Talk:Ken Ham

Scientific consensus wording

I've observed the editing back and forth for a while, and I don't see anything wrong with the proposed wording: "... is contradicted by the measurements of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth being billions of years."

The phrasing "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years" sounds a bit weasely to me. I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements? What exactly is "on the order of billions"? (It may indeed be the case, if RS to this effect exist.)

In general, it seems that in an article related to the creationism topic, the language should be very straightforward, and if there's nothing majorly wrong with saying "contradicted by the measurements..." then I would support this version, as not open to the interpretations as I mentioned above.

Would like to hear some feedback on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. We don't say that "there is scientific consensus that 2+2=4", even if some people choose to dispute that. There is a certain level of accepted fact about the natural world where it's unnecessary, and even a bit misleading, to use "scientists say..." wording. Moreover, I don't understand the appeals to consensus that some of the people involved in this edit war are making (e.g. [1]). It looks to me, at a glance, like the last discussion on this subject favored omitting the "scientific consensus" wording and simply presenting facts as facts. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Could you please comment here? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with using the word "measured" here is that it doesn't have the nuance that it might have in other articles. In Age of the universe, it says "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years ((13.799±0.021)×109 years) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model." (emphasis mine) It is not "measured" in quite the same way that the "distance between New York and Chicago" is measured, and comparing it to 2+2=4 is a false analogy. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just parading your ignorance. It is measured using exactly the same kinds of reasoning as it used to measure the distance between New York and Chicago which is a measurement that depends on the accuracy of your geodetic model just as much as the age of the universe depends on the accuracy of your cosmological model. jps (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about "contradicted by the current estimate of the age of the universe being 13.799±0.021 billion years"? The source provided uses the word "estimated". Actually, Ham's sourced belief here is only relating to the age of the earth - I presume he believes the universe is the same age of the earth, but that belief would need a citation. StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Prob should hear from I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not psyched about the "current estimate" wording, because it incorrectly implies that other estimates might be more in line with Ham's claims. I also think St. Anselm misunderstands the concepts of measurement and estimation. All measurements contain a degree of uncertainty, from the age of the universe, to the distance between Chicago and New York, to the mass of an electron. For the purposes of an in-depth discussion of measuring the age of the universe, it is appropriate to elaborate on the models and estimates used and their degrees of uncertainty. But when discussing someone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it is appropriate to simply say that the Earth's measured age is on the order of billions of years. This is, in itself, an estimate (the clue is the words "on the order of", and the lack of an exact number), and encompasses the entire range of plausible values and measurement error. I'm opposed to trying to find ways to water it down or equivocate, when this wording is entirely correct and accurate. MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not an estimate. It's a precise measurement. The "estimated" aspect that Wright is referring to is on the basis of model uncertainties that are at most 10 to 20% (and most astronomers agree are not likely relevant post Planck). This is much like someone arguing that the distance between New York and Chicago is 1.5 feet instead of 713 miles and then complaining that the measured distance between the two cities "is only an estimate" because another geographer pointed out that the driving distance could be estimated to be 790 miles instead of the 713 mile great circle distance. jps (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This version by MastCell is straightforward and will probably help avoid misunderstandings:

• Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the measured ages of the universe and of the Earth are in the billions of years.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a fine version. Note that the numbers I used for the distance between New York and Chicago are proportioned exactly the same way Ken Ham proportions his belief in the age of the universe. The uncertainties on the distance are even of similar order, amusingly. Just underscores how precisely counterfactual the denial that Ken Ham engages in actually is. jps (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The age of the Earth is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. They are not, however, direct measurements of the age of the entire Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And the distance between New York and Chicago is based on several lines of evidence, with some inference, all giving pretty good consistency. Your use of the adjective "entire" makes me think that you have your own pet ideas about where you think the inconsistencies may lie, but no matter. The facts remain facts regardless of what you (or I) think. The fact that Ham simply denies basic facts about the reality we all inhabit is really not up for debate and neither is the basic scale of the age of the Earth (which is nowhere near the scale claimed by Ham). jps (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, then perhaps you should fix the article: Age of the Earth. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing that I wrote here is contradicted by that article. Start with the first sentence, for example. Don't see any room for claims that the age of the Earth given there is anything but a measurement (whatever the hell you mean by "direct" I cannot say). jps (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What the "hell" I mean? Making an inference about the age of the Earth, when none of us were there when the Earth first formed, is, yes, indirect. Not really the same as measuring the distance between two cities. If you want to insert the word "fact" into the lead of Age of the Earth, be my guest. I will be interested to see the reaction. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Go read the first sentence of Age of the Earth. Are you really attempting to use "Were you there?" as an argument here? jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, you seem to be personalizing this. Please avoid this. I'm reading the article, Age of the Earth, yes. And I'm reading both the first and second sentence. Again, if you want to insert the word fact into one of those sentences, I would be interested to see the reaction. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stick to the article at hand. We are talking about facts here. The age of the Earth is a fact. If you think it is important that the fact that the age of the Earth is on the order of billions of years show up in other articles, please talk about your desires at those other articles. For now, we are here talking about the facts here. jps (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

