Ken Ham Warns Atheists Out to Steal Children and Eat Them Too

by Bruce Gerencser

Eat them, metaphorically speaking. Smile

In a recent blog post,  young earth creationist, and snake oil salesman, Ken Ham wrote:

… Christians today are hungry to be equipped with the resources to fight the battle before us in this increasingly secular culture, where God’s Word is being attacked on nearly every front.

I love teaching children. Once again, as we’ve seen across the country at similar conferences, we were able to reach hundreds of children and young people who attended the special school assembly programs in Florida.

I want to remind you that our theme at AiG for the next two years is “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids” as we focus on rescuing them from this present evil age.

Recently, I coauthored an article for the AiG website about Arizona State University Professor Lawrence Krauss. He has now posted videos accusing Christians who teach their children about creation of committing “child abuse.” He even accuses those who teach their children about hell of committing “child abuse.”

Lawrence Krauss is an atheist, and he is an atheist on a mission right now to capture your kids for the anti-God religion of atheism. Think about it—he wants you to hand your kids over to him so he can try to brainwash children into believing they are just animals and that they are not made in the image of God. He wants them to be taught when you die, you rot—and that’s it! In essence, he wants your kids to be captured for the devil.

You know, I often think about why people such as Krauss are so aggressive in preaching their anti-God message of meaninglessness, purposelessness, and hopelessness. We we know that in Romans 1 we are told such people know that God is real, so they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” And it’s even more than that. They want the focus on them—it is a self-centeredness. They want you to think they are a god! They have succumbed to the devil’s temptation in Genesis 3:5—they want to be like God—they want to be a god!

Such God-haters like Lawrence Krauss and others usually go ballistic when they hear of AiG teaching kids about Genesis. And they just hate me teaching children the truth about science, origins, and how to think correctly about such matters.

This past Monday in Florida, I taught young children for an hour and a half, covering topics like dinosaurs, fossils, the Flood, creation, evolution, the gospel and much more. I showed them how the history recorded in the Bible explains dinosaurs and that observational science confirms the Bible’s history. Secularists hate me teaching children to think correctly about origins as I help them understand what God taught Job in Job 38:4. God asked Job if he was there when God made the earth. But of course, he wasn’t—and that’s the point. When it comes to origins, no human was there to see the earth come into existence! But God has always been there. Evolutionists were not there to see the supposed millions of years of evolution. So I love to teach the kids to ask the question, “Were you there?” when someone talks about millions of years. The kids get it! The atheists don’t want to get it because they don’t want to give up the starting point for their worldview—i.e., that fallible man determines truth.

I taught the high school students how to understand science in relation to the origins issue by showing them the difference between beliefs about the past and knowledge gained by observation, which enables us to build technology.

Recently, Dr. Krauss made the false statement that evolution is the basis of biology and the basis of technology. Absurd nonsense! I made sure I taught the students how to think correctly about such issues. Then I gave them answers to many of the questions skeptics will use to try to make them doubt God’s Word—questions like these: Who made God? How did Noah fit the animals on the Ark? Isn’t natural selection evolution? What about Carbon dating?…

Evangelicals like Ham love a good conspiracy theory.  They believe we are living in the last days and Jesus could come again at any moment. (Ham hopes Jesus doesn’t come before he gets his Ark Park built) They also believe  the world will become increasingly more sinful the closer we get to the return of Jesus.

Evangelicals like Ham believe they are called by God to stand against Satan and his lies.  In their eyes, secularism, atheism, humanism, evolution,and acceptance of homosexuality are Satanic lies that must be exposed and defeated.

Ham is right about one thing; America is becoming more secular. He is also right that the battle for the future of America will be fought in our public schools and universities. Make no mistake about it, secularists, humanists, and atheists, believe the kind of Christianity Ham peddles is intellectually harmful and retards the thinking of young people.

And so we fight. No longer do secularists, humanists, and atheists hide in the shadows, fearing the wrath of Christian America. We can sense the tide is turning and so does Ken Ham.

Secularists, humanists, and atheists use reason and fact to show  young people a better way. They show there is no need to appeal to myth or religious superstition. Science is revealing a universe to us that is amazing and wondrous, but it is also showing that the religious explanations of the past 1800 years no longer explain the universe as we know it.

Ham does his best to disparage secularists, humanists, and atheists. According to Ham:

  • We preach a message of hopelessness
  • We preach a message of meaninglessness
  • We preach a message of purposelessness
  • We know God exists but suppress it
  • We are self-centered, it is all about us.

