Skip to content

Welcome Kirk Cameron Fans

November 11, 2009


I see that there are hundreds of people finding this blog today through search engine searches for “kirk cameron wife” or “kirk cameron.”

We are big fans of Kirk around this blog and that’s what brings you here today.

Please do share, though, why there is a sudden increase in frequency of Kirk Cameron searches today.  I’m very curious.

Did Kirk do a TV or radio interview somewhere?


39 Comments leave one →
  1. November 11, 2009 6:11 pm

    Ah…. I might have discovered it. The Howard Stern Show played some Kirk Cameron clips this morning at 6am.

    Was that it???

    Are there any eighties ladies visiting today that would like to share some fond memories of Kirk?

  2. Stephanie permalink
    November 11, 2009 9:25 pm


    The picture is priceless! Thanks for making my day!


  3. November 11, 2009 9:49 pm

    We are big fans of Kirk around this blog and that’s what brings you here today.

    Now now Jessica… don’t go tarnishing all of your readers with that brush.

    If there are any haters dropping by the blog, come see me. 😉

  4. November 11, 2009 9:52 pm

    I was thinking of you specifically when I wrote that, Jack. So, read it with a little sarcasm in your tone. 🙂

  5. November 11, 2009 9:53 pm

    Ah. Clever woman.

  6. November 11, 2009 9:55 pm

    Seriously though. It’s weird how many people come to this blog in search of Kirk Cameron and then they get here and they can’t figure out why they landed here. This one guy wrote a post about it here:

    It’s too funny.

  7. November 11, 2009 11:19 pm

    Just learned another possible reason for Kirk Cameron’s increased popularity today.

    He and Ray Comfort are on a mission to give away free copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species on college campuses. Since the book is in the public domain Comfort is publishing a special 150-year anniversary edition that includes a 50-page introduction by Ray Comfort that counters the theory of evolution with arguments from Intelligent Design. A PDF version of the introduction can be accessed from this site:

    I read the first half and thought it was really good. I especially liked the arguments from paleontology and the section on the Cambrian Explosion. I think I understand why atheists yell loudly that Comfort is an “ignorant fool.” It’s easier to counter with personal attacks than reasonable, intelligent arguments. There’s also a video clip on Comfort’s website of Richard Dawkins telling students to just rip the 50-page introduction out if they receive a free copy of the book from Ray and Kirk. Now why would he tell them to do that if Comfort is only an “ignorant fool” who poses no threat to Dawkins’ disciples?

  8. November 12, 2009 12:25 am


  9. November 12, 2009 2:01 pm

    I consider ID and the Dawkins crowd to be merely two sides of the same coin.

    Both have mistakenly concluded that the primary purpose of religion is objectively proving whether God exists.

    It’s equally annoying to watch both sides.

  10. November 12, 2009 2:27 pm

    Yeah Seth, but how much do you luuuuurv Kirk Cameron? Do you own all his movies or do you only have a few pictures of him on the walls of your home?

    Honestly, try to keep up. 🙂

  11. November 12, 2009 6:46 pm

    Is he the kid from “Silver Spoons?”

  12. November 12, 2009 9:42 pm

    I don’t believe they are two sides of the same coin because they have opposing world views, and the Dawkins side, while claiming it wants to pursue truth, has made the a priori decision to exclude the idea of God before any proof as even been considered. Dawkins is not seeking to prove God exists… actually he could care less about God. He is willing to consider aliens planting life here before he would ever look to God.

    The argument between ID and the Dawkins types has more to do with whether the idea of a Creator should be removed from the arena of thought up-front or not. The problem as I see if is that if you remove the possibility a Creator existing before you ever look a the facts, how can you honestly say you are interested in truth? For you have already made up your *mind* and excluded a possibility. Yet science is supposed to be open to *all* possibilities and go wherever the evidence leads.

    Seth, you seem to dislike the idea of being able to approach God through ANY empirical method. I don’t understand why you feel this way. If we have evidence which rationally demonstrates that God exists, what is wrong with considering it? Is your fear that this takes away from faith?


  13. November 12, 2009 10:23 pm

    No, it’s the fact that all the empirical evidence I’ve seen so far turns out to shallow, unimpressive, and only noteworthy to people who believe for other reasons.

    Evangelicals who claim they’ve proven God exists by empirical means are just atheists waiting to happen.

    I’ve seen it countless times, and it makes me sick.

  14. November 12, 2009 10:50 pm

    “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign.”

    Those words are still quite true. Signs to those without faith are only so much trash to be trodden underfoot.

    Signs and evidence are only of use AFTER faith. To those who have faith, empirical arguments can be comforting and healthy. Arguments about the witnesses of the resurrection or the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, archeological echoes, apologetics…

    All this stuff only matters if you have the paradigm of faith to begin with.

    Just like love of your wife only flourishes in an atmosphere of trust.

    The moment you start demanding your wife objectively prove her love to you, the marriage is basically over. Once that trust, that faith, is broken, everything you once adored about her turns to ashes. Minor slights inflate into her intentionally trying to piss you off. Trust dies, every moment you are with her becomes a suspicious inquiry as to whether there was really any love there to begin with.

    And finally, nothing she does will ever be enough to satisfy you that the love was ever really there. It was just infatuation, impulse. You made a mistake. And so you leave her and go off looking for the next woman to get divorced to.

    Faith is like love. Because love itself, is a variety of faith.

    But the moment you demand proof, and that it be empirically established, there is no longer any love in your heart.

  15. November 12, 2009 11:06 pm

    Is he the kid from “Silver Spoons?”

    Do you really not know, Seth? (I haven’t seen “Silver Spoons” so I don’t know if this is a joke, I only know Cameron wasn’t in it.)

    Kirk Cameron is best known for his role as Mike Seaver on Growing Pains from 1985-1992. He converted to Christianity over the course of the show, when he was 17 or 18. Since then he has stuck to filming mostly family comedies and Christian films—some would say because he sucks and couldn’t make it in the secular market *cough*. He met his future wife, Chelsea Noble, while working on Growing Pains; she played Mike Seaver’s girlfriend on the show.

    I dislike Cameron’s ministry style and I think he’s a terrible actor, but I do appreciate that he’s a genuinely charitable person. He and Noble run Camp Firefly, a summer camp for terminally ill children. They have six children of their own, four adopted and two biological.

    His sister, Candace Cameron Bure, is also a well-known child actor from the ’80s and early ’90s. She played D. J. Tanner on Full House from 1987-1995. She is an evangelical Christian as well, though I’m not sure when she converted.

    There is your Kirk Cameron trivia. Rather pathetic that I know most of that off the top of my head…

  16. November 12, 2009 11:54 pm

    All I knew is that I remembered him from some show back when I was a kid. That’s about it.

  17. November 13, 2009 3:44 am

    “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign.” Those words are still quite true. Signs to those without faith are only so much trash to be trodden underfoot.

    I understand what you are saying here, but I don’t view looking at what God has created as evidence for His existence as seeking a sign. Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. [emphasis mine]”

    ID takes this to heart and seeks to demonstrate from God’s creation that it is possible (and actually almost undeniable) that He exists. They seek to demolish the secular/humanistic/atheistic arguments which pervade our society today. In reality, we have actually been called to do as much. 2 Cor 10:4-5:

    The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. [emphasis mine]

    I say all of this not to diminish the role of faith. For faith is necessary to approach Christ and save oneself. However, knowledge, while not a sufficient condition for faith, is most certainly a necessary condition for it. And, for those trapped in the seuclar arguments today, ID is a most wonderful weapon to demolish the arguments of the advesary. It helps those trapped by the argument of the secular world see how ridiculous those arguments are. They are shown that it is possible (and again, almost undeniable) that a Creator exists. This puts them in a position where they can then use that knowledge to come to faith in Christ.