jps, it is true that the scientific majority believes the evolutionary age of the earth. The article reflected that fact. We don't need to change (and we should not) the article to satisfy your strong dislike for Ken Ham, AiG, and YEC. The wording if fine the way it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The "scientific majority" is irrelevant. The fact that is relevant is the actual age. I LOVE Ken Ham, please stop saying otherwise, thank you very much. The wording is not fine as it is. The wording implies that these facts are only opinions in contravention of WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented your feelings towards Ham, then I do apologize. But regardless, your edits are unnecessary, and I do think you have a strong bias against (different from dislike or hate) Ham and YEC. If you didn't, you would be OK with the current wording. The evolutionary age of the earth is an estimate (yes, it is). Why is it wrong then to describe it as such? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now we all have our biases and you wear yours on your sleeve. Just so. The goal of Wikipedia is to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Here, the fact at issue is the fact (NOT OPINION) that the Earth/universe is billions of years old. Wikipedia, wherever occasion to mention this fact comes up, is required per its policies and guidelines to make it clear that this is a fact and not an opinion. You are arguing that the age of the Earth/universe is an "estimate". Above, I have carefully outlined why this is hardly relevant to the point at hand (the point that Ham denies the fact of the age of the Earth/universe being on the order of billions of years). It is wrong to imply or insinuate that this is not a fact which is what the attribution to "scientific majority" or "evolutionary thinking" or "scientific consensus" does. Because, you see, these measurements are not just a bunch of people agreeing. These are measurements just like the distance between New York and Chicago (see above). Do you understand? jps (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I commented on the phrase "...is contradicted by the scientific consensus that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are on the order of billions of years". I.e. is there an "unscientific consensus"? Or some scientists do not agree about these measurements?

The problem is WP:weasel with this wording being subject to various interpretations. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is trying to assign the word "fact" to something that is an inference and mostly a statistical inference. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All measurements are inference at some level. This would mean that no measurements are facts. It's also 100% false that it is mostly a statistical inference. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The wording describes the fact that there is a consensus among the majority of scientists that the evolutionary age of the earth is true. There are plenty of scientists who disagree. These two statements are facts. The wording does not violate WP:weasel. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are not plenty of scientists who disagree. There are essentially zero scientists who disagree. And the fact that you want to change the subject to a question of how many scientists disagrees is exactly the problem. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this variation on MastCell's text: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Just stick to the facts without the "measured" red herring. On another point, it looks jps put a POV tag on the article—that is not a good idea because it encourages others to do the same whenever they don't like something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You can feel free to remove the POV tag. I don't know what to do when there is a problem like this. Your version is fine with me. I just don't want to violate WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

May work -- this avoids the whole "scientific consensus" debate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with any agreed upon version, but may I ask why anyone would object to "scientific consensus"? This is the wording that is often use to calm down opposing sides and shows that not everyone agrees, but the current consensus is -whatever-. I am not sure why anyone would disagree with that wording on both sides of the discussion. Lipsquid (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the consensus of scientists is quite immaterial to the fact that the age of the Earth has been measured. It's like saying, "The scientific consensus is that the distance between New York and Chicago is 913 miles." That is an unencyclopedic way of reporting that fact. That is exactly why we have WP:YESPOV. The age of the Earth/universe isn't an opinion. It is a fact. jps (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I get it, I often edit pseudoscience articles so I get used to giving people leeway to express opinions when those opinions, however crazy, are backed by somewhat scientific sources. Lipsquid (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. We should have something more like: Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the the universe and the Earth are believed to be billions of years old according to the Theory of Evolution.

The age of the Earth and universe are estimates, not hard, solid, observed facts (whether you like it or not, that's the case). They seem to be very precise estimates, but they are still estimates. We shouldn't go beyond saying that here.

