The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Ark Park attendance estimates way down

Posted 21 January 2015 by Matt Young

Ark Park attendance is estimated to be no more than 640,000 visitors in its best year, down from 1.24 million, according to a report by Tom Loftus in The (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. That is not as bad as it appears – or as good as it appears, depending how you look at it – considering that the project has been scaled back from $172.5 million with many additional attractions to $73 million without. The Kentucky Secular Society obtained a redacted copy of a report by Hunden Strategic Partners, of Chicago, through the Kentucky Open Records Act and distributed a press release to a handful of reporters. According to the press release, Hunden examined two scenarios: a "mainstream approach" and a religiously based approach "that may represent a specific viewpoint more associated with the Creation Museum." The religiously based approach would net an attendance of 325,000 in the first year, a maximum of 425,000 in the third year, and then a decline to 275,000 by the tenth year. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis had said in October that "the full-size Noah's Ark, when it opens in 2016, is estimated to attract up to 2 million visitors a year," but this estimate was probably based on the earlier proposal. Hunden also estimates a "fiscal impact" of $4.9 million, kind of a paltry return on a total tax-incentive package of $18.25 million. Hunden also points to a steady decline in previous attendance at the Creation "Museum," including a projected steep decline in 2014, but the precise figures have been redacted. I cannot tell from the wording whether to credit the report or the Kentucky Secular Society, but the press release claims that the attendance dropped precipitously after the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye in February. Ed Hensley of the Kentucky Secular Society notes in the KSS press release,

The Hunden Report adds more evidence that the Commonwealth of Kentucky made the correct decision in rejecting the Ark Encounter application for tax incentives. Ken Ham, Ark Encounter, and Answers in Genesis are currently threatening to sue the Commonwealth for the right to have tax-supported religious discrimination in employment. We should consider the contrasting claims of the Hunden report while evaluating their threats.

See here for an article on the threatened lawsuit and here for an article on the Ark Park's hiring practices.
----------
Acknowledgment: Thanks again to Alert Reader for forwarding the press release.

64 Comments

gdavidson418 · 21 January 2015

but the press release claims that the attendance dropped precipitously after the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye in February.
Certainly good to see. That it could go the other way was the concern, but I guess resorting to the Bible when pressed isn't exactly what good believers want to see. They'd like something that finally disproves evolution, not Ham's pathetic excuses. Well, get used to it, creationists, complaining about evolution is all that you have, along with no evidence backing up either the flood or design. Glen Davidson

eric · 21 January 2015

As a veteran of independent assessments of other people's work, I can say that there's absolutely nothing noteworthy about seeing an internal estimate that is significantly more optimistic than an independent one. Particularly when the assessment is geared toward selling some product or getting support. We can bash Ham about a lot of things, but frankly I don't see anything particularly 'fundamentalist' or 'religiousy' about this result. In this instance, he is being neither more (nor less) unintentionally biased (and perhaps intentionally manipulative) than any other secular buisnessperson. The fact that he is within an order of magnitude of the independent assessment means he's probably less biased than the banking industry is when they do assessments of the impact of government regulation. :)

Mike Elzinga · 21 January 2015

Take a look at this video over at the Ark Encounter site.Just a few minutes into the video we see something interesting even as they tell us about the drawings.

Using the HD setting you will note some white columns next to Ham that say "Easy-Pour" on them. Guess what those are.

They then go out to the construction site and show us the beginnings of the concrete and steel towers that will support the ark.

This is surely an accurate replica of what Noah built. Noah must have had the cranes and the off-site mortise-and-tendon cutting machines for those composite wooden beams.

Keep listening to subsequent videos and note that Ham is keeps insisting that they have the right to discriminate in hiring. He even admits to the shell game with his reorganization of the ownership of the project.

Just Bob · 21 January 2015

Mike Elzinga said: ... mortise-and-tendon cutting machines...
That makes my testicles try to creep back up inside just reading it! [You mean tenon ;-) ]

Mike Elzinga · 22 January 2015

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: ... mortise-and-tendon cutting machines...
That makes my testicles try to creep back up inside just reading it! [You mean tenon ;-) ]
Aargh! Thanks! Shiver me timbers; indeed! I'm clutching my groin also. I seem to have an automatic habit of hitting a "d" after I hit and "n" on the keyboard. With my current distorted and blurry vision problems I am not catching a lot of my mistakes. I've also been breaking my guitar-playing fingernails because I am misjudging distances when I reach for things. I'm told this can last up to a year. More eye injections to come.

Dave Luckett · 22 January 2015

It's interesting to speculate where this whole project will be in, say, ten years. Wooden structures typically require high maintenance, and the larger they are, the more maintenance they require per volume. Wood shrinks, warps, buckles and twists, if it's out in the weather, and the net effect on the structure is proportionally greater over size of the members.

I wonder what pest control measures Ark Park is taking? Did Noah have access to Divine dieldrin? I know that any wooden structure hereabouts that's in contact with the ground would be punk within a few years unless really serious pesticides were used to protect it from termites. Not to mention borers, woodworm and dry rot. Fungal attack, too.

On the gate figures projected, I would bet that it would become impossible to keep the thing up after less than ten years. It would then fall apart, slowly, thus becoming a wonderful metaphor for the fate of fundamentalist religion. Or the county, or someone, would require its safe demolition - which would be an even better one.

Because fundamentalist religion is on the way out now. Too many people have now have seen enough of what it does.

stevaroni · 22 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: I wonder what pest control measures Ark Park is taking? Did Noah have access to Divine dieldrin?
Little known fact, Noah used pest control at all. Which is why we have a million species of beetles, flies, mosquito's, fleas, roaches and termites.

Dave Lovell · 22 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: It's interesting to speculate where this whole project will be in, say, ten years. Wooden structures typically require high maintenance, and the larger they are, the more maintenance they require per volume. Wood shrinks, warps, buckles and twists, if it's out in the weather, and the net effect on the structure is proportionally greater over size of the members.
Indeed Dave, and topical in the UK this week too. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/nelson_s_flagship_the_hms_victory_needs_urgent_repairs_to_halt_further_collapse_1_3906343

Frank J · 22 January 2015

Because fundamentalist religion is on the way out now. Too many people have now have seen enough of what it does.

— Dave Luckett
Do you have any references for that? Note, I'm not incredulous (as evolution-deniers are) but merely skeptical (as fellow "Darwinists" are, even about evolution). IOW, I could be wrong, but what I recall reading is that people are leaving non-fundamentalist religions, and becoming either fundamentalist or not affiliated with any religion. I hope I'm wrong and you're right. In any case, if the Creation Museum and Ark Park were nearby, I'd certainly visit them at least once, if only because of my intense interest in the games that pseudoscience peddlers play. I might even pretend to be a day-age or gap creationist, and see how long it takes before I'm escorted out.

eric · 22 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Wooden structures typically require high maintenance, and the larger they are, the more maintenance they require per volume. Wood shrinks, warps, buckles and twists, if it's out in the weather, and the net effect on the structure is proportionally greater over size of the members.
What makes you think there will be a significant amount of wood in the Ken's ark? I'm predicting it will be mostly steel I-beams and drywall with a wood or wood-like plastic laminate. :) Even if I'm wrong, though, I don't see any Ark-particular issues here. Many of the bigger National Parks (and the equivalent in Canada) have massive lodges that are mostly wood. I don't know how they solve their pest and rot problems, but they obviously do, so whatevery they do, Ham can do.

mattdance18 · 22 January 2015

The attendance projections were always preposterous, and they still are. The Creation Museum has never had a half-million visitors in any single year, and in 2012 (as far as I'm aware, the latest year whose numbers have been released; if anyone has more recent figures, I'd love to see them), there were fewer than 300,000 visitors. They've put in a zip-line to draw tourists in. (Because zip-lines are a good reason to do make a trip to Kentucky?... Okayyyyy....) To claim that the Ark Encounter will get more than 600,000 is silly, and to claim that it will get more than a million is outright laughable.

Ham claims that the Ark will get more visitors, because the Ark is more generally accessible. I guess the reasoning is something like "everybody knows the story of Noah's Ark." Well, fine, the story is indeed extremely well-known, even by people who aren't creationists or even Christians. But will that really translate into such higher attendance? Will throngs of non-creationists and/or non-Christians flock to a glorified petting zoo just because they are aware of a Bible story? especially when they also know that said petting zoo is affiliated with a creationist ministry? and when they can certainly expect a hefty dose of creationist propaganda and/or proselytism while visiting?

Give. Me. A. Break.

I remain convinced that the Ark Encounter is nothing more than a money laundering scheme to help a financially sinking ministry stay afloat.

Just Bob · 22 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: On the gate figures projected, I would bet that it would become impossible to keep the thing up after less than ten years. It would then fall apart, slowly, thus becoming a wonderful metaphor for the fate of fundamentalist religion. Or the county, or someone, would require its safe demolition - which would be an even better one.
Prophecy: As park attendance falls off rapidly after the first year and financial, legal, and tax difficulties proliferate, some dark night the 'ark' will catch fire. Sprinkler systems and the local FD may save it from complete destruction, but the damage will be extensive enough that Ham can regretfully claim that it would be too expensive to repair. Ham will have to sue the insurance company, which will be slow to pay and want a lot of investigation of the cause of the fire. Ham won't say it himself, but radio talk shows will accuse atheists. Fox News won't be so blunt, but will lard commentary with innuendo about atheists, evolutionists, etc. Some donations to 'save the Ark' will come Ham's way in the immediate aftermath, but will not be returned after it's admitted that there will be no rebuilding.

Just Bob · 22 January 2015

mattdance18 said: But will that really translate into such higher attendance? Will throngs of non-creationists and/or non-Christians flock to a glorified petting zoo just because they are aware of a Bible story? especially when they also know that said petting zoo is affiliated with a creationist ministry? and when they can certainly expect a hefty dose of creationist propaganda and/or proselytism while visiting?
And when they hear that they may be quickly escorted off the property if they are overheard explaining to little Billy that it's all just a story and didn't really happen.

mattdance18 · 22 January 2015

Just Bob said: And when they hear that they may be quickly escorted off the property if they are overheard explaining to little Billy that it's all just a story and didn't really happen.
True, although there's really no reason to take a kid to anything Ken Ham's involved with. If one were a creationist seeking to reinforce the brainwashing of one's children, I suppose, but while that may be a reason, it's hardly a good one.

Doc Bill · 22 January 2015

Didn't Hambo cut back on the project? I seem to recall the original concept had the Ark, petting zoo, Tower of Babble, Plagues of Egypt ride, Bible village and "strolling" attractions, plus gift shops, concession stands and so forth.

Still, only one ride that doesn't sound all that exciting: a bucket on a track that winds its way through rooms - river of blood room, frog room, bug room and a few more horrors. Nice.

I mean, what is there to DO at the Ark Park? It sounds like a very boring, horrible place to go. And it goes downhill from there.

They might get the morbidly curious the first year but year two will be attended only by tumbleweeds and crickets.

eric · 22 January 2015

Doc Bill said: I mean, what is there to DO at the Ark Park?
Surf in the Red Sea surf pool, with a bottom painted to resemble bronze age Egyptians begging to be saved frow drowning. Five bucks will get you 10 shots at the "Visit the Lord's Righteousness on the Cannanites" gun range. If you hit the dirty heathens targets with all 10 shots, you get a virgin doll to take home. If you hit the innocent bystandar targets, don't worry, those count too. When you get hungry, visit the Cain and Abel smorgasborg. But just a warning: if you take the salad, you get thrown out of the park. After that, parch your thirst at the "Lot and his Daughters" biergarten. The tented-off booths are extra. And who could resist the family photo opportunity of Abraham's Rock, where you (yes you!) can put your son on the sacrificial alter and get a picture of you showing just how much you love God by standing over him, knife in hand? Why Doc Bill, the possibilities are nearly endless!

