atheism · Bible · Christianity · creationism · evolution · religion · science

Ken Ham calls Richard Dawkins ‘inconsistent’ for criticizing indoctrination while Dawkins indoctrinates

richard_dawkinsAtheist Richard Dawkins recently made statements in TIME magazine and the Irish Times criticizing religious parents for indoctrinating their children. It didn’t take long for Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis to respond to the many criticisms that Dawkins put forth.

One of Dawkins’ criticisms was that Christians and other religious people “forc[e] on them un-evidenced opinions about the nature of life or the cosmos” when it comes to their children.Ken Ham Ken Ham’s response was “Yes, we have assumptions and presuppositions, such as the Bible is God’s Word and, because it was written by a perfect God, it is perfectly true and reliable. But secularists also have assumptions and presuppositions! They assume that life arose naturalistically, that supernatural explanations are not possible, that the universe is billions of years old, and that God does not exist. This is a religion! A religion of purposeless, meaningless, naturalistic atheism.” Ham goes on to say, “not only does God’s Word explain the world as it is today, but observational science confirms it.”

Dawkins also stated, “…you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents… Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.” But by taking such a stance, Ham noted this about Dawkins–‘So children need to be “protected” from religion by having a “proper education” so they won’t be “indoctrinated.” But Dawkins believes that children should be taught evolutionary naturalism as fact. He wants his religion of naturalism imposed on them. So children shouldn’t be taught religion by their parents—they should be taught the religion of atheism by their teachers! All Dawkins is advocating is replacing one religion with another religion. You can’t raise or educate children “neutrally.” There is no neutrality! When you take away supposed “religion” …then all you have done is replaced it with another religion—the religion secular humanism.’

When Dawkins criticized the religious for putting “the Bible ahead of scientific evidence”, Ham explained that “as biblical creationists, we do start with the Bible and we interpret the scientific evidence in light of what the Bible says.” Then he further stated that putting one’s beliefs ahead of scientific evidence “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.”

For more of Mr. Ham’s poignant comments on Dawkins’ recent statements, you can read his article “Who’s Really (Falsely) Indoctrinating Kids?” at the Answers in Genesis website.

Source: Leah MarieAnn Klett, Ken Hams Slams Richard Dawkins’ Argument that Children are ‘Indoctrinated’ by Christian Parents, GospelHerald.com, March 5, 2015.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Ken Ham calls Richard Dawkins ‘inconsistent’ for criticizing indoctrination while Dawkins indoctrinates

  1. What else can you expect from someone who said that science makes God unnecessary? On the other hand, their is no proof that God exists (although I believe he does) or that the Bible was written by God or that the Bible is true and reliable (there are way too many inconsistencies that indicate otherwise). The reason that non-believers react so strongly to these kinds of assumptions, as you put it, is that so many Christians take these assumptions as literal proof and proclaim that they, and only they, will be saved. Since there are no universal Christian beliefs, who is to say what a true Christian is, anyway? Is he a Mormon, a Catholic or a Fundamentalist, all of which have different holy books which they each claim is the one unerring Word of God. See the problem?

    Like

    1. [their (sic) is no proof that God exists]

      I have to disagree with you on that. There’s far more proof of God’s existence than for macroevolution. Romans 1 says

      “19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

      20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

      God has made his existence so obvious no one has any justifiable excuse for denying it. Every human is born with the self-evident truth of his existence.

      Like

      1. I agree with you that every human is born with the self-evident truth of God’s existence (which is a spiritual concept), however that is different from saying there is proof in the physical world. Attempting to use the Bible as proof is simply circular reasoning, especially when Christians can not agree on which Bible is the one and only, unerring Word of God.

        Like

      2. chicago,

        Please do more research on your own. It seems that you are just taking the word of evolutionists/atheists around you without examining all the facts. The Romans 1 scripture I pointed out to you before says that God has clearly manifested himself in the physical world by the things that are made. The Bible centuries ago spoke of true scientific things in our physical world that true science much later found to be true. For example, the Bible says everything in creation can give praise to God (in other words, it can emit sound) and science has now caught up with that concept after much scientific testing. Only someone who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent could have known that before instruments were created to actually discover it’s true.

