Well then, Kalimero, what do you suggest? Should the govt shut down Ham's museum or should it be allowed to remain open for all to see and decide for themselves whether it's credible or not?
Ken Ham's "museum" uses deceitful tactics in order to cause people to give them money.
The definition of
fraud from the Legal Encyclopedia.
Also, from the
glossary of legal terms (Munley, Munley & Cartwright):
Fraud: False and deceptive statement of fact intended to induce another person to rely upon and, in reliance thereof, give up a valuable thing he or she owns or a legal right he or she is entitled to.
The definition of reliance from
Law Dictionary:
Reliance
Dependence, confidence, trust, repose of mind upon what is deemed sufficient support or authority.
detrimental reliance involves reliance by one party on the acts, representations, or promises of another that cause the first party to allow or to effect a change for the worse in his or her position, and is an important element in many legal contexts. If such a detrimental change of position is established, and if the reliance appears to have been justified under the circumstances, it may preclude revocation of an offer or waiver, and may support a promise as a contract even without consideration (see promissory estoppel). Such reliance is also a necessary ingredient in an action to recover upon a claim of fraud.
{Sorry for the big cut & paste}
Lets see if Ken Ham and his "museum" really stand up to the criteria for fraud:
(1) a false statement of a material fact
From the Legal Encyclopedia :A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract.
I would say that telling people that the earth is 10000 years old, despite being told otherwise from actual scientists, is "a false statement of a material fact".
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue
His Statement of Accountability says:
The AiG ministry has always relied on the advice, wisdom and review of the very best international scientists available, including leading geologists, geneticists, astronomers, paleontologists and theologians. The majority of these professionals have no official association with AiG, except a common desire to develop the most excellent information and materials possible, to honor Christ, to advance the church and to further the growing community spirit of Christian scientists who love God’s Word.
{my bold}
I think he knows.
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim
His Mission Statement says it all.
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement
Ken Ham obviously uses religious rhetoric to base his statements and get money from people, the religious convictions of the "museum" visitors would constitute a reliance on his statements.
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
Besides the educational injury there is the financial injury.
IMO, Ken Ham should go the way of Peter Popoff, not necessarily to jail, but surely not running
such a "museum".
BTW: you still haven't answered my question:
kalimero writes:
One person says one thing, another person says another thing, how do we decide?
™ Version 4.2