Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers. ...
At issue are criticisms by Ham of Peter Enns of the Biologos Foundation, who has said the fall of Adam and Eve can be construed as a symbolic story of Israel's beginnings, rather than a literal description of human beginnings. (UPDATE 5:10 p.m. March 25: Ham posted audio of what he said about Enns' beliefs.)
On his blog (here and here) and in other statements, Ham takes issue with this view and Enns' homeschool curriculum.
I'm with Ken on this.
Ken Ham banned from convention
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Bob Alkire, Mar 31, 2011.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
A quote taken from Ken's blog
I would argue that just because someone makes an argument does not in itself indicate the value of said argument. -
-
I'm of two minds about this. I'm a homeschooler who home schools for reasons other than religion. I don't want and don't need a science cirriculum that teaches religion. I can teach my faith quite well right from the Bible. I need a science cirric that teaches SCIENCE! I believe it is my place as the parent to apply my beliefs to the science that is being taught. Because of this belief I'd rather have a cirric that presents all the valid theories along with the evidence supporting AND detracting from each. That teaches my children to make informed decisions about what they believe rather than following someone's party line. (and I have yet to find a science cirric that does this!)
Now some folk are different than I am and they like a cirric that continually indoctrinates their children toward a particular view (whether it be young earth or theistic evolution). And that is up to them.
That said, the convention AND Ken Hamm both over reacted. I don't need or want EITHER of them to decide what is best for my family. If Ken Hamm has something to say, he should do it in an appropriate place and with the graciousness of Christ. Attack theories rather than people.
The convention, if they thought punitive actions were needed, could simply have taken Hamm off the speaker list but allowed space for product demos and sales.
Both sides were wrong in my book.
Let me add:
Homeschooling is becoming more popular every day. It is no longer just religious conservatives that homeschool. Secular society is realizing that public school is not for everyone and homeschooling is a valid and successful way to educate ones children. Homeschooling conventions are going to have to branch out into products that appeal to the non religious or someone else will. Allowing all views to be represented at a convention of this nature will help keep the homeschooling culture a cohesive community with a diverse population. If we alienate different factions of homeschoolers over their veiws of religion, then we begin to lose the momentum of the movement. Don't think we can't go back to the 80's when homeschooling was unheard of. In fighting over issues like the above will tear homeschooling apart from the inside and THAT would be a trajedy. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
How we speak of another Christian should be viewed as just as important as the content of what we say about our position.
Here Mr. Hamm acted in an unChristlike spirit towards another Christian. While banned is a harsh word, imho, he was uninvited from speaking...and rightly so. -
And, since the Bible gives a complete worldview, then it has every place to engage science. AiG and other sound creation ministries do not claim that the Bible is a science textbook. But where it speaks upon any subject, it is true.
To take a non-literanl view of Genesis is to take a non-literal view of Christ. Unless there is an actual first Adam, then there may not be an actual Second Adam. As AiG has rightly pointed out, Genesis is foundational to the Gospel. -
-
-
There has been a lot of interaction via BioLogos of late.
Here is one blog that describes some of the issues with a response:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01...he-creation-evolution-debate-is-so-important/
Ken Hamm was right to make much of BioLogos. -
I was not talking about Ken I was referring to Peter Enns. -
>it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong.
What does "true" mean? Why does everything have to be true or false. Is every statement falsifiable?
If the NT is wrong then are we any worse off than the human race was 50 years before Jesus was born?
If there is any truth in the NT then there must be truth in the OT. If the OT teaches that God will send a messiah and Jesus is not the messiah then will not God STILL send a messiah?
If Jesus is not the messiah the OT and/or the Jewish religion is not falsified. -
Yes. Everything is true, or false. It is either true that man was created in the image of God, and fell, and that Christ died for our sins because of that, or it is false. What a silly statement! No offense, but you sound more like a Hindu or New Ager, than a Christian! -
(I like the Pontious Pilot part, that was funny) :laugh: -
So, billwald, are you saying the Jesus is not the Messiah? -
-
A lot of people talking about science and religion here like they're two different things.
What is science? -
As a homeschool mom, I want my kids to have a Christ-centered education, and that includes science. God is the creator of all things, including science. The two are compatible, that is until people start doubting God's word!
I'm 100% behind Ken Ham on this one and I'm proud of him for standing up for truth. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "mean-spirited" he is for simply telling it like it is. We either believe the Bible or we don't, period. He's welcome to come speak to my homeschool group anytime. -
-
-
I agree with the statement by Ken..
Someone mentioned something about him going about it the wrong way. I read the article and-at least from what i read- there was nothing said that came off as a personal attack. He was just straightforward about his disagreement with Enns' viewpoint, and rightfully so.
Someone else mentioned something about homeschooling her children and not for "religious"reasons, and that you could teach your child yourself right out of the bible..Regardless of how you are planning on teaching them..the point here is that people like Enn are spreading their false philosophies to the home-schooled community and are tainting the truth..
If someone doesn't take a stand against these people, then we'll all be "new age, lets take everything figuratively so that we can vaguely interpret how we want to live" crazies..
Page 1 of 3