvard University Press, which is a credible publisher and makes the resource a 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) your personal interpretation doesnt matter 3) your individual research resulting in a lack of evidence is not a reliably published source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again...I've good news or bad for you...M Ken ham (Kenneth Alfred 20 october 1951) is UNKNOWN at Queensland Institute of Technology / University of Queensland. I've my evidence

And the wind gone puching ark on the waters Noha was crying realizing he had forgot smooth water fishes, earth worms, lamas, dodos, red ants, aras, ragondins, condors, anaconda, jaguar, iguanes, tatou, tapir, tamanoir, indians butterflies, siberian tigers then he stoped and shout "with all this rainwater, salty water are going to fade and all creatures in seas living will disapear" then a loud voice emerged "don't worry man, ken ham will fix it".

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:V, WP:OR and 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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 WP:NPOV, we should include that on his article. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

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:PARITY. The level of sourcing in this article and the subject make this applicable. Ken Ham argues that evolution is scientifically dis-proven by the "were you there" argument. The only places I want to go are WP:PSCI and 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, creation science is a fringe belief, and scientific sources do not deal with it, hence we are forced to use non peer-reviewed content, and that's what PARITY and FRINGE are for. Because Ham and other creationists attempt to claim that it's scientific, when it's not, WP:PSI comes into play. It's classic pseudoscience. There is nothing libelous here, so BLP doesn't apply. NPOV does apply, and it requires inclusion of criticism when it exists, and even Ham would not dispute that his position is controversial. Those who wish this bio to become a hagiography must remain disappointed. -- Brangifer (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:FRINGE and 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 WP:FRINGE arguments are presented the criticism of them must be presented and to a greater extent and more prominently, please actually (with an eye towards understanding) read the core policy Neutral point of view § Fringe theories and pseudoscience and § Due and undue weight. Then read the guideline 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:PARITY, please point to higher quality sources that discuss, "Where you there?" as part of serious discussion of history, geology, cosmology and evolution. Such sheer nonsense it not something academic sources consider worthy of even comment, much less published commentary. Any history predating 1900, all cosmological theories etc etc. When the only published discussion of something is from the subject of the article and from lower quality sources, we use the lower quality sources, as has been said see WP:PARITY, WP:PSCI and 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)

'A frequently debunked/refuted creationist claim'

I question whether this edit [6] is appropriately encyclopedic. It is claimed the earlier edit transgressed guidance on in text attribution WP:ITA, which states 'Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported.' The claim seems fallacious, many dispute that the soft tissue is young, and that is very easy to reference.[7][8]

There are other problems with this edit:

• 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)

Dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, collagen and evidence of DNA fragments

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)

Rfc Edit specifying 'dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, various proteins and evidence of DNA fragments'

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The plain truth is that neither version is acceptable. The first is a novel synthesis form primary sources, the second gives excessive credence to an in-universe description on a creationist website which cannot, by definition, provide credible independent evidence for the validity or significance of the statement. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I seek comment on whether: 1/ this edit [27], particularly the words 'dinosaur soft tissue, cellular structures, various proteins and evidence of DNA fragments' removes pertinent material to Ham's views or 2/ whether the removed clause violates WP:UNDUE or 3/ WP:COATRACK. Please address each question: 'No, Yes, Yes' in the case of the last editor for example. Cpsoper (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: No, No, No. However, I don't regard the inclusion or deletion of that text as very important to the topic; essentially it deals with matters of detail. What is more important is that the tone of the discussion of Ham's views in the article is polemical and adversarial. Apart from the question of how such an approach puts Ham into an artificially sympathetic light, such appraisal and appeal to scientific consensus as support for the contrary view is not part of our role as an encyclopaedia. Personally I am weary of such tedious dog fighting, and will not attempt to adjust the text off my own bat, but if explicitly requested I'll give it a bash. Otherwise suit yourselves, but try to avoid permitting a talk page to overflow with trolling for exposure for creationism such as has become routine in other exchanges of this type. I suggest that in the context of this RFC, any argument in favour of one view or another, rather than the wording of the article, be regarded as disruptive. JonRichfield (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment RfCs are supposed to be easy to understand and straightforward questions. This one is not. It's pretty clear that the consensus above is to not include the special pleading of certain points made by Ham in the article unless there are secondary and independent sources that highlight such claims. jps (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The bot summoned me. I don't want to hash out how 1, 2 and 3 are pertinent to the edit, for the reasons mentioned by jps. I see other issues with it though. Adding, "selection of mainstream scientific findings that he reinterprets to fit his worldview" isn't good, because it isn't neutral, and is likely SYNTH. Ken Ham is a Young Earth advocate. All we can do is describe what NPOV sources say what he claims. Does that answersingenesis.org site say Ham reinterprets science to fit his worldview? Bigger issue: what kind of source is answersingenesis.org? Does it meet our criteria for NPOV?

