Great Homeschool Convention 2015: Jay Wile

Melanie and two of the kids have gone junketing off to the 2015 version of the Great Homeschool Convention, in Greenville, South Carolina.  The convention has sessions on all kinds of different topics, and a few on science in general and evolution, specifically.  The featured speaker this year in that area is Jay Wile.  Remember, the American homeschooling experience is, almost without exception, firmly in the young earth camp.  This is almost like founder effect, where one small population, in which all people have the allele for x proliferate and soon everybody has it, a la black hair in Japanese, Chinese and Koreans (which I am sure is pleiotropic).

Anyway, you may remember the dust-up a few years back involving Pete Enns and Ken Ham, in which the latter showed how nasty a person he can actually be.  I told Melanie that I would prefer that my children do not attend any of Jay Wile's sessions because I am quite sure that they will get only half-truths and misinformation.  He has a nine-part Youtube series on "Evolution: The Enemy of Truth and Science."  I scanned the series and concluded:

• His knowledge of the fossil record is non-existent
• He relies on out-dated information to bolster his case, such as making the statement that there are no transitional fossils and focusing for long periods of time on digressions like Haeckel's embryos and Piltdown
• He completely misunderstands the cytochrome C argument
• He completely distorts what Charles Walcott found in the Burgess Shale in 1909
• He distorts how long the Cambrian explosion was, but the worst thing is that
• He accuses evolutionary biologists of covering up data and lying.  

I wonder how he would react if someone in the audience stood up and said "Mr. Wile," did you know that young earth creationism is a lie?"  It is distressing to see a Christian address the science in this way and, in this vein, he is no better than Ken Ham, a man for whom I have no respect, whatsoever.  These are arguments that can be put over on an audience that does not have the necessary background to understand their vacuity.  Mainstream science always winds up on the defensive, in these instances. (Note: this paragraph is different from the one that was originally posted, which was considerably more scathing.  I wrote it after watching some of Wile's YouTube videos, and his distortions made me very angry, some of which I have repented of).  Like so many creationists, with the exception of Todd Wood, I cannot tell if he really has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, or is intentionally trying to mislead out of a misguided sense that he has to make sure that his audience doesn't ever accept evolution.  

Wile was the founder and writer of many of the textbooks of the Apologia educational ministries.  I ran into one of those a bit back, which was awful.   He has since left the ministry but is now on the convention circuit.  In 2009, Jerry Coyne received a letter from a distraught parent who's kids had also run afoul of the Apologia series.  It reads, in part:

There is a serious problem in homeschooling right now in that most homeschooling families find themselves using the Apologia series for teaching science because it is so parent friendly. However, this series was written with one purpose in mind and that was to debunk evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While our family is religious, we are not Creationists and I have serious problems with the Apologia series. I find it dangerous because so many homeschoolers are using it. The author and owner of the company, Jay Wile, is so convincing he is turning many homeschooling families away from the real science of evolutionary biology to the pseudo science of Creationism even if they started out as evolutionists. These parents are turning to Apologia in good faith because there is nothing else out there that is parent friendly. We even used it ourselves at one point, but supplemented it with evolution videos and materials, but I refuse to contribute money to the company. Sadly, I have seen people that I know are intelligent and well educated fall victim to Dr. Wile’s very convincing arguments. I almost did myself, but was saved by more extensive research and my daughter’s level head.

Sadly, most parents will not go to the trouble of doing the extensive research necessary to combat the arguments so they get their heads filled with this nonsense from people like Wile.

The one good thing I can say for him is that, when Ken Ham launched his viscious attack against Pete Enns, Jay Wile stood up for Enns, and was, in turn, attacked by Ham's organization.  This does not exonerate Wile from his distortions and misinformation, however.  I pray that none of my friends go to these sessions.  I don't want to have those conversations with them. 

Ken Ham Waxes on the Cost of Belief in Evolution. Dan Wilkinson of Unfundamentalist Christian Responds

Ken Ham had a personal note on the AiG page about the upcoming debate.  He writes, in part:

Because our ministry theme for 2013 and for 2014 is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids,” our staff thought that a debate on creation vs. evolution with a man who has influenced so many children to believe in evolution would be a good idea. Now, those of you who know me realize that I don’t relish public debates, so please pray for me. But this debate will help highlight the fact that so many young people are dismissing the Bible because of evolution, and even many young people who had grown up in the church decided to leave the church because they saw evolution as showing the Bible could not be trusted. This exodus of young people from the church is documented in my coauthored book Already Gone.

