Why do atheists consider grifters like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking to be more credible than qualified scientists such as Dr. Ken Ham and Dr. Kent Hovind?

 1. Scientific Credentials:

The perceived credibility of scientists, whether by atheists or any other group, is generally based on their scientific credentials, adherence to the scientific method, and contributions to their respective fields. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are widely respected figures in the scientific community due to their significant contributions to evolutionary biology and theoretical physics, respectively. Their work is grounded in rigorous research, publications, and academic achievements, which contribute to their credibility among those who value evidence-based scientific principles.

2. Mainstream Scientific Consensus:

The distinction between scientists like Dawkins and Hawking and individuals like Dr. Ken Ham and Dr. Kent Hovind often lies in the acceptance or rejection of mainstream scientific consensus. Dawkins and Hawking align with widely accepted scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang, which have withstood extensive scrutiny and are supported by a vast body of evidence. In contrast, Ham and Hovind, while holding doctorates, are associated with Young Earth Creationism, a viewpoint that diverges from mainstream scientific understanding and is considered by many scientists as pseudoscientific.

3. Adherence to Scientific Principles:

Scientific credibility is closely tied to the adherence to scientific principles, including rigorous research methodologies, peer-reviewed publications, and a willingness to subject ideas to scrutiny within the scientific community. Dawkins and Hawking's work aligns with these principles, contributing to their credibility, while the rejection of mainstream scientific consensus by Ham and Hovind places them outside the scientific mainstream. Atheists, like any other group, may tend to value scientific credibility based on these principles.

4. Diverse Perspectives:

It's crucial to recognize the diversity of perspectives within any community, including atheists. Individuals within this group may have varying views on scientists and their credibility based on their understanding of scientific principles. The key factor remains the adherence to established scientific methodologies and consensus, which forms the basis for credibility within the scientific community. Ultimately, the assessment of credibility should be rooted in an understanding of the scientific method and the broader body of evidence supporting scientific theories.