Only with his last point does Ham get it right. Secularists, humanists, and atheists plead guilty to being human-centered. (though that is not the ONLY focus we have)  We know focusing on prayer, God, or pronouncements from ancient religious texts will do little to improve the world we live in. In fact, such things might actually make our world  a worse place  to live in. (since many  wars are religiously motivated and many people deny global climate change for religious reasons)

Ham and his devoted disciples are infuriated that people like Lawrence Krauss say  teaching children creationism is child abuse. However, let’s consider for a moment whether Krauss’s claim is true.

If creationism is a religious fiction then teaching children it is true is a lie. From the time they can walk and talk, Evangelical Christian children are taught all sorts of lies from the Bible. How can this not have a negative effect on children?

Teaching children the earth is 6,000 years old, that God killed with a flood every human being save eight a few thousand years ago, and that anyone who does not accept the Evangelical version of the Christian God will be tortured by the Evangelical God in hell for eternity, is quite harmful to the intellectual development of children.

The waiting rooms of mental health professionals are filled with people who have had their sense of self-worth damaged or destroyed by Christian teachings like original sin. Being told you are wicked, that you can be oppressed or possessed by Satan, and that God holds absolute power of your life, does not make for a healthy mind,

So, to Ken Ham, I say this: Yes we are coming for your children.  We hope to expose them to the wide, wondrous universe we live in. We hope to teach them to think critically and not to accept something as fact just because a preacher said, God said __________________.

I am not anti-Christian or anti-religion. I am, however, anti-ignorance. I think parents hurt their children when they keep them from ALL the knowledge available about the universe and their place in it.

Comments open below

Read everything by Bruce Gerencser!

Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network member, Bruce Gerencser blogs at The Way Forward.

Bruce Gerencser spent 25 years pastoring Independent Fundamental Baptist, Southern Baptist, and Christian Union churches in Ohio, Michigan, and Texas. Bruce attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan. He is a writer and operates The Way Forward blog. Bruce lives in NW Ohio with his wife of 32 years. They have 6 children, and five grandchildren.

The Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

 

About Suzanne Calulu
  • http://followingontoknow.blogspot.com Just Me

    Although I may not agree with Ken Ham’s aggressive responses, I hope you would not agree with labeling parents who exercise religious freedom in TEACHING (not punishing) their children as “abusers.” Because that is outrageous.

  • http://alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    “Religious freedom in teaching” — does that mean making stuff up and telling your kids it’s true? Because that is keeping them in ignorance, denying them their right to an education and yes, is neglectful at best, abusive at worst.

  • Flora Kitty

    +1

  • madame

    Bruce,
    I’ve taught my children that they are precious creations in the image of God. I do not teach them that God has hell prepared for everyone who doesn’t believe.
    I have taught them that they are valuable, as valuable as any other human being, because they are made in the image of God, and because Jesus loves them. We teach them to extend love to others and treat others the way they want to be treated.
    I have taught them that God created the world. We haven’t gone into how old it is, or whether evolution is possible or not. We will cross that bridge when we get there, and we will do so by talking and reasoning through what they are learning at school. I want my chidren to learn how to think and not say X,Y or Z is true because Preacher or Teacher said so.
    I agree that the story of the flood is horrific. I have my problems with much of the OT and some of the NT. I haven’t ditched my belief in God and Jesus, but I don’t consider myself religious and am quickly wound up by fundamentalist Christian teachings.
    But I have a huge issue against people who would like to tell my children that what I’m teaching them is a pack of lies.
    We have religious freedom. You can believe what you want, and so can I. And we can still teach our children what we believe. I believe that defending this freedom is very important.
    If humanists, atheists and secularists believe it is their right ‘(or responsibility) to “brainwash” our children and accuse parents of abusing their children for teaching them their religion, I will happily join the other side in defense of religious freedom.

  • Betty Crux

    “Then I gave them answers to many of the questions skeptics will use to try to make them doubt God’s Word—questions like these: Who made God? How did Noah fit the animals on the Ark? Isn’t natural selection evolution? What about Carbon dating?…”

    I was thinking yesterday about a day when my non-evangelical family members were asking me questions about my “faith”, and i’m sure I responded with the most ridiculously creepy, programmed answers ever.

