Last week we posted Ken Ham Wants To Debate Bill Nye, in which we said:
We hope he [Bill Nye] ignores Hambo and his silly challenge. We explained our position on such things three years ago. See Would You Debate Ken Ham? Basically, there’s nothing to debate. It’s like the absurdity of astronauts debating with moon-landing deniers.
That was our response to the second or third time there was a reaction from Answers in Genesis (AIG) to the viral video about which we had earlier posted Bill Nye Blasts Creationism. AIG is one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.
Bill Nye has so far had the good sense to ignore AIG, so there’s yet another rant about it at Hambo’s personal blog: Why Won’t the Evolutionists Debate? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
[O]ver the years I’ve found that many evolutionists refuse to debate creationists. In the Duane Gish era, they used to debate, but I think because they couldn’t win, they then resorted to refusing to debate and instead they just personally attack creationists and make all sorts of false claims about creation and evolution.
After experiencing the Gish gallop, science representatives realized that debating creationists was hopeless. One can’t “win” a debate with such people, or with the Time Cube guy either, so why bother? Hambo’s post continues:
A few years back, one of the editions of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE is an anti-creation organization headed up by atheist Dr. Eugenie Scott) was dedicated to convincing evolutionists why they should not debate creationists. One of the authors disparaged creationism and accused creation scientists of telling lies during debates: …
The quote from NCSE is at Hambo’s blog, but here’s a sample: “It is a tremendous waste of time for the scientist to wade through half-truths and urban legends … .” Let’s read some more from Hambo:
So what do they mean by “lie”? They mean they can’t answer the arguments, so they call them a lie — and then refuse to debate! This secularist author’s reasoning is really just the typical sort of attack they launch on creation and creationists! Just call names and make accusations — no substance at all!
Yes, science has no substance. Hambo continues:
We also need to understand that we’re all looking at the same “evidence” — our worldview is what affects our interpretation of this evidence in relation to the past. Claiming there is “no evidence” for biblical creation and that creationists operate on “half-truths and urban legends” is not sound, respectful reasoning. It’s merely an unfounded excuse to escape having to debate a scientist with a view that happens to contradict their evolutionary view, which they hold as fact! In reality, evolution and millions of years are their way of explaining life without God — their religion.
We’ve discussed that “same facts, different worldviews” before, so we’ll skip it this time. But we can’t help mentioning that if your worldview leads you to believe in Noah’s Ark, maybe you should step back and reconsider it. Well, you know all that. Here’s more from Hambo:
In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, who is known for often refusing to debate Christians, dismissed creationists, saying, “There aren’t two theories. There’s only one theory around; there’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. Of course, you’ll get negative reactions from creationists. But who cares about creationists? They don’t know anything”
Gotta love Dawkins! Moving along:
So what are the common “reasons” these evolutionists claim they refuse to engage creationists in debate? Well, they include the following: alleged lack of evidence for creation; comparisons of creationism to ideas easily disproved by observational science, such as a flat earth; evolution is true, so there is no debate; and so on. They all turn out to be poorly-reasoned attacks. And I would submit that these attacks are just a deflection to avoid losing more debates against creationists.
Did you get that, dear reader? We reason poorly and we’re afraid to debate creationists. In response, all we can say is: Nice try, Hambo, but you still can’t goad anyone into debating you. Here’s another excerpt:
So what nasty things are evolutionists saying about our challenge to Bill Nye? Here are a couple of recent quotes from some well-known blogs:
Now it gets interesting. One of the two blogs Hambo quotes is this one. He even provides a link to one of our older posts: Would You Debate Ken Ham? That one is three years old and comments are closed, but we may get some of Hambo’s traffic here. That should be fun. On with Hambo’s article:
If there is no evidence for biblical creation and the debate really is settled on evolution, why not debate creationists? The evolutionists should be able to win easily, right?
It’s really the same reason the secular media will promote someone like Bill Nye and his video but not promote the video of AiG scientists.
And what’s that reason, Hambo? He tells us at the end of his post:
It’s really the anti-Christian bias that is growing in our culture.
No, Hambo, that’s not it. But if you insist that your Creation Museum represents Christianity, it might seem that way to you.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.