As he did last September, when we wrote Ken Ham: “Why Won’t Anyone Debate Me?”, we have a very similar complaint by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.
Hambo’s latest rant appears in his blog at the website of his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). You can read it here: What Is Dawkins’ Real Motive for Not Debating Creationists? Last year he was complaining about Bill Nye; this year it’s Richard Dawkins. But he’s saying the same things — and even his conclusion is the same. This time he says:
But what we’re really seeing is just the manifestation of the atheists’ real motive — an anti-Christian bias and intolerance of Christianity that’s growing in our culture. They are in rebellion against God and so they work hard to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” [scripture reference].
How very original! Last year he said:
It’s really the anti-Christian bias that is growing in our culture.
We’ve been through this before. We said pretty much all that there is to say a few years ago — see Would You Debate Ken Ham?, and there’s no need to repeat that again.
What we’ll do here is plod through ol’ Hambo’s latest to see if he has anything original to tell us. If we find anything, we’ll present it, and we’ll add a bit of bold font for emphasis.
Let’s see … he quotes some stuff from NCSE about why scientists shouldn’t debate creationists, but it’s the same material he quoted last year. And as before, he says: “They cannot find enough support for their ideas and they cannot refute the creationist view, so they just call biblical creation a ‘lie’ and refuse to debate!”
We’re looking for something new. How about this:
Well, famed UK evolutionist Richard Dawkins recently explained why he doesn’t debate biblical creationists — and his reasons are just as inflammatory.
Then he quotes Dawkins. We haven’t checked the quote for accuracy:
[Dawkins allegedly said:] “They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists,” Dawkins continued. “They may not win the argument — in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.”
What does Hambo say in response? Let’s read on:
Now, Dawkins is confident that a biblical creationist will not win an argument with an evolutionist — so why wouldn’t he debate a creationist? It’s not debates that give scientists credibility. We have many scientists on staff at Answers in Genesis who have the highest degrees in their fields — and they can perform observational science just as well as any scientists who believe in evolution. But Dawkins confuses operational (observational) science with historical science: [another quote from Dawkins].
Lordy, lordy. Observational science and historical science. We’ve debunked that silly dichotomy before — see Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. And we have a section on it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Hambo continues:
The claim that biblical creationists aren’t real scientists is similar to some atheists — like Dawkins — who resort to calling the teaching of creation “child abuse” and creation science “pseudoscience.”
No, it’s not similar. Dawkins is making sense. Hambo finishes with this:
I urge you to pray for Richard Dawkins that he will hear the gospel, repent, and believe — before it’s too late [scripture reference].
Right at the end he teases us by saying that he’ll soon be announcing that an “evolutionist,” although one who is not a scientist, has agreed to debate him. He promises to provide details later. Oh boy — a cliff hanger. This is really exciting!
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.