Dear Members and Friends of The Clergy Letter Project,<\/p>\n
Wow, Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis and the impetus behind the creation museum-cum-theme-park in Kentucky, has more gall than even I imagined. Either that or he is fully delusional. Last week I sent out a note accusing him of participating in a radio ambush of me a year or so ago \u2013 an action that appeared to exactly parallel a situation in England he railed against in one of his blog postings. Well, he\u2019s upset by my charge and has opted to rewrite history \u2013 but, oddly enough, even if one were to believe every word he writes, he still doesn\u2019t make any sense!<\/p>\n
Let me explain. He doesn\u2019t deny that we ended up in a radio debate on a fundamentalist radio show. Instead he says a number of things: 1) \u201cI did not know that he was not told I would be on the program;\u201d 2) \u201cI assumed he would be on after my interview with the host, but I was confused as to when;\u201d 3) \u201cIt was no big deal for me to do a radio debate. I do radio debates all the time; so, I was still willing to go on with it;\u201d and 4) \u201call I knew is that sometime during the program, a professor from Indiana\u2013known for his anti-creation activism\u2013was also to be on.\u201d (You can read his full post here<\/a>).<\/p>\n
So, Ken claims that he knew that some unnamed professor was going to be a radio show but had no idea that it was to be a debate, indeed, he claims he wasn\u2019t expecting a debate but since he does so many of them that he was willing to go forward and debate this person even though he, Ken, wasn\u2019t prepared. Here we have Ken Ham casting himself as the victim, but willing to move forward because he\u2019s so very good.<\/p>\n
In fact, however, off the air, at the first break, I addressed both Ken and the host. I asked Ken directly if he knew that I was going to be on the show with him. He said he did. It was also very clear that Ken knew exactly who I was and, as I said before, the response to my question about whether or not this deception was appropriate was that since the debate was to further God\u2019s wishes, a minor deception of this sort was acceptable. Additionally, as I reported last week, I was told that they assumed that had I been told that it was to be a debate I wouldn\u2019t have agreed to go on the air.<\/p>\n
Please remember what started all of this! Ken complained that a member of his staff was terribly mistreated when this happened to him recently in England. You can read his whining about the situation here<\/a>, in a piece entitled \u201cBBC Radio and Ambush Journalism<\/a>.\u201d Indeed, my ambush occurred over a year ago and I\u2019d not made a big deal of it until now. But when I read Ken\u2019s complaint, it was exactly what happened to me. Here, read for yourself what he had to say:<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s why it was not too surprising that when Dr. Lisle went on the air to be interviewed by the BBC, he quickly found out the BBC had not told us the truth\u2014it turned out to be an attempted ambush\u2014not an interview (as we had been led to believe), but a creation\/evolution debate. On the other line was perhaps America\u2019s best-known evolutionist defender, Dr. Eugenie Scott, whose organization has as its sole purpose to counter creationist efforts wherever they can and to uphold evolution. Of course, the BBC didn\u2019t happen to tell us that it was to be a debate, and they didn\u2019t happen to tell us there would be a debate opponent, and they didn\u2019t happen to tell us who the debate opponent would be!\u201d<\/p>\n
The amazing Mr. Ham doesn\u2019t stop there, though. He goes on to attack me: \u201cWhat he\u2019s charging is not even close to the truth. It is absolutely untrue\u2014but then again, when a person is not known for checking out the facts and is in the habit of going on the attack against creationists, we are not at all surprised with the false charge. If such people use the same standards in their evolutionist research, you certainly would know you couldn\u2019t trust what they say. Then again, they do use the same standards!!\u201d<\/p>\n
Nothing specific there just a great deal of name-calling of exactly the same sort that I mentioned in my last note by Robert Bowie Johnson, who, in his self-published book entitled Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences\u2019 Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They\u2019re Descended from Reptiles called all of the signers of The Clergy Letter \u201cmorons.\u201d Turns out that Johnson wrote to me in response to my note to all of you. He clarified his position: \u201cAs you may know, the NT was written in Greek, and the Greek word for stupid is moron. Any so-called Christian pastor or minister who denies the teachings of Christ and Paul in favor of your \u2018teachings\u2019 and the \u2018teachings\u2019 of the atheistic hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences is a moron. He or she is also metaphorically a serpent and a progeny of vipers (Matthew 23:33).\u201d<\/p>\n
So, there you have it. Ken Ham denies what he told me and he claims that what I said happened \u201cis not even close to the truth,\u201d even though his inaccurate account depicts exactly what he charged the BBC with doing. And then, to top it off, he goes off on aside of name-calling accusing me of being known for not \u201cchecking out the facts\u201d and for being \u201cin the habit of going on the attack against creationists.\u201d Moreover, Robert Bowie Johnson felt the compulsion to again call Clergy Letter Project members morons.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3947264338245952181?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"