        Additionally, there are at least 155 universal constants that must be sustained simultaneously for life to exist and thrive on Earth. This speaks of a grand design, not randomness (as evolutionists claim). And there has to be someone more powerful and more knowledgeable than all of these constants to have the foreknowledge to make all of it possible simultaneously.

        And there is much more overwhelming proof of our God. This link gives more–> 101 scientific facts & foreknowledge in the Bible.

        Like

  2. Harry, you really misinterpreted my comments. I am not an atheist. I believe in a Creator. My point is that there is no proof certain that God exists, although there is certainly plenty of circumstantial evidence, some of which you pointed out. The Bible, for example, is not proof. It is circumstantial evidence. One doesn’t need to be a lawyer or a scientist to understand that. When someone uses the Bible to try to prove that God exists or that a certain religious doctrine is correct, that’s “circular reasoning”. You, of all people, should know better.

    Like

    1. chicago,

      I didn’t say you were an atheist. I’m sorry if that’s how you took it. What I was saying is that you have been influenced by them. You use the same arguments they have used when I’ve had discussions with them.

      I think I need to back up and lay down some definitions to further explain my stance:

      manifest: Plain, open, clearly visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; apparent; not obscure or difficult to be seen or understood. (1828 Webster’s–he used KJV to define words)

      evidence: something which shows that something else exists or is true; a visible sign of something; something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter. (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

      proof: cogent (relevant, convincing) evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact; the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning; something that induces certainty or establishes validity; evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal. (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

      When one takes into account the whole body of evidence from the Bible and looks at how it plays out in the physical world, it is way past circumstantial to the point of being cogent evidence, or proof. God has manifest himself, made himself plain and obvious, by all of the scientific proof in the material world and by the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies even in our times. That’s hardly circular reasoning. It’s evidence that renders proof. Even a just judge if given all of the evidence, including the links from my previous comment, would have to rule that the burden of proof of God’s existence has been reached and surpassed. To deny it is to deceive oneself, just as Paul says in Romans 1.

      This type of evidence is how people are found guilty if they are truly guilty or innocent if they’re really innocent even if the judge or jury was not an eyewitness to the event. They didn’t have to be there to see if the person accused was at the scene or committed the act, based on evidence that reaches the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

      Like

      1. So tell me Nick, which Christian denominations have doctrine that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible? And which Bible? I think that it is safe to say that Mormons, Catholics and Fundamentalists do not agree with each other’s interpretations of the Bible. They even have different Bibles.

        Like

      2. If the truth is so obvious, why does the Bible tell you to search for it? The answer to that question is tied to the fact that the major Christian denominations can not even agree on doctrine or on what is actually the Word of God, so they each have their own Bible so that they can define the Word of God their own way. So tell me, which group(s) are the only true Christians who have access to God’s eternal wisdom and which Christians are simply impostors. Anyone answering this question during the first 1,000 years of Christianity would had to have said that the Catholics were the only ones who knew the Word of God. Funny thing is, most Christians today reject Catholicism.

        Like

      3. [If the truth is so obvious, why does the Bible tell you to search for it?]

        chicago,

        Glad you asked.

        obvious: easily discovered, seen, or understood (Merriam-Webster)

        By its very definition, obvious doesn’t mean you don’t ever have to search for it. It just means it’s not difficult to find when one looks for it. In order to discover something, one must do a search and the idea of discovery is part of the definition of “obvious.”

        God even says he’s not hard to find– “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?” Jeremiah 23:23. If the true God is easy to find, so is his truth.

        [So tell me, which group(s) are the only true Christians who have access to God’s eternal wisdom and which Christians are simply impostors. Anyone answering this question during the first 1,000 years of Christianity would had to have said that the Catholics were the only ones who knew the Word of God.]

        Once again, chicago, you’re making assumptions based on what you’ve been told without doing more thorough research. Catholicism didn’t get its start until the 300s AD when emperor Constantine the Great made it the state religion of the Roman Empire. Genuine Christians resisted and ran from it and were persecuted by it from its beginning. The Roman Catholic Church attempted to hijack true Christianity and still continues that tradition today by falsely claiming Peter was its first Pope.

        God doesn’t contradict himself by tearing down his own words. That’s how we know who is telling the truth. If God says don’t bow down or pray to any graven images, yet a church venerates, kisses, and prays to statues or other “religious” relics, then how can it be the truth? If God says all you have to do is have faith in the Son and believe in him, and you’ll be saved and considered righteous, then any church that teaches you must be baptized or a member of their particular church or you have to observe Lent or you have to pray to a dead saint or observe the eucharist in their church to be saved, then that church is teaching you can only be saved by your own works and contradicts what God says. It is teaching that Jesus’ sinless sacrifice and resurrection weren’t enough to cleanse us from sin. Therefore, it isn’t teaching truth.

        If God said thou shalt not kill (i.e. murder), but love one another, then a church that teaches it’s okay to hate and murder people that aren’t in your group isn’t teaching truth. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him,” 1 John 3:15. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is filled with hatred and the blood of innocent people from the Crusades to the Inquisitions to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln to their aid in helping Hitler rise to power by violence to their helping Nazis escape to North and South America, etc.

        Like

      4. Of course, I’ve done the research (50 years of it) and I agree with you about Catholicism. Unfortunately, that doesn’t answer the difference in church doctrine. There is no one Christianity. By the way, just because you and I agree on Catholicism doesn’t mean that they agree with us (obviously they don’t). So the question remains: What’s the true beliefs of Christianity? Who decides? Martin Luther or people who came later and reinterpreted the Word of God? Same problem in Judaism as they argue over who is a real Jew. With regards to science and the Bible, only hard-core Christians believe that there is significant scientific validity in the Bible. More to the point, the Bible says that man was created some 5,000 years ago, which of course has been scientifically proven in so many ways to be incorrect. As far as biblical prophecies is concerned, Jesus was not named Immanuel. That’s what I call an inconvenient truth.

        Like

      5. [I agree with you about Catholicism]

        chicago,

        From my viewpoint it looks like you contradict yourself on this. In your previous comment you stated, “So tell me, which group(s) are the only true Christian… Anyone answering this question during the first 1,000 years of Christianity would had to have said that the Catholics were the only ones who knew the Word of God.” I was making the point that this statement can’t be true since Catholicism didn’t start until the 300s and when it did start, true Christians rejected it. It appears we’re not in agreement on Catholicism.

        [There is no one Christianity.]

        Actually, there is just one. We can find it in Jesus’ words in John 14:6–“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Then we have verification of this Christianity in Acts 4:12 from the apostles–“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Then Paul further confirms this in Galatians 1:7-9–“…there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” He also confirms in Ephesians 2:8-9 that we are only saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone. That’s the only way to be Christian. Those who say otherwise–like Mormons & JWs & Catholics–cannot be Christian.

        [just because you and I agree on Catholicism doesn’t mean that they agree with us]

        Christianity is not based on whether or not they agree with us. Christianity is based on what God has revealed, not what man thinks Christianity should be based on, according to man-made doctrines or man-made traditions.

        [What’s the true beliefs of Christianity? Who decides? Martin Luther or people who came later and reinterpreted the Word of God?]

        Since Christianity is really about who gets into God’s house, then it’s the Master of God’s house who decides. That would be God himself. He makes plain what is truly his word. The New Testament was completed by 100 AD through the apostles and other disciples. We have the thousands of manuscripts that make up the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus which are all in agreement as to basic Christian truths and doctrines as found in the kjv or other non-English versions that use only those manuscripts, preserved by God himself and passed down through the true saints from the 1st century and forward–who feared God enough not to add to or take away from his word.

        Paul said, “…the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” Romans 10. God’s word is truth and we don’t have to go up to heaven to retrieve it from Jesus or descend to the place of the dead to bring it up. It’s already close by.