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth."

I noticed that it was included as part of the edit, and repeatedly in the article. I also noticed that a legitimate Smithsonian ref about T-Rex being 68 million years old was removed in the edit. Now that was good, because the ref was being used to support Ham's views, which clearly is misleading. Look, it isn't easy to write an article like this, because it requires suspension of disbelief in over a century of science. I find that too challenging. I can't add anything further, I'm sorry.--FeralOink (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Item 1. I don't think the material is pertinent. I don't know whether Ham does. Item 2. Is it the removed clause, or its removal, that is thought by some to violate WP:UNDUE? Item 3. Same as 2, but for WP:COATRACK. General Comment: The article should state Ham's views, and mention that they are not compatible with what most scientists believe. It is not the right place for a referenced debate on whose view is right. The material on soft tissue etc. should not be in the article. Maproom (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, for clarity, the clause was excised because it was considered 'undue' to the page to cite Ham's views about the interpretation of this data, the data itself being unarguable, whether it is undue to include the clause, is the question - which you've already answered unambiguously, ditto 'coatrack'. Cpsoper (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, yes, no. Adding those words would be to give undue weight to a fringe view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm going to reiterate the sentiments of others above that the form of this RfC is convoluted, counter-intuitive and would be likely to only confuse matters, if not for the fact that the issue at hand is of such a WP:SNOW quality that consensus has come through as pretty clear, not withstanding the confusing structure of the inquiry. In the future, I'd advise Cpsoper to formulate any RfC's with a single straight-forward question if possible; that easily could have been done in this case, by asking whether the edit itself should be maintained and providing the issues of weight and coatracking as context in discussing the positions that have been put forward on the manner of the edit itself.

All of that said, no the edit in question does not remove essential information and yes, leaving the removed content in would unambiguously constitute weight and coatracking issues. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 06:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is science a conspiracy?

