Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Open Letter to Ken Ham

These are my own views and not necessarily the views of the blog Admin.

Some quotes from the nice Mr. Ham:

"........increasing intolerance of evolutionary religious zealots!"
How Christian of you!

"....... story of intolerance at its best (or should I say at its worst!)
Not tolerating ignorance is a virtue my man.

"It was just one more situation that could have been featured in the Expelled movie. "

Ken, Here is a movie review on Expelled by Roger Ebert:
The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn't even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, depending on their complexions, they will look sunburned, red-splotched, oily, pale as a fish belly, orange, mottled, ashen, or too dark to be lighted in the same shot with a lighter skin. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory "shocked neighbors" standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.
That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.

By the way, Ken, Roger Ebert is a Christian. Oh? Not your brand of Christian? Does everybody in the US need to come to you to make sure they are worshipping the proper Christian sect?

"Much of the opposition was organized through the anti-creationist, ardently evolutionist website The Panda’s Thumb."
Do you really expect that everyone is going to sign the oath you require of your workers that swears them to not publish any good science if it contradicts your dusty old book?

".....statements these emotional religious zealots have made."
How amusing! The phrase, "religious Zealots" is normally used to describe...well...Religious Zealots, not scientists!
"I've always taken that "projection" as a tacit admission by the fundamentalists that they accept the validity of using those terms as criticism." ----- Whateverman

"Myers blasted the zoo and rallied the zealot secularists in what became a worldwide email campaign against the zoo and museum?"
Ken, OK, now what is it, "zealot secularists" or "emotional religious zealots? Maybe you should try "religious secularists? Too funny!

"These people basically worship Darwin—they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who does not agree with them! "
Most Christians I know practice their religion in a very Christian manner. It is you who attack science at every turn and it is you who are doing the name calling and condemning us to hell and use your ancient book of myths to justify demonizing non-theists. You do it every single day.

"Sad that someone with an atheistic agenda can cause a business relationship to be dissolved—from a different state, no less—but that’s a sign of where our culture is really at today!"

Yes, our culture is slowly turning away from irrational religious beliefs.

".....an Internet campaign from evolutionists set on trying to stop anyone they can from even knowing about what is exhibited at the Creation Museum."

First, anybody can read all about your Flintstone Shrine or go there anytime they want to. I for one would not attempt to stop anybody. I would take part in a letter writing campaign to advise the Zoo or any scientific entity that it would probably be detrimental to their mission to become entangled in any manner with a backward anti -science group.

"It is amazing the things reporters dredge up from evolutionists in an obvious attempt to ridicule the Creation Museum. "

In the cases I have seen, reporters need not "dredge up" anything. You are stating unequivocally that man lived peacefully with dinosaurs and you expect not to be mocked?

Ken, you are very vocal about your distaste for mainstream science and I am here to tell you, the more vocal you become, the more you will be opposed.

It is obvious that your arguments for a six thousand year old earth are irrational and pathetic.

In conclusion, I think you will find that our society is a bit tired of being pushed around by fringe lunatics like you; tired of your ilk trying to force your superstitious beliefs onto others. In the past it was fashionable to just ignore you but the more you push the greater the push-back; and make no mistake, your detractors are not all atheists and secularists as you like to try to make your minions think.

Ken, if you care to discuss this wirth me personally, I will email you my name and phone number at your request.


  1. Last I heard Roger Ebert was an agnostic and former Christian.

  2. Adrian,

    If that is true I will apologize in an instant.

    I was going by a review he did on the "Passion of Christ" where he states:

    "It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our [my emphesis] sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:"


  3. The wiki link says he is a former Catholic and is now agnostic.

  4. Froggie,

    Well I think that when writing about Jesus, anyone (even an atheist like myself) would word it like that. The "our" seems to mean "everyone" (as in, "our planet", "our species") and not in a reference to himself as a Christian.

    All the sources I've read say he renounced his catholic faith for agnosticism.

    I can understand the mistake though :D

  5. To All, Including Ken Ham,

    I hereby retract my assertion that Roger Ebert is a Christian.

    I am sorry for any inconvenience that my errent statement caused.

    I apologize unconditionally for that one statement.

    The other 99.995% of my Post stands, as written.


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.