ICR: Two Typically Silly Articles

As a special treat, dear reader, today your Curmudgeon brings you not one but two — two! — articles from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. For each article we’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us.

The first is Woodpecker Inspires Designers, Knocks Evolution. You know what they’re going to say, don’t you? Yes, you guessed it — the woodpecker is proof of creationism. Here’s a brief sampling, after which you can click over there to read it all:

When boring into wood in search of food, a woodpecker exerts so much force with each strike that its beak should crumble, its skull should crack, and its brain should be reduced to mush. However, a suite of design features absorbs the shock and ensures that these tragedies do not happen. How are these features able to provide such effective protection?

Sounds like a staggering problem, doesn’t it? Sure it does, and of course, science is boggled by the bewildering complexity of it all. They quote an article that says woodpeckers have a set of four essential features:

These are its hard-but-elastic beak; a sinewy, springy tongue-supporting structure that extends behind the skull called the hyoid; an area of spongy bone in its skull; and the way the skull and cerebrospinal fluid interact to suppress vibration

We’ll skip most of what ICR says. Their conclusion is very predictable:

There is no natural way for a whole suite of required, specified features to just “get together”all at one time. … Thus, the woodpecker is a testament to the superior engineering skill of its Creator.

Great, huh? Now here’s the second ICR article we promised you: Study Shows Humans Are Uniquely Designed for Music. You must admit, the variety of ICR’s offerings is amazing. One day it’s woodpeckers, then it’s music. They say:

Unlike other creatures, humans can compose, record, and enjoy music. A new study has identified a brain chemical that provides pleasure when people listen to certain music. Where did this amazing ability come from?

Can you guess ICR’s answer to this all-important question? If you strain, dear reader, you might be able to anticipate what they say. It would be cruel to keep you in suspense. Let’s jump right to ICR’s answer:

Earlier research into babies’ physical response to music prompted the comment, “It remains a mystery how humans evolved our musical wiring, [though] it’s now clear that we enjoy it and always did.” [footnote to something about dancing babies]. But it is only a mystery for evolution to explain. These discoveries confirm that people are the product of special creation, with musical enjoyment as a unique built-in function.

So many scientific mysteries, yet the creation scientists at ICR are unfailingly able to solve them with their scriptural insights. Verily, what would we do without them?

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

12 responses to “ICR: Two Typically Silly Articles

  1. I particularly like this part of the woodpecker article:

    “Let’s suppose some bird decided that there must be all kinds of little critters, which would be good for lunch, hidden beneath the bark of trees. This bird decided to peck through the bark and into the hardwood tree. On first peck, this bird discovered problems with the way it was put together. Its beak shattered when it slammed against the tree, its tail feathers broke, and it developed a migraine-strength headache. With a shattered beak, the little bird was unable to eat and so it died.”

    Do creationists ever get out of their churches and observe nature even for a few minutes? If you watch most birds you will observe that they almost all have a knack for pecking at the bark of tree to grab a quick insect lunch. To this day after watching thousands of birds I have yet to see a single bird collapse to the ground with a shattered beak. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a naturalist to see how over time selection and specialization could lead to the evolution of a woodpecker. But then again if the world is only 6,000 years old I guess that could be a challenge for the 40% of Americans that believe in such Biblical nonsense.

  2. Love the music one too.
    My parakeet enjoys music. Was that special something given to humans also given to budgies?

  3. Tomato Addict

    If we didn’t know before, then it should now be perfectly clear that Creationism is for the birds.

    Cue Snowball the Dancing Parrot.

    A-one, and-a-two, and-a …

  4. What would be truly evidence of design, would be a world in which humans, dogs, cats, horses, and maybe one or two other animals were the only land creatures. Plants would consist of trees which produced healthy fruits and nuts year-round, on low branches, and a few vegetables which grew anywhere and were easy to pick and enjoy. Those fruits and veggies would be all the nourishment needed, and there would be no bacteria to spoil them. Weather would be mild everywhere, and natural disasters would be very rare, if any. (okay, one big flood). THAT, would be a designed world. Not the chaotic planet we live on, with it’s highly competitive and fragile ecosystem. Woodpeckers are so specialized that they just have to be evolved – what designer would create something like that?

    I want the ICR to explain why the world has the creatures it has – if it’s designed, every creature must have a purpose. Let’s read ICR articles addressing those questions. As far as I can tell, a large number of creatures, particularly mosquitos, exist solely to annoy or harm humans.

  5. Ed says:

    What would be truly evidence of design, would be a world in which humans, dogs, cats, horses, and maybe one or two other animals were the only land creatures.

    That doesn’t go far enough. A more compelling example would be if the human offspring of a crashed interplanetary colony ship grew up ignorant of their origin and discovered that they lived in a world with no land animals at all, except maybe worms and insects. They’d be correct to conclude that they didn’t evolve on that world.

  6. True, SC, that would be even more compelling. But a designer might put a few animals that “Served Man” around.

  7. Ed says:

    But a designer might put a few animals that “Served Man” around.

    Okay, but a colony ship would have had some livestock, so my scenario turns into yours.

  8. You laugh, ha ha!!, at the bird-beak-bashing story but this is Young Earth Creationism at it’s very best!

    Oh, yeah, those were the days back in the late 60’s when Garner Ted Armstrong of (cue radio echo chamber) The World Tomorrow (echo off) would describe how dinosaurs created feathers by throwing themselves against rocks to fray their scales, and jump off cliffs trying to fly and all kinds of CraZy stuff like that.

    It was howlingly funny, especially to those of us studying comparative vertebrate anatomy. Just as funny is how the good old ICR is stuck in the past, same old schtick, a veritable moldy oldy, only now they have websites instead broadcasting in the afternoon on the AM band.

    Too funny!

  9. Gabriel Hanna

    Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

    “It is demonstrable,” said he, “that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”

  10. Yes, Gabe. And Voltaire was a closet Discoveroid.

  11. “Its beak shattered when it slammed against the tree…???”

    You know, if one is going to write about woodpeckers, one should study them a little more closely so one may be able to write facts and not silliness.

    Oh, never mind. I forgot who I was talking about.

    Music? Animals may or may not like music. Animals may or may not make music. It wouldn’t necessarily be the same music humans like or make.

    Oh, never mind. I forgot who I was talking about.

  12. I’d just like to add that one of the three requirements for their ‘music’ thing is “record”. That’s a technology, which has nothing to do with the organism itself. I mean, crows, chimps, gorillas, orangs, dolphins, all use technology in some form.

    Oh wait, that totally destroys their argument too… nevermind.

    BTW: Apparently, these guys have never heard of whales… sigh.