Ham strikes again...this time he goes after SWB in earnest

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Taken on it's own, there is nothing wrong with it. Taken in context with recent events, it appears insidious.

 

:iagree: Especially since he has posted multiple posts warning about Enns. IMHO he is the one who keeps stirring the pot:glare:

 

There is no need to use toxic rhetoric on his part IMHO. I believe the higher road is to sell your own ideas instead of spewing mud around.

[Jean in Newcastle]

You mean besides that last line, "Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith!"?

 

 

I find it a very odd blog post. I can't really see anything to get upset about in SWB's comments there or in the ideas Enns is supposed to be talking about (not that I've read the book). Not being an evangelical, perhaps I'm missing something, but none of it seems to me to be anything that justifies digging up a years-old review, calling its ideas unorthodox, and concluding "How we need to pray for the church to return to the authority of the “God-breathed” Word. "

 

That's why it has to be taken in context of the latest kerfluffle. It doesn't make sense without that context. And because Ken Ham meant it to be read in light of the recent events, we need to read it in that light. He means it as a continuation of his fight against what he sees as a denigration of the Word of God. And that fight is specifically targeting SWB in this article - otherwise why not choose any of a 1000 or more reviews or articles which deal with a different view of inerrancy than his. And even there, he goofed, because SWB's comments do not endorse or invalidate inerrancy itself. I don't know her views on this doctrine, but what he quoted was not adequate for his purpose. So he was reaching - specifically because he wanted to involve her because of a connection to Enns. THAT is why people are bringing it up.

[AvasMom]

I'm just wondering if all the ladies posting on KH's FB page that they feel the need to purge their homes of SWB'S work will also be leaving this board? She has a very big influence here as well, being The Overmind and all that...just sayin'.

 

It would probably be inappropriate for me to say "Don't let the door hitcha' where the good Lord splitcha'" so I won't. :D

[dangermom]

That's why it has to be taken in context of the latest kerfluffle. It doesn't make sense without that context. And because Ken Ham meant it to be read in light of the recent events, we need to read it in that light. He means it as a continuation of his fight against what he sees as a denigration of the Word of God. And that fight is specifically targeting SWB in this article - otherwise why not choose any of a 1000 or more reviews or articles which deal with a different view of inerrancy than his. And even there, he goofed, because SWB's comments do not endorse or invalidate inerrancy itself. I don't know her views on this doctrine, but what he quoted was not adequate for his purpose. So he was reaching - specifically because he wanted to involve her because of a connection to Enns. THAT is why people are bringing it up.

I just looked at his FB page and the responses to the blog post people have written there. If that's the result he was going for, I think his intentions are pretty clear. (If that's not what he was going for, I presume he would have said so by now, given what is being said.)

 

I can't see anything wrong with saying that NT authors didn't use modern methods, and in fact did things that modern folks would find problematic--because they weren't modern. They're apostles, they're allowed. ;) God is always using uneducated people and 'unorthodox' methods (ha!) to accomplish His ends, and we have to recognize that and come to terms with it.

[Erica in PA]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence.

 

 

:iagree: I haven't posted at all on this topic, because honestly I don't feel that my viewpoint is welcome on this board, but I have to say that I agree 100 percent with what you've said here.

[Xuzi]

He wrote a review about someone's review of a book he's never read??? :confused:

 

I find it very telling that when someone on his FB page said they were no longer interested in using SOTW as their History spine after reading the blog Mr. Ham provided them with a link to the history curriculum AiG puts out. :glare:

[Jan in SC]

I had never even heard of Ken Ham until all of this happened..:(

 

:iagree: After reading through these threads, I became intrigued and glanced at his resume, but I was unable to learn where he attended seminary. Does anyone know?

[classics4us]

:iagree: I haven't posted at all on this topic, because honestly I don't feel that my viewpoint is welcome on this board, but I have to say that I agree 100 percent with what you've said here.

:iagree:

[arghmatey]

I'm just going to pretend he doesn't exist.

 

ETA: That is my favorite thing to do to people who seek attention and money by tearing down others.

Edited April 3, 2011 by arghmatey

[Mrs Mungo]

He wrote a review about someone's review of a book he's never read??? :confused:

 

I find it very telling that when someone on his FB page said they were no longer interested in using SOTW as their History spine after reading the blog Mr. Ham provided them with a link to the history curriculum AiG puts out. :glare:

 

:iagree: I am starting to think it's more about the $$.

 

:iagree: After reading through these threads, I became intrigued and glanced at his resume, but I was unable to learn where he attended seminary. Does anyone know?

 

Ken Ham? He hasn't. His theology degrees are honorary degrees.

[Jan in SC]

Thanks! You have confirmed my suspicions.

[Jean in Newcastle]

:iagree: After reading through these threads, I became intrigued and glanced at his resume, but I was unable to learn where he attended seminary. Does anyone know?

