Ken Ham hits Richard Dawkins for six

Now, based on his [Richard Dawkins’] comments about “people who put the Bible ahead of scientific evidence,” Dawkins is obviously against people putting their beliefs “ahead of scientific evidence.” But this is exactly what those who believe in evolution do! Evolutionists put their belief in naturalism first, and ignore any evidence that contradicts their position.

For example, everything we see in nature confirms the law of biogenesis. This law states that life only comes from other life. Despite years of study, we’ve never seen an exception to this rule, nor do we know of any mechanism that could bring life from non-life. And yet, according to evolutionary ideas, life had to come from non-life at least once when the first non-living chemicals came to life. So Dawkins and others who accept Darwinian evolution put their belief that life arose naturalistically ahead of what we actually observe in science.

Quote source

Ham, K. (2015). Who’s Really (Falsely) Indoctrinating Kids? Available https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/03/02/whos-really-falsely-indoctrinating-kids/. Last accessed 6th Jun 2015.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Ken Ham hits Richard Dawkins for six

  1. That’s almost a glib response. The fact is if life didn’t arise spontaneously, there is no other explanation on offer that accords with the observable facts of the universe. God certainly isn’t an answer. Who created god? Is God even alive? Do you see the knots youre tying yourself into?

    1. Hang on, how can you dismiss (a supernatural) God when your naturalism and scientism has no way of interacting with him?

      You miss the point when you pin down your opinions about the past to the “observable facts of the universe.” There could well be facts that are unobservable.

      You remind me of this quote:

      “When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” (Dennis Lindsay, “The Dinosaur Dilemma,” Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)

      As for who made God, that question smuggles in the assumption that he was made, and you haven’t established that as an observable fact of the universe. I think you need to watch the DVD Who Made God: Can There be an Uncreated Creator?

      Your way of thinking is “it’s only a fish if my net catches it.”

      God certainly is an answer, but you have epistemological tunnel vision.

      My epistemology is bigger than yours, and I want you to lift your game.

  2. “Evolution: The changed state of a system of energy — an entropic adaptation.”
    — KDC

    Evolution does not equate to atheism, and atheism does not equate to evolution. One is a scientific process, the other a social construct.

    1. That quoted definition isn’t very instructive, nor is it definitive enough for our purposes here. It’s not enough to say that energy is the be-all and end-all of evolution. Using that approach, God creating Adam from the ground is a changed system of energy—but that’s creation.

      To muddy the waters, feminists have said that scientific processes are social constructs. (Here, I think the term ‘scientific’ is equivocal; perhaps you meant to say ‘naturalistic.’)

      But moving on, if atheism does not equate to evolution, I’d like you to elaborate on this before I assess your claim. If atheism doesn’t allow for creation, how else did humans come to exist?

      Your claim of atheism as a social construct is also contingent; it wouldn’t be universally accepted by atheists, because it depends on whether atheism is a belief or a lack of belief.

      If atheism is a belief, then it can be fashioned as a construct—but many atheists (rational ones) insist that it’s best construed as a lack of belief.

      In that light, a past commenter claimed that atheism is a lack of belief, and that infants are therefore atheists. If that’s true, is it appropriate to say that lack-of-belief (as it exists in an infant’s mind) is a social construct?

      I didn’t think your comments were that great, but at least they were better than Kevin V Russell’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s