Dan Wilkinson, on his blog Unfundamentalist Christian, responds:

No, Mr. Ham, no one’s leaving the church because evolution shows that “the Bible could not be trusted.”

Mr. Ham, they’re leaving the church because of people like you: people who fervently create walls, erect barriers, establish rigid rules for what one must believe in order to be a Christian. They’re leaving the church because your version of Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with right practice, and everything to do with “right” belief. They’re leaving the church because by essentially demonizing everyone who doesn’t agree with you, you’ve made believing in Young Earth Creationism* more important than Jesus’ explicit explicit commandment to love God and neighbor.

Ken Ham did not like this much. He responded thus:

Apparently they call this sort of thing 'Progressive Christianity.' I guess that means 'evolving Christianity'--whatever the secular world believes about where they came from, you accept that as infallible and then change their assumed fallible Word of God to fit! So sad. In many ways these sort of people are more dangerous to Christianity than the atheists.

Note--the typical personal attack; no research cited (at least AiG had a professional group--America's Research Group--conduct real research into why kids are leaving the church and published it in the book 'Already Gone'); only one verse of Scripture referred to (Matthew 22); just this person's fallible opinions to justify holding man's word as infallible and God's Word as fallible.

Ham is correct about the lack of research. Wilkinson is working off of anecdotes and conversations. He could quote Glenn Morton, however, who left young earth creationism exactly for the reasons that Wilkinson writes about.  There are others out there, I am sure.  I personally know of one person who walked away from the faith after being home schooled using a young-earth curriculum.  When she got to college, her faith was rocked by the fact that there was quite a bit more evidence for evolution than she had been told.  Ham is also correct that there is invective and ad hominem in the post.  It would have been better if the writer had steered clear of such language. 

On the other hand, Ham, himself, has been guilty of the same kind of behavior, personally attacking Peter Enns to the point where Ham was dis-invited from a home schooling conference for his lack of Christian spirit.  He seems to be unrepentant about this.

Additionally, Ham is guilty of a "one way" approach to the scriptures, in which there is no value placed on either current or past interpretation.  Scripture is revealed directly to us and we do not question what it says or how it says it.  Consequently, passages that have provoked discussion and disagreement in the past are rendered flatly, with no color or depth.   He seems to be unwilling to admit that there may be different interpretations of scripture out there by very thoughtful, honest Christians.  Everyone who thinks differently from him is guilty of believing "progressive Christianity."

Most of the folks at BioLogos and the ASA are charitable to young-earth creationists, even if they don't agree with them.  There is no such reciprocity from Ham.  In describing the EC/TE mindset, he is venomous, calling us "more dangerous to Christianity than the atheists."  More dangerous to Christianity than Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers and Sam Harris?  Really?  We seek to follow God, understand His ways and trust in Jesus as our savior, just as Ham does and yet, for him, that counts as nothing.  That is sad. 

Darrel Falk on Ken Ham and Christian Charity

Darrel Falk has written a BioLogos piece on the Great Home School convention/Ken Ham dustup that happened a week and half back. I posted on it a few times, including a very uncharitable post, written in anger. Darrel is quick to point out that, while Mr. Ham has made mistakes, we all have and it should be in the spirit of Christian charity and forgiveness that we move forward. He writes:

Please pray for Mr. Ham and his ministry during these days. Pray that on matters surrounding this highly divisive issue of how best to seek harmony between God’s two books we might all draw closer to God and to each other. Pray that Mr. Ham’s great fear—that BioLogos will damage the integrity of Scripture as the fully inspired Word of God—will never be realized. We understand his fear and sympathize with his concerns. Please pray that we at BioLogos might always seek the wisdom which is from above, and that we not give into the temptation to advocate a compromise purely for the sake of appearing wise.

Contrast that with the words of Mr. Ham about the event:

More and more organizations are being formed and more books printed by people—even within the church—to try to get God’s people to reject Genesis as literal history, and thus undermine the authority of God’s Word. No wonder we are losing the next generation from the church. For instance, even at this homeschool convention, there are a number of people (including speakers) that are associated with the extremely liberal Biologos Foundation—an organization that is dedicated to trying to get people in the church to believe evolution and millions of years as fact. And now they are embarking on producing homeschool curriculum—such as that from Dr. Peter Enns who spoke at this conference.

But at the same time, I praise God for the opportunity, that even in this sea of lies permeating our culture, I am able to teach the truth of God’s Word to many. Here is a photograph of me presenting at one of the sessions yesterday: (Picture not included)

A greater contrast could not be apparent. Darrel is correct, we do need to pray for all of us who are involved in this area of research. As importantly, however, we do need a dose of humility about what we think and how we arrive at the conclusions we do. My wife admonishes me to pray continually about the things I write. She is correct to do so.