 

I don't think he did attend seminary. The AIG site lists a Bachelor's in Applied Science, a diploma of education and 3 honorary doctorates.

[mcconnellboys]

But Priscilla, I fear that Mr. Ham has latched on to all this business as a way to sell his stuff. It seems that all this debate has become just so much advertising to help promote his own products, or those he has in the works. I'm not saying that he necessarily started out to do this, but I believe that is what it has become....

 

I'm also seeing an inordinate number of posters who have very little history here suddenly posing provocative questions on the boards and am beginning to wonder if word has gone out to Mr. Ham's followers for assistance....

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

But Priscilla, I fear that Mr. Ham has latched on to all this business as a way to sell his stuff. It seems that all this debate has become just so much advertising to help promote his own products, or those he has in the works. I'm not saying that he necessarily started out to do this, but I believe that is what it has become....

 

I'm also seeing an inordinate number of posters who have very little history here suddenly posing provocative questions on the boards and am beginning to wonder if word has gone out to Mr. Ham's followers for assistance....

 

I agree that he is selling his stuff in a way but it is in a negative way IMHO. IMO it would be better for him to extol the virtues of his won stuff instead of attacking others. Doesn't he think his stuff can stand on their own or is he afraid that they cannot?

[Paisley Hedgehog]

But Priscilla, I fear that Mr. Ham has latched on to all this business as a way to sell his stuff. It seems that all this debate has become just so much advertising to help promote his own products, or those he has in the works. I'm not saying that he necessarily started out to do this, but I believe that is what it has become....

 

I'm also seeing an inordinate number of posters who have very little history here suddenly posing provocative questions on the boards and am beginning to wonder if word has gone out to Mr. Ham's followers for assistance....

 

 

:iagree::iagree: I had never even heard Ken Ham's name until he started trying to link himself (as an opposing view) with SWB.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Shari
:)

[Veritaserum]

:iagree::iagree: I had never even heard Ken Ham's name until he started trying to link himself (as an opposing view) with SWB.

 

I'd also never heard of him until he started attacking SWB. I read a lot on the Answers in Genesis website about five years ago when I was sorting out what I wanted to teach my kids. The AiG articles and additional research elsewhere led me to fully accept (theistic) evolution. :tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: Although I read on AiG, I didn't really pay attention to the names of the authors.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Veritaserum

[kalanamak]

The irony is that Ham's selective prooftexting has shown that one can prove whatever one wants to prove by using this technique.

 

Which directs back to EXACTLY why I want kiddo to have a rigorous education: to not be fooled by such things.

 

My dad, a college professor, once told me the purpose of the first 4 years in college was to learn enough about the world that no one can fool you.

 

However, and unfortunately, as I noted in the sticky on the K-8 board before the convention kerfuffle, it sounds like this is about money. And here is one of the points many of the non-religious see about religion: because it is so crucial, because it is so end-of-the-worldish (literally), religion holds a huge sway on a significant swath of the population and it is often swallowed whole cloth, for any questioning is trumpeted as a lack of faith.

 

I'll never forget how one month I had 4 LOLs (little old ladies) come in, independently, and ask me if I performed abortions (I am not an OB). By the time number 4 rolled around, I began to wonder if some local preacher had TOLD his congregation to make an appointment with their doctors just to ask this question. So I asked number four if this was so. Not only was it, but the REASON she wanted to know was because "abortions are killing children who would keep Social Security going". It appeared the preacher was selling his opposition to abortion to the blue rinse crowd by scaring them about their pension program. :001_huh: How I wish I had that power! "Check your fingersticks every morning or the Lord will smite you! And write it down. And bring that paper in with you when you come!"

[kalanamak]

I agree that he is selling his stuff in a way but it is in a negative way IMHO. IMO it would be better for him to extol the virtues of his won stuff instead of attacking others.

 

Given all that he has, he is no dummy in the business sense, and probably has advisers diligently telling him the means (mudslinging) is worth the ends (more people saved, and oh, more money in the coffers).

 

What is that old saw: no one ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not only was it, but the REASON she wanted to know was because "abortions are killing children who would keep Social Security going". It appeared the preacher was selling his opposition to abortion to the blue rinse crowd by scaring them about their pension program.

:001_huh: How I wish I had that power! "Check your fingersticks every morning or the Lord will smite you! And write it down. And bring that paper in with you when you come!"

 

:lol::smilielol5:

[ColoradoMom]

 

I'll never forget how one month I had 4 LOLs (little old ladies) come in, independently, and ask me if I performed abortions (I am not an OB). By the time number 4 rolled around, I began to wonder if some local preacher had TOLD his congregation to make an appointment with their doctors just to ask this question. So I asked number four if this was so. Not only was it, but the REASON she wanted to know was because "abortions are killing children who would keep Social Security going". It appeared the preacher was selling his opposition to abortion to the blue rinse crowd by scaring them about their pension program. :001_huh: How I wish I had that power! "Check your fingersticks every morning or the Lord will smite you! And write it down. And bring that paper in with you when you come!"

