The creationists are forever insisting that their nonsense “theories” should be taught in public school science class in order to enhance “critical thinking” so the children can decide things for themselves. After all, they always ask: What are we afraid of?
Ah, but that’s their line only when trying to bully their way into the public schools. When it comes to their own schools or homeschooling, where they’re in control, their attitude is quite different. Look what appears today at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo).
Their new article is Should Homeschoolers Let Children Decide on Evolution? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
How should Christian homeschooling parents approach topics like biological evolution, big bang cosmology, and the age of the earth? Christianity Today’s recent article “A New Creation Story: Why do more homeschoolers want evolution in their textbooks?” suggests that science materials that present “all viewpoints” about origins are becoming more popular.
This is the article AIG is complaining about. It says:
Christian homeschool science textbooks have long taught young earth creationism (YEC) almost exclusively. But observers say a growing number of parents want texts that also teach evolution.
AIG doesn’t like that at all. Here’s what they say about it:
Do modern homeschooling parents need to adopt “a new creation story” to ensure their children’s success? Do twenty-first-century children need to be taught to accept evolution to succeed academically? Will teaching them to accept evolution hurt their relationship with God? Or would accepting evolution, as some suggest, somehow make them better Christians by merging old ideas with new? Or to express the fear of many parents, “If I don’t teach them to accept evolution, will they grow up stupid and fail in life?”
Good questions. Let’s read on:
Some people suggest that children should be presented with a smorgasbord of evidence and encouraged to choose the position they find makes the best case, preferably blending mainstream science with whichever parts of faith can be made to fit. A number of those quoted in Christianity Today’s article are of this opinion.
AIG disagrees. They say:
It is particularly important for science textbooks to acknowledge that God’s Word is trustworthy. Observable, scientific facts will never violate God’s Word when properly understood but rather affirm it. In fact, the history of creation and the global Flood are not only consistent with scientific observations, but they also can help explain what we observe in the world.
Of course. No doubt. That’s what good science is all about. AIG continues:
When Christian parents compromise on scriptural truth by twisting it to make it fit with the claims of evolution regarding abiogenesis, the rise of biological complexity, and the age of the earth and universe, they risk causing irreparable, faith-damaging harm to their own children.
Irreparable harm! Egad — teaching evolution is child abuse! Oh, speaking of child abuse, see this by the same author: Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children? Dawkins Thinks So. It’s simple, really. Creationists aren’t abusing children, it’s those Darwinists who are doing it. Nice, huh? Okay, let’s skip to the end:
Truth is not multiple choice. Christian parents hoping to equip their children for spiritual and academic success do not need to use materials that promote evolution. They do not need textbooks offering a selection of “YEC, evolutionary creationism, intelligent design, and atheistic evolution,” as one BioLogos-backed project is developing. They need to choose textbooks that measure all truth according to the yardstick of God’s Word. Only then will they help their children build the biblical worldview they need to face the onslaughts of a world that is increasingly hostile to God.
So there you are. Should we let the children decide? No! Just teach them The Truth™ of creationism and they’ll be prepared to face the modern world.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
AiG: “In fact, the history of creation and the global Flood are not only consistent with scientific observations, but they also can help explain what we observe in the world.”
What “scientific observations”??? What “world” is Ken Ham observing in? Certainly not the one the rest of us are familiar with.
Small sample and bias, HOWEVER of the 8-10 families I have known who have homeschooled their children, none completed more than a year of community college and ALL of them ended up in the military. I don’t know if any of the kids ended up or attempted some sort of Bible college or seminary.
All these kids were raised for religious reasons although many couched their decision in objections to “trashy” public schools, poor teachers, not enough personal attention, blah, blah. Well, our “trashy” high school boasts several National Merit scholars every year and the college acceptance is about 80%.
It IS interesting that some portion of the Christian home-school population is interested in teaching some aspects of evolution to their children. These are defections in Ham’s own ranks of the indoctrinated. No wonder he’s spun up.
AIG warns:
Historian of science and religion Ron Numbers has pointed out that what these fundamentalists care about above all else is personally witnessing the rapture promised in the last book of their bible, Revelations.
In Number’s view, science and evolution turn out to be just inevitable road kill compared to the creationists’ desire to save their souls from the lake of eternal fire.
Therefore, to a YEC, if Genesis is allowed to be held as just iron age theology, or metaphorical instead of literal, then the truth of Revelation may also be faulty theology or metaphorical
So YEC fundamentalists really have no rational alternative other than to accept YEC at one end of their bible stories to prove that what happens at the other end of their is true.
This rant sounded eerily like the more famous Bill Nye video against creationism. There can be only one truth; teaching children the wrong facts can be damaging, etc. I don’t have time to do a comparison, but it certainly echos Nye.
If they continue to say let the children decide, academic freedom, free speech, every theory deserves a hearing, then why are they so adamantly opposed to talk about birth control, sex education, condoms, etc? Shouldn’t the students be allowed to hear all views and then decide for themselves?
My point was that Christian homeschooled kids can’t actually DO ANYTHING. They are intellectually crippled. Their parents screwed them out of any job.
Very sad. Should be a crime, really. Child abuse. These are horrible people.
I have noticed that when creationists refer to teachers presenting evolution, such teachers are said to be indoctrinating the poor kids. On the other hand, if some fundamentalist religion is being presented as absolute fact, this is referred to as teaching the children.
You indoctrinate. We teach. Semantics, anyone?
So the rest of us weren’t supposed to notice AIGs blatant doublethink? Actually has AIG noticed AIGs blatant doublethink?
@docbill1351:
A data point for you. When I was still a YEC fundamentalist, my wife and I homeschooled our two children. They both entered a secular university at 16, graduated at 19, and went on to obtain masters degrees; the younger one is currently working on a second masters. Both are very bright, and successful at what they have chosen to do in life.
However, I completely understand that the homeschool movement has been hijacked by the crazy fundy right (and am completely pissed, as I still love the whole concept of homeschooling). My brother and his wife “homeschooled” their kids, and they are fit for only two things: making crafts projects for vacation bible schools, and getting married; neither has gone to college. So, I guess that is another data point…
Fauskanger: I have noticed that when creationists refer to teachers presenting evolution, such teachers are said to be indoctrinating the poor kids. On the other hand, if some fundamentalist religion is being presented as absolute fact, this is referred to as teaching the children.
Indeed. Consider the following quote from IDer William Dembski. We “indoctrinate” our ideas, they “present” their ideas:
Dembski: Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand (sic) this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.”
(Original post now unavailable, but Richard B. Hoppe quoted it here, and it’s also in this essay on Dembski’s designinference.com site; also see here)