This edit changes

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

Mandatory edit war discussion

Devolved into WP:NOTFORUM and solipsistic sophistry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user has been trying to alter the article because "1: Both Ken Ham's and atheist's scientific views are equally viable, as they are merely claims. 2, Critics were more concerned about allowing creationists to be considered scientists. 3, No empathy. Persecution maybe, but firm is unbiased." I've reverted it because: 1) Evolution isn't simply a claim, it's a claim with all kinds of evidence; Also, evolution and atheism are not the same thing, and the confusion between the two leaves me with little reason to assume that the user is competent to edit articles relating to evolution. 2) Critics knew that individuals like Ham are by no means scientists, and did not want the public confused. It isn't simply an issue of "allowing," but lending utterly false credibility where there is not merely an absence of credibility, but often a negation of and opposition to credibility. 3) Emphatically is a completely different word from empathetically. The change was unnecessary and rooted in a confusion over vocabulary. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Ian Thomson is correct, and the changes had to be reverted as they were based on several forms of flawed reasoning.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I would be a little more impressed by the objectivity of the article, if there was less concern with suppressing a short summary of the evidence Ham and his colleagues, some of whom are professional scientists involved in research, cite in their own defence (see above). Cpsoper (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I think we should alter that sentence, as it lacks objectivity. Why can't we simply say that Ham's beliefs are rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience, instead of passing a judgment on who is really correct by saying that creationism is "contradicted" by "scientific evidence"? As Cpsoper mentioned, many of Ham's colleagues are professional scientists with valid degrees, not unintelligent cavemen. I don't see why we have to discount their beliefs entirely just because they are not accepted by much of society. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I fixed the wording to make it more objective and NPOV. I hope we can agree on this improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) It's not a bad wording, but it seems like a step backwards. It removes informative and directly related wikilinks and replaces them with something much broader and more subjective. The change implies that Ham's opinions are a matter up for debate within the scientific community, which is misleading. It's not just rejected by the community as a matter of opinion, it's rejected by hard evidence, too. That's a distinction which should be made clear, however it's phrased. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I don't believe Ham's opinions are "rejected by hard evidence"; but I also know that notion isn't acceptable here. It's simply a matter of counting noses—and we have by far the fewer.--John Foxe (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC) That "notion" isn't acceptable here because it's false. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to sustain it, therefore it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, which deals in facts. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC) As I said in the section just preceding this one. The age of the Earth is not an "opinion". Evidence from geology, astronomy clearly shows that it's more than 6500 years old. Claiming that it is is not science, it ludicrous. To make matters worse, it does not matter the evidence, Ken Ham will continue to maintain it is as stated on their "Statement of Faith" on the Answers in Genesis website. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." That is just plain irrational. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I don't believe either evolutionism or creationism is science because both are unprovable. But you folks have the numbers, and that's what counts at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) First off, there is no such thing as evolutionism. Second, evolution is not the same as "the theory of evolution". Third, science is true whether you believe in it or not. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC) This is from the University of Berkeley in their section: Misconceptions about science. MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas. CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) I generally agree (except about the nonexistence of the term "Evolutionism," which has a Wikipedia article defining it). In current hands, this article insists that "science" rather than "scientists" contradict Ham's opinions, but the "science" invoked is simply inference evolutionists make from a large amount of observational data. Start with a different inference—Young Earth creationism—and presto, you get a different "science." But as I said above, it's useless to make that argument here. Noses have already been counted, and you've won.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Obviously there is an article and obviously you forgot to read it. Evolutionism WAS a common 19th century... now it's simply used by creationists site to demonize evolution. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC) And if you are grousing about the lead, we do not say that he is contradicted by science - we say his claim is contradicted by evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC) The article on Evolutionism says that "the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy." Not "demonizing"; just a convenient description. My point is that the evolutionist position depends not on evidence per se but on an interpretation of that evidence. Change your world view and the interpretation of the evidence also changes.--John Foxe (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Well, yeah, but if you change your worldview to "the only thing that is true is a literal interpretation of the bible" then yes, all of the evidence will be "interpreted" as false or meaningless or contradictory to the source of "truth" of the bible, but that doesnt make such a worldview scientific or erase the fact that all scientific views of the evidence show that 6000 years is not even in the same continent let alone the same ball park. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC) But those hypotheticals are really neither here nor there. We present the content of the article as the subject is seen by the mainstream academics. and in this instance there is no noticeable fraction of the mainstream interpretations that come within miles of Ham's. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I agree. The view presented is that of mainstream academics. But you're not satisfied with saying that. You've got to say that the view of mainstream academics is "science" or "evidence"—even incontrovertible truth. Like I've said several times above, I'm not a believer; but you've got the votes, and that's what counts here.--John Foxe (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC) uhh, because the mainstream academics' views are scientific and based on evidence which is the big difference between their views and Ham's views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC) I disagree. The evolutionist position is not science but strictly ideological and based on an interpretation of evidence rather than evidence itself. I readily admit evolutionist interpretations are held by the vast majority of scientists—in fact, for that matter, by the vast majority of intellectuals regardless of academic field. I'm not a believer myself; but you've got the votes, and that's what counts here.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC) While that may be your belief, it is quite wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Glad you agree it's a matter of belief.--John Foxe (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) No, he said that may be your belief. He didn't say anything about evolution being a belief (in fact, he said that the idea that evolution is just a belief is just wrong), and misreading his statement like that comes across as an attempt to goad. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC) That may be your belief, but it's quite wrong.--John Foxe (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC) John, you stated that "The evolutionist position is not science but strictly ideological and based on an interpretation of evidence rather than evidence itself." This is pure sophistry. All of science is conclusions from evidence, in this, evolution is no different fomr gravity, thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. The evolutionist position has been formed over many decades from a vast body of evidence in multiple different fields, it is the foundation of current understanding of biology - without it, nothing about the natural history of this planet makes any sense at all. Evolution by natural selection is the inescapable conclusion from the evidence, but if evidence arose which refuted it, that counclusion would change rapidly. To try to place it in the same class as creationism, which is a minority interpretation of religious scripture with no credible supporting evidence at all, is to mark yourself as lacking competence to comment here. As Carl Sagan said, "in science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." Your assertions are, bluntly, incorrect. Evolution is not a doctrine or a belief system. It is a rational conclusion from the facts before us, and most Christians have no problem with it (not even the Pope). The only people who assert that the scientific conclusion of evolution is a dogma, are creationists, and I think this is most likely to be down to an inability to understand any other way of reasoning. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we be objective?