Just Bob · 22 January 2015

eric said: Surf in the Red Sea surf pool, with a bottom painted to resemble bronze age Egyptians begging to be saved frow drowning. Five bucks will get you 10 shots at the "Visit the Lord's Righteousness on the Cannanites" gun range. If you hit the dirty heathens targets with all 10 shots, you get a virgin doll to take home. If you hit the innocent bystandar targets, don't worry, those count too. When you get hungry, visit the Cain and Abel smorgasborg. But just a warning: if you take the salad, you get thrown out of the park. After that, parch your thirst at the "Lot and his Daughters" biergarten. The tented-off booths are extra. And who could resist the family photo opportunity of Abraham's Rock, where you (yes you!) can put your son on the sacrificial alter and get a picture of you showing just how much you love God by standing over him, knife in hand? Why Doc Bill, the possibilities are nearly endless!
Sick. Real HAM-y, FL-y, IBIG-y sick.

Paul Burnett · 22 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Wooden structures typically require high maintenance, and the larger they are, the more maintenance they require per volume.
Ham and minions occasionally say that their Ark will be the largest wooden structure ever. There is a MUCH larger 100 per cent wooden structure near Albuquerque, New Mexico, codenamed "Trestle" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRESTLE

callahanpb · 22 January 2015

Over a million visitors per year (thousands per day) isn't crazy for a popular theme park, but what would make this one so popular?

As an ordinary business proposal, it would be risky. Outside of the YEC community, there is not all that much interest in Noah. Did they do any comparisons to openings of other specialty theme parks, or just pull the number out of thin air?

eric · 22 January 2015

Paul Burnett said: Ham and minions occasionally say that their Ark will be the largest wooden structure ever. There is a MUCH larger 100 per cent wooden structure near Albuquerque, New Mexico, codenamed "Trestle" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRESTLE
That's awesome. Anything Noah can do, DOD can do better... :)

Mike Elzinga · 22 January 2015

eric said:
Paul Burnett said: Ham and minions occasionally say that their Ark will be the largest wooden structure ever. There is a MUCH larger 100 per cent wooden structure near Albuquerque, New Mexico, codenamed "Trestle" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRESTLE
That's awesome. Anything Noah can do, DOD can do better... :)
Look at the difference in construction and consider strength-to-weight ratio. What works as a supporting structure of that size doesn't work as a boat of even half that size.

callahanpb · 22 January 2015

Mike Elzinga said: Look at the difference in construction and consider strength-to-weight ratio. What works as a supporting structure of that size doesn't work as a boat of even half that size.
I'm also thinking Noah would not have used glue laminate.

mattdance18 · 22 January 2015

callahanpb said: I'm also thinking Noah would not have used glue laminate.
Duh, everybody knows that's what gopherwood is.

ashleyhr · 22 January 2015

Oh Dear:
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/propaganda-war-against-the-ark/

mattdance18 · 22 January 2015

ashleyhr said: Oh Dear: https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/propaganda-war-against-the-ark/
Ah, yes. His opponents are the devil. Because atheism. Shocking, just shocking, to see Ken Ham say such things. Again.

Just Bob · 22 January 2015

mattdance18 said:
ashleyhr said: Oh Dear: https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/propaganda-war-against-the-ark/
Ah, yes. His opponents are the devil. Because atheism. Shocking, just shocking, to see Ken Ham say such things. Again.
If you oppose Ham, or even criticize him, in anything, then you're opposing GOD.

MJHowe · 23 January 2015

"The Devil's always on the job". Yep, maintain the fear of the boogieman and keep the dollars rolling in.

ksplawn · 23 January 2015

MJHowe said: "The Devil's always on the job".
That doesn't surprise me. I'm betting he could easily pass their religiously discriminatory employment criteria, and it seems like the perfect job for him.

Frank J · 24 January 2015

Outside of the YEC community, there is not all that much interest in Noah.

— callahanpb
Depends on what you mean by "YEC community." Recent polls suggest that only ~10% of adult Americans are strict YECs, and only a tiny fraction of them are YEC activists. That's still only ~1/3 of all adult Biblical literalists. But I think that most of the rest, what I call "soft OECs" (i.e. sympathetic to YECs, and not caring much about the "whens") would also be interested, as would many devout Christians and Jews who take it allegorically. As I note above, I too am interested, though not enough to make a long trip. But for the purpose of seeing how pseudoscience peddlers work. I'm particularly curious about how vague it is on the "whens," to pander to OECs and IDers. The Creation Museum should give a good idea how the Ark Park will handle the "whens." If activists like Ham were truly confident that the evidence supported their particular "whens," that would be the emphasis, not the incessant whining about "Darwinism" or "atheism."

Just Bob · 24 January 2015

Frank J said: The Creation Museum should give a good idea how the Ark Park will handle the "whens." If activists like Ham were truly confident that the evidence supported their particular "whens," that would be the emphasis, not the incessant whining about "Darwinism" or "atheism."
I haven't been there, and sincerely doubt that I ever will be, but doesn't the Creation "Museum" have a display with a wrecking ball labelled 'millions of years' smashing down a church? Not exactly coy about the 'whens'. Surely the Ark Propaganda Park will be as blatantly YEC, and leave no doubt that the Noah business is literal history, and any other interpretation will bring down Western Civilization and make baby Jesus cry.

JimboK · 24 January 2015

MJHowe said: "The Devil's always on the job".
Where the Hell (double-entendre definitely intended...) does that Devil guy come from, anyways?

Just Bob · 24 January 2015

JimboK said:
MJHowe said: "The Devil's always on the job".
Where the Hell (double-entendre definitely intended...) does that Devil guy come from, anyways?
Ooh, Ooh! That's an easy one! GOD created EVERYTHING! And any version of judaeo-christian mythology that features an omnipotent god, by definition has the Devil, if not being a direct servant of God, at least tolerated in his evil ways by a god who could snuff him out instantly--if he chose to. He doesn't seem to choose to.