  18. November 13, 2009 4:26 am

    Yeah Darrell, and I see the ID movement as nothing more than a foundation of sand that people have raised up as an idol in the place of God. I have never found the arguments of ID convincing in the slightest.

    People have become so obsessed with these “Gospel-hobbies” that they’ve completely lost touch with the central point of Christ.

    I once noted that idolatry is one of the defining problems facing the “Christian Right” (whatever that phrase means) and I still think the tendency to enshrine side-issues plagues the movement.

  19. November 13, 2009 4:42 am

    I have never found the arguments of ID convincing in the slightest.

    Have you watched The Privileged Planet or Unlocking the Mystery of Life?

    I love both of those DVD’s and think they have solid, reasonable arguments against evolutionary theories of our origins.

    Arguments from creation science research and ID have served to really encourage me in my faith at numerous times in my life. I haven’t noticed what you are referring to as far as people being obsessed with these “gospel-hobbies” – quite the contrary – in my experience many Christians are totally unaware of these resources and are living with divided minds. On the one hand they believe the Bible is true, but on the other hand they are being bombarded by a media onslaught that is seeking relentlessly to tear down their faith in what is true. I think creation science ministries and the ID movement are extremely important and have served the body of Christ well in the aftermath of Darwin’s popular science fiction novels.

  20. November 13, 2009 6:59 am

    And I don’t consider much of anything Darwin wrote to be a problem for a belief in God. So to me, it’s a silly debate from the get-go.

  21. November 13, 2009 11:47 am


    People have become so obsessed with these “Gospel-hobbies” that they’ve completely lost touch with the central point of Christ.

    You are very out of touch with the average Evangelical and/or the “Christian right.” Walk into nearly any Evangelical Church and ask the average Joe what the ID movement is and you will get a blank stare.

    And I don’t consider much of anything Darwin wrote to be a problem for a belief in God. So to me, it’s a silly debate from the get-go.

    You need to spend more time talking with college students if you think this is the case. Darwinian thought is a major tool the advesary is using against Christ. It is one of the contributing factors for the unfortunate statistic that 75% of youth are losing their faith by the time they reach their Junior year in college… and this statistic holds true for LDS too. I wish I had a link to a study I read handy. I will see if I can find it but may not be back on until sometime next week. I am out of town at a conference this weekend.

    God Bless!


  22. November 13, 2009 3:04 pm

    “Darwinian thought is a major tool the adversary is using against Christ.”

    So is college football.

    So is capitalism.

    What’s your point?

  23. November 13, 2009 8:03 pm

    And I don’t consider much of anything Darwin wrote to be a problem for a belief in God. So to me, it’s a silly debate from the get-go.

    Yeah, that’s my position, too. The only reason people lose faith in God when they learn about science is because they’ve got it stuck in their heads that the two must be mutually exclusive.

    Me, I’ll take truth wherever I can get it.

  24. November 14, 2009 1:24 am

    Darwin is well within the realm of science when he talks about microevolution and the evidence for changes below the species level. My objection is that he hypothesizes beyond the observable data to assume that macroevolution has occurred to which we have *no* evidence in the fossil record, with over 100 million fossils cataloged, and macroevolution is a mechanism which defies the principles of irreducible complexity (as demonstrated by Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box).

    I agree with what Darrell said earlier, though, that this is more of a worldview issue than a debate about scientific evidence. This issue is not going to be proven by the facts alone and both sides have some evidences in their favor and some hypotheses to make their worldviews work.

    I don’t blame evolutionists for positing that there is an imaginary cloud called Oort that generates comets. They have to create some hypothesis to explain how there could still be comets in a world that is billions of years old when comets disintegrate in about 100,000 yrs (The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Jason Lisle). If Oort works for their view even though there is no proof for Oort and no one has ever seen Oort then I say, more power to them. But they shouldn’t be so quick to ridicule others who also believe in things they haven’t seen.

