Atheist Attorney Explains Ken Ham’s Weak Spots: Ark Encounter’s Attendance and Taxpayer Funding May 2, 2017

Atheist Attorney Explains Ken Ham’s Weak Spots: Ark Encounter’s Attendance and Taxpayer Funding

Back in March, Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Andrew Seidel visited Ken Ham‘s Ark Encounter and filmed a commercial of sorts saying how his group would challenge any public school that tried to take field trips to the religious attraction.

Ham wasn’t happy with that and spent nearly 20 minutes during an Answers in Genesis staff meeting ranting about what Andrew did.

But as with so many of Ham talks, you won’t find a lot of facts in that lecture.

Good think we have Andrew to set him straight. Again.


The video goes into some depth about the two issues Ham is sensitive about: Attendance at Ark Encounter (since atheists keep publishing videos showing virtually no one there whenever they visit) and the idea that taxpayers are funding it (since Ham claims taxpayers aren’t paying anything for his pet project).

As Andrew says, Ham could end the debate over attendance very quickly. Like Donald Trump and his tax returns, just release the numbers and the conversation would be over. (“You know, facts!” says Andrew.)

What about the taxpayer money? Employees at the Ark lose 2% of their wages for a “job assessment fee”… all of that money goes to paying off Ark Encounter bonds. It’s money that benefits the Ark. Ham has also received money and land from Grant County. In fact, he wouldn’t have even built the Ark where he did if taxpayers weren’t giving him back up to $18 million as part of a tourism grant.

Ham doesn’t think any of that is public money. His argument is that he generated it, and he’s getting a cut of it back, so he’s not “taking” money from taxpayers.

But that’s just reinterpreting the facts — something Ham is obviously an expert in.

If not for those special perks, that money from a public attraction would be going into the state’s treasury (for schools and public health and everything else). Instead, it’s going back to Answers in Genesis.

Good luck rebutting this video, Ham. Unlike you, Andrew actually cares about objective reality.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!