 

Wow - that makes me sick.

 

This is why I have no use for this Ham guy. I don't know who he is, or who that other guy is either - but when you must attack others in order to lift yourself up, then you've got a BIG problem.

 

I mean, is it really part of being a "good Christian" to tear apart the life's work of others just because they disagree with you? Because to me, that sounds like the antithesis of Christianity.

[AvasMom]

Just curious and I could be totally wrong here but when you cut and paste the work of someone else aren't you supposed to link to the full context and/or provide information where the full text article can be found? What's the protocol for that outside of academia? I always thought this was true regardless of whether you borrow someone's work in an academic setting or in public. I just automatically do that on my blog but maybe that's just me.

[asta]

1. If you aren't buying what SWB is selling, why are you using up her bandwidth.

 

2. I have never in my life been so happy to be Roman Catholic.

 

 

asta

[Avila]

1. If you aren't buying what SWB is selling, why are you using up her bandwidth.

 

2. I have never in my life been so happy to be Roman Catholic.

 

 

asta

:iagree: Completely. :D

[Joy at Home]

1. If you aren't buying what SWB is selling, why are you using up her bandwidth.

 

2. I have never in my life been so happy to be Roman Catholic.

 

 

asta

 

I hope this is directed to the select few who may:

 

1. reject SWB and all her teachings based on perceived theological differences; or

 

2. Those who might jump over here in light of the recent controversy merely to stir trouble.

 

Otherwise, I'm sure you're not implying that one needs to tow some sort of "party line" to be part of this community?

 

lisa

[OnTheBrink]

I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away.

 

No flames here; I agree with you.

 

I wonder if people would really continue to devote time and exert energy (mental AND obviously emotional) if it were not SWB and we were not on this particular forum.

 

 

Some people are like mama bears on this issue.

 

Like he said something offensive about somebody's mama.

 

(Oh no, he didn't!!)

 

 

 

 

SWB can hold her own.

 

I agree with this, too.

 

Honestly don't see what all the hoopla is over this latest post. He is not attacking SWB personally, but disagreeing with her interpretations. What's wrong with that? Are we now all supposed to agree with SWB and a pox on our house if we don't and say so publicly? Was there not just a thread turn nasty on the high school board because someone had the audacity to voice concerns about mature themes in one of SWB's books.

 

I love SWB. The Well Trained Mind has changed the way I educate my children and I have immense respect for her. But she can handle this. Public debate about theology is nothing new. Personal attacks I can't tolerate, and we are not talking about the convention catastrophe here. He has every right to disagree with others' stated positions on hermeneutics.

 

SWB is a big girl, and I fear some of us get just as vicious and nasty defending her as we claim others are in attacking her.

 

Lisa

 

His statements come from his blog. So to see them - one must go to / subscribe to his blog.

 

who's actually beating this dead dog? (Going back to it.) What he says on HIS blog is his business. We all have strong opinions on stuff.

 

Are people upset because the distinctions are being put out there?

 

because Ham is bringing up these issues?

 

Because people are feeling attacked themselves?

 

Because of a fear of other people being "misled?" "misinformed"

 

Because of what he said? The fact he said it? Because he keeps talking/ blogging?

 

:iagree:

 

Anyone who puts an opinion in writing knows that their words are forever public domain for the scrutiny of others. SWB wrote a review in which she concurred with hermeneutical beliefs that Ham thinks are wrong. They are her words, giving an opinion, not only of the curriculum she was reviewing but addressing specific reasons why she concurred with the hermenuetics of Enns. Thus, I do not see it as "yanking someone from the sidelines and poking them in the eye". I do see it as critiquing her written opinions, which is done all the time in every sphere of society.

 

Lisa

 

I don't understand this.

 

Why are we pretending that this is not done in every area of life?

 

We all have our own filter. We see everything through that filter, whether we know it or not.

 

He has certain theological beliefs. He thinks he's right. He thinks others are wrong. He gives voice to this beliefs. He contrasts those beliefs with others who hold different ones, and explains why his are right.

 

What am I missing here?

 

In politics alone, we all do this all. the. time.

 

Have you ever been around this board during the silly season?

 

We all have our own lens through which we view the world. Ken Ham is no different.

 

Lisa

 

The way I see it (in simple terms):

 

Ken Ham believes in a strict and literal interpretation of scripture. He feels threatened by others who voice a different hermeneutical view than his. He does this because he feels like once compromise is made in a strict interpretation, all scripture loses its integrity. He feels it is his job and part of his ministry to advocate for this belief and point out teachings contrary to what he and his ministry believe.