Better yet, lets just keep the "scientific consensus" wording. The wording is good the way it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this statement illustrates perfectly the problem. You are ignorant of the fact that the age of the Earth and universe are measurements and they are hard, observed facts just like any other measurement. I understand that you have been indoctrinated to think otherwise, but Wikipedia is based on mainstream understanding and not the understanding imparted by one's fundamentalist religion. The reason the wording is no good is because it obfuscates this fundamental fact about the reality we live in. It misleads the reader into thinking exactly the misconception you outline, that the age of the Earth/universe are not "hard, solid, observed facts" when, crucially, they actually are. I couldn't have asked for a better object lesson than this. We need to avoid any weaseling into the idea that these facts are actually opinions. jps (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, please cease making derogatory comments about other editors. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing at all derogatory about what I wrote. It is okay to be ignorant. It is even okay to be indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with that. Such people are free to come here and help on any number of things which do not require someone who isn't so blinkered. However, when it comes to reporting such fundamental facts about reality such as the Age of the Earth or the Age of the universe, the opinions of those who have been indoctrinated to believe, for whatever reason, that the facts associated with those topics are not actually facts really do not belong influencing the content of the encyclopedia. It's a harsh reality, but it is not derogation of the fundamental human worth of the other people with whom we share this cyberspace. jps (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not ignorant or indoctrinated, contrary to what an "enlightened" person like you might think. I have been watching these pages for years, having to deal with numerous ignorant editors who try to make these pages conform to the views they have been indoctrinated with. It is common sense that the original wording is best and describes the section the best. The wording does not violate any Wikipedia ordinance. Please stop trying to change the wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The words "scientific consensus" is fine, and it is not necessary or ideal to describe the evolutionary age of the Earth or universe as hard facts, as several other editors, who clearly are not ignorant or indoctrinated also think. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we are all indoctrinated, to differing degrees and on different subjects, and we all wear our own set of lenses that we view the world through. That said, I agree with you there is no controversy on the age of the universe. I self-reverted. Carry on and best to all! Lipsquid (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, absolutely. The difference is that some people are indoctrinated in a way that supports the goals of the encyclopedia and some people are indoctrinated in ways that do not. To take a less hot-issue example, someone who is indoctrinated in a way that makes them want to correct spelling is an asset to Wikipedia, generally. Someone who is indoctrinated in a way that makes them want to reorder numerals wherever they see them is not. jps (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own writing has already betrayed your ignorance, sorry. The very fact that you think that the Age of the Universe is "believed" "according" to the Theory of Evolution is a whopper of a misconception. It would earn you a failing grade in my astronomy class, for example. The wording needs to be changed to comport with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pretending that there has been a long consensus in favor of this is disingenuous especially as it was you yourself who removed the wording that plainly identified these facts. You are the one who is on the losing side of consensus here. It's time to back off. If you want to learn why you are wrong, feel free to contact me separately. jps (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. Sorry to hear that I would fail your astronomy class because of my views on this subject, rather than something that's much more relevant to astronomy. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

SMH. Hint: The Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to the Age of the Universe. And obviously I'm not completely wrong because it really was you who changed the wording despite the consensus here, wasn't it? jps (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my political correctness getting the better of me. Regardless, I do hope that I'll have an unbiased astronomy teacher. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. For this reason, Creation Science and Intelligent Design are the first examples listed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Examples. Whether God did it or not not is a philosophical/theological debate that generally is regarded as outside or even unrelated to science, but evolution, the big bang, and so forth, are established facts. There's still some debate room regarding the exact date, but all serious estimates fall within the range of billions of years. As such, we do not mention scientific consensus (because it creates artificial validity in the eyes of the science-rejecting YECers) and should even avoid mentioning measurement (if only to avoid redundancy, it not because mentioning measurement leaves open the question as to whether the measurement is right). The Earth article barely mentions measurement, it usually just says "it is this big" or "it is this old." Yes, it gives measurements, but it describes those measurements as facts.
  I'm OK with either Johnuniq's suggested wording or His belief, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, is contradicted by the the age of the universe and the age of the Earth being on the order of billions of years. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good point on the word "measurement". I think I agree with that. Of course, it makes me sad that this is the present state of rhetorical affairs as I think measurement is so wonderfully fundamental to science, but there I go showing my bias again. ;) jps (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with Ian.thomson's suggestion, though (a) "in" the order would be the more usual way of expressing it; and (b) we don't need both earth and universe here - if we do, we need a citation for Ham's view on the age of the universe. StAnselm (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The most common way of discussing order of magnitude descriptions is indeed to say, "on the order of". Here is a source which identifies Ham's opposition to the age of the Universe: [2]. jps (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• I like Ian.tomson's wording, as it makes sense, and doesn't give any doubt to science. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm comfortable with a simple assertion, in Wikipedia's voice, that the earth and universe are billions of years old which, as jps points out, is how we generally treat propositions that enjoy this level of scientific consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote

I reworked this quote from Ham into the article prose, per WP:Quote farm:

[My father] was always very adamant about one thing—if you can't trust the Book of Genesis as literal history, then you can't trust the rest of the Bible. After all, every single doctrine of biblical theology is founded in the history of Genesis 1–11. My father had not developed his thinking in this area as much as we have today at Answers in Genesis, but he clearly understood that if Adam wasn't created from dust, and that if he didn't fall into sin as Genesis states, then the gospel message of the New Testament can't be true either.

— Ken Ham (2008)

References

The prominent placement and the block-quote treatment made the page look like a personal web page to a certain extent, vs an encyclopedia article. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adjusting the wording, ‎1990'sguy. It reads better with the revised copy. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientifically determined

I restored the prior consensus version, as the new one looked problematic to me:

• Ham advocates Biblical literalism, taking the Book of Genesis as historical fact. Ham believes, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, whereas the Earth and the universe have been determined scientifically to be billions of years old.

References

I restored the previous consensus version as "have been determined scientifically" has the same issues as the "scientific consensus" that was discussed above. I.e. can something be "determined unscientifically"? Or what if it was just "determined"? Who has made this determination? Etc.

The current version above is straightforward and presets fact as fact, without equivocating. On a related note, are citations needed for Earth and universe, per WP:Overcite? Compare with:

Elephants are large land mammals ... Elephants' teeth are very different from those of most other mammals. Unlike most mammals, which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth, elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire lives.

1. Expert, Alice. (2010) Size of elephants: large.

2. Smith, Bob. (2009) Land-based animals, Chapter 2: The Elephant.

3. Christenson, Chris. (2010) An exhausting list of mammals

4. Maizy, Daisy. (2009) All about the elephants' teeth, p. 23–29

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Can something be unscientifically determined? Ask Ken Ham. More generally, people "determine" things all the time, to their own personal satisfaction, without science. The point of having "scientifically determined" might help emphasize the variety of techniques (usually involving hypotheses) and the variety of observations brought to this issue. The cited sources describe these. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the citations to the Earth and the universe as excessive. Does the note on Ham's view need to be there? Any objections to relocating it into the body? It will help with streamlining the lead. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally you don't need citations in the lead per [[WP:LEAD] but anything that has been challenged needs to be sourced and anything that may be challenged should be. The lead is appropriately sourced now. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE does not need to be cited. If readers would like to find out more, they can click on the link. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On a controversial topic like this, there is little SKYISBLUE agreement, and being well-cited in the LEAD is the product of past contention and a ward against future contention. There is no WP:OVERCITE in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Day of birth removed

Ham's day of birth was perfectly sourced to a book in the personal life section but removed just now. Any good reason for this?--TMCk (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it did happen recently. It seems the cited source didn't provide the exact date. I found sources where Ham and his publisher both give October 20, 1951 as the date, which is what the article previously displayed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The existing source had that information: "Then, on October 20, 1951,...".--TMCk (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the source I saw it cited to, but a few editors have this and related articles in a state of upheaval at the moment, so I may have misread the edit history. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That'll do. Restored and cited. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Age of the Earth / Age of the Universe

We still haven't got a good source saying that Ham believes the age of the universe is 6000 years. He normally talks about the "age of the earth", and while I am sure that he also believes the universe is 6000 years old, that's not good enough for a BLP. Note 1 mentions "timing of creation", but there is no explicit reference to "creation of the universe". There are AiG articles about the age of the universe (e.g. [3]) but they are not written by Ham. Perhaps it's better just to stick to talk about the age of the earth in this article - after all, we should focus on what Ham has made public statements about. Also, the current footnote 30 needs to be fixed - it doesn't reference a specific article, just a topic list on the age of the earth. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Note 1 seems to handle this. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't mention the age of the universe at all! StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As Ham says over and over his approach is very simple. God created everything in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. In the same book we already cite, he says on p 113: "Surely God is free to accomplish miracles within the world He created, so this should not be a problem for those who believe what God has revealed through the Scriptures. But neither should creating the universe in six days or causing the entire globe to be flooded" On page 108 he says: "Being consistent is a hallmark of rationality. Those who believe in a young earth and the biblical descriptions of the creation and history of the universe are commonly called "irrational" — though in somewhat backhanded ways. While some will claim that I am unreasonable to believe that God created the earth about 6,000 years ago and yet ride in a car or type on a laptop, I reject such assertions.(1)" That footnote 1 is in our Note 1. The whole thing was created in 6 days for Ham. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah - that first quote ("creating the universe in six days") on p. 113 is exactly the sort of thing I was after. That should be in Note 1 as well. What should we do about footnote 30? StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

