Lead Creationist Says No Scientific Proof of Intelligent Design

Lead Creationist Says No Scientific Proof of Intelligent Design

A leading creationist and the president of “Answers in Genesis,” Ken Ham, has said that there is no scientific proof of intelligent design. In a radio advertisement last week, Ham told listeners that scientific proof is not necessary for belief in creationism because the bible is all the proof that’s needed. The commercial is being broadcast to promote the Creationism Museum in Kentucky.

Ham went on to explain that while many creationists would like to find scientific proof to explain intelligent design, they’re barking up the wrong tree, because they have a different kind of proof already, and that proof is the Bible.

“You know, many of us would love to have the final proof that evolution’s a lie; the right scientific proof will silence those opposed to biblical creation forever, right?” Ham posited.  “Well, no,” he said. “You see, Romans Chapter one tells us that God has revealed himself to man in nature, so there’s no excuse for denying the witness of creation.”

Ham also said that people should not rely on things like reason or critical thinking ability to explain their beliefs, but rather, simply show anyone who doubts creationism a copy of the Bible.

“In fact, we have solid proof in our hands that evolution’s a lie: the Bible,” Ham said. “You see, we can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics. We present the evidence and do the best we can to convince people the truth of God by always pointing them to the Bible.”

The admission comes as a contrast to views of some in the creationism movement, who seek to discredit evolution by proving theories such as “The universe and the solar system were suddenly created” and “Life was suddenly created.”

Many websites and organizations seek to use the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics to explain why creationism makes sense. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, states the following on its website:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created.

Ham’s statements, though, contradict the efforts of such organizations, because in his opinion, looking toward scientific principles for explanation is not going to be sufficient.

The estimated percentage of scientists who believe in evolution is between 95-99.9%. Those scientists say that the earth has existed for billions of years and continues to evolve. According to a website about evolution from the University of California at Berkeley:

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago. The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time.

Whether or not this new admission by lead creationist Ken Ham will make waves in the creationism community remains to be seen. Ham says there is no scientific proof of Intelligent Design. Will his statements be accepted or rejected by most creationists?

By: Rebecca Savastio

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

12 Responses to "Lead Creationist Says No Scientific Proof of Intelligent Design"

  1. DarwinsMyth   October 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Not every creationist is a Bible believing Christian. Ken Ham is speaking from a Christian’s perspective.
    Biblical faith isn’t blind faith. Faith simply means, confidence. Also, God expects us to use REASON in order to believe… “Come now, let us reason together…” (Is.1:18). Also, 1Peter 3:15 says,”Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the REASON for the hope that you have…”.

    To the writer of this blog… WHERE did Ken Ham say,”There is no proof for intelligent design”? You should give a reference so such a statement can be confirmed. As of right now, I believe, you had listened or read wrong, OR, misinterpreted what Ken Ham had said. You certainly didn’t give an exact quote in your blog.

    Ken Ham saying,”that scientific proof is not necessary for belief in creationism because the Bible is all the proof that’s needed”, IS NOT the same thing as saying,”There is no proof for intelligent design”.

    For the Christian, the Bible should be first and foremost when it comes to truth. Scientific evidence against evolution (which Ham rightly said, there is plenty of proof that evolution is a lie!) is evidence that favors the Bible.

    Reply
  2. Desertphile   August 20, 2013 at 6:32 am

    The phrase “scientific proof” is an oxymoron, of course. He is 100% correct that there is no evidence of Creationism.

    Reply
    • DarwinsMyth   October 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      For the fact that you are HERE, and every other living thing on this planet is HERE, is evidence that favors Special Creation… UNLESS, you know have some scientific evidence where life can spontaneously arise from non-living matter, through some mindless, purposeless process? I didn’t think so.

      Whether you like it or not, since God is beyond the reach of natural science, God will always be the default answer to how life was created, until proven otherwise… and abiogenesis has been falsified by real science.

      Reply
  3. AzureD   August 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    That is a really bad example. You do not need faith to feel or see that you are sitting on a chair. You can experience it directly and can verify with others that you are indeed sitting on a chair with multiple senses.

    Reply
  4. AzureD   August 19, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    That guy is a philosopher and his arguments boil down to arguments from incredulity and makes rhetorical statements and thinks they are true because they sound true.

    Reply
  5. nelson.james   August 19, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    New York University atheist professor Thomas Nagel, in his recent book ” Mind and Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception Of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”, summarizes on his last page a more up-to-date intellectual view of neo-Darwinism. He states,” I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two– though of course it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid.” The main point being is that current evolutionary theory is seriously lacking in its explanatory power to accommodate the existence of digital base four information processing systems by random forces.

    Reply
  6. Dave Musgrave   August 19, 2013 at 7:50 am

    Not that we needed to – and not that we were not going to – but we win.

    Reply
  7. Olaf   August 19, 2013 at 6:45 am

    “The estimated percentage of scientists who believe in evolution is between 95-99.9%.”
    I wonder why someone would be interested in numbers what scientists “belive”. Believe or unbelieve do not change facts in either direction. Religion is based on authority, Science is based on observation, thesis, experiments and falsification.
    Religion does not work, Science does.
    While the concepts of religion and science are mutual exclusives, humans are a fascinating species able to combine both by lying about/ignoring details for one or the other concept to one self.

    Reply
  8. Dave Balchin   August 19, 2013 at 2:24 am

    It’s important to remember the prefix to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which The Institute for Creation Research always leaves off) – “In a CLOSED SYSTEM, matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states”. By leaving off the first 4 words, the evolutionary theory doesn’t work. By including the first 4 words, (which is indeed what the “law” says) the theory of evolution works. Earth is not a closed system, therefore it doesn’t break the 2nd law of thermodynamics to find evolution here.

    Reply
  9. William Fraser   August 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Ken Ham!
    Your claims have HUGE denominational, scientific and legal problems.
    Im wondering why Hambone hasn’t already submitted his research to a science journal like Nature for peer review and publication? That way, he could collect his Nobel Prize!
    Could it be because he is an unethical charlatan?
    All science organizations in America have issued statements clearly saying creationism and intelligent design creationism are not science and that its claims have no scientific merit. NO university science departments in accredited schools teach creationism. Many mainstream Christian denominations have released statements critical of intelligent design creation and supportive of science and creationism in particular.
    AND the US courts have ruled that creationism is religion not science.
    Christians who intentionally lie about science and who attack logic and reason and the scientific method are, well, disgraceful.
    Will

    Reply
  10. Shane Gramling (@ShaneGramling)   August 18, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    If having faith involved using scientific measurements, then we wouldn’t have to have faith/believe in anything. Just as you don’t have to believe you are sitting in a chair – you can feel, touch, and see that chair so there is no need to believe it exists, or that it supports your weight. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not precieved (or measured).

    Reply
    • olasonn   August 19, 2013 at 6:46 am

      Actually, Shane…faith is believing something for no good reason…and in this case against good reason.
      I can’t imagine why anyone would do that.

      Reply

Your Thoughts?