Everyone knows who Richard Dawkins is. And our regular readers have seen our commentary on Ben Carson, one of those running for the Republican nomination in the 2016 Presidential election. Our last post about him was Is Ben Carson Insane?
What could be better for this humble blog than to have both Dawkins and Carson discussed by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Ol’ Hambo just put this up at his blog: Richard Dawkins Chides a Real Scientist. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
On CNN November 1, TV host Fareed Zakaria interviewed atheist/religious zealot* Richard Dawkins. And no surprise, Dawkins, in his usual disparaging style, derided anyone who believes God created the universe and all life and reject the fairy-tale belief that all life arose by natural processes. [That asterisk after the word “zealot” is explained at the end: “The worldview of atheism is a religion … .]
Here’s a YouTube video of that interview. It’s just under five minutes long. Okay, back to Hambo:
Dawkins particularly disparaged Dr. Ben Carson, running for US President. In this interview, Dawkins made the false claim (that he’s made many times) that “evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.” He went on to say this about Dr. Carson: “He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject. That is a terrible indictment.”
Yes, that’s what Dawkins said. Let’s read on, as Hambo flies into a rage:
Actually, by making such an ignorant and nonsensical statement, Dawkins is disproving his own accusation! Obviously, Dr. Carson didn’t need to believe in evolution to become a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon with sophisticated skills at age 33, receive 67 honorary doctorate degrees, separate conjoined twins, [etc., etc.] How does that impressive list line up with what Richard Dawkins has accomplished in this world?
Aaaargh!! No one doubts that Carson is a skilled surgeon. But it’s also true that he has no grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of biology. Well, a pilot can fly an aircraft even if he doesn’t understand the physics involved, so it’s clear that one can be a skilled technician even when he lacks a theoretical knowledge of the the field in which he works, and Carson is a good example. Hambo continues:
And if Dr. Carson can achieve all these accomplishments without believing in evolution, what then does evolution have to do with medicine? As I challenged TV’s Bill Nye “the Science Guy” (and I have also challenged Dawkins), name one technological advancement (including one medical advancement) that could not have come about without a belief in evolution? Well, there are no such examples.
Aaaargh!! Actually, there are some examples in the TalkOriginis Index to Creationist Claims — see The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application. We gave our own answer back in the first year of this humble blog — Discovery Institute: Toad-Tested Medicine!
But even if there were no practical benefits to evolution, so what? Where are the practical benefits of astronomy? Other than improved telescopes, it’s difficult to think of any. What has our knowledge of Pluto or the moons of Jupiter ever done for you? Nevertheless, no sane person would doubt that astronomy is a genuine science that describes our reality. Well, a creationist might express doubts, but who cares? Here’s more:
Evolution is not the “bedrock” of biology or medicine! Evolution is a fairy tale, akin to reading children the story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or of Cinderella and her pumpkin coach!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another example of a fairy tale would be Genesis, because we don’t know how Adam & Eve or Noah’s Ark could help Carson in his surgery any more than Cinderella. Anyway, we’ll move along in Hambo’s wonderful rant:
Dr. Carson is a real scientist. What are Dawkins’ accomplishments for the advancement of medicine or biology?
Lordy, lordy. We won’t bother with that. Well, we might ask what any of Hambo’s creation scientists have done with their creationism, but you all know the answer. Here’s another excerpt:
In this interview, Dawkins claimed that molecular genetics was the best evidence for evolution. He compared the DNA of humans and chimps as an example. But Dr. Dawkins is not telling the public the truth about this comparison. I discussed Dr. Dawkins’ claim with Dr. Georgia Purdom, a researcher, writer, and speaker with Answers in Genesis. … Here is what she states about the true nature of this comparison:
[Hambo quotes sweet Georgia Purdom:] Dawkins stated in the interview that scientists can compare the DNA of humans and chimps and count the differences. I would agree the problem is that many evolutionists don’t count all the differences in their final numbers resulting in 98–99% similarity. They have concluded that either these differences aren’t important (based on absolutely no experimental evidence) or they just ignore the differences because they are so numerous that they don’t fit the evolutionary paradigm of common ancestry. … Just the opposite of what Dawkins states, molecular genetics is absolutely consistent with biblical creation and absolutely inconsistent with molecules-to-man evolution.
[*Groan*] Skipping several paragraphs of bible quotes, Hambo says:
In some ways, however, Richard Dawkins and I are alike. He is zealous for his beliefs about atheism; I am zealous for my beliefs concerning the truth of God’s Word and the gospel. He wants to reach as many people as he can with his message of atheism; I want to go into all the world and preach the gospel to as many people as I can.
That paragraph was interesting. Here’s one last excerpt:
I often ponder why Dawkins even cares what others believe, given that his belief is that people cease to exist when they die, and so no one will ultimately know anything — they won’t know why they ever existed. It’s really a spiritual issue, and Dawkins has to aggressively suppress the truth to try to convince himself that what is obvious to all is not true!
It’s not a question of what happens — if anything — after we die. The important issue is what kind of world we live in while we’re alive, and what kind of people are making the rules. Do you think you’d be better off in Dawkins’ world, or Hambo’s? It’s your choice, dear reader.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.