 

This may be very oversimplified, but this is the bare bones of how I see it. So his "agenda", I suppose, is to defend his view of scripture.

 

So, what's the problem?

 

To me, the problem comes in when we denigrate others personally and question their salvation because of their interpretation of scripture, which he has done. I do not condone this.

 

I do see a distinction, however, between critiquing someone's body of work/views without attacking them personally. This is where he has failed in the past. Hopefully he will take a higher road. Maybe not. Thankfully for me, my faith in God and my view of hermeneutics do not rise and fall with one man.

 

Lisa

 

Yes, of course I see the difference:001_smile: As I stated, respectful debate is key. I concur that Ham's previous comments during the conventions were not appropriate in that venue.

 

Which is why I feel that moving on, Ham's recent blog post is more in line with scholarly, appropriate debate. His blog post, which is what I'm defending (while most here seem to be outraged by), does not personally attack anyone nor does it call into question their Christianity or salvation. It is just plain old hermeneutical debate that goes on all the time.

 

It seems that people who demonized Ham for his convention behavior and claimed outrage at his personal comments, are now outraged again at his blog post, which seems to be omitting the very personal attacks they objected to.

 

lisa

 

 

I need a "I agree with Lisa" button. LOL

 

You know, when he publicly slandered other speakers, I spoke out against that. But, he has every right to post what he wants on his own blog. As does SWB, or anyone else who blogs. His "true colors" aren't just now becoming apparent; he's always held these beliefs. No one here has paid that much attention before. As for his reviews of the book in question, so what? Everyone who reviews something they don't like will say negative things about it. If you don't hold a YE view and don't subscribe to the world view he holds, then don't read or support him. Seems simple to me.

[Violet Crown]

2. I have never in my life been so happy to be Roman Catholic.

 

Only because it's not our dirty laundry being hung out in public! Heaven knows we have our own nasty infighting. Just today I read a vitriolic little post (elsewhere on the net) from a traditionalist Catholic accusing the "neo-Caths" (i.e. conservative-but-not-traditionalist Catholics) of trying to take over the Curia in order to stamp out the Latin Mass. Yeah, right.

 

Q. How can you tell an orthodox Catholic firing squad?

A. They're standing in a circle.

[Holly IN]

I hope this is directed to the select few who may:

 

1. reject SWB and all her teachings based on perceived theological differences; or

 

2. Those who might jump over here in light of the recent controversy merely to stir trouble.

 

Otherwise, I'm sure you're not implying that one needs to tow some sort of "party line" to be part of this community?

 

lisa

 

I am wondering the same thing too. This whole thread is disturbing to me because I like BOTH SWB and Ham.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Holly IN

[LoveBaby]

Although, I must say as much as I appreciate healthy debate and think it has incredible value (iron sharpens iron and whatnot) among Christians, the nastiness and lemming type attitude I've seen lately is embarrassing. People on FB who have used SOTW and WTM all this time are like "Oh Mr. Ham now I'm starting to question whether we should use WTM and SOTW!! What should we do??? Think for me pleeeeeeease!!" Makes me want to run red hot pokers in my eyes.

 

:iagree:

 

Bolding mine.

 

Humans (in general) are prone to this type of behavior, though, aren't we? Isn't it much easier to find someone that you esteem and value their opinion, worldview, whatever and then just follow along?! Much easier than really praying, searching and determining your own course.

 

The witch hunt attitude that this is becoming is appalling. Apparently some haven't studied up on past history quite enough....

[Jen500]

I am wondering the same thing too. This whole thread is disturbing to me because I like BOTH SWB and Ham.

 

I don't think SWB is telling anyone to choose between her and Ham. Not so with Ham.

[Hedgehog]

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ~2 Timothy 2:16

 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ~2 Timothy 2:23

 

A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends. ~Proverbs 16:28

 

Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down. ~ Proverbs 26:20

 

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. ~Ephesians 4:29

 

 

Ladies,

 

Let us be godly and take the high road, It takes two to quarrel. At this point, there is nothing left to argue and we are down to idle gossip. We are here to support one another and build each other up and we can do that without tearing someone else down, even those that we may feel are worthy of disrespect. Let us acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right and move on to higher standards and get back to discussing the beauty of classical inspired education, the love we have for our families and each other, and for those of us who are believers in Christ, the thankfulness that he gives us grace because it's not an easy thing for most of us to give. For those that are not Christian, please forgive us for being a poor reflection of God's grace and mercy.

 

Amen.

 

My prayer is that this dies down sooner rather than later, without damaging anyone's faith.

[justamouse]

Just curious and I could be totally wrong here but when you cut and paste the work of someone else aren't you supposed to link to the full context and/or provide information where the full text article can be found? What's the protocol for that outside of academia? I always thought this was true regardless of whether you borrow someone's work in an academic setting or in public. I just automatically do that on my blog but maybe that's just me.

 

Yes, there's that, along with, you know, actually reading the book. Then they would perhaps e-mail and say, "I read your book and my interpretation is that it says___." Perhaps they would go back and forth for a bit clarifying points and, at the least, there would be an offer for rebuttal.

 

 

1. If you aren't buying what SWB is selling, why are you using up her bandwidth.

 

2. I have never in my life been so happy to be Roman Catholic.

 

 

asta

 

Heh.

 

The reason Asta said this is because The Pope has said that Catholics do not have to chose between their faith and evolution.

 

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

 

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

 

 

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

So, Asta was saying that this is not a fight the Catholics would have to engage in. There is no dichotomy between evolution and belief in Christ/God. Edited April 3, 2011 by justamouse

[Joy at Home]

I am wondering the same thing too. This whole thread is disturbing to me because I like BOTH SWB and Ham.

 

All the more reason to remain clear headed through this heated time. This does not need to divide. In fact, shame on those who would try.

 

Most rational, thoughtful people can see that you can agree with and admire both sides about many things without feeling compelled to pledge loyalty unconditionally to one or the other. There might be those few who feel so led by their ideology that they cannot continue to support SWB and her materials (I would hope very few); and there certainly are many, many, on the other side who have alienated Ham because of this (although I would suspect most commenting here would never support or agree with him before this); but most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and I for one will not feel the least bit disloyal by saying:

 

1. SWB is my homeschooling guru, and her resources have been the primary influence in my homeschool for ten years;

 

and

 

2. AIG is a respected ministry in this house and we use many of their educational materials. My hope moving forward is that Ham can continue to debate scripture, but move on from making the debate about individuals to focusing on different interpretations.

 

I don't know where he will go from here, but I do know that I can continue to take from both camps what resonates with me without accepting or rejecting them entirely.

 

I do not agree with anyone deciding to "purge their house of SWB material" because of this; likewise, I don't take kindly to the insinuation that I must reject Ham entirely and pledge total loyalty to SWB. I think SWB of all people would encourage us to use thoughtful, logical thinking in deciding what we can live with instead of being led blindly by the hysteria I see building on both sides.

 

Lisa

[AvasMom]

All the more reason to remain clear headed through this heated time. This does not need to divide. In fact, shame on those who would try.

 

Most rational, thoughtful people can see that you can agree with and admire both sides about many things without feeling compelled to pledge loyalty unconditionally to one or the other. There might be those few who feel so led by their ideology that they cannot continue to support SWB and her materials (I would hope very few); and there certainly are many, many, on the other side who have alienated Ham because of this (although I would suspect most commenting here would never support or agree with him before this); but most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and I for one will not feel the least bit disloyal by saying:

 

1. SWB is my homeschooling guru, and her resources have been the primary influence in my homeschool for ten years;

 

and

 

2. AIG is a respected ministry in this house and we use many of their educational materials. My hope moving forward is that Ham can continue to debate scripture, but move on from making the debate about individuals to focusing on different interpretations.

 

I don't know where he will go from here, but I do know that I can continue to take from both camps what resonates with me without accepting or rejecting them entirely.

 

I do not agree with anyone deciding to "purge their house of SWB material" because of this; likewise, I don't take kindly to the insinuation that I must reject Ham entirely and pledge total loyalty to SWB. I think SWB of all people would encourage us to use thoughtful, logical thinking in deciding what we can live with instead of being led blindly by the hysteria I see building on both sides.

 

Lisa

 

I'm curious where you've seen what you are referring to in the bolded statement. There's been a lot of posts and I haven't followed them all so I probably missed it but I haven't seen this anywhere.

[angela in ohio]

Where is this tape??? This is my point. This tape is not available at all so that is why I have a very hard time believing this. Yes, I read his blog posts.

I can't order this tape because it is NOT available for purchase. WHY????

 

Because the company that sells recordings at the convention doesn't sell ANY recordings after the convention is over. You either order them there, or you can't get them. There is no special conspiracy in not selling this particular tape.

[Word Nerd]

On his Facebook wall in the comments of his post directing readers to his criticism of Susan Wise Bauer:

 

Ken Ham: "AiG publishes Diana Warings great history curricula - check it out on the AIG website www.answersingenesis.org"

 

Does he have a right to hawk his own company's books on his Facebook page? Of course. But in the context of telling people to be wary of SWB and her materials, it seems suspect.

Edited April 3, 2011 by WordGirl

[pdalley]

All the more reason to remain clear headed through this heated time. This does not need to divide. In fact, shame on those who would try.

