Ken Ham ‘Debunks’ Richard Dawkins

This is creationion science at it’s best, dear reader. It’s a battle of intellectual giants. In one corner, we have Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. Ol’ Hambo is famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building Ark Encounter, an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

And in the other corner we have Richard Dawkins, who needs no introduction.

However, this is no ordinary battle. In fact, it’s entirely imaginary. Ol’ Hambo refers to a video that features Dawkins, and then he tells us why Dawkins gets everything wrong.

Hambo’s post is titled We Agree with Richard Dawkins (Sort Of). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and bible references omitted:

Famed UK evolutionist Richard Dawkins recently appeared in an interesting video posted to the website Big Think. In this video, the atheist and biologist argues for objective truth and the importance of both intuition and evidence. Now, we don’t say this very often, but we actually agree with some of the points that Richard Dawkins maks in this video! He says, “Science . . . is committed to objective truth” and “science works.”

[…]

Now, we would agree with Dawkins here — observational (or operational) science works! And it only works because we don’t live in a universe that arose by natural processes, such as the one Dawkins believes in. If the universe were a result of such random processes, why should we expect the laws of nature to work the same tomorrow as they did today? And why would they work the same here on earth as they do throughout the universe? Why should everything be orderly and predictable? This only makes sense in a biblical worldview where there is a Creator who has ordered everything and upholds the universe and who created the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

Yes. Everything is orderly and predictable — except for all those miracles that the bible tells us about. Then he brings up an old clunker:

Of course, Dawkins fails to make a distinction between operational science (which is testable, observable, and repeatable) and historical science (which is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable).

For our rebuttal of that, see Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then Hambo quotes Dawkins:

The only reason to believe anything is true is that there’s evidence.

Aha! Now Hambo rips into him:

It’s ironic that he urges scientists to discard their hypotheses and not allow emotional attachment to influence their decision if their ideas aren’t supported by evidence. But does he actually practice what he preaches? Not at all. His inconsistencies are glaring! Molecules-to-man evolution is not supported by the evidence, and several lines of evidence soundly argue against the possibility of such a notion. For example,

Hambo presents three killer arguments against evolution:

The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from other life. Evolutionary origin-of-life stories break this scientific law. Despite years of trying in laboratories, scientists have never been able to create life from nonlife and there is no observational evidence that such a thing could have happened.

DNA is a complex language system, and language systems only come from an intelligent mind. They never arise by random chance. Evolutionists cannot satisfactorily explain the origin of DNA.

Evolution requires the addition of vast amounts of brand-new genetic information to turn an amoeba into a man. Yet there is no known process that adds this necessary genetic information.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The so-called “law” of biogenesis is debunked in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. As for DNA being “a complex language system,” that’s debunked at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims — see The genetic code is a language. And Hambo’s nonsense about “genetic information” is debunked in Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.

After unleashing his killer arguments, Hambo tells us:

Evolutionists have to ignore the evidence when it comes to all of these questions (and more!) and come up with “just-so” stories to explain what might have happened. But these stories aren’t based on operational science. They’re based on imagination and speculation. According to Dawkins’ statements, he should no longer be an evolutionist! Why is he holding on to a bankrupt antiscientific idea? Because this is a spiritual battle, and he is in rebellion against God.

Yes, that explains it. Hambo continues:

Sadly, Dawkins argues for objective truth while ignoring the ultimate objective truth — God’s Word. It is true throughout the ages, regardless of culture, and regardless of whether anyone believes it or not.

Dawkins is a fool! And now we come to the end:

It is our prayer that someday, before it is too late, Richard Dawkins will recognize his need of a Savior and will repent and trust in Christ.

So there you are, dear reader. The great battle is over. The droolers are cheering wildly. Dawkins has been defeated, and Hambo has once again demonstrated that he is the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Ken Ham ‘Debunks’ Richard Dawkins

  1. You make an exception for miracles that the Bible tells us about.
    Don’t forget the miracles that creationists make up, in order to protect themselves from acknowedging stuff that they don’t like.
    Then there are the “designs”, which are, well, what are they? Are they miracles, because God does them? Or are they non-miracles because we can deduce their existence in the past, by using our scientific knowledge of the past?

  2. It’s certainly an odd tactic to take. I mean, Ham’s preferred “Troof” is… gasp… historical!!

  3. Derek Freyberg

    A “battle of intellectual giants”?
    More like Gulliver beset by one Lilliputian.

