Jason Lisle: Darwin Was a Creationist

You’re familiar with the work of Jason Lisle, Ph.D., the creationist astrophysicist employed by the ever-growing creationist conglomerate of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). Hambo is the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We have recently been discussing Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper, Again, but there is so much more to be learned from his writings.

We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from an article at the AIG website that Jason wrote more than two years ago, but it’s still worth our attention: Darwin — Unwittingly a “Creationist”. Attention-getting title, what? The bold font was added by us:

Evolutionists often attempt to use observational science — arguments from biology, paleontology, geology, or even astronomy — to support their belief. But the really interesting thing is that they base all their arguments on principles that ultimately come from biblical creation! As strange as it may sound, evolutionists must unwittingly assume that creation is true in order to argue against it. That means that Darwin was (in a sense) a “creationist.” All evolutionists must borrow the principles of biblical creation in order to do science (even though they would deny this).

That opening paragraph sums up Jason’s position, and everything that follows is his reasoning. Let’s read on:

To do science, certain things must be true. The universe must be logical and have some organization to it. Moreover, the human mind must be capable of rational thought — capable of considering the various alternatives and then choosing the best. But if evolution were true, then we would have no reason to expect either of these conditions. If this world were nothing but a cosmic accident, if our brains were nothing but rearranged pond scum, then why would they be able to understand the universe?

We’ve posted before about why the universe contains organization. We said:

Such regularities — or scientific laws — are observed because everything that exists has specific characteristics and acts accordingly — e.g., an electron always acts like an electron, and not a neutron. The laws of nature are an inevitable corollary of existence itself — not a capricious afterthought.

But who cares what your Curmudgeon thinks? His brain is just “rearranged pond scum.” We’ll continue with Jason’s article:

On the other hand, a biblical creationist has every reason to expect scientific inquiry to be possible. The Bible teaches that God made the universe and the human mind, so we would expect these two things to “go together.”

Except in those unfortunate instances where the bible is in conflict with what our minds have learned about the universe. Here’s more:

Logical reasoning itself only makes sense in a biblical worldview. To make a logical argument about anything, we have to use laws of logic. But if the universe is just matter in motion (as many evolutionists believe), laws of logic wouldn’t exist since laws of logic are not made of matter.

Jason imagines himself to be an expert on logic. He’s not. We’ve posted about his views before. See Creationism and Logic (part 1), and then Part 2. Moving along:

God is our standard for correct thinking because all truth is in Him. We can know about laws of logic because God has made us in His image and has revealed some of His thoughts to us in His Word.

Yea, verily, so it is written in the Book of Aristotle. Jason’s paragraph continues:

We can expect laws of logic to be universally true and never change because they stem from the nature of God. So, when evolutionists such as Charles Darwin attempt to use science and logic, they reveal the fact that in their heart of hearts they know the God of creation.

There you go. Just as promised — Darwin was a creationist. But Jason isn’t done yet. Here’s another excerpt:

Additionally, evolutionists believe in a moral code: a standard for how we should think and behave. But the idea of a moral code goes back to biblical creation. Since God has created us, He has the right to set the rules of behavior. In fact, the Bible tells us that the law is written on our hearts. However, if people were just complex chemicals and our decisions were just chemical reactions, then people wouldn’t have any genuine choice in what they do.

That’s why we always see intellectual integrity at creationist websites. On with the article:

This doesn’t mean that evolutionists don’t act morally, but those who reject biblical creation have no ultimate basis for their morality. So when evolutionists tell us how to think or behave, they are acting as if they believe in creation.

[…]

The fact that evolutionists believe in science, rationality, and morality is inconsistent with their professed belief in evolution.

[…]

From Darwin to Dawkins, all evolutionists have relied upon their suppressed knowledge of the God of creation — as evidenced by their belief in science, logic, and morality.

There’s more of the same in Jason’s article — much more. If you like that sort of thing, click over there and read it all. We’ve exhausted our patience, so we’re going to quit here.

Copyright © 2011. 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

11 responses to “Jason Lisle: Darwin Was a Creationist

  1. I get what he’s doing. He’s trying to shock us into blithering incapacity. That’s the only explanation for that kind of extended non sequitur.

    That’s exactly the feeling that I get at times when I’m reading a student’s essay. My mouth opens and shuts, but I can’t come up with anything to say, thanks to the dismal idiocy of the writing.

  2. Per Jason’s logic, he would not be a creationist then. Evolutionists are creationists because they use logic and reason, however since Jason does neither, he must be an evolutionist.

    It’s all clear now. Thanks.

  3. retiredsciguy

    He is a very confused man. He most likely got that way by proofreading his own writing.

    Please be careful when reading all these creationist writings, Curmy. We would hate to lose your insightfulness to the same mind rot that has afflicted Jason Lisle.

  4. One of my standard tests of a creationist argument is to check whether it applies with equal validity as an argument for Scientific Storkism (or the Big Top version that doesn’t name the Stork: Intelligent Delivery).

    If our brain is just the result of biochemical processes of reproduction and development, how can we trust it to produce The Truth?

    Yup, that seems to pass the Stork Filter.

    Then, there is the little problem about how “Intelligent Design” handles this. You know, the ID that tells us that having imperfection in design, like bad backs, is OK, because imperfect design does not mean no design.

    These designers, who can’t design a back correctly, are reliable when it comes to the design of brains?

  5. Actually, it’s quite the opposite from what Lisle states. Creationist Kant recognized the problem of “knowing the world,” and basically concluded that we can’t know a “Ding on Sich, a thing in itself. Why should we, considering that God could have made us to understand the world with any kind of interface whatsoever, which would not need to leave us knowing how the world exists at all.

    No one ever gets around the problems that Kant raised, except via some version of his solution, of course. So we really can’t know for sure that the world is anything like how we experience it. However, within “practical reason,” we recognize that evolution would almost certainly give us a sort of knowledge of the immediate world that is akin to how it actually exists–it’s a simpler evolution that way. Now we know that color isn’t something that exists “out there” per se, but spatial dimensions would seem to be “real” as far as we can tell, and evolution gives us a good reason to understand how this would be–which doesn’t mean that we experience space “as it really is,” only that the mapping is likely to be reasonably close.

    Evolution alone gives us reasons to see why our minds are actually adapted to “understanding our world.” A Creator, a Designer, need only to make things “code” for certain informational states, so that if we had been created we might as well be binary computers as anything else. Computers know nothing about anything, of course, certainly a likely result of design/creation.

    We evolved to know our world. It’s a far better explanation than ID/creationism gives to us. Lisle’s operating off of his religious preconceptions alone, that for some unexplained reason God wanted us to understand our world as “real,” and thus the miracle happened, we know it as real. Except that we really don’t know it as “real,” however we do know that evolution would tend to map our conceptions in a more simple and analog manner than would a designer of a computer, the latter of whom has no particular reason to make us “know our world” at all.

    Of course the whole article reeks of metaphysics and of deductive logic. Fortunately, we are not forced to follow deductive logic, being evolved creatures that have to be inductive, and so we can also do science. Lisle is likely to be impeded in doing meaningful science via his unwarranted preconceptions.

    Glen Davidson

  6. Glen Davidson says:

    Evolution alone gives us reasons to see why our minds are actually adapted to “understanding our world.” A Creator, a Designer, need only to make things “code” for certain informational states, so that if we had been created we might as well be binary computers as anything else.

    Yeah, the designer could have stuck us in the Matrix, and we wouldn’t know jack diddly about anything, nor would we need to know. But if we evolved, we’d have to be reacting to reality.

  7. Wow. Poor ol’ Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD has got some stupid of cosmic proportions going on there.

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    Has Lisle never really considered the possibility that the “laws of logic” are invented by humans, for humans, and likewise the “laws of nature”?

    That, of course, cuts the ground out from under him. The universe is whatever it is, and laws of nature are necessarily incomplete descriptions, because they are devised by humans to account for the phenomena that humans think are important.

  9. Well, there are moronic creationists (Luskin) who are just plain stupid, and delusional creationists (Hambo) who project stupid, and dishonest creationists (all of the DI fellows) like Jason Lisle who intentionally lie, distort and misrepresent for their own personal gain, pitiful as that may seem.

    Lisle is a BMOC, church-wise, ’cause he says sciency things like “quantum” and “4th dimension” and “red shift.” He’ll be pushing the same lies 30 years from now trying to get laid and we’ll still be laughing AT him.

  10. After all these years I finally got it:

    Lisle: “Darwin was a creationist”
    Klingoffer: “Darwin leads to every imaginable evil”
    Ergo: “Creationism leads to every imaginable evil.”

  11. One problem with Lisle’s “argument” is that humans are not the only creatures that appear to use logic, and display some of what we might call moral behavior (protection of young, sharing food, caring for old, etc). I suspect the average chimp, dolphin, elephant, or other creature does not typically do this out of a “suppressed knowledge of the God of creation”.

    Lisle needs to rearrange his pond scum a bit more.