by Daniel Phelps

Daniel Phelps is a retired environmental geologist for the commonwealth of Kentucky. He has also taught part-time in Kentucky’s Community College system. His work to expose the pseudoscience behind Ham’s Ark Encounter was featured in the award-winning 2019 documentary, “We Believe in Dinosaurs.” In 2021 the Paleontological Society – the world’s leading scientific organization devoted to studying invertebrate and vertebrate paleontology, micropaleontology, and paleobotany – awarded Phelps the prestigious Strimple Award, which recognizes outstanding achievement in paleontology by someone who does not make a full-time living from paleontology. Phelps is founder and president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society.

For some time, I have been aware that The Grant County News (GCN), a paper headquartered in Williamstown, KY, is an ardent supporter of the Ark Encounter. Anything the least bit critical of the Ark Park is unlikely to appear in the paper. When the documentary “We Believe in Dinosaurs,” aired nationally on PBS’s Independent Lens in February, 2020, an article about the show was buried in the later pages of the paper. This was odd, because Williamstown and Grant County were prominently showcased in the documentary. Thus, it was not surprising that I was given a runaround in having a letter to the editor published in the local newspaper.

On December 16, 2021, GCN printed a remarkable front page story: “Changes Ahead for Ark Encounter Parking”. In the story, Ken Ham is reported as saying that Ark attendance has increased by 42%, compared to pre-COVID numbers. I found this incredible claim to be counter to the data that I have been collecting about Ark attendance. Thus, I dashed off a letter to the Editor pointing out the facts.

The next week, I naively thought my letter would be in the latest issue of GCN. Alas, the December 23 issue lacked my letter, but it did have one by Mark Looy, Chief Communications Officer (CCO) of the Ark Encounter (their version of Baghdad Bob). His letter-to-the-editor is not available online (GCN only rarely puts their editorial content online).  Looy complained that the original article made them look bad, because it stated the Ark was reneging on allowing locals to park there for free so they could go to the Ark’s buffet restaurant, and that the reporter had referred to AiG as “Fundamentalist.” Apparently, locals will now have to pay $10 to park; Looy, and presumably AiG’s leaders, didn’t like the paper saying they were “reneging.” I’m not sure why AiG objects to being referred to as “fundamentalist.” Perhaps this objection is a branding issue.  Notably, Looy didn’t say anything about the reported claim of attendance increasing 42% over pre-COVID numbers being incorrect.

Over the next few weeks, I emailed the editor, reporter, and the general email address of GCN at least twice, asking if my letter would be published. No one replied. On January 19, 2022 I called the paper. I was unable to reach anyone, or even leave a message. I found another contact phone number on the paper’s website, which connected me to another newspaper owned by the same company: The Cynthiana Democrat. The Editor of that paper, Ms. Becky Barnes, indicated that only Bryan Marshall (the GCN Editor) is routinely in the office, and she promised to contact Mr. Marshall with my inquiry. 

By January 21, no one had contacted me, so I called the original GCN phone number. I was informed by a young woman at the office that the Editor, Bryan Marshall, had quit some time ago (thus contradicting what Ms. Barnes had told me less than two days earlier). I called Ms. Barnes and she told me that, after discussing the letter with a regional manager, they were not running it because it was a personal attack on the owners of the Ark and did not represent an actual editorial viewpoint. She also emailed me almost immediately afterwards and said, “We will not be publishing the letter. The reporter’s article did not differentiate between season passes, etc.  Your letter appears to be more of a personal attack (huckster) than expressing a point of view.” Obviously, this ignored that the paper published factually incorrect material directly from Ken Ham. 

In any case, here is the December 17, 2021 “Letter to the Editor” that the GCN would not publish: