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.