Did Ken Ham Get Something Right?

You know how the Creation Museum’s Ken Ham is usually full of crap? Every soundbyte coming out of him tends to deserve a refutation.

But, I gotta say, he was at least in the ballpark of sanity this one time. Might as well document it.

Ham was asked why the Creation movie about Charles Darwin didn’t have a distributor yet. Is it because so many Americans are Creationists?

Ignore his general anti-evolution rhetoric for a moment and check out his answer:

I replied that such a claim to me is nonsense. If a movie is controversial, I’m sure it would be shown — as it would probably get good attendance and make money. And if the movie was anti-creation/anti-Christian, would that stop the movie industry taking it up? Not at all — to the contrary.

Think about the movie Religulous with Bill Maher — an anti-Christian, blasphemous, and vile movie — but it was shown in theaters across the country. Also the movie Inherit the Wind, which was a Hollywood-distorted fictional movie about the Scopes trial that mocked conservative Christianity, was shown widely in theaters (and is on TV many decades later).

In fact, it seems to me that if a film attacks Christianity and is well produced, the movie industry in America would jump at the opportunity to show it to the public — if it would make money.

I told the reporter that it was my opinion that the producer was making the claim because he wanted to create controversy and needs the publicity. I haven’t seen the movie, but I have read a number of reviews — and it seems to me from what I’ve read that it is not really an exciting movie. Some have even called it “boring.”

Because it is a movie about the life of Charles Darwin, I personally don’t think that this sort of movie would do well in the theaters. I could understand it being produced for the History Channel or something like that, even though it could be called a “docu-drama.”

Like I said, he’s in the ballpark. He’s not yet on the field. He thinks movies like Religulous and Inherit the Wind are blasphemous… so he’s still opposed to living in the reality-based world. (Not to mention Inherit the Wind was against Creationism and not the entire Christian faith.) As much as someone of us would like to see a movie singling out Christianity, it hasn’t been made for the big screen yet.

As for the producer making a false claim about the movie for publicity’s sake, there’s no evidence of that. It’s speculation. And Ham hasn’t seen the movie, so he doesn’t know that it’s boring, either. But at least his speculations in this case make some sense.

Moral of the story: Even people who never seem to have anything intelligent to say have their moments.

And now, I suspect, this moment has passed.

Brian A

Even a stopped clock is correct twice per day.
Richard Wade

He thinks movies like Religulous and Inherit the Wind are blasphemous… so he’s still opposed to living in the reality-based world. (Not to mention Inherit the Wind was against Creationism and not the entire Christian faith.)

If it contradicteth the Word of Ken Ham, then it is blasphemous. So that includes most of the reality-based world. To Ken Ham, Creationism is Christianity, just like to Fred Phelps (ptah!) fag hating is Christianity. Nothing else is important to them.
Jeff

A fundamentalist’s stupidity can be very compartmentalized.
Valdyr

And I bet he doesn’t like Adolf Hitler much. So what? He’s still a manipulative lying bastard.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice per day.
Darwin’s Dagger

I haven’t seen Religulous yet, but I hope that it is blasphemous. That’s the only reason I really want to see it.
Arkonbey

Ham’s stupid assertions of blasphemy aside:

It is a dangerous conceit to dismiss everything someone with whom you regularly, and deeply disagree.

It is also a dangerous conceit is always believing everything someone you deeply agree with says.

To do either, whether with a crank like Ham or someone like President Obama, would run the risk of becoming the very thing we profess despise.

Keeping an open mind is hard work. It isn’t always easy and sometimes the results seem strange and painful.
Richard Wade

Well said, Arkonbey.
nogos.noqt

We must be careful not to oversimplify, especially when it comes to people. While to most of us Ken Ham as seen as a nemesis and little more, we must keep in mind that he is a person just like any of us. Just because we disagree on some very important ideas doesn’t mean that he is wrong about everything or that he is stupid.
Chris

I have to agree. The last I heard was that the movie was very well received at the Toronto Film Festival (the “controversy” popped up just before it screened there) and there were multiple U.S. distributors bidding for it. The producers, understandably, set out to drum up some publicity. That’s what they do. I’ve read that many churches in England (not evangelicals though, I think) have embraced the themes of the film and plan to sponsor screenings. In any case, I think “Creation” will indeed be coming to a theater near you.
Erik

@ Richard

fag hating is Christianity

I think we can all agree, atheists and theists, that smoking is bad for you. Pole-smoking, on the other hand…
Bill

As much as someone of us would like to see a movie singling out Christianity, it hasn’t been made for the big screen yet.

It has: Dogma.
muggle

Oh, my God, I’m going to burn in hell. I’ve got the DVD of “Inherit the Wind”.

Actually, I’ve been suspicious of the same thing. I’m also suspicious of the title. Plus I know I saw a trailer for it someplace long before this so-called controversary. Controversary sells. And this one’s coming off very manufactured somehow.
Vincent

He makes a common mistake.

Inherit the Wind was NOT about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
It was about the McCarthy House Un-American Activities Committee.
It just used the Scopes trial as a framework to talk about McCarthyism.
As a history of the trial it’s pretty poor (though it does use some actual dialogue from the trial transcripts). As a commentary on the politics of the 1950s it’s pretty good.
Taisen

“Even a blind chicken gets the corn occasionally…”
“No-one can be right 100% of the time… and no-one can be wrong 100% of the time either…”
Jim

You have to go a long way to find a bigger burn in hell, blasphemous, holy-spirit denying, evolved homo sapien than me, but I thought Bill Maher’s movie sucked the big one.

All that MTV style cut-away editing, to make already dumb people look as if they are even dumber made for an extremely disingenuous film overall, I think.

From what I hear about ‘Creation’, it’s a well acted ensemble piece that would have done better as a costume drama direct to TV—but that it’s basically a slow if honest biopic about a simple honest man. Which would rather suggest that it is its lack of CGI car chases and gratuitous tit shots that has turned off the US distributors, rather than anything to do with the “controversial” subject of what Darwin proved on the nature of nature.
Goliath

One lonely Christian fundamentalist, battling on against impossible odds. He’s right this one time. Almost. Fortunately, such moments pass quickly.
Just Some Guy

Yeah I suppose he could be wrong by accident, occasionally. I calculate the next occurrence as some time in 2021.

However, while I can’t produce it at the moment, there have been numerous articles (particularly in the non-theist blogosphere) claiming that the film was ‘too controversial’, a quote which had been attributed to the publisher.

And I have also agreed that the probable reason the film has not found a distributor is that Americans, flatly, hate science. Whether due to ignorance, pettiness or laziness, they simply can’t get excited about the topic. And the life of a scientist? Seriously the average American response is “who cares?”

That said, I can’t wait to see it on DVD, Hulu and/or YouTube.