But note 1 does mention the universe (if not its age specifically), quoting Ham as saying "Rejecting literal days of creation naturally leads to the acceptance of the supposed big bang as the evolutionary method God used to create the universe.", so Ham doesn't seem to split hairs here, and seems to directly link the age of the Earth with the age of the universe. Willondon (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

I'm moving this passage for storage here:

• Ham has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees from four private Christian universities; Temple Baptist College (1997), Liberty University (2004), Tennessee Temple University (2010), and Mid-Continent University (2012).

References

This passage appears to be constructed on various sources, so I'm not sure if its OR / synth / wp:overcite. In any case, this intricate detail does not appear to be important as the fact that the subject holds honorary decrees from Christian schools (four of them, and which specific one) do not appear to impart much information on the reader.

Open to other opinions / suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not put the schools and dates in the footnote? Such stuff isn't likely to be challenged, and it would make a difference if the "private Christian universities" were schools like Baylor or Wheaton.--John Foxe (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so sure that "such stuff isn't likely to be challenged". The exact reason that "this passage appears to be constructed on various sources" is because it was originally cited to one, but it was an AiG link, and another editor demanded that it be cited to third-party sources, which I assembled. Honorary degrees are a typical mention in biographies of politicians (my general fare); I see no reason they shouldn't be included here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say keep it, as I see no reason to remove it - it seems well-sourced. I think that the fact that he has honorary degrees is relevant in an article about himself. I also don't mind John Foxe's suggestion. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I reintroduced the honorary degrees. Like I suggested above, another solution is to put the names in the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest edit about combating scientific consensus and pseudoscience

A person is allowed to believe whatever he or she wants and WP:BLP gives people wide latitude to ensure beliefs are not turned into undue criticism, but there are exceptions. This edit crosses the line:

"When he learned that some of his students believed the evolutionary theories in their science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue, Ham said he felt a "fire in his bones" to combat that notion and began giving addresses on the topic of young Earth creationism in local churches."

If an individual's intent is to "combat" science with creationism, then we are required to give due weight to the scientific consensus that their view is both pseudoscience and antiscience. Mr. Ham already rides the line of no notability outside of Intelligent Design and this is probably sufficient enough to put pseudoscientific in front of young earth creationism in the lede, but since he is not a scientist, I feel we should probably give leeway. Combating science leaves no room for leeway.

WP:FRINGEBLP says "Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame, but the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance). There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject."

I am reintroducing the pseudoscience edit. Lipsquid (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This may be a bit off-topic, but FWIW, Ham is clearly a notable person. This is the guy who started Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, the Ark Encounter, and who debated Bill Nye. This article clearly deserves better treatment. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant to address this earlier, but yes, I was surprised to see even an intimation that Ham isn't notable enough for his own article. Pardon the religious pun, but you'll have a devil of a time trying to prove he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Let's go ahead and put that discussion to bed before it starts. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing this sentence entirely, per WP:Fringe. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I objected to the edit as an “unnecessary label”. I understand why some things are pseudoscience, and I agree 100% that creation “science” is just that. To expand on my meagre edit summary, though:

• I felt it was a redundant label there, since many links in the first paragraph reveal abundant evidence that creation science is pseudoscience.
• The pedant in me recognizes that young Earth creationism is a religious belief, and is not pseudoscience until it tries to claim that it is science. This paragraph describes Ham as combatting the notion (not the science) of evolution in church.
• Again, I’m fully behind the fact that creation science is pseudoscience, but I thought the term felt a little out of place there, and I think that when such labels are used too much, it can come off as defensive and hysterical, much like the littering of “lies” and “false” around any mention of evolution.

