Ken Ham doesn’t take rejection well

Ken Ham doesn’t take rejection well. Like Bill Donohue, Ken Ham has a persecution complex. Most people recognize that the mere fact that they want something does not entitle anyone else to satisfy their demands. Not Ham though. When a company called Grouponthat advertises discount coupons turned down Ham’s proposal for them to work with the Creation “Museum”, he took it as a personal afront to his religion:

Some of the businesses they feature for our area are attractions such as laser tag, spas, lawn care, etc. However, in other markets (such as Atlanta) they have featured the local natural history museum–which of course is totally evolutionary and teaches children that man is an evolved animal–but I guess that is not controversial!

Totally evolutionary? No!

Apparently, because the Creation Museum is a Christian facility with a walk through the Bible, that is “controversial!”

That’s right, Ken. Evolution, like heliocentricism, is not controversial while a monument to stupidity that purports itself to be an educational museum is not only controversial but unethical.


2 Responses to Ken Ham doesn’t take rejection well

  1. Mark Looy says:

    You got it wrong. Groupon did not turn down Ken Ham’s proposal — it was THEIR proposal. Their office approached us. We agreed to Groupon’s proposal, and we submitted a signed contract. Groupon then retracted its offer.

    Imagine if someone approached you to advertise on your website for which you will be paid. You agree to their proposal, sign their contract and submit it, and then their offer is withdrawn.

    Disagree with our worldview all you want, but please get your facts straight. Mark Looy

  2. mjr256 says:

    If a contract was signed and all parties were of sound mind then that’s a breach of contract and you can bring a cause of action against them. This would then be a legal matter.

    And yet I didn’t see any mention of a legal conflict. Instead, Ham chose to focus his criticism on the double standard of Groupon choosing to work with legitimate educational institutions versus declining to work with an organization that exists solely to misinform the public about science.

    Then again, maybe the contract was void anyway given the insufficient evidence that creationists are of sound mind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: