Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis Declares Moral Outrage Over an Action He Performed

Here’s a news gem from Michael Zimmerman of the Clergy Letter Project (and of Butler University, I might add) that is well worth sharing:

This item falls well within the dictionary’s definition of hypocrisy! Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, the group that built the $27 million Creation Museum-cum-theme-park in Kentucky, has recently railed against the BBC for “ambushing” a member of his staff. As you’ll see if you read the link, Ham claims that Jason Lisle was surprised to find that his scheduled interview on the BBC was actually to be a debate with Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. (I’ve not checked with Genie to get her side of the story since it is actually not relevant to the point I’m making here!) Here’s how Ham summarizes the situation: “By the way—the BBC has not responded to our publicist who has challenged them concerning their deception. Then again, for those people who don’t believe in God and there is no absolute authority, not telling the truth and deception would not be ethically wrong—as they have no basis for right and wrong!”

What makes Ham’s complaints so incredibly ironic and hypocritical is that this is exactly what he did to me a year ago. I was scheduled to do an interview last year on a fundamentalist Christian radio show only to discover, upon going on the air, that Ken Ham was also on the line, ready to debate me. When asked why neither the host nor Ken had the courtesy to inform me that I was to participate in a debate rather than in an interview, I was told that they believed that I wouldn’t have accepted their offer had I been told the truth. When I questioned them about the deception, I was told that since the debate was to further God’s wishes, a minor deception of this sort was acceptable.

That’s quite a double standard!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514 Jared

    Because when you believe in God, you have no ethical standard for right and wrong. ;)

  • Anonymous

    Haven’t you guys heard? What you do in public is copyright now. He’s just mad at the infringement and owed royalties.OK, so that’s a lie (cheque’s in the post, Ken), but it’s probably the least crazy explanation he could’ve used.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248 Joshua

    I’m shocked, simply shocked that that Ken Ham would be a hypocrite about something. Ok. I’ll be blunt. Given who we are talking about do we know that they were even really ambushed? I’m not sure I’d trust the AIG account of events without some confirmation from the BBC or other third party organization.

  • http://cleverbadger.net Jay

    Let’s not forget the Hamster’s new Darwin exhibit at his “museum”, wherein AIG admits that natural selection occurs, but claims it just doesn’t do what biologists think it does. I’m still waiting for a coherent and precise definition of what a “kind” is…

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05954408994376253051 GMV

    Actually, Kan Ham had nothing to do with Zimmerman’s “ambush.” You can read his latest blog about it here: 0http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/03/27/the-hypocrisy-police-on-full-alert%E2%80%94but-should-stand-down/It was the radio host to blame.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    GMV, it is interesting that the mere fact that Ham claims this persuades you that it is the case…

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05954408994376253051 GMV

    Even the radio show host stated that it was him and not Ham. Do you have a good reason to not believe them? Does Zimmerman have a perfect memory and is his account of things the truth by which all things are measured?”GMV, it is interesting that the mere fact that Ham claims this persuades you that it is the case…”

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    Your rhetoric suggests that you are determined to believe Ken Ham at all costs. I never claimed that Michael has a perfect memory, much less that he is the measure of all truth. But knowing Michael personally and having heard his side of things, and having been deceived by Ken Ham’s lies during my teenage years, I do find myself inclined to believe Michael. At any rate, the point is not that Ken was necessarily the person who originally planned the whole thing. The point is that he was invited, was involved in the discussion and agreed to be there ready when Michael Zimmerman was brought into the “interview” without having been honestly told about the format. And then Ham expressed outrage when the same thing was done to someone in his organization.The point is not that talk show hosts do not do this. The point is not even that those who are invited under such circumstances should refuse to appear unless the other person is notified. My point is simply that it is hypocritical to be a willing participant when it benefits you and express outrage when it doesn’t because the shoe is on the other foot.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X