So, my two cents. I won’t pay attention to the edit any more, but if you were to switch it back again, I’d be flattered by the testament to my awesome powers of persuasion. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you are willing to let this go; this - "combatting the notion (not the science) of evolution in church" - is a distinction without a difference. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

At the time described in Ham's life, I'm not sure he had yet become aware of the idea of combatting science by pretending that nonsense was science too. Sorry, the pedant in me is strong today. Willondon (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not relevant. Again you are making a distinction without a difference - there is no "notion" of evolution - it is a scientific concept and saying that evolution is false and God created the world in 6 days = pseudoscience; there is no way around that. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The sentence clearly states he was combating information in science text books. I am not sure how someone can presume to know what Mr. Ham thought at a certain time in his life. That is a ridiculous argument. I would leave it and call it pseudoscience, not sure what the debate is about. It is sourced, he said it and it is both pseudoscience and anti-science. WP:FRINGE/PS is pretty clear on how to handle this. Lipsquid (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we arguing creationism vs. science here? Or are we editing an article on Ken Ham? No one should presume to know what Ham thought when. It says he was combatting information in science books, at local churches, but it doesn't say that, at that time in life, he was doing so by pretending religion was science. (Sorry, I'll watch the article and talk page, but I'll leave this all to the rest of you. I find if I go get a good night's sleep, the pedant in me goes away. Cheers.) Willondon (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's blatant editorialising. Either the word "pseudoscientific" goes, or (per K.e.coffman) the whole sentence gets deleted. As Willondon has pointed out, we have no indication he had reached pseudoscience at this time. Young earth creation is not the same as creation science. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"combatting evolution" is the key thing here. If that goes, the argument goes away too. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the notion he was combatting was that "evolutionary theories in the science textbooks proved the Bible to be untrue". StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Editorializing is thinking you can pick and choose acceptable outcomes for sourced content by pushing a false dilemma. Again, WP:FRINGE/PS seems clear on how to handle this and it doesn't need to be removed. He said it, it is note-worthy. "Young earth creation is not the same as creation science" that is funny, it is like saying pseudoscience is not like pseudoscience. 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not noteworthy just because he said it, but because it's reported in a reliable secondary source. In any case, "pseudoscientific" needs to be reliably sourced, and it is not in the source provided. StAnselm (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence for now as there are policy-based questions about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Again the problem here is not what he was teaching, it was what he was opposing. Creationist belief is what it is - a matter of faith; evolution is not a matter of faith, and actively opposing evolution is where this becomes problematic. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I will move along now as my concern is no longer valid. FYI, prose in the lead does not need to be sourced as long as it is sourced in the body. It can be sourced in both if necessary, especially when controversial. WP:CITELEAD Nice for a disagreement to come to a amicable solution. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't think my addition would blow up into all this. I guess I'm fine with deleting the whole sentence, but I thought it was worth mentioning why Ham decided to make a career change from teaching to YEC advocacy. It's the kind of thing I'd be interested in if I were reading a biographical article. Could we re-word the sentence in such a way that debating YEC (again) wouldn't be necessary but still noting that the notion of evolution turning his students away from the Bible was his motivation for leaving the public schools and starting a speaking career? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought the paragraph was fine as it was before the edit we're discussing [4]. Willondon (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was fine was once we noted he was trading science for pseudoscience. Lipsquid (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous version was fine. Just because Ham is a YEC doesn't mean we have to constantly editorialize his article. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Anyone can click through the link to YEC for more information about it. BTW, our own article on YEC calls it a "religious belief", not pseudoscience, which is a term it reserves for "creation science", which has a separate article, btw. The sources note, for what it's worth, that part of the reason for the split between AiG and ICR was that ICR wanted to focus on promoting scientific evidence for creation, while Ham and AiG wanted to use a rhetoric and substance more accessible to lay-people. Now, I won't claim that AiG materials – including the displays at the Creation Museum – don't promote elements of creation science, but the fact that Ham notably led AiG away from what is typically considered creation science seems relevant to this discussion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Again this is missing the point. The reference to PSCI arose because of what the content said he was opposing (evolution - opposing this is pseudoscience) not for what he was teaching (creationism, a belief) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Although it's available via a link in the reference, let me provide the quotation from the source here. Perhaps my wording mis-characterizes the assertion, or failing that, perhaps someone can draft a better summation of the point that won't devolve into an argument over YEC for the umpteenth time:

In 1975, he began work as a science teacher in the town of Dalby, where he later reported to have been appalled by the fact that some of his students assumed their textbooks that taught evolutionary science successfully proved the Bible to be untrue. According to Ham, this experience "put a 'fire in my bones' to do something about the influence that evolutionary thinking was having on students and the public as a whole."

Does this help anyone? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)