Hi, Ken Ham! June 10, 2011

Hi, Ken Ham!

By Guest Contributor
June 10, 2011

It looks like Ken Ham read the writeup about the home-schooling convention.

Surprise, surprise, he’s not happy.

As I was checking out links on the internet yesterday (I receive “alerts” when the name of Answers in Genesis pops up on websites), I came across a scathing report of the recent presentations I gave at the Homeschool Convention in Naperville, Illinois. However, then I realized the report was written by an atheist who attended the lectures. Therefore, such mocking, scathing comments are to be expected.

Ryan and Mike didn’t make “scathing comments” because they were atheists. They ripped up what Ham was saying because it’s scientifically inaccurate and they’re concerned with what Christian, home-schooled children are learning.

Ham never links to the article, of course. That would allow his readers to judge it for themselves. Can’t have that happening, can we?

Previous Post
Catholic School Students Ignore Rainbow Ban
Next Post
Why Are Atheists Satan Worshipers?
"Let me know if he gets in trouble and we have to "Clap for Joe ..."
Old Harry
Donald Trump: If Joe Biden Wins, ..."
"I've always felt that the original could work both ways."
Die Anyway
Donald Trump: If Joe Biden Wins, ..."
"OK, insert two obecalp suppositories, then."
Old Harry
Christian Preacher: God Will Punish RBG ..."
"Check his browser and download history for sn​uff po​rn ..."
Old Harry
Christian Preacher: God Will Punish RBG ..."
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marta

    Hold on, he’s so concerned about criticism that he gets alerts whenever Answers in Genesis is used on websites? What an arrogant prick, sometimes people just don’t agree with you, get over it.

  • Brian Wood

    People who think themselves wise enough to homeschool deserve to have their kids be so ignorant they can’t help the parents in their old age.

  • Mary

    Smacks of deep insecurity regarding his views. Just as well we women are so “patient” and “sensitive”, otherwise I’d be compelled to say that Ham is a hypersensitive bastardiser of science. 🙂

  • Spurs Fan

    This should pop up next then, eh?

  • Jeni

    But their kids don’t deserve it

  • Earthchile

    @Brian:

    Not everyone who homeschools is a religious nutjob. Many people, including atheists, skeptics, agnostics…, homeschool and most do an excellent job. You might want to check into this so your opinion can be tempered with reason and logic.

    I know I’m intelligent enough to homeschool my children. Two of them are grown now and are doing well. The last one shows promise to do the same. I have no worries about my old age.

    Any wise parent would consider the alternatives and make a well-reasoned choice. Sometimes the choice is the individualized instruction that comes with homeschooling.

  • Red

    So that’s what passes for ‘scathing’ nowadays? No wonder creationists never submit articles for scientific peer review.

  • Annie

    Ham shouldn’t have disclosed to his followers about the “alerts”… what a great opportunity it would have been for him to tell them that god tells him when people disagree.

    Does he really think most of the world agrees with him? And of course, what could you expect from infiltrating atheists? This is the very reason why we have to remind people that we are atheists…. so that the term conjures up normal, everyday people, and not Ham’s idea of villains.

  • PJB863

    They live in their own little world. Nothing can be questioned and intellectual curiosity is discouraged. Conformity and obedience are the only true virtues.

  • I used to work for a school district in the office of the director of the school counselors. We were the contact for any parent who wanted to homeschool. This was in North Carolina. One day, I answered the phone and the woman on the other end said, “Yeah! Uh…I wanna home larn mah kid!” I paused, considered, then replied, “Well, you can’t!” …..and hung up.

  • Noodly1

    @Brian, I’m sure that you didn’t actually mean any harm with your comment. I’m guessing that you had no idea that there are atheist home schoolers. However, your comment is both ignorant and hurtful to the *many* homeschooling secular families who frequent this site, myself included.

    I say ignorant and mean it in the literal definition of the word–i.e. lacking knowledge. My guess is that you have never actually met any homeschooling families, or the ones you have met fall into the extreme sort (e.g. the ones who give the entire practice a bad name). Because if you had, you would know that on average home schooled children score well above their public schooled counterparts on standardized tests; they score above-average on academic achievement test, no matter the level of education of their parents; and colleges actively recruit home schooled children specifically, not only because home schooled generally achieve the highest scores, but also because they are much more well-rounded and mature people. (Please visit http://www.nheri.org/ for more facts and information.)

    And in our case, I would argue that my husband (a PhD) and I (two undergrad degrees) are much more educated than your typical public school teacher. This is not in any way a slam on public school teachers–because FSM only knows how hard they work and for so little pay–it is simply the fact of the matter and why I think we are “wise” enough to educate our own children.

    In the future, please keep in mind that just because the fundies home school, they in no way represent *all* home schoolers and to paint us all with such a wide brush is unfair and unreasonable.

  • Marguerite

    I hardly thought what they said was scathing OR mocking. Then again, I have to admit I’m not a big fan of Ham, so perhaps I can’t judge fairly. But really, whining because a few atheists disagree with him (which he surely must expect!) does seem a bit on the “hypersensitive” side, to use Mary’s term.

  • MikeW

    I like the subtle inclusion of “Answers in Genesis” in this post. Obviously this post will pop up again for him 🙂

  • Tom Bourque

    “Ham never links to the article, of course. That would allow his readers to judge it for themselves. Can’t have that happening, can we?”

    Control what a person sees and hears and you control their thoughts.

  • I like to use Google Side Wiki to comment on other people’s sites, especially when there is a lack of balance to a story, or when the author refuses to link to the articles he or she is tearing apart.

    You can get Google Side Wiki for several browsers here.

  • Rich Wilson

    Wasn’t it AIG that was caught using a web hack to determine what other sites people had visited in addition to AIG? PZ blogged about it, but I can’t find it now.

    The trick is they render a bunch of links back to you in some hidden part of the page, and then inspect what color was used to render them (visited or not). The hack doesn’t work in most browser anymore, but they could, e.g. determine if any visit to their site had also visited a pre-determined list of sites, and give you specific content.

    I’m just surprised Ken Ham has to resort to technology for this kind of stuff. Doesn’t he have an angel to tell him when people say nasty things about him?

  • T-Rex

    Ken Ham has all the brains of the portion of the pig that his surname comes from. Oh, and so he can see this comment:
    Answers in Genesis

    Hi Ken!

  • Answers in Genesis.

    Hi Ken!

  • flawedprefect

    I’m curious: wasn’t he shunned by the home-schooling association not-so-long-ago for being too fundie/crazy? When was he welcomed back into the fold? Feels like I missed something…

  • TikiCricket

    Hemant, I think it’s clear what the “code phrase” to include in a post for your next giveaway will be!

  • Arviragus

    Everyone should take this opportunity to spam as many websites, forums, etc with the phrase “Answers in Genesis” – it doesn’t have to be relevant…in fact the more repulsive the better i think (thinks a trip to the goatse.cx forums might be in order ;))

  • Ah, yes vintage Ham. Complains about something he doesn’t like and doesn’t include a link to it in his remarks. But commentary that he likes he does include a link to. What an amazing coward.

  • Beltaine

    @Marta: We could have a lot of fun with that…

    Does anyone here know how to get in contact with the people who run trolling sites like goatse or lemonparty? I’ve got a suggestion for them…..

  • StarScream

    Ham’s response constitutes the motive/ genetic fallacy. By labeling the arguments of his opposition as merely “from atheists” and dismissing them on those grounds he never has to actually engage with the content.

    Of course, this fallacy is rampant everywhere (e.g. “That’s just what republicans/democrats/Christians/whomever say!”), it seems to be especially useful to creationists.

    It is hard to see two articles go by without them mentioning the canned response of the verse from Romans 1 where anything counter to their position is simply people “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”

    It is logically and rationally vacuous (“Hey you scientists, you all are a bunch of sinners so I don’t have to look at your evidence!”) but very rhetorically effective.

  • Heidi

    However, then I realized the report was written by a person who remained awake while he attended the lectures. Therefore, such mocking, scathing comments are to be expected.

    Fixed that for you, Ken. Although you may want to consider the possibility that your dinosaur statues are making similar comments behind your back. O.o

  • Ryan

    If I had known he was going to be reading the article, I would have considered trying to be less objective (not that I succeeded at objectivity) and more abrasive.

  • I’m curious: wasn’t he shunned by the home-schooling association not-so-long-ago for being too fundie/crazy? When was he welcomed back into the fold? Feels like I missed something…

    Actually, he was kicked out by one homeschool convention (although not his stuff- just him as a speaker) for being rude to other Christians. He’s very hardline, as was noted in his speeches. He was basically saying that the non-YEC should not be allowed at the convention, and the convention organizers took exception to this. The organizers are YEC, but they are, after all, making quite a bit of money by allowing non-YEC to be at the convention. So… Since he did not show a good attitude toward non-YEC, they did not let him speak at the convention. I went to that convention, though. Trust me when I say there was so much YEC crap there, including The Creation Museum, it was hard not to trip over it.

  • talk about over-reacting. ‘Scathing’ for religionists = anyone that doesn’t agree with them

  • I receive “alerts” when the name of Answers in Genesis pops up on websites

    Someone who was feeling a bit mean could have so much fun with this little snippet of information.

    Also what sort of blog is it that you can’t leave comments on? What is he afraid of feedback?

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, I think the main problems with anti-evolutionary apologetics are:

    1) It completely distorts the true meaning of Christianity.

    2) It holds the fundamentally flawed assumption that scientific inquiry and theological inquiry are similar (even though I believe they are both necessary).

    Someone once said that when you interpret Genesis as a geology textbook, you get bad science and bad theology (paraphrased).  I think this is very much the case.

    Fundamentally, I believe the main purpose of Genesis 1-3 is to enlighten as to the nature of God, mankind, and their relationship.  However, when this anti-evolutionary view is expounded, it naturally forms an entirely unnecessary rift between science and Christianity, when in reality neither contradicts the other.

    In Pursuit of Truth
    http://www.todaysration.com