        [With regards to science and the Bible, only hard-core Christians believe that there is significant scientific validity in the Bible]

        And only hardcore Christians believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, so if you’re implying we have to get approval from other people who are on the broad way (that leads to destruction) to validate our salvation or other truths in the Bible, you have your faith in the wrong thing.

        [the Bible says that man was created some 5,000 years ago, which of course has been scientifically proven in so many ways to be incorrect.]

        So now you’re back to making assumptions based on the false claims of God-haters. Haven’t you kept up with scientific news lately and how the scientists you put your faith in are finding something else wrong just about every week with their Big Bang Theory? How they come up with new scientific-sounding guesses to cover their previous errors just so they can do away with God and his call for them to repent of their sins? Evolutionists can’t even find any transitional fossils whatsoever to prove their macroevolution so they make things up as they go along. And you’ve fallen for it. The overwhelming evidence actually favors a young Earth.

        [As far as biblical prophecies is concerned, Jesus was not named Immanuel.]

        And I guess I should trust a statement from someone who questions what truth is or where or how we should find it. Or who has shown in his previous comments to this post that he has a hard time knowing what the definitions of some basic words like “proof” or “evidence” or “obvious” really mean.

        Like

      6. As far as Jesus not being named Immanuel is concerned, that’s not what I say, that’s what the Bible says (see Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23). Ergo, Jesus did not fulfill Jewish prophecy (the Old Testament/Jewish Bible). That’s why the Jews didn’t accept Jesus as their own messiah. Never mind that the whole Old Testament concept of a messiah was not one of a divine nature as the prophets never believed in a divine messiah. It was Christianity that reinterpreted Scripture and turned Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a universal savior of all men. It’s been enjoyable chatting with you but in the end a closed mind is a dangerous thing (i.e. people that believe that they have already found God, stop looking for him). By the way, I found it almost amusing that you didn’t want to specifically respond to the science of when man was created although you originally trumpeted your “101 scientific facts in the Bible”. Harry, I wish you all the best living in that bubble that you define as Young Earth.

        Like

      7. [Jesus did not fulfill Jewish prophecy (the Old Testament/Jewish Bible). That’s why the Jews didn’t accept Jesus as their own messiah.]

        chicago,

        Not that you really have a good handle on understanding Bible prophecy or anything, but the fact that the Jews would reject Jesus their Messiah and would hate him was prophesied (Isaiah 53:3, Psalm 35:19) and that they would do so because of their rejection of God, not because Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 29:13).

        [I found it almost amusing that you didn’t want to specifically respond to the science of when man was created]

        What’s amusing, chicago, is that I did respond to when man was created when I supplied the link on information about a young Earth in my last comment. Since you missed it or didn’t read it or it went over your head let me explain it like this. Those who believe in a young Earth such as myself also believe man was created not long after the Earth was. So young Earth evidence, including evidence of the worldwide flood during Earth’s early years, go hand-in-hand. Addressing young Earth evidence with my previous link would also address when man was created. Sorry you didn’t understand that. But then again, given your previous comments, I see there are many things you fail to understand since you have allowed pride and Satan to blind your eyes to the truth.

        Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall, so I pray for your sake you one day put on enough humility to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus for your salvation before your soul is lost for eternity.

        Like

  3. Chicago,

    I’m not Gaylord smart, but I just want to add my 2 cents.

    If you believe the bible to be Gods word, then you should know that there will be may false prophets and teachers. How can we know the truth you ask? Well I guess it’s like 2 scientific theories, you compare which one has more inconsistencies and discrepancies. For example Jehovas witness don’t believe in a triune God, whereas the bible clearly teaches from the beginning of genesis that he is a triune God. So how can the Jehovas witness have the truth when they hold to doctrines that are contrary to the bible. So I think it is safe to say, we can determine the truth, by comparing it to the truth of the bible. If a certain Christian denomination has doctrine contrary to the teachings of the bible, then I think it is clear that they are not the “truth”

    God bless.

    Like

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