Ken Ham banned from convention

Actually it is considered science..biology, which is the study of life and/or living matter in reference to origin growth, etc etc, is science..and i believe that the origin of life and matter in all forms and phenomena.. the classifications, and evolution (within each species of course..) that the bible speaks of..is science...

philosophy is the study of ideas, truths, and principles etc..creationism is not just a principle or truth..

and religion is a set of beliefs.. the lifestyles we live are a reflection of our religion..although unbelievers would say that creationism is not science..just religion (not calling you an unbeliever btw)...I know it as fact and the science of life

 

Nether is evolution but that does not stop them from calling it science.

 

:thumbsup::smilewinkgrin::jesus:

 

Listen, I am a young earth creationist. But NEITHER "Creationism," nor secular "Natural Science" as regards cosmogony/cosmology, is pure science. They are both based on criteria that cannot be proven; it must be believed in. The "Macro" evolutionist that believes in molecules to man evolution, takes Science (i.e. the quantifiable criteria such as cell structure (biology), fossils (Geology), and Atomic decay (Physics)), and THEN applies his Worldview to interpret them, to come up with a "belief", not Scientific theory, regarding the origin of the Universe.

The Creationist takes this SAME SCIENCE...and and THEN applies HIS worldview to interpret the, to come up with a "belief" regarding the origin of the Universe.

NEITHER Creationism, nor Evolutionism are pure science, though they both rely on Scientific facts. In fact, neither really "rely" on Scientific facts, so much as they are frameworks of interpreting the given indisputable scientific facts. The evolutionists framework is designed to deny God, while the Creationists framework is designed to uphold the truths of scripture.

 

Yeah, that was me.

And I'm going to repeat myself: I am a homeschooler who homeschools for reasons other than religion. Guess what? There are a lot of me out there. (gasp)

I don't like Ken Ham. Some of his products are okay, but I don't like him. He falls into the same trap that evolutionists fall into: streching scientific discoveries to fit his idea of "truth". I get very frustrated at both sides. Just present the facts or the discoveries and give me credit for having enough intelligence to discern what fits into my beliefs and what God gets to explain next (or leave as a mystery, whichever).

I don't need either side to tell me what is "fact" and what is not. Theories are made to be disproven! Mankind doesn't have all the answers. God didn't give mankind all the answers. He expects us to wonder about things and be led to faith thereby. So just put the info out there and let us do what we please with it.

Its arrogance thta leads one man to say his theory, his ideas, his products are superior than someone else because they dare to ask questions he thinks are anti-Biblical or because they hold opposing views. Who made Ken Hamm the highest authority for homeschoolers looking for science cirriculums? Popular doesn't equal authoritative.

If he had stuck to telling people what he believed, instead of attacking someone else because they didn't share his views, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, he has left himself looking very unprofessional by attacking (mud slinging) a competitor. Who's next? Apologia? A Well Trained Mind?

The homeschooling conference in question, should have never over reacted to Ham's indiscretion and gone to the extent of banning his products entirely from the conference.

Two wrongs can't possibly make a right.

The real problem with all of this is that it lessens the available choices to the folk who attend homeschooling conferences. And whether folks like it or not, the face of homeschooling is changing and just like on the BB, we don't all think alike!

 

From my encounters with Mr. Hamm he is more grating than graceful in his admonition. Particularly related to this he hurtfully criticized the conference organizers and Dr. Enns in public.

Frankly, regardless of what some might think of Dr. Enns and the Biologos Foundation, there is a better way (scholastically, personally, and Christianly) to behave that Mr. Hamm has done.

I'm not going to reply to the criticisms of Dr. Enns but rather focus my point on how we (as evangelical Christians) so go about disagreeing with our brethren. It seems to me that for far too long we impugn the character and spirituality of those who disagree with us on certain matters of faith rather than supplying a rigorous, graceful reply.

If want evidence of how not to disagree, open any of the threads on Reformed theology on this board and see just terrible behavior.

What is ironic is that Dr. Enns and Mr. Hamm have such an opportunity to engage in critical, honest dialouge over an important matter I wish we could enjoy that.

 

By the way:

Lest anyone think I am endorsing BioLogos, let me be clear that I am not! BioLogos is their own worst enemy considering how very clear they are about their beliefs on their website.

Homeschoolers didn't need Ham to point out things they espouse from their own lips!

 

Apparently they did.

 

Apparantly Ken Ham thinks they did. It is this whole idea that naive homeschoolers out there need protecting from BioLogos (and their ilk), that bugs me the most about this whole controversy. If we are smart enough to homeschool our children, we are smart enough to discern between good science and bad. (lol, two bad science programs don't make a good one either. )

 

You don't "like" Ken Ham, but do you "love" him...hmmmmmm...sounds...never mind.

Personally, I appreciate all Ken Ham & AIG has done & is doing for the cause of Christ.