W. H. Heydt · 24 January 2015

Just Bob said:
Dave Luckett said: On the gate figures projected, I would bet that it would become impossible to keep the thing up after less than ten years. It would then fall apart, slowly, thus becoming a wonderful metaphor for the fate of fundamentalist religion. Or the county, or someone, would require its safe demolition - which would be an even better one.
Prophecy: As park attendance falls off rapidly after the first year and financial, legal, and tax difficulties proliferate, some dark night the 'ark' will catch fire. Sprinkler systems and the local FD may save it from complete destruction, but the damage will be extensive enough that Ham can regretfully claim that it would be too expensive to repair. Ham will have to sue the insurance company, which will be slow to pay and want a lot of investigation of the cause of the fire. Ham won't say it himself, but radio talk shows will accuse atheists. Fox News won't be so blunt, but will lard commentary with innuendo about atheists, evolutionists, etc. Some donations to 'save the Ark' will come Ham's way in the immediate aftermath, but will not be returned after it's admitted that there will be no rebuilding.
...and the thorough fire investigation will reveal that (a) it was arson, and (b) the orders to burn it down can be traced back to Ham. At that point, the insurance company will refuse to pay and, when sued, will win.

phhht · 24 January 2015

JimboK said: Where the Hell (double-entendre definitely intended...) does that Devil guy come from, anyways?
He's from Iowa. He only works beyond time and space.

Doc Bill · 24 January 2015

phhht said:
JimboK said: Where the Hell (double-entendre definitely intended...) does that Devil guy come from, anyways?
He's from Iowa. He only works beyond time and space.
Nice one. Save the whales!

Henry J · 24 January 2015

From Iowa? But that was only carved out of the Louisiana Purchase century before last. Shirley the devil's been giving idle hands things to do longer than that? ;)

stevaroni · 24 January 2015

JimboK said: Where the Hell (double-entendre definitely intended...) does that Devil guy come from, anyways?
He's from Iowa. He only works beyond time and space.
Apparently, at the moment, he's down in Tennesee putting pentagrams on School busses.

Just Bob · 24 January 2015

...and don't call me Shirley!

Matt Young · 25 January 2015

Ken Ham claims here that the law allows the Ark to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. But if you read carefully, you will find that he is conflating AIG, the non-profit, with the for-profit Ark Park. He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model. So we get back to the same thing that we pointed out before: They are laundering employees through AIG; that is, if the Ark Park has no employees, then persons hired by AIG must be working on the construction of the model. Will the for-profit Ark Park then be built entirely by employees of a non-profit organization? Will the for-profit Ark Park be built entirely by employees who have been screened on the basis of religion? Will the Ark Park have no employees until the day it opens? That is what it sounds like from here.

mattdance18 · 25 January 2015

Matt Young said: Ken Ham claims here that the law allows the Ark to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. But if you read carefully, you will find that he is conflating AIG, the non-profit, with the for-profit Ark Park. He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model. So we get back to the same thing that we pointed out before: They are laundering employees through AIG; that is, if the Ark Park has no employees, then persons hired by AIG must be working on the construction of the model. Will the for-profit Ark Park then be built entirely by employees of a non-profit organization? Will the for-profit Ark Park be built entirely by employees who have been screened on the basis of religion? Will the Ark Park have no employees until the day it opens? That is what it sounds like from here.
With employment-laundering already begun, can the money-laundering be far behind?... Good grief, what a dishonest man Ken Ham is.

eric · 26 January 2015

Matt Young said: He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model.
Which is patently absurd, and I hope will be laughed out of court if it goes that far. Construction crews, architects, computer modelers, etc... work for the company commissioning the construction. Does he really think he can claim otherwise and make it stick?

DS · 26 January 2015

eric said:
Matt Young said: He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model.
Which is patently absurd, and I hope will be laughed out of court if it goes that far. Construction crews, architects, computer modelers, etc... work for the company commissioning the construction. Does he really think he can claim otherwise and make it stick?
Sure. All they have to do is build the fake ark, then give it away as a tax free donation. It's tax breaks all around. Man I can't wait to apply to work in that ark-like thingy. I can pray to satan and draw pentagrams on my lunch box. I can even use the empty rooms for prayer meetings to sacrifice goats and sheep. I can get out my prayer rug and bow towards Mecca and they won't be able to say anything. They can't discriminate on the basis of religion, so there isn't a thing they can do about it. And man just think of all the crap I can tell the visitors on the guided tours! This should be great fun.

Just Bob · 26 January 2015

IANAL, but I think that on the job, before the public, Ark Park would have every right to insist that employees adhere to the company line in appearance, dress, speech, deportment or whatever -- IF that were made clear in hiring. They would, in a sense, be hired to play a part, or be a character, much as Disneyland strolling princesses are. But that doesn't mean that AP could discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion if the prospective employee was otherwise capable of, and willing to, play the part on the job. I don't think AP, a for-profit company, could get away with making all employees sign their statement of belief, or even asking about their religion.

And assuming Ham swallows his bile and institutes fair hiring practices in order to get the park actually open, I foresee his real legal trouble arising when he tries to fire an otherwise good employee for having a 'satanic' tattoo that the public never sees, or for praying toward Mecca on his own time in the break room, or for expressing 'evolutionary views' privately, off the job.

TomS · 26 January 2015

eric said:
Matt Young said: He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model.
Which is patently absurd, and I hope will be laughed out of court if it goes that far. Construction crews, architects, computer modelers, etc... work for the company commissioning the construction. Does he really think he can claim otherwise and make it stick?
Noah used unbelievers to build the original.

eric · 26 January 2015

Just Bob said: IANAL, but I think that on the job, before the public, Ark Park would have every right to insist that employees adhere to the company line in appearance, dress, speech, deportment or whatever -- IF that were made clear in hiring. They would, in a sense, be hired to play a part, or be a character, much as Disneyland strolling princesses are. But that doesn't mean that AP could discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion if the prospective employee was otherwise capable of, and willing to, play the part on the job.
Well, that depends. All you say is true when you're talking about things like tour guides or other positions involving presentations of company material to - or "official" interactions with - the public. But remember, this case is about a computer programmer. A requirement that a computer programmer that sits in a cube and rarely interacts with the public 'toe the corporate speech line' while sitting in his/her cube gets into issues of freedom of speech and religion pretty quickly. Its one thing to demand that I present the flood story respectfully when I give the Ark tour. I'd say nobody really has a problem with that being a legal job requirement. It is quite another to insist that the company can fire me for putting a jewish star up on my cube wall when the guy in the cube next to me is hanging a cross. To do that, you're going to have to come up with some secular reason why a cross can be permitted but a star cannot. And likewise with your examples of a tatoo or expressing yourself off the job. It is hard how those could be legitimate reasons to fire someone...with one big limitation: most corporations take a very dim view of employees badmouthing them publicly even off the job. That can, AIUI, get you fired. So an AP employee talking religion (i.e., trashing creationism as an idea) is probably okay, but an AP employee trashing the AP off the job may be in trouble.

harold · 26 January 2015

Just Bob said: IANAL, but I think that on the job, before the public, Ark Park would have every right to insist that employees adhere to the company line in appearance, dress, speech, deportment or whatever -- IF that were made clear in hiring. They would, in a sense, be hired to play a part, or be a character, much as Disneyland strolling princesses are. But that doesn't mean that AP could discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion if the prospective employee was otherwise capable of, and willing to, play the part on the job. I don't think AP, a for-profit company, could get away with making all employees sign their statement of belief, or even asking about their religion. And assuming Ham swallows his bile and institutes fair hiring practices in order to get the park actually open, I foresee his real legal trouble arising when he tries to fire an otherwise good employee for having a 'satanic' tattoo that the public never sees, or for praying toward Mecca on his own time in the break room, or for expressing 'evolutionary views' privately, off the job.
This raises some interesting questions. If I'm running a hamburger stand, and an employee is telling customers not to eat meat, I can fire them. That's basic consequences of speech. The same authoritarians who want to shut down everyone else's speech are always claiming that they should be immune from consequences of speech, that they shouldn't be fired even though they hurled an ethnic slur at the biggest and most loyal customer. Reality is, I can't stop you from expressing yourself privately but I do not have to pay you to express yourself in a way that is against my own interests. Speech can have plenty of financial and social consequences. Okay, so what if I'm running a for-profit Catholic books and items store, a type of business that is not that uncommon in some areas. It's for profit, so I can't discriminate in hiring, but I hire you and find out that you tell the customers that the pope is the antichrist. They start going to the competitor's Catholic books and items store, where they aren't offended. Presumably, I can require you to express respect for the Catholic faith if you want to be paid to work in that particular type of store. If that doesn't work for you, quit and indulge your freedom of speech from a soap box in the park. It becomes oppressive-sounding if we imagine poor people working for minimum wage at the Ark Park, forced to pretend to believe the BS. Ham himself wants to hire people who at least believe his crap. But on the other hand, the former may be what the law requires. Ham can't ask you if you are a nutjob creationist, but he can say "this business caters to nutjob creationists and if you want to work here you have to treat the customers right".

eric · 26 January 2015

harold said: It becomes oppressive-sounding if we imagine poor people working for minimum wage at the Ark Park, forced to pretend to believe the BS. Ham himself wants to hire people who at least believe his crap. But on the other hand, the former may be what the law requires. Ham can't ask you if you are a nutjob creationist, but he can say "this business caters to nutjob creationists and if you want to work here you have to treat the customers right".
IMO If you're leading a tour, yes, its your job to make the site and story interesting, and not eye-roll and cackle every time you deliver a canned line. If you can't do that due to ideological or ethical reasons, Ark Park tour guide is not the job for you. But we're not (at this point) talking about tour guide positions. We're talking about a computer programming position - a job which doesn't typically involve much public relations. There's simply no good reason to require a high level of PR 'respect' or faked cheerleading in a back-room position. Moreover, the job application didn't ask if the person could remain respectful of YEC beliefs while on the job, it asked if the applicant was a YEC. That crosses the line.

harold · 26 January 2015

eric said:
harold said: It becomes oppressive-sounding if we imagine poor people working for minimum wage at the Ark Park, forced to pretend to believe the BS. Ham himself wants to hire people who at least believe his crap. But on the other hand, the former may be what the law requires. Ham can't ask you if you are a nutjob creationist, but he can say "this business caters to nutjob creationists and if you want to work here you have to treat the customers right".
IMO If you're leading a tour, yes, its your job to make the site and story interesting, and not eye-roll and cackle every time you deliver a canned line. If you can't do that due to ideological or ethical reasons, Ark Park tour guide is not the job for you. But we're not (at this point) talking about tour guide positions. We're talking about a computer programming position - a job which doesn't typically involve much public relations. There's simply no good reason to require a high level of PR 'respect' or faked cheerleading in a back-room position. Moreover, the job application didn't ask if the person could remain respectful of YEC beliefs while on the job, it asked if the applicant was a YEC. That crosses the line.
Agreed, that is a critical distinction. If Ham wants to run a for profit business that is subject to business hiring discrimination laws, he can't ask employees what their religion is. How much you can ask of a computer programmer is a third question. They do "represent the company" so a corporate policy requiring that they not denigrate customers or products could be quite reasonable. The other odd question is whether you can have a "non-profit" "build" an amusement park and then turn it over to a for-profit to operate. At best that is very poor business ethics. It is a transparent effort to disguise for-profit activity as non-profit. Trying to assign capital costs or losses or anything else of that nature to a non-profit is unethical. The most common reason for doing something like this, and I can assure this type of thing happens all the time, would be to exaggerate that economic success of a venture, usually in order to lure in lenders or investors who might not get their money back. Here the direct reason Ken Ham is doing it seems to be to be able to discriminate as much as possible in hiring. However, of course, if he can assign all the costs of the Ark Park to some other entity, he can later exaggerate the profitability of the park. The overlap between ethics, generally accepted accounting principles, and law is considerable but imperfect. I would say probably Ken Ham is violating GAAP, possibly he is violating the law, and unequivocally he is violating ethics. There's nothing unique about trying to falsely assign the costs, losses, or profits of one entity to another entity for some sort of unethical purpose, that is a common situation.

Dave Luckett · 27 January 2015

harold said: There's nothing unique about trying to falsely assign the costs, losses, or profits of one entity to another entity for some sort of unethical purpose, that is a common situation.
Quite so. It's a common corporate dodge, or was. You create or acquire another corporation, which you load with debt while channeling income from it to your own pocket, or to another entity, by various internal chicanery. At the last moment (timing is essential), you strip the first corporation of its remaining assets, sell it for $1.00 to a complete dummy in the Caymans or somewhere, and send it "to the bottom of the harbour", leaving its creditors holding the bag. You then walk away, smiling faintly. There are laws against that sort of thing here, and I think it likely the same applies in the US. The hilarious aspect of this is that various loons, usually but not always of extreme libertarian views, have tried to represent themselves to a court as individuals who have performed the same trick - that they constitute two different legal personalities, one of which holds their debts and the other their assets, and never the twain shall meet. They usually signal this by spelling, punctuating, or styling their names differently on documents, or by telling the Court that one of them is a natural freeman on the land, while the other is a different legal person, or some such nonsense. The usual intent is to try to dodge taxes or spousal/child support. Courts of course treat these impostures with contempt, and the "freeman" can find himself unfree in rather short order. I expect that if Ham tries anything like that, there will be no lack of legal talent available to bring a case pro bono. Then, all that would be required would be a plaintiff with standing, and Ham's ethical standards would be on show in public for everyone to see. Watch this space.

Dave Luckett · 27 January 2015

For an excellent description and legal commentary from a Canadian judge on the various mad pseudo-legal fictions adopted by various litigants attempting to avoid their legal responsibilities, see:

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf

It would seem that judges the world over, having seen it all, develop a bone-dry sense of humour. This is a fine example of one.

eric · 27 January 2015

harold said: The other odd question is whether you can have a "non-profit" "build" an amusement park and then turn it over to a for-profit to operate. At best that is very poor business ethics. It is a transparent effort to disguise for-profit activity as non-profit. Trying to assign capital costs or losses or anything else of that nature to a non-profit is unethical.
I doubt that's a realistic risk at this point, for two reasons. First, because in this case I doubt Ken Ham would sink AiG into bankruptcy just to make Ark Park successful. If he does, it's probably a win for us anyway. :) Second, because the fundies aren't likely to want to stop the religious hiring discrimination with the build phase. They want a legal victory that allows them to discriminate in hiring during operations, too. So while that dodge might get them some of what they want, I think they're more likely to try and grab for the whole legal enchilada.

harold · 27 January 2015

eric said:
harold said: The other odd question is whether you can have a "non-profit" "build" an amusement park and then turn it over to a for-profit to operate. At best that is very poor business ethics. It is a transparent effort to disguise for-profit activity as non-profit. Trying to assign capital costs or losses or anything else of that nature to a non-profit is unethical.
I doubt that's a realistic risk at this point, for two reasons. First, because in this case I doubt Ken Ham would sink AiG into bankruptcy just to make Ark Park successful. If he does, it's probably a win for us anyway. :) Second, because the fundies aren't likely to want to stop the religious hiring discrimination with the build phase. They want a legal victory that allows them to discriminate in hiring during operations, too. So while that dodge might get them some of what they want, I think they're more likely to try and grab for the whole legal enchilada.
Okay.
eric said:
Matt Young said: He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model.
Which is patently absurd, and I hope will be laughed out of court if it goes that far. Construction crews, architects, computer modelers, etc... work for the company commissioning the construction. Does he really think he can claim otherwise and make it stick?
Wait, it has to be one or the other. Either he is claiming that the people "building the model" are employees of the non-profit AIG, or he isn't.

harold · 28 January 2015

harold said:
eric said:
harold said: The other odd question is whether you can have a "non-profit" "build" an amusement park and then turn it over to a for-profit to operate. At best that is very poor business ethics. It is a transparent effort to disguise for-profit activity as non-profit. Trying to assign capital costs or losses or anything else of that nature to a non-profit is unethical.
I doubt that's a realistic risk at this point, for two reasons. First, because in this case I doubt Ken Ham would sink AiG into bankruptcy just to make Ark Park successful. If he does, it's probably a win for us anyway. :) Second, because the fundies aren't likely to want to stop the religious hiring discrimination with the build phase. They want a legal victory that allows them to discriminate in hiring during operations, too. So while that dodge might get them some of what they want, I think they're more likely to try and grab for the whole legal enchilada.
Okay.
eric said:
Matt Young said: He claims that the Ark Park has so far not hired anyone, because they are still building the model.
Which is patently absurd, and I hope will be laughed out of court if it goes that far. Construction crews, architects, computer modelers, etc... work for the company commissioning the construction. Does he really think he can claim otherwise and make it stick?
Wait, it has to be one or the other. Either he is claiming that the people "building the model" are employees of the non-profit AIG, or he isn't.
Of course the solution to the dilemma is that Ham's only consistency will be consistently trying to discriminate as much as possible and get as much money as possible. He'll do whatever he thinks advances those goals, at any given moment, often changing tactics and claims. As an analogy, Freshwater's only consistency was trying to get back into a classroom from where he could push creationism. Creationists may often seem to contradict themselves. What you have to understand is that for them, the end justifies the means. The end is not some consciously understood desire to save souls, it's the unconscious authoritarian follower desire to be part of a group that dominates and humiliates others. Using your tax dollar to teach your children that their claimed religious dogma is "science" is fairly classic authoritarian behavior. Most authoritarian states force people to pay taxes for a school system, and then use the school system to attempt to brainwash the students with propaganda. Using tax dollars to set up a "theme park" that pushes a narrow sect, thus giving that sect the veneer of government favoritism, is also fairly classic. Ham wants tax dollars to pay for the Ark Park, and then he wants to run the Ark Park as a cult, while making a lot of money from it. The rest is details.

Henry J · 28 January 2015

So the solution is to be consistently inconsistent?

Or would that be inconsistently consistent?

harold · 29 January 2015

Henry J said: So the solution is to be consistently inconsistent? Or would that be inconsistently consistent?
I answered this already but my reply seems to have disappeared into cyberspace. The best analogy is to cheaters in sports or games. They consistently care about the outcome. They want to win, or failing that tie. They don't care about the rules, which they regard as a nuisance. This itself is inconsistent. Games exist because of the rules. Science exists because of the scientific method. But cheaters want the outcome. When cheating, they may often make claims that seem inconsistent with one another. The bottom line is that if they think it will help them in the short term they will do it. Obviously, cheaters gain advantage. It's ironic but inevitable. Humans make up a process with rules, then they give rewards for the outcomes of that process, then somebody cheats, seems to have the best outcome, and wins. Creationists mainly fail, because they are bad cheaters. Many successful scientists are ruthless, and do things like steal ideas. Some may occasionally fudge data. But they use the "Lance Armstrong" style of cheating (which is used by many successful uncaught athletes and others). First you become incredibly good. Then and only then you cheat in a sophisticated way, to give yourself an edge over the other incredibly good people (who probably also cheat). As another analogy, when I was in college, where I did NOT cheat, I noted that there were two kinds of cheaters. One kind was the stereotyped lazy frat boy, who cheated to avoid flunking out. They were often caught. The other type, never caught in my experience, were academically gifted pre-med types (and probably similar students aiming for law school or whatever). They cheated to make sure that a B+ or A- turned into an A. The official line is that medical schools look at GPA and test scores on a "threshold" basis and then choose on the basis of interviews, but reality shows that more "prestigious" medical schools have slightly higher GPA and MCAT scores. Creationists are more like the lazy frat boy. They aren't the guy who studies his ass off and then shares answers to the hardest few questions on the test with a confederate, putting some cheat icing on a well-made cake. They aren't very good at bicycling, to use an analogy, but expect that a lot of blatant cheating will win them the Tour de France. They still have much more success than one would predict, on the mere strength of their thesis.

callahanpb · 29 January 2015

They aren’t the guy who studies his ass off and then shares answers to the hardest few questions on the test with a confederate, putting some cheat icing on a well-made cake. They aren’t very good at bicycling, to use an analogy, but expect that a lot of blatant cheating will win them the Tour de France.
I agree that creationists are lazy cheaters and may be analogous to a college student who wants a pass without working for it, but I don't think they expect to "win" at science. I think their entire connection with science is an intentional form of mimicry directed at non-scientists. Creationists do not care what scientists think of them, as long as they can fool laypeople into taking them seriously as scientists. So maybe it's a quibble. Cheaters want the outcome, sure, but it's not to be taken seriously as Tour de France champions. They just want to have the medal to show off to house guests. Another common property of cheaters is a failure to believe that anybody plays fair. I am not sure if this differentiates between the lazy cheaters and the high-performing cheaters. But taken to its extreme, it can amount to a belief that there is no actual game with rules, just a lot of people figuring out how to cheat. An exceptionally lazy school cheater may think that the only source of correct answers to this year's exam is the master copy on the professor's office, and that anyone who does well must have seen it. I think a lot of creationists fall into this camp. They believe that all claims about life on earth are assertions from authority, and their priority goal is to replace the current accepted authority (science) with their own. In the process, they need to fool some people that they are experts at the scientific method, but in fact, they don't believe it exists at all.

harold · 29 January 2015

callahanpb said:
They aren’t the guy who studies his ass off and then shares answers to the hardest few questions on the test with a confederate, putting some cheat icing on a well-made cake. They aren’t very good at bicycling, to use an analogy, but expect that a lot of blatant cheating will win them the Tour de France.
I agree that creationists are lazy cheaters and may be analogous to a college student who wants a pass without working for it, but I don't think they expect to "win" at science. I think their entire connection with science is an intentional form of mimicry directed at non-scientists. Creationists do not care what scientists think of them, as long as they can fool laypeople into taking them seriously as scientists. So maybe it's a quibble. Cheaters want the outcome, sure, but it's not to be taken seriously as Tour de France champions. They just want to have the medal to show off to house guests. Another common property of cheaters is a failure to believe that anybody plays fair. I am not sure if this differentiates between the lazy cheaters and the high-performing cheaters. But taken to its extreme, it can amount to a belief that there is no actual game with rules, just a lot of people figuring out how to cheat. An exceptionally lazy school cheater may think that the only source of correct answers to this year's exam is the master copy on the professor's office, and that anyone who does well must have seen it. I think a lot of creationists fall into this camp. They believe that all claims about life on earth are assertions from authority, and their priority goal is to replace the current accepted authority (science) with their own. In the process, they need to fool some people that they are experts at the scientific method, but in fact, they don't believe it exists at all.
This is exactly right. Yes, they don't want to win "at" science. The cheater who wants that would be the graduate student who cleverly fakes results or sabotages colleagues, the prestigious professor who takes credit for ideas, those are the people who cheat to win "at" science. Creationists essentially want to win "against" science. Now, they would deny this. But it is what they want. (Occasionally their less articulate members let this slip.) I hope no-one will argue when I point out that science is, and this is a very good thing, the implied most accepted authority on matters pertaining to the physical world. Even creationist right wing nutjobs use computers and go to the emergency room. Americans may be have poor scientific knowledge and adhere to a lot of superstitions, but when it comes to explaining physical reality, there is no other widely accepted system. Yes, we could say that YEC fundamentalism is perhaps the second most popular, but the number of people who actually pray rather than take their child to the emergency room is small, and even those people mainly use electric lights. Too large, but relatively small. Creationists want to be perceived as having the expertise of scientists, but have no way of attempting to achieve it accept by making dishonest attacks on science, presuming themselves to be the default authorities if science can be shut down.

TomS · 29 January 2015

callahanpb said:
They aren’t the guy who studies his ass off and then shares answers to the hardest few questions on the test with a confederate, putting some cheat icing on a well-made cake. They aren’t very good at bicycling, to use an analogy, but expect that a lot of blatant cheating will win them the Tour de France.
I agree that creationists are lazy cheaters and may be analogous to a college student who wants a pass without working for it, but I don't think they expect to "win" at science. I think their entire connection with science is an intentional form of mimicry directed at non-scientists. Creationists do not care what scientists think of them, as long as they can fool laypeople into taking them seriously as scientists. So maybe it's a quibble. Cheaters want the outcome, sure, but it's not to be taken seriously as Tour de France champions. They just want to have the medal to show off to house guests. Another common property of cheaters is a failure to believe that anybody plays fair. I am not sure if this differentiates between the lazy cheaters and the high-performing cheaters. But taken to its extreme, it can amount to a belief that there is no actual game with rules, just a lot of people figuring out how to cheat. An exceptionally lazy school cheater may think that the only source of correct answers to this year's exam is the master copy on the professor's office, and that anyone who does well must have seen it. I think a lot of creationists fall into this camp. They believe that all claims about life on earth are assertions from authority, and their priority goal is to replace the current accepted authority (science) with their own. In the process, they need to fool some people that they are experts at the scientific method, but in fact, they don't believe it exists at all.
They behave as if they believe that there is no way to know the answers to the exam except by seeing the master copy. In this way, the analogy breaks down, for the lazy frat boy knows that there are people who can figure out what the answers are. The creationists believe that the only way to get the desired answers is by cheating. There are those who will say that the only reason that people believe that faster-than-light travel is because Einstein said so. It seems to be that they think that one day the professors were having a meeting, and someone came with the news, "Einstein says that faster-than-light travel is impossible". There was reaction in the meeting, "Einstein said that? So it must be so!" So, if only one can prove that Darwin changed his mind (on his deathbed). Or that Darwin was a bad man. Or that Darwin stole his ideas from someone else (so the ideas don't come with the authority of Darwin). The one thing that the professors will not take on authority is the existence of God. If someone says that the Earth is younger than 10,000 years, the reaction will be, "That can't be true because then that will mean that the Bible is true!" (Bible being literally true being equivalent to God existing, in the mind of the creationist.) But I don't know how (they think) the professors decided otherwise that the Earth is billions of years old, rather than just millions, or infinitely old. It may be that the creationists don't realize how much agreement there is on the age. I don't know why they think that the professors go through all that work. It think that it is recognized that some paleontologists go through physically demanding work in searching for fossils. It seems odd that they would go through that, when they could cheat without all of that. When I first began learning about creationism I thought that the creationists would be more insistent that all of the fossils were fakes, or at least were mistakenly interpreted, anything but accept that dinosaur fossils were the remains of once-living animals. Yes, the creationists do remind us of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Archeoraptor, and there are some claims that Peking Man and Archaeopteryx and some complaints about "Lucy", but, by and large, most fossils are accepted at face value.

Michael Fugate · 29 January 2015

There is this Carl Werner guy - an MD - who claims fossils are actually modern animals with different names. It is a conspiracy by paleontologists.

Dave Luckett · 29 January 2015

callahanpb said: Another common property of cheaters is a failure to believe that anybody plays fair.
We have seen this over and over again. The carefully amassed evidence, the painstaking research, the rigorous criticism: none of it is real. It's all a cheat. There are no endogenous retroviruses. SINES never happen. Stratification, phooie! DNA point mutation rates, nada! Radiometric dating, all wrong! Paleohalocycles, sedimentation rates, lake varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, all falsehoods! There are no such things as transitional organisms. And the evolutionists know it. They're just cheating.

Michael Fugate · 29 January 2015

The ends justify the means - the motto of those who have no doubts they are right and of course God is on their side (or are they on God's side?).

gdavidson418 · 30 January 2015

Dave Luckett said:
callahanpb said: Another common property of cheaters is a failure to believe that anybody plays fair.
We have seen this over and over again. The carefully amassed evidence, the painstaking research, the rigorous criticism: none of it is real. It's all a cheat. There are no endogenous retroviruses. SINES never happen. Stratification, phooie! DNA point mutation rates, nada! Radiometric dating, all wrong! Paleohalocycles, sedimentation rates, lake varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, all falsehoods! There are no such things as transitional organisms. And the evolutionists know it. They're just cheating.
The odd thing--or at least it would be odd if it wasn't all about religion--is that someone like Stephen Meyer thinks that the geologists are just doing good, solid science, while the biologists are lying and acting like Nazis, yet for Ham and a host of other YECs all of those studying science involving deep time are hideously biased people denying God and doing biased science, at best--yet nearly all of them can completely sweep this all under the rug while fighting the evilutionists. Which doesn't change the truth that their "facts" are wildly at odds with each others', and the evil anti-God forces drive geologists as much as biologists for one faction, while geologists are perfectly wonderful objective scientists (as much as others, anyway) for the other faction. Why aren't (many of) the IDiots trying to set the rubes, the YECs, straight if science is their real concern? Why would any persecuted science hook up with people who are clearly very wrong about geology and the Satanic forces driving it in order to gain a hearing? Well, clearly they wouldn't, it's all about religion which is why what is bad science for a number of IDiots is of no real concern to them. And how would they discuss claims that geologists are intellectually corrupt (at least deluded) scientists working against God, vs. biologists being the same? There is no evidence that either type of scientist really is being anything other than roughly as "objective" as all other scientists are, so they can't argue the facts behind such fictive realities. The IDiots who accept more of the sciences involving deep time know that they just have to let the YECs have their geology conspiracy, because they all must have the biology conspiracy, and there's no evidence to say who is more correct--or more importantly, there is no evidence for their grossly fabricated charges against science and scientists in general at all. The truth is that the conspiracy theories, as well as the facts, underlying the accusations coming out of the big tent are incompatible and would for that reason be highly disturbing to people who actually cared about science. Fortunately for those within the tent, essentially none of them does at all. People like Heddle who had to care about the importance of Deep Time for their fields of science had to leave said tent. Glen Davidson

Frank J · 30 January 2015

...but doesn’t the Creation “Museum” have a display with a wrecking ball labelled ‘millions of years’ smashing down a church? Not exactly coy about the ‘whens’.

— Just Bob
Aha! That only means that they're not coy about the when nots. If they had any confidence that independent evidence supported their particular "whens," then they would have no need for such childish whining. And make it clear to every visitor that they consider OEC and ID groups every bit as "wrong" as "atheists."

TomS · 30 January 2015

Frank J said:

...but doesn’t the Creation “Museum” have a display with a wrecking ball labelled ‘millions of years’ smashing down a church? Not exactly coy about the ‘whens’.

— Just Bob
Aha! That only means that they're not coy about the when nots. If they had any confidence that independent evidence supported their particular "whens," then they would have no need for such childish whining. And make it clear to every visitor that they consider OEC and ID groups every bit as "wrong" as "atheists."
But any "independent evidence" would have to be in the form of "eyewitness testimony', right?