 

Most rational, thoughtful people can see that you can agree with and admire both sides about many things without feeling compelled to pledge loyalty unconditionally to one or the other. There might be those few who feel so led by their ideology that they cannot continue to support SWB and her materials (I would hope very few); and there certainly are many, many, on the other side who have alienated Ham because of this (although I would suspect most commenting here would never support or agree with him before this); but most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and I for one will not feel the least bit disloyal by saying:

 

1. SWB is my homeschooling guru, and her resources have been the primary influence in my homeschool for ten years;

 

and

 

2. AIG is a respected ministry in this house and we use many of their educational materials. My hope moving forward is that Ham can continue to debate scripture, but move on from making the debate about individuals to focusing on different interpretations.

 

I don't know where he will go from here, but I do know that I can continue to take from both camps what resonates with me without accepting or rejecting them entirely.

 

I do not agree with anyone deciding to "purge their house of SWB material" because of this; likewise, I don't take kindly to the insinuation that I must reject Ham entirely and pledge total loyalty to SWB. I think SWB of all people would encourage us to use thoughtful, logical thinking in deciding what we can live with instead of being led blindly by the hysteria I see building on both sides.

 

Lisa

 

 

I haven't seen the bolded. In fact I've seen several posters who agree with Ham's YE view and disagree with Dr. Enns on some issues yet still take offense at Ham attacking SWB and Dr. Enns. I don't care if he disagrees theologically - there is no need to call someone an 'attacker of Christ' just because you don't like some of their stances.

 

I had decided AIG's materials were not for us long before this. I just didn't care for the style of writing. If I had I wouldn't purge AIG's materials. I always tweak what we use to our own family anyway.

[angela in ohio]

I haven't seen the bolded. In fact I've seen several posters who agree with Ham's YE view and disagree with Dr. Enns on some issues yet still take offense at Ham attacking SWB and Dr. Enns. I don't care if he disagrees theologically - there is no need to call someone an 'attacker of Christ' just because you don't like some of their stances.

 

I had decided AIG's materials were not for us long before this. I just didn't care for the style of writing. If I had I wouldn't purge AIG's materials. I always tweak what we use to our own family anyway.

 

Like me. :001_smile:

 

While I agree with Ham's Creationist views, I haven't been a huge supporter of AIG's because of his last "kerfluffle" (the whole Creation Magazine thing.)

[angela in ohio]

I was at convention all day Friday and the only signs I saw of all this there was a lady wearing a t-shirt. I only saw her from the back as I was leaving for the day, but the back of her shirt said, "I support Ken Ham and AIG." I'm not sure if there was anything more on the front and I didn't seen anyone else there wearing anything, not even a button. I did not hear a single word being said about the controversy, either.

 

There were a few vendor tables that were empty, but that could have been for a number of reasons. As far as I know, all the big vendors were there. There were no large "gaps" in the hall.....

 

I'm not sure why the Philly convention has been cancelled, but I do hope for the sake of all homeschoolers that this can be worked out amicably....

 

I was at the convention all three days. I saw a few bunches of people with t-shirts or buttons in the halls. No one said a word about it, but I didn't really go to speakers who would have drawn that crowd, as I stuck to classical education folks mostly. There were a few empty booths (out of hundreds) but they were small vendors (single booth space,) and that happens every year. I woulnd't think more than one or two could have been boycotting.

 

Same here. I also saw alot of buttons stating "I stand with Ham". I saw no problems with that. There were no talk about this controversy to my knowledge. Saw several empty booths in the exhibit hall. I didn't see any picket signs or anything like that. The crowds were def. thinner than last year. Could be because of the controversy but also could be the economy with so many people out of jobs right now. It is very expensive to go to a convention esp in Cincy. Food were very pricey!! OUCH!

 

I was actually suprised by how crowded it was, considering that they opened the other conventions. I was hoping for a smaller crowd, but it seemed the same, or maybe even more crowded in the speakers. Thankfully, it was a bit more spread out in the vendor hall, because they doubled the size of it.

[Holly IN]

I was actually suprised by how crowded it was, considering that they opened the other conventions. I was hoping for a smaller crowd, but it seemed the same, or maybe even more crowded in the speakers. Thankfully, it was a bit more spread out in the vendor hall, because they doubled the size of it.

 

I remember last year how we couldn't get into the exhibit hall until about 30 to 45 min after it opened. The halls were so crowded last year. I felt there was a lot more room to breath this year. It would be interesting to find out the numbers from this year in comparision to last year. I wonder if the numbers are the same or less.

[PeterPan]

Indeed, at Cincy there were several (under 10) empty booths. At first I thought it was just statistically normal. However after I walked the hall more, I concluded it was probably the KH thing. And yes, it was the small vendors. A big vendor couldn't pull out. For instance I overheard Timberdoodle telling about the cost and challeng of coming so far to do a convention. There's no way a vendor like that, with quite a bit invested, could just pull out. And my dd, who is more observant than I and wasn't looking at curriculum the whole time, said she saw a LOT of KH supporter buttons. Also, if you went to the Creation Museum any of those days, it was PACKED, absolutely packed. And just as a further point of trivia, Michelle Duggar's talk at 2:30 drew more people than SWB's the previous hour. In other words, I'm not sure you can take the percentages on the board and extrapolate them out to the entire homeschool population. I also met people who weren't even AWARE of the whole issue until they showed up.