  • Tori

    I’ve raised my child not exactly atheist, but I’ve taught her about lots of different religions (she has visited Catholic churches – she liked the decoration, Synagogues – She liked the chanting, Buddhist temples – apparently incense is nice and so are wooden statues, Christian churches – deemed boring, Evangelical Churches – apparently straight up crazy, and a mosque – she had a long involved conversation with the Imam afterwards, but found the segregation rather odd.) If she chooses a religion for herself, I’m cool with that (or no religion, which seems to be her current viewpoint, that it’s all total rubbish), but I am NOT going to present any one as being right, because lets be honest, WE DON’T KNOW.

  • ashley haworth-roberts

    Ken Ham has quoted from this blog post (without identifying the author except by first name) on his Facebook page. He thinks Bruce is ‘lost’.
    http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

    I have commented HERE on Ham’s words, and also – a few days back – on his blog post of 27 February:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2967&hilit=krauss&start=1185

    Ashley H-R (Mr)

  • http://alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    Madame, this is bait-and-switch.

    Appropriate religious teaching: “I have taught them that they are valuable, as valuable as any other human being, because they are made in the image of God, and because Jesus loves them. We teach them to extend love to others and treat others the way they want to be treated.”

    Bad science teaching: “We haven’t gone into how old it is, or whether evolution is possible or not. We will cross that bridge when we get there, and we will do so by talking and reasoning through what they are learning at school. I want my chidren to learn how to think and not say X,Y or Z is true because Preacher or Teacher said so.” Really? *Why* do you think that Teacher says that the atomic weight of carbon is 12? Do you teach our kids to think about modern chemistry and alchemical ideas about earth, air, fire and water and reason their way through those as well, choosing their own ideas to prove how independent they are? Or do you teach them chemistry?

    Non sequiteur: “We have religious freedom. You can believe what you want, and so can I. And we can still teach our children what we believe. I believe that defending this freedom is very important.” You can believe the earth is flat, or that the sun goes around the earth, or that rebalancing chi with acupuncture needles cures cancer, but that doesn’t make it true. Truth in education is very important. You are free to believe untrue things, but people are not free to teach untrue things in schools. Certainly not things that are *known* to be untrue.

    “If humanists, atheists and secularists believe it is their right ‘(or responsibility) to “brainwash” our children and accuse parents of abusing their children for teaching them their religion, I will happily join the other side in defense of religious freedom.” And I suppose that you believe that acupuncturists, homeopaths and reiki healers should be free to practice their religion on anyone who walks into a hospital ER, the same way doctors practice their religion of “medicine”? If all religion is created equal, and science is a religion exactly like any other, then there’s no reason you should expect to see a doctor in a hospital intead of a shaman or someone who woke up one morning with a revelation. There’s a reason people need many years of rigorous study and training before we let them do brain surgery. And there’s a reason we ask people who truly understand their fields to write textbooks. (Except in Texas, apparently.)

  • madame

    Alison,
    I think you misunderstood me. I’m not a teacher, but I obviously teach my children about my faith as it evolves, and we discuss what they are learning at school as things come up. When it’s not grammar or math, it’s the various forms of water, how we can save energy or the process of water depuration. We haven’t come as far as studying the weight of carbon. (I’ve forgotten all my chemistry. I was no good at it anyway!)

    Sure, some stuff people believe and pass on to their children is not true, but we must hold onto our freedom of faith-religion-whatever you want to call it.

    Our children go to a local school. The school has some connection with a lutheran church, and most of the RE is traditional Lutheran, but teachers are not hired to indoctrinate anyone. They teach their subjects and we parents get to know about what the kids are learning when we see their homework, attend PTA meetings or check out their textbooks. They’ve had some evolution and some creationism, and we have talked about both theories openly. They haven’t asked how old the earth is, so we have left it at that. When they ask, I’ll probably answer “I don’t know”, but these are the theories… and look them up!
    I thought I was clear that I don’t want my children to believe X, Y or Z just because Teacher/Preacher says so. I want them to learn to think things through for themselves, ask questions, take their time.

    There are all sorts of medical treatments that I wouldn’t choose for myself or my children, and I expect doctors in hospital to be qualified specialist in their field of medicine. I expect my children’s teachers to be qualified in teaching their subject to that age group. Their personal beliefs may taint their teaching slightly, but they have to stick to the subject and remain factual. I no more want a math teacher to expound on the amazingness of infinity and how great God/Allah or some other god is, than I want their science teacher to tell them the Bible is a pack of lies. It’s not their place to go against what their parents are teaching them or push their beliefs on their students. They are paid to teach their subject from an objective point of view.

  • http://alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    I’ve never heard a science teacher say the Bible was a pack of lies. I have, however, heard them explaining biology, making reference (directly or indirectly) to the great unifying theory of biology, which is evolution. For instance, they might explain that there are three domains of life: eukaryotes (organisms with membranes around their nuclei), bacteria (without nuclear membranes) and archaebacteria (also without nuclear membranes, but in some ways similar to animals). Perhaps they would explain that we used to group the bacteria and archaebacteria together but when we learned more about their genes we realized they belonged in their own group. Unless you accept that life evolved, classifications like this make no more sense than grouping organisms by colour, or by whether or not we eat them. (Biologists do not generally find these latter groupings useful.) They might explain that chloroplasts and mitochondria are remnants of other organisms that were incorporated into bacteria-like cells, and explain how we know that. This is a basic tenet of cell biology. It allows us to understand how cells work. Accepting evolution allows all of biology to make sense and allow biologists to make predictions. It works, like accepting atomic theory allows all of chemistry to make sense and allows chemists to make predictions.

    If you aren’t going to suggest that your children make up their own minds on chemistry — they don’t have to believe in atoms because Teacher said so, they can choose to believe in the four elements just like Aristotle did and here is Aristotle’s reasoning which is just as good as Rutherford’s — why single out all of biology for special challenging?

    Chemistry Teacher teaches atomic theory because it’s the theory that makes sense of the physical world. Biology Teacher teaches (explicitly or implicitly) evolution because it’s the theory that makes sense of the living world. There is no other theory that does, which is why Biology Teacher doesn’t teach any other theories. There aren’t any. Just like Chemistry Teacher doesn’t teach other theories besides atomic ones because there aren’t any.

    Facts are not something to make up one’s own mind about. We can explain the experiments that underlie the atomic theory so that children understand them, but we don’t present a smorgasbord of every conjecture that has ever existed and ask them to choose the one they like best. Same for biology. We explain the experiments that show how we know things so that the children can understand biology. Telling children that there are two domains of science where it’s possible the scientists have all gotten it wrong — that biologists and geologists simply do not understand the first thing about their respective fields but that Ken Ham does — makes no sense unless you propose that chemists may have also gotten it all wrong, and physicists too, and the fact that we have superglue and manufactured goods is some sort of lucky chance because it’s possible or likely that the people who make them have no understanding of the fundamental princples of their fields.

    Why would biologists and geologists — and only biologists and geologists — not understand biology or geology when we accept that other scientists understand their fields? If we accept that biologists and geologists do understand biology and geology, then we accept evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth. It’s not that complicated, and anyone who is trying to make it complicated or introducing doubt or presenting false equivalencies (biology and geology are religions like any other religion, but chemistry and physics are science) is misleading you.

  • http://alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    > The father of a friend of mine literally believed the world was flat. He had only a fourth-grade education, but he had lots of theories about flat-earth that he was quite attached to. Was it immoral of my friends’ teachers to teach the sun and the planets? Was it immoral of her physics teacher to teach Kepler’s equations? These explanations of natural phenomena are objective, but they went against one of her parent’s beliefs.

    > Teaching evolution is exactly objective. It’s where objective observation of the world leads us. If you want children taught objectively, then that’s what they will learn. If Genesis were objective science, then teachers all over the world, of every religion, would be teaching Genesis in science class. But they don’t. Because Genesis and science are different things. If you want children taught religion instead of science — which many people do — that’s indoctrination, not science.

    > “You’re entitled to your own opinion. You’re not entitled to your own facts.” See also http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

  • http://lapalma-island.com Sheila Crosby

    So I love to teach the kids to ask the question, “Were you there?”

    Do you believe your parents ever had sex? Were you there?

    If you can deduce from your own existence that your parents had sex when you weren’t there, then you can deduce from geology and astronomy that he earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old, even though you weren’t there.

  • http://beyond-the-wand.tumblr.com Flynn Phoenix

    Step 1: write text from the POV of an all-powerful, omnipotent being.
    Step 2: tell someone said text is really true.
    Step 3: when questioned – “Were you there? No! Only the one in the story the story was!”
    Step 4: INSTANT PROOF!!!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X