Jason Lisle: All Science Is Creation Science

You’re familiar with Jason Lisle. He used to be with Answers in Genesis, but he recently moved to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

At his new employer, Jason holds the exalted position of Director of Research, but his biography can still be found at the AIG website, so we don’t know what his status is at AIG. Anyway, his latest article is at the ICR website: The Importance of Creation Research.

We know the title intrigues you, so let’s get right into it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

All science is creation science. Science is possible precisely because God upholds the universe in a consistent way that the human mind can (at least partially) understand. If the universe were merely the result of chance, then there would be no reason to expect it to obey laws.

But creationists don’t think “God upholds the universe in a consistent way.” If he did, there wouldn’t be any miracles. What’s consistent about the six days of creation? What’s consistent about Noah’s Flood? It’s only science that reveals the existence and universality of the laws of nature. Ah well, we’re dealing with Jason here, so let’s see if he has anything else to say:

Even granting the existence of laws, there would be no reason to think that such laws would be mathematical in nature or understandable by the human mind. Nor would there be any reason to expect any kind of consistency in those laws over space and time. (Why would the same laws that apply on earth today also apply on Mars next Thursday?)

He’s saying the same thing over and over again. Look, Jason: An electron is an electron. It’s always going to behave like an electron, because that’s what it is. No supernatural force is required to prevent it from transmuting into pineapple. It’s transubstantiation that requires God. Let’s read on:

The existence and properties of laws of nature are the expectation of the biblical creationist, but make no sense in an evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the fact that science is possible is a powerful confirmation of biblical creation.

Aaaargh!! He continues:

Even when evolutionists make a scientific discovery, they are inadvertently confirming creation because such a discovery would not be possible if God were not upholding the universe in a logical and understandable way. Every single scientific discovery that has ever been made is a confirmation of the Christian worldview. This is one of the reasons why we do science. It honors God.

Lordy, lordy. We don’t know how much more of this we can take. We’ll skim a bit to see if there’s anything else:

Secular scientists are inconsistent. They expect the universe to behave in a logical, consistent way since they know in their heart-of-hearts that it is upheld by the power of God. Yet, they profess that the universe is not upheld by the power of God.

Yeah. You see that beaker of H2O? What keeps it from being H69O? Deep down, in your heart-of-hearts, you know it’s God. And that means you’re a creation scientist! Here’s more:

Creation research can help expose secular inconsistency. A number of specific lines of evidence in geology, biology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry are very difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective. [Skipping Jason's examples.] Since a devout evolutionist can always invoke an auxiliary hypothesis to explain these data, we do not use these scientific evidences to prove creation in an absolute sense. But we can certainly use them to get people thinking and to show some serious difficulties with evolution.

Ah, they don’t use evidence to explain things, but they nevertheless delight in listing what they claim are evolution’s problems. Skipping a bit more, we come to this:

But Christians are called to a higher standard. We want to be accurate in everything we do. And so we subject every new claim to rigorous analysis and testing and publish the results in peer-reviewed literature, so that other experts in the field can check for potential problems.

They do that? We haven’t noticed. Here’s Jason’s final paragraph:

Why is it that ICR scientists spend so much time and effort scrutinizing every little detail of data for absolute accuracy? It is because we are followers of Christ. “Accurate” basically means “true.” And since Christians follow Christ, who is the truth, all Christians should be concerned for accuracy and should have the highest regard for creation research.

If you can figure any of that out, dear reader, then please explain it to us. We don’t know what Jason’s talking about.

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

43 responses to “Jason Lisle: All Science Is Creation Science

  1. christine Janis

    “Why is it that ICR scientists spend so much time and effort scrutinizing every little detail of data for absolute accuracy?”

    Every little detail of data that was actually collected by those cursed “secular scientists”

  2. Charley Horse

    I think we are witnessing the progressive effects of mental illness.
    This is nuttier than the stuff his former employer puts out.
    Seriously, I think this is evidence for why he is
    at ICR and not AIG.

  3. It’s like living in the book 1984.

    I can sort of understand how people read this but I have no-clue how someone can write this. I’d love to see a brain scan of this guy.

  4. Charley Horse says: “I think we are witnessing the progressive effects of mental illness.”

    You must try to understand. It makes sense to me, in the same way that all of history proves that I am Napoleon.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    The existence and properties of laws of nature are the expectation of the biblical creationist, but make no sense in an evolutionary worldview. Therefore, the fact that science is possible is a powerful confirmation of biblical creation.

    The word “therefore” should set off logic alarms. I think it is being used here like this: ‘All tables have four legs. Your dog has four legs. Therefore your dog is a table.’

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    Let me try to explain this. We all know the Bible says in several places that the circumference of a circle is precisely 3 times the diameter. Secular scientists try to haggle over some decimal points, but the true answer is still precisely 3.

