ICR: Unanswered Questions Prove Creationism

This is another goodie about creation science from the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They’re the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Their latest essay is Basic Questions Remain for the Secular Scientist, and it illustrates another foundational principle of creation science:

Ignorance of X is evidence of Y.

In other words, if something isn’t yet fully understood, then the answer must be … Oogity Boogity! We can see this principle at work today in ICR’s marvelous article. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

As we proceed into the 21st century, secular scientists are still attempting to eke out a purely material explanation for the origin of the universe and life on this planet. They will not succeed.

A bold prediction! What else do they have for us? Here it comes:

New Scientist magazine is a popular British publication for scientist and layman alike. In July 2011, it asked “Why does the universe exist at all?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Biblical explanations are not tolerated, of course, which leads evolutionists to suggest unsatisfying alternatives such as “perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.”

The article they’re talking about is probably this: Existence special: Cosmic mysteries, human questions. Biblical explanations are not tolerated? Maybe they’re not even suggested. Creationism was incorporated into scripture at the time of the Babylonian empire, and it’s generally understood that science has made some progress since then. Let’s read on:

But the supposed Big Bang itself has a host of problems. In fact, the most basic of all scientific laws — the law of cause and effect (no effect can be greater than its cause) — becomes so much rubbish if the cosmos is the product of chaos, appearing and then evolving by chance.

The “law of cause and effect”? Why weren’t we taught that one? We continue:

Not only that, but what is the universe made of? Secular science doesn’t know: “Trouble is, we still haven’t a clue what most of the stuff is made from.” [Alleged quote from somewhere.]

Presumably, creation scientists know what the universe is made of. Maybe one day they’ll tell us. Here’s more:

Attempted explanations of organic life springing from inorganic non-life (abiogenesis) fare no better. Currently, evolutionists envision a primeval molecule called an RNA (ribonucleic acid) replictor that somehow assembled itself in Darwin’s “primordial soup.” But there is no geologic evidence for this soup or for how such reactive nucleotides could begin to accumulate and organize themselves.

Egad! We never realized there was no geologic evidence for the primordial soup. That puts us at a tremendous disadvantage, compared to established creation teachings like the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark. Moving along:

As scientists’ knowledge of cellular complexity continues to escalate, some evolutionists see it as increasingly unrealistic that such an entity arose spontaneously. Is it any wonder they conveniently bypass sophisticated bio-chemical challenges of spontaneous abiogenesis by simply saying it was “something like a cell right from the start”? Problem solved!

No competent scientist says the first cell “arose spontaneously” (whatever that means), but let’s not get into that. Another excerpt:

Nevertheless, evolutionists as a whole are confident they have the right idea: [ICR gives a quote from a scientist predicting that life will soon be created in the lab].

In response to that, ICR says:

Don’t hold your breath — good science says otherwise. Life only comes from life.

That’s another scientific law we were never taught. And now we come to the end:

The wonderful message of creation is not one of chance, time, and natural processes, but one of purpose and plan from the mind of the Creator Himself.

So there you are. As long as anything remains unknown, the creationists will claim that they were right along.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “ICR: Unanswered Questions Prove Creationism

  1. [ICR gives a quote from a scientist predicting that life will soon be created in the lab].

    If someone “creates” life in the lab, wouldn’t that be evidence that “intelligent design” could make life? As things stand today, life seems to arise ordinarily by naturalistic processes without purposeful intervention.

  2. The author cannot believe that a relatively simple molecule arose over hundreds of millions years out of the chemical stew and energies of the primitive earth which replicated itself, and began the history of evolution, but the same author can believe – in fact thinks it’s crazy not to believe – that an invisible, ineffable supernatural entity poofed all of life into existence in less than a week.

    Someday, in the future, this will be deemed to be a treatable psychological illness.

  3. TomS asks:

    If someone “creates” life in the lab, wouldn’t that be evidence that “intelligent design” could make life?

    So they say. To me, however, it means that it’s such a natural event that mere humans can do it. No miracles required.

  4. “The wonderful message of creation is not one of chance, time, and natural processes, but one of purpose and plan from the mind of the Creator Himself.”
    And that’s where the problem arises- if you’re looking that hard for something (a “message”) without acknowledging first the possibility that it may not be there, you’re applying a confirmation bias and pareidolia to the whole universe; and you will find what you’re looking for, rather than just see what you’re looking at.
    ‘Secular science doesn’t know: “Trouble is, we still haven’t a clue what most of the stuff is made from.” [Alleged quote from somewhere.]’
    I suspect the source for that quote is the same as the one for this:
    “…perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.”
    That would be Mr. Strawman.

  5. ‘Secular science doesn’t know: “Trouble is, we still haven’t a clue what most of the stuff is made from.” [Alleged quote from somewhere.]’

    I suspect that this quote is taken from someone that was taking about Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which we still only have vague ideas on what they are.

  6. Flakey, I have been surprised that the faithful have not pointed to Dark Matter and Dark Energy as the mysterious presence of God–far vaster than the material universe as we have always known it and completely undetectable through direct observation. Yet they can be inferred from their influence on material objects. The Apostle Paul urged us to believe the evidence of things not seen. Friends and brethren, here it is!

    If within a couple of years you read about a preacher referring to Dark Matter and Dark Energy as the Right Hand and the Left Hand of God, that will be me. I’ll be starting up a new religion to compete with Scientology and LDS, only with a more credible back story. All I have to do is work out the system to scare people into sending me cash. Lots of cash. I will also accept checks, money orders, Mastercard, or Visa.

  7. Curmudgeon: “As long as anything remains unknown, the creationists will claim that they were right along.”

    That’s whan you say: “Hmm, (insert name of other creationist) says that he’s right, but his origins story contradicts yours. Have you challenged him, and if not, will you?” Their reaction will be a clue as to whether you’re dealing with a true believer or a scam artist.