 

As for the KH blog, personally it's what I believe, and I have no problem saying it. I also went to a SWB session at the convention. (I had heard all the others previously.) I have no problem disagreeing with her on theology or even history and finding things in WTM profitable. I'm sort of shocked that people have forgotten about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Like it or not, KH can say anything he wants to say, short of libel. It sort of shocks me the need people have to roast another human being.

[maryanne]

All the more reason to remain clear headed through this heated time. This does not need to divide. In fact, shame on those who would try.

 

Most rational, thoughtful people can see that you can agree with and admire both sides about many things without feeling compelled to pledge loyalty unconditionally to one or the other. There might be those few who feel so led by their ideology that they cannot continue to support SWB and her materials (I would hope very few); and there certainly are many, many, on the other side who have alienated Ham because of this (although I would suspect most commenting here would never support or agree with him before this); but most of us fall somewhere in the middle, and I for one will not feel the least bit disloyal by saying:

 

1. SWB is my homeschooling guru, and her resources have been the primary influence in my homeschool for ten years;

 

and

 

2. AIG is a respected ministry in this house and we use many of their educational materials. My hope moving forward is that Ham can continue to debate scripture, but move on from making the debate about individuals to focusing on different interpretations.

 

I don't know where he will go from here, but I do know that I can continue to take from both camps what resonates with me without accepting or rejecting them entirely.

 

I do not agree with anyone deciding to "purge their house of SWB material" because of this; likewise, I don't take kindly to the insinuation that I must reject Ham entirely and pledge total loyalty to SWB. I think SWB of all people would encourage us to use thoughtful, logical thinking in deciding what we can live with instead of being led blindly by the hysteria I see building on both sides.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree:

It is highly probable that despite the recent kerfluffle we will use SotW and AiG:God's Design for Science next year. We used both quite happily this year will very likely continue on next year regardless of this mess.

 

If I hunted for curriculum until I found one where I agreed 100% with the author/publisher we'd never get any actual school work done. ;)

[angela in ohio]

Indeed, at Cincy there were several (under 10) empty booths. At first I thought it was just statistically normal. However after I walked the hall more, I concluded it was probably the KH thing. And yes, it was the small vendors. A big vendor couldn't pull out. For instance I overheard Timberdoodle telling about the cost and challeng of coming so far to do a convention. There's no way a vendor like that, with quite a bit invested, could just pull out. And my dd, who is more observant than I and wasn't looking at curriculum the whole time, said she saw a LOT of KH supporter buttons. Also, if you went to the Creation Museum any of those days, it was PACKED, absolutely packed. And just as a further point of trivia, Michelle Duggar's talk at 2:30 drew more people than SWB's the previous hour. In other words, I'm not sure you can take the percentages on the board and extrapolate them out to the entire homeschool population. I also met people who weren't even AWARE of the whole issue until they showed up.

 

As for the KH blog, personally it's what I believe, and I have no problem saying it. I also went to a SWB session at the convention. (I had heard all the others previously.) I have no problem disagreeing with her on theology or even history and finding things in WTM profitable. I'm sort of shocked that people have forgotten about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Like it or not, KH can say anything he wants to say, short of libel. It sort of shocks me the need people have to roast another human being.

 

I don't think that comparison matters much. Anything "Duggar" drew more of a crowd than any other speaker, it seemed. Michelle Duggar standing in the hall drew more than the other speakers, LOL. She is a TV celeb, after all. :D

 

The only expense a vendor would lose if they didn't come would be their booth fee, which is not high. Any other expenses (gas, shipping, hotel stay, etc.) would not happen if they didn't come. So I see no reason that they couldn't pull out if they truly wanted to. I have a feeling they, like the button wearers, like to talk about supporting AIG but not actually act on it or give anything up for it. ;) (I would respect someone who feels strongly enough to sacrifice for their support.)

 

Did you email/call some of the small vendors who didn't come to find out why? I'm wondering if you have a reason to conclude that it was because of Ken Ham? I remember a few empty booths at every convention I've ever been to.

Edited April 4, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Rosy]

The fact that he's digging up blog posts from 2006 is telling. He's obviously trying to 1) prove a point, 2) rally the troops, 3) draw a line in the sand, or something of that nature.

 

I'm disappointed. There aren't many YE elementary geology curricula out there, and I probably would have used God's Design for Science if not for the kerfuffle. My religious views are closer to KH's than SWB's, but someone who goes so far out of his way to slander his peers does not deserve my hard-earned $$ or my respect.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

It sort of shocks me the need people have to roast another human being.