    Why 3? Because the bible tells us that 3 is the perfect number of the trinity. And the creationists also know that jesus is the son of god but they are both exactly the same age. Which to some secularists seems to require some haggling over decimal points.

    In Lisle’ s world, it is just as naturally lawful to have Pi = 3 exactly, as it is to have a son and father who are the same age exactly.

    And next time you are in church, feel free to take something out of the offering basket as it goes by, since it won’t affect the end total in any way.

  7. Simply put, Lisle is a liar. Either he lied when he BS’d his way to a PhD or he’s lying now. Either way he’s a prevaricator which, according to Dante, if I recall correctly, is worse than a fornicator. I guess one could actually call Lisle a traitor which according to Dante is the worst of the worst of the worst and occupied the deepest ring of the Inferno. As I recall. More erudite commenters may correct me at will and I accept their slings and arrows.

  8. As I understand it Jason is saying that if you are a true Christian you can see the reality
    of God’s creationism and that he, like all
    creationists can rewrite natural laws based on
    his particular brand of Biblical interpretation.
    To put it another way, Jason says the non Christians can not possibly understand real science. Because they’re not special, like he is.
    Jason doesn’t need logic because these things
    (logic and reason and the scientific method)
    are all covered under the religious phrase
    “that surpasses all understanding”. For
    Jason , “Pass the Kool-Aid” just means lunch
    break after Bible study. Unfortunately most
    major Christian denominations don’t agre with Jason. No problem . Heretics.
    Jason is sharing his version of love.
    Most of the world calls it ignorance and hatred,
    but hey, they’re all going to burn.
    Seriously? Jason’s a sociopath, a liar and
    possibly psychotic. AIG is perfect for him.

  9. I liked Jason better when he surrounded his name with stuff like ‘Dr.’ and ‘PhD.’ What caused him to stop doing that?

  10. Hey Ceterus, great comments. And yes Lisle
    gets to take something out of the collection basket every 2 weeks. I liked his discovery
    of REALLY heavy water in his article.
    He’ll pray for you, you non Christian you.

  11. retiredsciguy

    The Curmudgeon says, “It makes sense to me, in the same way that all of history proves that I am Napoleon.”

    You’re nuts. I am Napoleon! But I am a gracious leader. You may be Napoleon next week.

  12. retiredsciguy

    Now, as for Jason Lisle? He is truly nuts.

  13. Who will be the first to identify the source of this:

    ‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.

    ‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’

    ‘Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’

    I won’t tease you. It’s from Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part III, Chapter 2.

  14. 2plus2 equals 3?
    2plus equals 5 sometimes?
    Aha, it’s conclusive evidence!
    The interrogators in 1984 WERE
    geologists! I knew it….:$

  15. New Jason Lisle tag line?
    ” Creationism! Because reading one
    book is a lot easier than studying a bunch
    of difficult ones”
    I think it has a certain resonance.:)

  16. You’re nuts. I am Napoleon! But I am a gracious leader. You may be Napoleon next week.

    May I be Napoleon the week after next? His birthday is the 15th.

  17. NeonNoodle says: “May I be Napoleon the week after next?”

    No true Napoleon asks permission to be Napoleon. You either are you you aren’t. And I am.

  18. I felt like I was on crazy pills reading that. “Nothing in the universe has any nature or follows any laws of physics unless God MAKES everything sit up and behave. Oh, and just accept my idea of a universe that just flies apart unless a deity is out there holding everything together. I don’t have to prove it, because you know in your heart that it’s true.”

  19. Aitch, Yes and in your heart you know Curmudgeon is Napoleon, this week.
    I, am on the other hand, the Shah of Iran.

  20. Given that Lisle has an astrophysics Ph.D. from a secular university, the University of Colorado, it is beyond garden variety lying for him to use “backward-rotating planets” as one of his examples of “…specific lines of evidence in geology, biology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry are very difficult to explain from an evolutionary perspective.”

  21. Why bother even debating with this lying fool? His psychological conditioning is so severe he will never see reality. These people are incorrigible. They try so hard to appear intelligent in attempting to challenge us with their drivel but they always end up looking stupid. I’m sure Lisle thinks he is being clever. But in the final analysis, he’s just an ignorant idiot. As they all are.

  22. I too never claimed to be Napoleon. It’s totally ridiculous to think I’m Napoleon. Just because I was Napoleon in my past life doesn’t mean I’m Napoleon now! In this life, I’m Albert Einstein. ;op

  23. retiredsciguy

    The Curmudgeon: “No true Napoleon asks permission to be Napoleon. You either are you you aren’t. And I am.”

    As I said, Mr. Curmudgeon; not until next week. You must await your turn. You are testing my patience; don’t make me get short.

  24. retiredsciguy

    Aitch, speaking for Lisle: “Oh, and just accept my idea of a universe that just flies apart unless a deity is out there holding everything together.”

    Guess that’s why the Higgs boson is called the God particle, eh?

  25. Mark Joseph

    Take Jason’s article (please! ;-). Change the words “Bible” to “Koran,” “God” to “Allah,” and “Christians” to “Muslims,” and his argument carries the same force and the same truth value; it works exactly the same. In other words, he’s just babbling.

  26. Ceteris Paribus

    “His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy.”
    – Woody Allen

  27. Spector567: “I’d love to see a brain scan of this guy.”

    You will need a special scanner. All the photons reflecting off of Jason Lisle travel instantaneously to their appointed destination.

  28. Nor would there be any reason to expect any kind of consistency in those laws over space and time. >

    No, Jason, actually there would not be any reason to expect them to be different. A universe in which natural laws changed, or worked in inexplicable ways, is much more consistent with a universe manipulated by some unseen force. You can make the argument as much as you like, but it’s simply wrong, and in your “heart of hearts” you know it’s wrong.

    Since a devout evolutionist can always invoke an auxiliary hypothesis to explain these data, we do not use these scientific evidences to prove creation in an absolute sense.

    In other words, since a scientist can always show a naturalistic explanation for even our best arguments, we fail completely.

  29. I think judicious application of Ockham’s Razor shows the poor man to be sinking into insanity. Sad, really.

  30. My irony meter broke when I found the following on a web site I was introduced to in an email to my web site. A place called “Contender Ministries” has a Mail Bag page. In the section where they reply to someone’s correspondence about Unitarian Universalism it reads:
    “Do you believe in immutable natural laws? I do. For instance, I believe in
    the law of gravity. I believe that if it weren’t for gravity, we’d all fly
    off the surface of the earth, due to another natural law – inertia. I can’t
    see gravity or inertia, but I believe they exist because the preponderance
    of the evidence indicates that they do. Even if I chose to not believe in
    them, they wouldn’t cease to exist. ”

    I replied to the person who sent me the link:
    IF they believe in things such as gravity because of the preponderance of the evidence, then WHY don’t they also accept the fact of evolution for the same reason? By the way, “Laws” in science are not like ordinary laws that imply a lawmaker, courts and punishment. “Laws” in science just mean “observed regularities of nature.”

    Another point to make here is their use of the word believe. I do not believe in evolution. I accept it as a fact on nature just as I accept gravity, and for the same reason: because of the preponderance of evidence (to use the language from the Contender Ministries web site).

    To the regular readers of The Sensuous Curmudgeon:
    Yes I know these points have been made here and many other places many times by many people. I just found that Contender Ministries Mail Bag quotation a couple days ago and then read this article about Jason Lisle and was reminded of it. Hey, anyone wanna mine that quote?

  31. The Bicycling Guitarist said: “My irony meter broke when … I accept gravity. Hey, anyone wanna mine that quote?”

  32. “And so we subject every new claim to rigorous analysis and testing and publish the results in peer-reviewed literature”

    If I has not just put my coffee down before reading that, the Curmudgeon would owe me a new keyboard.

  33. Charley Horse

    But what’s this got to do with Chick-fil-A?

  34. ashley haworth-roberts

    My email just sent to the ICR:

    http://www.icr.org/article/6917/
    “If the universe were merely the result of chance, then there would be
    no reason to expect it to obey laws.” ‘Uniformity’ – one of Lisle’s
    favourite themes – NOT to be confused with the dreaded
    ‘uniformitarianism’! But why NOT? Especially mathematical laws and
    principles.
    “Every single scientific discovery that has ever been made is a
    confirmation of the Christian worldview.” Ah yes, if Christianity was
    not true science would be totally impossible. And maths would not even
    work. Of course!
    “They expect the universe to behave in a logical, consistent way since
    they know in their heart-of-hearts that it is upheld by the power of
    God. Yet, they profess that the universe is not upheld by the power of
    God.” Naughty wicked hypocrites and frauds – fire the lot of them. Let
    the ICR set all the science curricula for the US and beyond – Rhonda
    Forlow would be happy. http://www.icr.org/article/6905/
    “Things like C-14 in diamonds, backward-rotating planets, irreducible
    complexity in cells, inconsistent radiometric age estimates, and many
    other facts are very puzzling from an evolutionary point of view, but
    make perfect sense in light of biblical creation.” It must be something
    they put in the water supply.
    “We want to be accurate in everything we do. And so we subject every
    new claim to rigorous analysis and testing and publish the results in
    peer-reviewed literature, so that other experts in the field can check
    for potential problems.” LIAR. Whenever the ICR and AiG receive
    criticisms from me – a layman I admit – they NEVER refute them, nor
    take them on board – they IGNORE them. Apparently one must have the
    right worldview in order to be listened to by Lisle and his former and
    current colleagues.
    What about internet technology? Is that creation science too?
    Why is it that I find pompous serial liars so offensive (not to me
    personally but to education in general)?