I hope that Mr. Ham prays as well and that he will see that his viewpoint and attitude are harsh and unchristian. Further, they are divisive and serve only to show the outside world that, despite our protestations to the contrary, we can be very good at mean spiritedness and name-calling. Not a shining day for the image of Christianity.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Joji Hirota - Midway-Island of Life: Dolphins, Seals & Rays
via FoxyTunes

Christianity Today on the Ken Ham/Great Homeschool Convention Rucus

Christianity Today has remarked on the recent disinvite of Ken Ham by the Great Homeschool Convention here. Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra provides a bit more insight into the chain of events:

Great Homeschool Conventions, which aims to teach and encourage homeschooling parents, hired Ham to present at four conferences this spring and summer, along with Peter Enns, a senior fellow of biblical studies at the BioLogos Foundation.

BioLogos's mission is to "promote a perspective on the origins of life that is both theologically and scientifically sound," and Enns argues against a strictly literal reading of Genesis, according to his blog.

During the first two conferences, in Memphis and Greenville, SC, Ham showed audiences two video clips of Enns to illustrate how modern Christian speakers were compromising God's word, according to the Answers in Genesis website. He also told audiences that Enns had connections to Susan Wise Bauer, another speaker.

You don't show up at a conference you have been invited to with the express purpose of taking potshots at other speakers. That is low.

Interestingly, none of the articles on the dust-up have mentioned what the home school folks thought of Peter Enns or, for that matter, why they even invited him in the first place, given that, in the stated response to Ken Ham, they stated:

We know that many of our attendees agree with Dr. Ham’s young earth position as we do. What created this problem was Dr. Ham’s spirit.

Surely, they knew what Peter Enns thought and has written. Surely, they knew that it would clash with the vast majority of homeschoolers and the main organizations. Here is his site on home schooling that he is promoting through Olive Branch books.

----------------
Now playing: Yes - Dreamtime
via FoxyTunes

The Poisonous Attitude of AiG: Nathan Ham Defends His Father

Todd Wood points us to a rebuttal of the Great Homeschool Conventions letter by Nathan Ham in defense of his father, Ken Ham. Great Homeschool Conventions released a response to the attack on their decision by the elder Ham that reads in part:

Dr. Ham was removed for his spirit not for his message. As an invited guest, Dr. Ham’s spirit toward our convention was unkind. Dr. Ham’s spirit toward our attendees was not gracious. Dr. Ham’s spirit toward other speakers was unprofessional. In short, a proud, ungrateful and divisive spirit was projected from Dr. Ham. Regardless of the message, Dr. Ham's approach sullied the atmosphere of the convention.
We know that many of our attendees agree with Dr. Ham’s young earth position as we do. What created this problem was Dr. Ham’s spirit. (emphasis in original)

As has been pointed out in other places, Ken Ham doesn't have a Ph.D. in anything and is self-taught (if one can call it that) with regard to the natural and sciences.

Nathan Ham blasted back:

Some Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word “love” to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase “make love, not war” gave their movement a false sense of piety. But to those who know a handful of Bible verses taught to Sunday school children, their sins are as grievous as the war crimes they claimed to oppose. Just the same, these Christians like to justify their disobedience to the Bible by saying “we are supposed to love each other”. Oh, but aren't these hippie Christians godly? (I am speaking sarcastically). I mean, they actually quote John 13:35. Please note: their judgment is coming according to Proverbs 1:26.

Todd Wood’s take on this is somewhat understated:

I understand his point about love being used as an excuse to tolerate error (and I sympathize), but does Nathan's post seem just a bit over the top to anyone else?

Nathan Ham's response isn't just over the top, it is offensive. It equates anyone who does not hew to the Young earth message with empty-headed hippies and states that anyone with this view is going to hell. This is arrogance of the highest order and should be condemned within Christian circles. No wonder these people were disinvited. He talks about harming the body of Christ. How are his words edifying? How do they build up the body of Christ. One of the tenets of the Homeschooling message should be familiar to all Christians:

One of the core values of our convention is that good people can disagree and still be good people.

Not to Ken and Nathan Ham. To them, there is only one way to think about these things and if you don't accept that way, be damned! While I have never had much respect for Ken Ham or his endeavors, it is hard not to feel antipathy at this point and an earnest hope that others will have their hearts and minds made aware of this poisonous attitude and how badly it reflects on Christians and Christianity.