In the latest Answers magazine (p. 35), Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, claims
that Sonlight’s treatment of old- and/or young-earth and/or evolutionary
creation is not balanced:
Already, two publishers—Sonlight
and Christian Schools International—don't openly support a young-earth
position. They claim to offer a "balanced" treatment, but it isn't.
He adds no commentary that would bolster his position. He
simply makes the claim. (Note: in the primary article, Ham references the Atlantic
magazine article that spurred the Christianity
Today article where Sarita and I are quoted which, in turn, speaks of Sonlight as “an exception” to the curricula that emphasize young-earth creationist views to the exclusion of others. Sonlight, writes the author if the CT article,
offers a diversity of homeschool
curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The
YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said
Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes
in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students
need to be able to evaluate different positions.
The author and/or editor of the article made several obvious mistakes in her comments about Sonlight. But even if we grant Ham all of the "insights" of this CT article, I would dearly love to know what he thinks “balanced” looks like. I am particularly curious because of what he says in the main body of his article
(p. 34):
Does [what I have said] mean that
homeschooling parents should never expose their children to evolutionary ideas?
Of course not. Homeschoolers certainly need to address different views about
origins and other controversial issues in their teaching, but they need to do
so in the clear context that God's Word is truth and compromising views are
error!
I guess that
last phrase does answer my question, though, doesn't it? A “balanced” presentation,
from Mr. Ham's perspective means one that “openly support[s] a young-earth position.” It
will address viewpoints that differ with the young-earth perspective. But it will not permit opponents to speak for themselves and it only present alternative or opposing viewpoints with
strong statements to the effect that all such differing viewpoints are
"compromising" and "in error."
And that, apparently, is what is wrong with Sonlight. It doesn't come out strongly enough in support of the young-earth perspective. (Frankly, from my perspective, it features way too many young-earth books and provides virtually no counter-balancing arguments against anything that those books say. But it does include a few books that make occasional mild statements in favor of evolution--and then offers counter-balancing young-earth "arguments" against those statements. Meanwhile, it "permits" or even "encourages" parents to teach as they see fit. But that, apparently, isn't good enough for Mr. Ham.)
*****
Ham, apparently, views himself much like a Pope. He has a lock on the Truth. He speaks definitively and infallibly concerning how the Bible is to be interpreted. Like religious leaders of yesteryear who were willing to burn at the stake those who held differing opinions about baptism; or like those even today who breaj fellowship over different perspectives on eschatology (pre-, post-, or a-mill; preterist; or whatever), so Mr. Ham seems bent on ensuring his followers remain separated from those with whom he disagrees.
If you agree with Ham about the age of the earth and the basic young-earth viewpoint, that's okay, but not good enough.
If you teach a young-earth viewpoint, that's not good enough, either.
You must never suggest that you "merely" believe in young-earth creationism. You must adamantly assert that young-earth creationism is true: THE truth. Indeed, you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours, because--so Pope Ham has decreed--anyone who holds a view different from yours (i.e., different from Ham's) is, simply, wrong, "compromising," "in error." End of discussion.
Whew!