Of course Kirk Cameron hates education (he thinks domesticated bananas were created by god), he's a child and has "growing up pains." When believers beliefs are stupid, ridiculous, and immoral in themselves, of course common decency and fairness are going to seem wrong.
Most believers believe that faith and truth go hand in hand, that they cannot be separated. Actually, truth can be faiths greatest enemy. When you're believing a lie, truth is faiths greatest opposer. This being the case, the next greatest enemy of faith would be education, the learning of the truth. Public schools are not church, facts and reality are a major problem for believers.
"Evangelical Christian and Growing Pains actor Kirk Cameron showed off every bit of white privilege he has in a video promoting his upcoming documentary, The Homeschool Awakening. In a YouTube video posted on Saturday, Cameron included a trailer for the documentary promoting homeschooling as an alternative to traditional public school. After that trailer played, he went on to describe what he considered to be failings of the public education system. I know what you’re thinking if you haven’t seen the video yet: Why, it must be an analysis of the funding inequities that have for decades led to fewer resources for schools serving Black and brown students. That would be a worthy critique. Cameron, however, didn’t even attempt to broach the subject. Instead, he went on a rant about perceived immorality in public school education."
Full Article: [dailykos.com]
That good christian boy Kirk also bullied his co-star playing his sister (Tracey Gold) relentlessly about her weight and she developed an eating disorder that threatened her health and life.
Not that anything that anyone says is an automatic cause of a disorder like that.
But he was certainly a smug, entitled little bully and he certainly was not a good person for her in any way.
A clearly non-intellectual trying to explain science. It's so laughable if not so pathetic. This is the kind of crap these people want to teach children!? Lesson plan #1: How to be a bozo but not look like one. This guys proof of "brain liposuction."
Kurt Cameron and his pal Ray Comfort are sociopathic zealots. I actually watched one of their videos about 20 years ago back when I was still religious. It actually was one of the things that helped push me toward my eventual atheism a few years later.
These guys are complete idiots. And, in typical imbecile fashion, they have taken a few of Darwin's words completely out of context, twisting them in a direction opposite to his intent. Here is the full text from which the morons drew the quote in their video clip:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.
In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?"
In short, Darwin found evidence of gradual improvements in the eyes of invertebrate species, and he confidently inferred that the same kinds of evolution had taken place in vertebrates as well. Darwin published those words 163 years ago. Since then, new evidence confirming his conclusion has piled up, forming an unassailable edifice of scientific fact.