  25. November 14, 2009 3:21 am

    Good points Jessica.

    Seth, if you put Darwinism and college football in the same catergory, I don’t know what more to say other than you have your head stuck in the sand.


  26. November 14, 2009 4:07 am

    If by having my head stuck in the sand you mean I don’t mistake the rants of right-wing radio jocks for religion, then yeah, guess it’s in there.

  27. November 14, 2009 6:47 am


    OK, I’ll admit it – that comeback of mine sucked.

    Darrell, you’ve got to feed me better material if I’m going to keep my blogging edge. The inspiration just ain’t happening…

    But I do stand by the football comment. College football is sooo much more spiritually damaging than Darwinism – if for no other reason than more Americans pay attention to it and know what it is.

  28. November 14, 2009 11:26 am

    Your angry rants against rightwing-this and religious-right-that generally suck.

    Good thing you have other redeeming qualities.

  29. November 14, 2009 12:39 pm

    Darwinism and football are nothing alike when it comes to the subject of God.

    Football is sport that in and of itself is neither good or bad. It does not teach or have anything to do with God, It is the ABUSE of football that is bad – getting addicted to it to the point where it becomes your God. I would put it in a category much like chocolate. A little bit of it, in moderation, can actually be wonderful, but the abuse of it is wrong. So, the subject “football” is nethier good nor bad. It jsut is… it is how we use it that is bad.

    Darwinism on the other hand is a PHILOSOPHY that is at its heart bad, for it teaches that man is an animal and God does not exist. It takes the scientific theory of macro-evolution and turns it into a philosophy that removes God from the picture. This is at its heart bad.

    Not sure how you can compare a sport which is neither good/evil to a Philosophy which is Anti-God. They are nothing alike.

    In addition, I have yet to talk to a college or high school student who says they lost their faith in God due to football… Darwinism on the other hand is a whole other story.

    Besides, football doesn’t bother us protestants. Out churches are done by the time football starts in the afternoon as we have our meetings in the morning. It is only the Mormon wards that have afternoon meetings that have issues with football. So, from my perspective, if some Mormons quit going to church and lose their faith over football that is kind of good!! (tongue-in-cheek) 🙂


  30. November 14, 2009 12:53 pm

    You should see the letters to the editor at the BYU newspaper around Superbowl time, Darrell. There’s always a hilarious debate about whether or not it’s acceptable to attend a Superbowl party on the Sabbath. Oh, the dilemma…

    And then when Boobgate happened at the Superbowl in 2004, all of the self-righteous Superbowl party haters felt morally vindicated. Too funny. Makes me miss BYU.

  31. November 14, 2009 4:47 pm

    Darwinism is neutral as well – you either use it or misuse it.

    I think you are confusing scientific Darwinism with social Darwinism Darrell. Neither do you seem to have a particularly good grasp of what the original man Darwin asserted.

    And since I accept evolution and I believe in God, I think that pretty-much disproves your assertion that the two are incompatible.

  32. November 14, 2009 4:50 pm

    “I have yet to talk to a college or high school student who says they lost their faith in God due to football”

    It’s one of many things that compete with God for our attention. And I would say that football has been far more effective in distracting people from God and blunting spirituality than some academic debate that few Americans even understand.

    But yes, football is morally neutral. As is evolution.