  35. Doctor Stochastic

    “If the universe were merely the result of chance, then there would be no reason to expect it to obey laws.”

    Perhaps a visit to Las Vegas…. The hotel and casino owners seem to be doing well using the laws of chance. The Marks (and Johns) do poorly (even if named for evangelists.)

  36. The assertion that “If evolution were true, evolutionary theory predicts that the laws of nature should be constantly changing” is an old idea, certainly going back to Henry Morris, founder of the ICR. I don’t think it was in Genesis Flood, but it plays a prominent role in his later “textbook” Scientific Creationism.

    As for the “accuracy” of creation scientists, let’s recap some of the scientific frauds and fakes perpetrated just by Henry Morris and the ICR, which Jason Lisle works for.

    There was the Paluxy River human fraudprints amid dinosaur tracks, which Carl Baugh named “Humanus Bauanthropus”, after himself. For decades prior to the formation of the ICR, this was the only real line of research in “creation research.” Some of these fraudprints, on removed limestone blocks, were carved badly, and obvious fakes– they didn’t even have an arch on the inside– like a kid’s drawing of a foot. Some of the in situ “footprints” were made by completing dinosaur footprints with oil or shellac. Fraud. Henry Morris, his son John D. Morris, “geologist” Clifford Burdick and the ICR promoted these frauds for decades. In the 1980’s the ICR printed a non-retraction in which they said there were problems with these obvious frauds, but they didn’t really take it back– they just downgraded Paluxy to “mystery.”

    Henry Morris promoted the Paluxy frauds in his 1961 The Genesis Flood and in Scientific Creationism and other books, and defended them in the 1980’s in History of Modern Creationism. Other creationists promoted the Paluxy fraudprints, notably the founder of ID theory, Englishman A. E. Wilder-Smith, in his books Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny and The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. (In those books, Wilder-Smith promoted a bunch of other fakes, like Phenanthropus Mirabilis of Berea, Kentucy; and Clifford Burdick’s trilobite/footprint fossil.)

    In Genesis Flood Morris promoted the “black skull” of Freiberg, which was actually a statue made out of coal. In Scientific Creationism, Morris promoted the Calaveras skeleton, which was fraud; as well as the Castanedolo and Olmo fossils, which were real fossils, though their geological strata were dishonestly described by Morris.

    Morris’ Genesis Flood also published photos of an alleged “contact line” at the Chief Mountain geological site in Montana, the photos taken by president of the CRS, Walter Lammerts. Unfortunately, Lammerts, not a geologist, took photos of the wrong strata, off by 200 vertical feet. Lammerts found this out prior to their publication in the Genesis Flood; it was never corrected nor retracted, after which point it becomes fraud. (This is a very important mistake: Chief Mountain in Montana is a geological overthrust where older fossils are on top of younger ones. The conventional explanation is that there is a deformed, twisted contact line where the older strata were pushed over the younger ones. Lammerts took photos of the wrong strata, thus “demonstrating” there was no contact line, and proving that evolutionists lie about it.)

    Decades after the mistake was realized, in Morris’ 1980’s book History of Modern Creationism, Morris praises Lammerts’ photographic /geological contributions to the “Genesis Flood.” Morris had to know it was fake. That makes it willful fraud.

    Clifford Burdick, a horribly incompetent “geologist” who for decades was the ICR’s only real researcher– and who is inaccurately referred to as “Dr. Burdick” by Wilder-Smith (in fact Burdick’s degrees were all fake)– also floated many other fakes besides the Paluxy fraudprints that he aggressively promoted. He was also responsible for the “fossils” of pre-Cambrian pollen–probably not a fraud, just non-reproducible incompetence.

    There are many other fakes we could discuss just from the ICR, starting with the many outright lies told by Duane Gish about fossils, the protein that is more similar between man and bullfrog than between man and ape, etc. etc. etc. That is enough for today.

    So Jason Lisle is working for an institution that is a fraud-firing machine gun, lecturing us about the integrity of the lying, fraud-promoting creationists whose legacy he defends and promotes.

  37. Clean up needed in aisle #4!

  38. Thanks, longie. That one’s gone for good.

  39. ashley haworth-roberts

    Anoymous (I received an email showing your comments though I can’t see them under the blog itself).

    At least I ‘whine’ using my real name instead of hiding my identity.

  40. ashley haworth-roberts

    Sorry – you seem to be called SensuousCurmudgeonDingbat rather than Anonymous.

  41. A deleted creationist comment? I”m sorry I missed it.