Ken Ham Slams Richard Dawkins' 5 Steps to Disprove God Claim
Creationist Ken Ham has hit back against atheist author Richard Dawkins' claim that the idea of God can be disproved in five steps, posting his counter-arguments for each reason.
Dawkins appeared earlier in December on a Norwegian-Swedish television show, where he gave five main reasons for why he believes that no God exists.
Dawkins admits that although it is the job of believers to prove that there is a God, rather than atheists to disprove one, a universe without a deity would indeed be very different from a universe with one.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Ham posted on his Facebook page on Thursday, however, that "Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists," before linking to an article on his Answers in Genesis blog where he counters Dawkins' arguments.
The Creation Museum CEO and president first took aim at Dawkins' position that Darwinian natural selection is the reason why things in the world looked designed, rather than because of God.
"What he never explains is how natural selection — a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information — is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years," Ham states.
"How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information?" he asks.
Secondly, Ham said that Dawkins is wrong to dismiss personal testimony of believers, who the atheist professor believes are hallucinating or are fooled, by arguing that God created human consciousness.
"Furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?" he asked.
"We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word."
Thirdly, Ham said that Dawkins is silly to suggest God doesn't exist because people can't answer what came before God, noting that God is "outside of space and time."
"He didn't have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity."
Next, the AiG President rebuked the suggestion that Charles Darwin explained how life exists without the need for God, claiming that Darwin was wrong "because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God's Word, not Darwin's ideas — kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don't see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life."
Finally, Ham took issue with Dawkins dismissing Pascal's Wager, which positions that it is better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell.
The creationist admitted, however, that Dawkins is right that God would not want someone who "slavishly pretends to believe something."
"Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by 'slavishly' pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10)," he added.
Ham has called out Dawkins on a number of occasions, calling him "closed minded" in October for criticizing GOP presidential candidates who identify as creationists.
He claimed that Dawkins "has spent most of his life rejecting the writings of Moses, particularly Genesis, and trying to get as many people as he can to follow his rebellious lifestyle that leads directly to Hell."
For his part, Dawkins has in the past said that he has no interest in debating creationists, because he doesn't want to give their views credibility.