 

This is exactly the kind of horrific thinking that has the church in such bad shape, doctrinally, today. We are COMMANDED to rebuke false teachers. COMMANDED. If Ken Ham kept his mouth shut, he would be being disobedient.

Now, I PERSONALLY know people who were getting sucked into this biologos garbage, who are homeschool parents (thank GOD for Ken Ham!). The idea that "All homeschoolers already know" is unbelievably naive. NO, they do NOT.

We are not commanded to "dialogue" with false teachers, or "Be quiet and let people make up their own minds." We are commanded to REBUKE them, openly. Don't get mad at Ham for being obedient, when so many others are disobedient.

As far as his attitude, I wonder if you have ever even listened to Ham. He is not a raving shouter; he is somewhat soft spoken, gracious in the way he speaks, and VERY reasonable; even those who have debated him have said as much. So apparently unless we are willing to sing "koombayah" with the Atheists subverting our children, you think us unreasonable...

 

Not silent, but there is a proper venue for rebuking a brother (or determining whether or not someone is a brother). A homeschooling conference is NOT a church. Its a commercial enterprise designed to market available cirriculum to homeschoolers.

What will speak louder than Ken Ham is the homeschooling market passing up the BioLogos table in favor of options that are more in line with scripture.

What will speak louder than the homeschool conference who banned him is the homeschoolers themselves not attending a conference who doesn't allow all viewpoints to be discussed/debated. Christian homeschoolers are a force enough to require conference leaders to only allow vendors who's products follow a set of certain religious criteria (thus, theistic evolution could be banned and Ham wouldn't have to think before he spoke).

Haven's Dad, this might make a thread of its own, but let me ask anyhow: What were the false teachers who we are commanded to rebuke teaching falsely about? (I'm guessing it wasn't science) Second question: Can you find an example of where BioLogos has taught/supported the things false teachers teach (as described by scripture).

 

Could you please convince the united states of that so that they take Darwinism out of biology class and put it in the philosophy class? lol

 

The speaking sessions are not just sales pitches. They are supposed to expose people to your curriculum, and explain why your curriculum is superior to others. The MOST important thing for a Christian, should be "Is this in accord with the scriptures." So, yes it was an appropriate forum.

Which many of them will never do, without God given men like Mr. Ham. Don't you think these home schoolers have a right to know who they are dealing with? Why do you desire ignorance?

Denying scripture. "...so God made everything in six days.."

Again, this is not about science. The Science is "this is how the cell operates." When speaking of origins, we are speaking of religion.

This is about whether or not Atheists should (re) interpret the Bible for us. Do we have faith in God, and what He has said, or do we have faith in the very World system that Christ warned us about? Mr. Enns acceptance of evolution does not just affect the doctrine of Creation by the way; Biologos is also widely criticized for essential Christian doctrines having to do with the atonement, sin, and the purpose of man, as well as the meaning and scope of the gospel.

 

Have you been to the BioLogos website? If people buy these products, they aren't doing so in ignorance. BioLogos is exceptionally open and upfront about what they believe and how they come to their conclusions. (wrong, but open) People may be buying BioLogos products out of negligence because they are to lazy to read the BL mission statement or all the MANY FAQ's on the website, but they aren't buying in ingnorance because the information is there.

Apparantly I asked you the wrong the question, let me ask the correct question: We are warned about false teachers and false prophets but where are we told to rebuke them?

And if we are rebuking a brother, we have Matthew 18 as a guide. And the end result of that is turning them out of the fellowship. I don't think Ham was fellowshipping with the BioLogos folk before during or after the event in question. That brings up yet another question: What give Ham the authority to rebuke someone that was not a member of his own church?

(like I said, I wonder if we should take this discussion to a thread of its own)

 

I was sure more people would bite. But . . .

There is no Darwinist or Naturalist that abides by that distinction.

There really is no difference between science and religion. God's eternal godhead and power are revealed through the things that are "observable and repeateable." That's why a creation story based on Darwinism is considered (falsely) science, and a theistic creation story is rejected as unscientific or not real.

 

Titus 1:10-1410For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The principle derived is that there are such that cause harm enough to the believers, that they should be rebuked.


Look also at 2 Timothy 2:17 and 1 Timothy 1:20 where false teachers in the 1st century were mentioned by name: Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus.

I am very grateful for the ministries that some despise which exposed the false doctrines of the charismatic and prophetic movements. Their so-called "hate" and "pharisaism" provoked me to thought and study that eventually helped me get out of that system.

By warning people with regard to the creation isssue, and those who might promote a destructive theology that affects our children, is wise, not wrong.

 

It’s strange that while young earth creationism has the support of a large number of Americans and still relies upon character assassination.

I’ve heard both men speak.


Recently I had the chance to hear Peter Enns speak.
He presented his evidence and his interpretation then answered questions without vitriol.
He understood that most in the crowd probably disagreed with him and didn’t argue with them.
He was quite the gentleman.

People left considering the merits of the presentation without being pressured into having to believe it.

Rob