  33. Kevin Couvillon permalink
    November 14, 2009 4:53 pm

    Hey there, mind if I add a few thoughts into the conversation. I see there is a bit of confusion in the purposes of defending ID as opposed to direct witness of those who do not understand the true savior and His purpose. I will begin by citing an example. I had a friend who approached me who has been reading Dan Brown’s book about the corruption of the scripture. He told me that he no longer believes the Bible is in inerrant and inspired word of God, denying it altogether. I began talking to him but after a few encouraging exchanges, we parted paths. I did not want to argue with him because he needed faith to believe in the bible, not convincing. Or so I thought. A month later he approached me excited, with a gleam in his eyes. He went to a bible study that helped bring his faith back into the Bible! Praise God! But I was actually troubled by my actions. Why did I not defend the Bible with love and lead him back into the path of truth to begin with? I assumed his heart, and I was wrong.
    Why is it important to teach others about ID? Because we all have shortcomings in our faith, questions about our walk with God that need answering. The Holy Spirit is there to teach us, no doubt, but questions are also answered by other followers of God who have been through the same experiences. Did David admit his sin without the Nathans parable? Did Jesus disciples need correcting as they followed the savior Himself? As I grow in my Christian faith I see the world in a new light. I see Satan attacking believers in new ways I have not encountered, just as with my friend. But we cannot see the world as black in white, following and denying. There are also those who want to see, but need a nudge in the right direction. There are also those who need a way to communicate their faith with the world. Imagine a teenager defending creation in a public classroom, pointing out the innumerable lies given by the teacher. Is that an opportunity, or what!?!?!
    The point in defending ID is in the dangers within evolution. It is not some harmless form of thought that does not strike unless provoked. Evolution is a religion for atheism! It is their gospel they want to spread to confuse the world into believing that God does not exist! God shows himself in His creation as Darrell stated the verse in Romans 1:20. When China turned to Communism in 1949 the missionaries stated that they did not come in and force communism on the population all at once. The first thing they did was taught evolution! Evolution is the backbone of Communism, Nazism, racism, Marxism, and many other dictatorships. Evolution removes God from power and replaces God with himself (or government, which brings dictators to god-status). This began the World Wars, leading Hitler to destroy the lower forms for higher forms such as found in Germany.
    “Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.” – Adoff Hitler (Hitler’s Table Talk, p. 248)
    So, why is ID important? It is not because of what it is, but because of what it can be in the mind of the world. If you are concerned about the path of others, then this should be a fight that we all should take on, but never apart from the Gospel of Christ, as a door to the saving grace of Christ for our sins.

  34. Stephanie permalink
    November 14, 2009 5:59 pm

    Hi Kevin! 🙂

    Good points!

  35. November 14, 2009 9:33 pm

    “Evolution is a religion for atheism”

    Pure unfounded hyperbole.

  36. NChristine permalink
    November 14, 2009 11:38 pm


    As much as Kirk Cameron gets joked about on this site, I heartily recommend the introduction to Ray Comfort’s recent publication of On the Origin of Species. Jessica linked to it above, and I will link to it here again. (It’s the PDF file.) I read it through the other night and found it well-written and easy to read. The reason I suggest it is twofold: It both summarized a very strong case against evolution and also discussed the impact of Darwin’s emerging beliefs on his religious views. I would be curious of your thoughts on it if you read it (about 50 shortish pages).


  37. November 17, 2009 3:51 pm


    There is a difference between holding Darwinian type beliefs in macro/micor evolution and incorporating Darwinism as a world-view. A Darwinian Worldview seeks to push God out of the arena and say that those who believe in him are fools. It is one of the tools being used on college campuses and by the New Atheists.

    Honestly, I can easily see how you would hold a Mormon Worldview and incorporate a belief in Macro/Micro-Evolution into it. Personally, I see Mormon beliefs in the errancy of The Bible and Eternal Progression (??Spiritual Evolution??) as being very compatable in many ways with Macro-Evolution.

    On the other hand, a Christian Worldview, is not compatable with a Darwinian Worldview. Micro-Evolution, yes. Macro-evolution or a Darwinian Worldview… no.


  38. November 17, 2009 8:46 pm


    If I reworded “Evolution is a religion for atheism” to “Evolution is part of the worldview of the Atheist religion”, would that be hyperbole?

  39. November 18, 2009 2:36 am

    No, that sounds fine Gundeck.

    Darrell, as a theological matter, I don’t particularly much care how God decided to make things on this planet work. And I never advocated for evolution as a good ideological match for any of the social sciences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: