Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Ken Ham Encourages Public School Teachers to Break the Law

Ken Ham stated in a recent article that he is not trying to have creationism taught in the public schools.

Now I find this in the Ken Ham blog archives. It was posted after Thanksgiving.

"Public Schoolteacher Using AiG Resources"

"Even though many public schools would intimidate or fire a teacher allowing students to hear both sides of the creation/evolution issue, we know of many teachers like this one who are doing just that:
I am a public high school science teacher. I love your website and have done much research using your search engine. So far I’m able to show both sides of the issues and give my students information that they wouldn’t normally receive from teachers who have bought into evolution. I believe my students greatly appreciate being able to see both sides of the controversies and appreciate being given the respect to choose for themselves.
Pray for these missionaries within the public school system who are doing their best to teach the students correctly concerning the origins issues."

Ken,
You have apparantly never heard of the Dover, PA trial.
A federal judge ruled that teaching creationism OR ID in a public school science class is illegal.

I hope that school district has a lot of money because when this goes to court it could very easily cost them a million bucks. And yes, this teacher should lose his job because he is willfully breaking the law.

I have a feeling that this is merely a contrived (read: Lie) letter to annoy defenders of the first ammendment.

Does anybody wonder why the Hamster would consider himself above the Constitution? Probably because he is not going to be responsible for paying the legal fees when this goes to trial, and it will eventually.

11 comments:

  1. Perhaps she was using the "strengths and weaknesses" approach?[sarcasm]

    ReplyDelete
  2. MFT,

    A lot of people make assumptions about your beliefs, I'm sure - with the nature of the typical discussion 'round here being what it is.

    Would you mind explaining a bit about where you stand with regards to the creation/evolution discussion?

    (I think from previous comments that you're OEC, but I don't want to make an unfounded assumption)

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't really see much problems with accepting evlution. I'm not sure but I guess it probaly is true. (I'm almost certain the earth is pretty old though).
    But if you check the 2 largest denominations(Catholic and Orthodox) say there is nothing wrong with accepting evolution.I don't see why so many people have a problem with an innocent scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MF'er,

    Let me be frank. You post on a blog with a masthead that states:

    "We are former fundamentalist Christians, now fundamentalist atheists....."

    I see no need for you to remain so coy and secretive, but that's just me.

    Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Froggie,

    I believe MFT's blog is intended to be satirical.

    MFT,

    If we evolved on an old earth, at what point does/did God get involved?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  6. Froggie asks-

    Does anybody wonder why the Hamster would consider himself above the Constitution?

    Therein lies one of the most identifiable difference between evangelical fundamentalists and secularists. Fundamentalists put God before country, and consequently, above the country's laws.

    That's why I find dominionists, reconstructionists, fundamentalists, and most creationists inherently dangerous to the ideals of law and freedom that I hold dear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MrFreeThinker said-

    I don't see why so many people have a problem with an innocent scientific theory.

    You're kidding, right?

    Well, if not - here's why.

    Evolution refutes bible inerrancy, (or at least the interpretation of those who adhere to bible literalism and inerrancy).

    Do you hold to the inerrancy of the bible?

    ReplyDelete
  8. BF,

    "That's why I find dominionists, reconstructionists, fundamentalists, and most creationists inherently dangerous to the ideals of law and freedom that I hold dear."

    Precisely. What they seem incapable of realizing is that it is only because of the first ammendment that they are guaranteed their right to worship as they choose.
    They are biting the hand that is feeding them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Matt,

    "I believe MFT's blog is intended to be satirical."

    Shit. I should have looked at that a little closer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Slap me with a dead and rotting fish, and then I will dawn sackcloth and pour ashes on my head.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Evolution refutes bible inerrancy, (or at least the interpretation of those who adhere to bible literalism and inerrancy)."

    I'm glad you added that disclaimer. I have immense respect for those who can reconcile science and faith, like Ken Miller.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.