Devolved into WP:NOTFORUM and solipsistic sophistry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is my edit to the last sentence in the intro constantly reverted? What is wrong with it? I know that my edit doesn't proclaim evolution to be an undisputed fact as many editors here want, but it is objective and doesn't pass a judgment on Ham's views. This article should be about Ham and his views, not whether they are true or not. We can word the intro in a much more neutral, unbiased, and objective way than it is now. I thought that the sentence originally was bad, however certain editors have recently taken the opportunity to further promote and proclaim evolution as a solid fact through the intro. Can we please make an effort to make this article unbiased towards any side? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Your revision hides the reason why Ham's ideas are rejected as pseudoscience at the end in the "see also" area without explanation, allowing for an utterly false "Christians vs Scientists" interpretation that YECers like Ham enjoy playing up. The previous version concisely explains why Ham's views are rejected based on statements of scientific fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC) I agree that 1990'sguy's version is more neutral. There's no "scientific fact" in this case, just inferences evolutionists make from a large amount of observational data. But it's a waste of time to challenge the evolutionists under current circumstances. They're true believers and they have the votes. Come back with a dozen creationist Wikipedians, and we'll make a decent fight of it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other gardens to tend at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC) No, nobody is voting here. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm not sure why you keep hammering that point, but editors' personal viewpoints are nobody's business but their own. Rallying the troops to alter an article is canvassing or meat-puppetry, and is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's policies because it's disruptive. Please don't waste everybody's time with that kind of nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)There's no "scientific fact" in this case -- Wrong. Age of the Earth says that the world is "4.54 ± 0.05 billion years" old, and Age of the universe says the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion with no mention of creationism. WP:FRINGE repeatedly creation science, intelligent design, etc. It does not say "according to some godless evolutionists," it states it as a scientific fact regardless of religious beliefs, because those ranges are what any mainstream scientist will tell you makes sense based on how long it would take the light from stars to get to us, how long geological movements would take, and so on. If you want to deny all that, that's your problem, but as far as mainstream science (and so Wikipedia) is concerned, those are the (scientific) facts. it's a waste of time -- Yes, you are wasting everyone's time with your quasi-civil POV-pushing. They're true believers -- Pot meet kettle, if not a personal attack. Come back with a dozen creationist Wikipedians - Wrong. Do so, and I will report whoever is responsible to ANI for canvassing to push a WP:FRINGE POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC) I'm just "quasi-civil" discussing, not making any changes to the article. My suggestion to "come back with a dozen creationists" was intended as ironic. And (unlike you) I have no problem being labeled a "true believer."--John Foxe (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC) My edit does not promote any kind of fringe theory. In fact, I think my edit goes far from that. I cannot see why you keep saying that it does. I also have no intention of creating a "Christians vs Scientists" interpretation that you claim I am creating (I would like to note that with my knowledge of Ham, he does not promote any such interpretation, rather much the opposite). The current version is unacceptable as it passes a judgment on Ham and his ideas, something which has no place in Wikipedia. As editors, we are supposed to be neutral and unbiased towards BOTH sides. You have reasons why my edit is not good, but rather than constantly revert my edits, can you work with me to create an unbiased, neutral, and objective alternative? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC) There is a difference between neutrality and artificial balance. Stating that Ham's ideas are flatly contradicted by mainstream science's assessment of the ages of the earth and the universe is not biased, it is simply explaining why his views are rejected by the scientific community. Neutrality: (Hypothetical individual) claims (proposal), which is contradicted by (facts). Artificial equality: (Hypothetical individual) claims (proposal), which (other group) rejects (for no adequately explained reason). Actual judgement: (Hypothetical individual) is a crazy person known for their insane (proposal), which goes against the truth of (facts). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC) "Evolutionists" can be lumped in with all people who think facts and objective reality are critical things. Coming up with a clever term to effectively disparage fact itself, in my view, invalidates participation on this site, including discussion. This site is about presenting notable facts, not fringe viewpoints that are not based in fact. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC) If facts and evidence are primary, as they should be, why are the inconvenient ones like DNA fragment and preserved protein evidence in dinosaur fossils, anachronistic fossil and dating data or adverse geological data ignored, sidelined or even suppressed, not exclusively here, but sometimes it seems especially here? Sometimes in the history of thought, a paradigm overrules contrary evidence, to the injury of all participants. I support 1990s guy's modest edit. This article has become more a polemic against Ken Ham, for all his faults, than an encyclopaedic biography. Cpsoper (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC) And when the paradigm shifts, we will cover it. however, until a new paradigm has more than a few adherents and a few pieces of evidence, it is not treated as anything more than a paradigm that is being pushed by a few adherents based on a few pieces of evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Not to mention that those "inconvenient" things aren't in the slightest bit inconvenient to science, since as you well know they don't actually prove anything that Ham is claiming, and indeed have in many cases been actively misrepresented by Ham et al. I would have thought that would have been obvious, since you (Cpsoper) took part in the last discussion about it as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Throughout the last few discussions, many of you have constantly said that evolution is an undisputed fact supported by hard scientific evidence while at the same time saying that Ham is unscientific. I am not going to argue about this here, but I would like note that the Theory of Evolution itself has "evolved" (no pun intended) since it was formed. For example, the scientifically accepted Age of the Earth and Age of the universe were both far younger than currently accepted to be. The Theory of Evolution, as accepted in the year 1950, for example, had considerable differences compared to what is accepted today. On the other hand, Newton's laws of motion have remained basically unchanged over the last 300 years. I know that many of you would argue that Evolution simply has been refined and made more accurate over the years, but that is not my point. My point is that we should not interject ourselves in to the creation–evolution controversy by saying who is right and who is wrong. Alex Jones is a prominent American conspiracy theorist who has made many claims that have very little evidence and acceptance in society. However, his article doesn't say that he and his ideas are wrong. It simply says that he has controversial conspiracy theories, and that is what it should say. What can't we say basically the same thing here? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 1) Yes, scientific theories "evolve " they always look at the best available evidence and see how all the evidence is best explained. thats the primary difference between scientists and Ham. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Ok, but either way, the Theory of Evolution is 1) a theory and not a law, and 2) it has "evolved" and will continue to do so for many more years. This is one of the many reasons why it should not be described as fact on Ken Ham's article. That should be left to the Age of the Earth and the Age of the universe articles. The other reason is obvious: NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) It's a theory in the same way that germ theory and atomic theory are theories: it's accepted as a fact by mainstream science, even if the finer details are still being resolved. Those finer details are still no where near Ham's claims about the age of the earth, and there's no indication that mainstream science will approach Ham's views any time soon. "NPOV" is not a magic word, you have to explain how it applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (ec) 1990'sguy, where in the article is evolution described as "fact"? I can't find that wording. Your use of "theory" indicates a failure to understand the high status of a scientific theory. It's not the same as the word "theory" (a guess or speculation) in ordinary speech. To call something a scientific theory is a great compliment. Strictly speaking, "fact" and "scientific theory" aren't the same thing. The theory is an explanation of the fact. A theory can change, but not a fact. (That's the nature of science, but not of religion.) There will be no disagreement about the fact, no matter whom you ask anywhere in the world. Let's take a common example. A rock falls to the ground. No one on earth would disagree when they saw it happen. That it fell to the ground is a "fact". The "theory of gravity" is not a fact, but a theory which explains the fact. The theory of evolution is on a par with the theory of gravity. Both are subject to change if the evidence demands it. So far they are pretty solid explanations. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 1990s guy - while it's it's a question for philosophers as to whether the scientific method can prove anything, it's an extremely powerful tool for disproving hypotheses. Ham's claims are disproven, inasmuch as they're inconsistent with available evidence. The rest is irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) No, Ham's claims are not disproven. It is obviously true that there is little acceptance of them in our society, but they are not disproven, nor are they necessarily "inconsistent" with available evidence. User:BullRangifer, I see your point, but I have to disagree with your comparing evolution to gravity. Also, gravity is not a theory, it is a law (see Newton's law of universal gravitation). Also, while you are right that evolution is not called a "fact" on this article, this article does basically call evolution a fact by saying that evidence contradicting creationism shows that that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. While this may not be intentional, the average reader would view this article as saying just that. There are numerous articles about prominent creationists (like Raymond Vahan Damadian and Duane Gish) which don't say that their beliefs are wrong in any way. In fact, their article avoid casting any judgment on their views. All that their articles say about their beliefs is that they are creationists and that they believe the Bible to be historically true and accurate. Their articles don't go any further than that, and that is the way it ought to be. Above I mentioned Alex Jones, a prominent conspiracy theorist. In some ways, his beliefs are similar to creationism, in that they have little acceptance in society, and therefore are conspiracy theories, but his article doesn't say that his views are "contradicted" by evidence that "show" the opposite to be true. There is absolutely no reason for us to treat this article in a similar way. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Not disproven? If you want people to take you seriously, you need to stop making such absurdly false claims. There's a reasonable discussion to be had as to how to present Ham's claims. But one can't have a reasonable discussion if you pepper it with such absurd statements. If you aren't serious, please stop wasting people's time. If you are serious, don't make such patently false claims. Guettarda (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Let's say that someone claimed a length of rope was only six inches because he read a book once that had a six inch rope in it. Everyone else goes and measures it, and turned out to be at between 300 and 400 feet long. Now, even though there's disagreement over whether the rope is closer to 300 or 400 feet long, could anyone reasonably say that the six-inch claim was not disproven? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) You can measure a rope. You can't measure the age of the earth, only make inferences from observational data. It's as if no one's actually seen the rope in question but that almost all educated people believe it to be very long. In such a case you wouldn't say that the unknown rope is long but that virtually all educated people believe it to be such.--John Foxe (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) You're new to this, aren't you? Do you own a GPS? That works because of quantum effects that can't be measured directly. Your belief requires that we reject everything that has led scientists to conclude that the Earth is billions of years old and life evolved by natural selection, and instead substitute something that is based entirely on a minority interpretation of a book that is itself riddled with contradictions, and for which there is no significant objective evidence at all. You're not the first to bring this dogma to Wikipedia, you won't be the last, we are very familiar with the fallacious reasoning behind it and you are, I am afraid, wasting your time. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC) According to Ham, his claims are nto disproven. According to the reality-based community, the burden of proof lies on him to provide credible evidence to back his extraordinary claims which are contradicted by a vast body of evidence from multiple sources and accepted as fact not just by the scientific community but even by most Christians. Wikipedia is not a creationist project. If you want to pretend that Ham's beliefs are roote din fact, you can go to Conservapedia. You may even be able to make a couple of edits before they find a pretext to ban you. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Are there any sources anyone wishes to bring forward that might indicate that we are not presenting the subject as the mainstream academics view him and his work? This page is to discuss how to improve the article not to discuss metaphors about scientific concepts. If there are no sources, then this wonderful philosophical chat has completed its useful purpose. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC) The problem with the change as I see it is that it treats the "scientific community" as Ham's opponent, when the reality is that all who accept science fact are the opponent, as it were. It's Ham against extremely well-established facts, not Ham against a community, as if to present some kind of political struggle. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC) As I've said several times above, virtually all scientists—yea, virtually all academics whatever their field—believe that the universe is very old. That doesn't make it a fact. But if enough people at Wikipedia agree that it is, then for Wikipedia purposes, it is.--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Attempts have been made to create artificial balance between the scientific academia's consensus regarding the age of the earth and Ken Ham's claims based on his specific interpretation of the Bible. Per WP:GEVAL, these edits have been reverted. There were also some attempts to censor well-sourced but somewhat outrageous claims by Ham. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, these edits were also reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