 

With a couple of exceptions there have been no ad hominum attacks on Ken Ham in this thread. The thing discussed has been the timing, the content and the meaning of his blog post. His blog is public or I would not have been able to see it since I do not belong to any particular group that might give me access. His words in this issue have been so public that Christianity Today has covered them.

 

Those of us who have critically looked at his actual post (which uses the kind of skills we're supposed to be teaching our children to do if we follow TWTM, btw) do see this blog post as being part of the whole issue and not a departure from it. Ham is making his posts because as he stated previously he sees himself called to defend the Christian faith. Taking a discerning look at his posts to see if it is effective or even necessary to do so in this manner is not being judgmental of him as a Christian (no one has said that he isn't a Christian). He does have a lot of influence in the Christian homeschool community and as a fellow Christian in the homeschool community I do feel called to look critically (in a thinking sense) at what he is saying.

[PeterPan]

Some had previously announced they were pulling out. Yes, I did ask some vendors. The vendors who didn't come weren't there to ask, lol. Frankly, one of the vendors I talked with was scared to even talk.

 

And my comparison between the MD talk and SWB was to contrast audiences. A percentage of the SWB audience stayed, and many more flooded in. In other words, despite the seeming appearances on the board that 95% of people are appalled by the KH views or statements, the statistics of homeschoolers overall could be very different. And yes, the is only my hair-brained logic. :)

[PeterPan]

With a couple of exceptions there have been no ad hominum attacks on Ken Ham in this thread. The thing discussed has been the timing, the content and the meaning of his blog post.

 

Thanks, I needed a laugh, lol. I didn't know saying the person was only out for money, was shoveling cow manure with (or was himself full of) his writing, etc. wasn't roasting. But whatever, clearly people view it differently. :)

[pdalley]

 

 

As for the KH blog, personally it's what I believe, and I have no problem saying it. I also went to a SWB session at the convention. (I had heard all the others previously.) I have no problem disagreeing with her on theology or even history and finding things in WTM profitable. I'm sort of shocked that people have forgotten about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Like it or not, KH can say anything he wants to say, short of libel. It sort of shocks me the need people have to roast another human being.

 

Freedom of Speech means we have the freedom to speak without fear of government reprisal. It does not guarantee an audience or a platform.

 

With a couple of exceptions I haven't see Ham 'roasted'. I don't understand why it's ok for him to accuse someone of an 'Attack on Christ'. I truly don't.

 

I don't care who is on what side or who draws a bigger crowd. I do care that someone thinks he has the self appointed right to determine who and who is not a Christian. That is for God to determine - IMO.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

With a couple of exceptions I haven't see Ham 'roasted'.

 

We agree. I'm glad that I saw the same exceptions and the same majority.

[angela in ohio]

Some had previously announced they were pulling out. Yes, I did ask some vendors. The vendors who didn't come weren't there to ask, lol. Frankly, one of the vendors I talked with was scared to even talk.

 

And my comparison between the MD talk and SWB was to contrast audiences. A percentage of the SWB audience stayed, and many more flooded in. In other words, despite the seeming appearances on the board that 95% of people are appalled by the KH views or statements, the statistics of homeschoolers overall could be very different. And yes, the is only my hair-brained logic. :)

 

I know they weren't there to ask; that's why I asked if you emailed or called them.

 

All I know is that there were about 300 people in the SWB talk I went to (we counted, because we were amazed at how many people were actually interested in preparing their kiddos for college.) It's not like no one was listening to her.

 

I don't know how Duggar = Ham, though, so I'm still not understanding what that has to do with anything.

Edited April 4, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Joy at Home]

With a couple of exceptions there have been no ad hominum attacks on Ken Ham in this thread. The thing discussed has been the timing, the content and the meaning of his blog post. His blog is public or I would not have been able to see it since I do not belong to any particular group that might give me access. His words in this issue have been so public that Christianity Today has covered them.

 

Those of us who have critically looked at his actual post (which uses the kind of skills we're supposed to be teaching our children to do if we follow TWTM, btw) do see this blog post as being part of the whole issue and not a departure from it. Ham is making his posts because as he stated previously he sees himself called to defend the Christian faith. Taking a discerning look at his posts to see if it is effective or even necessary to do so in this manner is not being judgmental of him as a Christian (no one has said that he isn't a Christian). He does have a lot of influence in the Christian homeschool community and as a fellow Christian in the homeschool community I do feel called to look critically (in a thinking sense) at what he is saying.

 

 

Really, Jean??? The vitriol I've seen in this thread and others against Ham is pretty numbing. It is part of what made me jump in to begin with.

 

Was he not compared to Westboro Baptist Church members in this thread?

 

Was his mental health called into question?

 

I could go on and on. To say ad hominum is not raging on this board against Ham is not accurate.

 

Lisa