  4. Now, we would agree with Dawkins here — observational (or operational) science works! And it only works because we don’t live in a universe that arose by natural processes, such as the one Dawkins believes in. If the universe were a result of such random processes, why should we expect the laws of nature to work the same tomorrow as they did today? And why would they work the same here on earth as they do throughout the universe? Why should everything be orderly and predictable? This only makes sense in a biblical worldview where there is a Creator who has ordered everything and upholds the universe and who created the laws of nature and the laws of logic.

    And who breaks those laws whenever he feels like doing so to make a point.

    Moving on, notice how the Hamster conflates natural processes with random ones. Apparently he just can’t believe that natural laws could actually exist; everything has to be micromanaged by God.

    Creationists of his ilk like to think of God as the supreme Designer, but any human engineer who designed a machine every part of which he (or she) had to oversee constantly wouldn’t stay on payroll very long.

  5. Michael Fugate

    Isn’t creationism refuted by biogenesis too? Life has to either come from non-life or life has to have always existed.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    Hambo laments:

    “Why is he [Dawkins] holding on to a bankrupt antiscientific idea? Because this is a spiritual battle [bold added], and he is in rebellion against God.

    So now all that remains for Hambo to defeat Dawkins is to simply align his Creationist world view with those demonic denizens of disorder which mischievously always appear just in time to thwart Hambo’s best plans.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    In today’s upside down world where people pick their own truth, this starting to get completely frustrating. Hambo is in his own little bubble. Why are people so stupid.

  8. I don’t understand why people pick one person rather than another. There are many people claiming that they have the right info. Why pick X rather than Y? None of stick to the Bible – that would be impossible.

  9. “observational (or operational) science works!”
    Except radiometry of course.
    Of course Ol’Hambo is the one who maintains that science doesn’t always work – like regarding resurrections for instance. According to science they are very unorderly and unpredictable events.

  10. The approaches of the creationist to things are inconsistent. It depends on what he wants at the moment. And I mean a “moment”. And his followers have to have a short attention span.
    It is not like a clever and devious plan being worked out. It’s one thing and then something totally other. At once, we know the laws of thermodynamics prove such-and-such. And then the laws of nature are not known in the past. God is omnipotent, yet he was wouldn’t do this, and his ways are not known to us, and we know that he designs according to the unchanging laws of nature.

  11. Dave Luckett

    There is no such thing as a “spiritual battle” unless you mean something that happens in a saloon. Or immediately outside one.

  12. What about in Paradise Lost, Book VI?

  13. It is our prayer that someday, before it is too late, Richard Dawkins will recognize his need of a Savior and will repent and trust in Christ.

    If that should ever come to pass then we know for sure hell has frozen over.

  14. Hambo says “If the universe were a result of such random processes, why should we expect the laws of nature to work the same tomorrow as they did today?”….. Because the present is the key to the past McFly. When we see modern beach sediments in a cross section and they look just like an outcrop of beach sediments from the Devonian, guess what? Its a Devonian beach deposit put there by the same processes that create modern beach sediments and stratigraphy.
    High school science and Logic 101 clearly were not the Bone Man’s forte.

  15. TomS: “The approaches of the creationist to things are inconsistent.”

    Yes. That the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow as today means there is a creator. But, for example, the speed of light was much faster in the past, which helps them solve the starlight problem. And, as mentioned earlier, radioactive decay was different, too, which solves many other pesky problems.

    It’s more than inconsistency, it’s mutually exclusive and divergent lines of evidence.

  16. “It’s more than insonsistency” struck me. But that’s no hyperbole. For there is also that gaping hole of negativity, where there is the niche for explaining the world of life: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

  17. The reason why the “laws of nature will be the same tomorrow” (actually the behavior of the universe does not change) is that there is no one who could change them. Thus we can expect them to remain constant.

  18. Or as Ken Ham should have tweeted but probably hasn’t:

    Tweets, current
    Ken Ham‏ @aigkenham hours ago

    Science works; the universe was created and didn’t arise by natural processes. Except when it DOESN’T work; it can’t discover the past, so we need the Bible for that.

  19. Michael Fugate

    What’s interesting about Ham’s “science” is he concludes that before humans were created the only way to know the truth is revelation from God because God was an eye-witness. The problem is humans were supposed to be there for the flood – so if eye-witness testimony is so much better than historical science, why did the Bible get it so wrong? Why is the evidence not compatible with a world-wide flood in the last 5000 years?

  20. I disagree that if Dawkins were to convert and submit to God, that hell has frozen over. To me, it would indicate that Dawkins has some kind of brain disease such as dementia. If such an event occurs, get him to a geriatric doctor immediately.