Nazism 'equated with' Darwinism

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)

Character assassination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone has set out to malign his character: "Ham advocates Biblical literalism.. ..is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records which show the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old."

I suggest if no useful facts can be placed in the article, controversial religious beliefs are no substitute. A small example of the collusion of suspect data interpretation can be found in the article's/author's own links:

"These unresolved matters have resulted in cited values for the Hubble constant ranging between 60 km/s/Mpc and 80 km/s/Mpc.[3][4][6][7][8] Resolving this discrepancy is one of the foremost problems in astronomy since the cosmological parameters of the Universe may be constrained by supplying a precise value of the Hubble constant.[6][8]"

research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Classical_Cepheid_variable#Uncertainties_in_Cepheid_determined_distances

Also there is no such a thing as a fossil record per se. Not that I am arguing about such beliefs. But I want to understand how the statement belongs in here.

People all over the world have religious beliefs that contradict those of their neighbours. The Wikipedia is not the place to get even with "alternative believers" -nor a forum to practice astronomical fundamentalism, is it?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is "astronomical fundamentalism"? Is that believing in science, rationality, verifiability, etc.? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, seems to be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I've been doing some research on several topics for an article I'm writing.

I've come across the Ken Ham page and the first paragraph is loaded with bias.

I don't have a lot of time to sit on Wikipedia editing articles, sorry if this comment doesn't follow protocol, but this stuck out so prominently I had to join and comment.

I was hoping for an objective look at Ham and his beliefs. I'm really quite disappointed that somebody, who evidently has a personal problem with Ken, has written a paragraph that immediately tries to belittle his point of view.

This statement:

"His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records which show the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old.[4][n 2]"

The belief in a universe created in six days approx. 6000 years ago predates Ken by millennia.

It's NOT Ken's claim, nor is it HIS interpretation. This paragraph comes across as though it's a belief that he made up. An historically inaccurate claim

There were church fathers like Ambrose of Milan (330–397), Basil of Caesarea (329–379) and many others that believed this interpretation too.

Please can we take an objective view of what he believes and reference those beliefs for people doing research, like myself.

That paragraph was written by somebody with a personal agenda.

I've just been reading several articles on britannica.com -- what I love about their professional approach is that they can talk about a person/belief system without inserting their angry bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonowll (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't expect the courtesy of a reply from the Wikipedia Establishment. Any corrections made to these articles will land you either a suspension or an immediate ban. I only come on here to mess around with their bureaucracy from time to time. Wikipedia's a joke, everybody knows it. Just edit away and undo all reversions they try to do to your corrections. And when they ban you, just make a new account and start over again. There aren't any scientists here, only PC clowns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolusty33 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rolusty, YOU got punished for sock puppetry and 3RR rule violations. See, here's the thing - if you actually follow the rules around here, you'll do fine. Rolusty is just frustrated because people are actually enforcing the rules and he doesn't want to follow them.

Jowell, thank you for coming first to the talk page instead of just going straight to editing the article. That is proper etiquette. Now, there are some policies that you might want to review to help you understand why the article is the way it is. WP:NPOV is the big one - I'd read that from top to bottom twice if I were you. The big takeaway that is most relevant here is that we are required to simply report what mainstream sources say. If the mainstream sources say that the sky is brown, we MUST report that it is brown, even if we can look outside with our own eyes, take and post pictures, and KNOW that it is blue. Second is that we need a source for your claims. Even if you're right and even if we all agree, we can't add it without a 3rd party reliable source.

I have never heard the claim that a belief in a 6000 year old earth was more than a couple centuries old, let alone that there were early Church Fathers that believed it. We definitely need a source for that idea. And please understand - their own writings cannot be that source. We need a respected scholar that writes ABOUT them stating this. Personally, though, I don't see what you see in that I don't see the statement implying that the 6000yr old earth idea was invented by him.

Lastly, thank you for the politeness of your very first post here. Keep that up and work within the rules, and you don't have to worry about anything Rolusty said happening.Farsight001 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Jowell, I imagine your disagreement with the context is mostly around the wording "contradicted." If you disagree with it, maybe you could suggest an alternative that does not show bias? MavsFan28 (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "opposed"?--John Foxe (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No. We dont sugarcoat. They are flat out contradicted - and by several timescales. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In my childhood scientific consensus suggested the earth was about 3 billion years old; so it's gotten 1.5 billion years older in 60 years. So, the age of the earth is now settled fact, can't ever be changed?--John Foxe (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So Ham is getting wronger by more orders of magnitude, but that is not making him any less wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that scientific consensus has not stood still in my lifetime and that you'll likely see even more remarkable changes in yours.--John Foxe (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And that has to do with the article .....? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Scientific consensus about the age of the earth is not on the same plane as say, the fact that it's not possible to transmute base metal into gold through alchemy. If I claim I can, we can arrange a laboratory test. To the contrary, scientific consensus about the age of the earth has witnessed exceptional change during the last two hundred years. Buffon thought it was 75,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, 20 million. As I said above, in my lifetime it's aged another 1.5 billion. The public is remarkably docile about accepting radical revisions in these huge spans of time. If it were announced tomorrow that scientific consensus put the age of the earth at 9 billion years, you'd shrug and, when it was convenient, change the number in this article. There's no proof of the normal sort going on here. We laymen just accept without question what a consensus of scientists tell us. Except when we don't.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, when the evidence and our ability to measure and understand it leads to a different consensus, we will change it. That is basic science: What does the current preponderance evidence and our understanding of that evidence tell us?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scientists say you're right and I'm wrong. The evidence itself is a matter of interpretation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And we go with the interpretations of the evidence as determined by the mainstream experts. Again, what does this have to do with improving the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. Just someone trying to make scientists out to be unreliable and fallible for adjusting their conclusions to fit new evidence. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you just said that Ham rejected the interpretations of evidence accepted by mainstream scientists instead of claiming your position was Truth Infallible forever amen.--John Foxe (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with some variation of that...that wording gives sort of an anti-science bias. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the current wording as anti-science. The scientific consensus regarding the evidence contradicts Ham's very specific and narrow claims of the Earth's age. Hedging this seems far less neutral than just spelling it out in plain language. Terms like "mainstream scientists" are loaded, and would artificially inflate the significance of Ham's fringe perspective. This would be a form of editorializing. Listing adjustments in the given age of the universe/Earth is a distraction, because there is a consensus now, and the article should use it. This is not some esoteric theory on the cutting edge with many dissenting opinions, this is the current basis of scientific understanding of geology, biology, astronomy, and others. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to cut, not add. The lead now says that Ham's view "is contradicted by scientific consensus that evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records prove the Earth to be over 4.5 billion years old." The word "prove" is the problem for me. Why can't the lead simply say that Ham's view is "contradicted by scientific consensus that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old"?--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that those things do, indeed, prove that the Earth is >4.5bn years old, and Ham is therefore wrong. Whether it's 4.55, 4.6 or even 5bn years old makes no difference to that sentence. Claiming that there's only "a scientific consensus" suggests that there's a chance that fact could be incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about Origins is provable in the normal sense of that word. We take the word of experts about it (or not). The evidence itself is a matter of interpretation. That's one reason why Bill Nye felt an obligation to debate Ken Ham but would have felt no such compunction to debate say, a flat-earther.

I have no desire to have this article discuss the age of the earth, even though it's gotten 1.5 billion years older in my lifetime. What I dislike is the use of the word "prove." The statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is a faith claim—a very generally accepted faith claim for sure—but a faith claim nonetheless.--John Foxe (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

there are "interpretations" that say "4.5 billion years give or take, knowing what we know" and there are "interpretations" that say "my bible says 6,000". we assert as "facts " those items that are viewed as "facts" by the mainstream academic bodies and the age of the earth is one of them.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This article accepts (and should accept) the interpretations of mainstream academics. But there's no proof in any normal sense of that word. We're simply accepting a faith claim.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming that radiometric dating is based on faith? Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes—at least in how it is interpreted.--John Foxe (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No matter how many times you personally assert it "faith" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

All scientific facts are "faith claims" in the sense of John Foxe, in the words of Stephen Gould a scientific fact is an interpretation that is so well supported by evidence that witholding provisional assent would be perverse. That the age of the universe is several billions greater than suggested by Ham and other biblical literalists would be one such fact. Gravity would be another. In an encyclopedia, this kind of scientific fact, though based on "interpretation" and "arguable", should be represented as fact, not as belief. if God one day manifests herself physically and explains to scientists how she created the Universe and made it look as if it was much older than it really is, AND if this explanation is convincing to the scientific community, then we can ammend the article to show that Ham was right. Untill then however, the article must clearly state that his claims and interpretations are rejected by the current state of science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've said several times above, I have no problem with the article accepting the interpretations of mainstream academics. It should. I only object to the use of the word "proof." Nothing about Origins is provable in the sense that gravity is provable. To dispute gravity, just take an elevator to the top of any tall building. By contrast, evidence about Origins is a matter of interpretation.--John Foxe (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, outside of mathematics there is no such thing as proof, only interpretations and varying degrees of certainty.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there an unwritten rule of Wikipedia that all editors to Creationist articles must be atheists? I'm seeing a lot of discrimination here. There is no scientific consensus requiring anyone to leave their faith at the door. AstraVolantis (talk)

Absolutely not; editors at any article can believe in anything they like. That does not, of course, mean that they can attempt to impose those beliefs on an article over consensus and/or Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note there's lots of socks floating about here and at Talk:Kent Hovind. [28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I blocked that one myself. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Without taking a side in the ideologies here, I actually do agree that a theory can't be taken as a universal fact with substantiated, concrete proof. MavsFan28 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• recommend close there is nothing close to the consensus that would be required to override WP:ASSERT nor any policy basis to do so. WP:NOTCHAT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased but I guess not. I think the earth has to be more than a billion years old because of dinosaurs and fossils but unless someone lived four billion years and can tell us then you cant act like its something definite. Scientists like doctors Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland all believe in the young earth theory. Yeah of course trust me I do a lot of dating of earth for school and I honestly don't see anything that makes me know the earth is old and I bet that's what scientists think too. So you should represent both sides as theories and neither as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.