ICR: Evolution’s Devilish “Bait & Switch”

This is a peculiar article we found at the website of the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Well, they’re all peculiar, but this one is especially so.

It’s titled Bait and Switch: A Trick Used by Both Anglerfish and Evolutionists, and it’s written by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. He has two middle initials, which is very classy, and he not only has a law degree, but he’s also a Doctor of Theology. He’s described at the end as “Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Most impressive! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and scripture references omitted:

“Bait and switch” is one of the oldest tactics under the sun … or seawater. In it, a person (or creature) is lured by something desirable that is then switched out with something much less desirable, or even fatal. It is a fact of life in this fallen world — in the world of nature, in courts of law, and in evolutionary stories about origins.

A provocative beginning! The first half of the article is about the behavior of anglerfish. We’ll skip over that until we get to the section that’s sub-titled: “Bait and Switch in Evolutionary Mythology.” Okay, here it comes:

Bait and switch is a tactic often used by evolutionists, but it was used by the Creator’s detractors long before Darwin and Huxley. The serpent baited Eve, in Eden, with the promise that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam and Eve “as gods.” This was the first and worst case of false advertising.

Truly horrible! How do “evolutionists” use this diabolical tactic? Let’s read on:

But Darwin’s sophistic marketing phrase “natural selection” likely holds the record as the slickest bait and switch ploy of evolution’s marketing team. By using the word “selection,” Darwin necessarily implies a “selector,” a decision-maker capable of making an information-based choice. Yet, by using the adjective “natural,” Darwin appears to remove the supernatural — i.e., God the Creator.

That Darwin was a sly one — just like the serpent in the Garden of Eden! We continue:

An inanimate “pond” of mythical “soup” has no intelligence for selecting anyone or anything, so the phrase “natural selection” is itself a semantic bait and switch — implying intelligent decisions, then switching to a physical environment of nonliving “stuff” incapable of intelligent selection.

Golly, he’s right — an inanimate pond can’t do any selecting! Here’s more:

As Dr. Randy Guliuzza thoroughly analyzed and repeatedly demonstrated in his recent series of Acts & Facts articles [that’s ICR’s creationist publication], the naturalistic theory of evolution provides no identifiable “selector” who can actually make any favorable (or unfavorable) selections, whether those selections be “natural” or not.

Darwin’s theory has no “selector”! Moving along:

This is a fatal flaw in the attempted logic of evolutionary theory, because the magical phrase “natural selection” is absolutely needed to provide a theoretical mechanism to allow the possibility of past and present diversity of life (in their breedable kinds) on earth, apart from a Creator just like the God of the Bible.

It’s so obvious! How could we have been so wrong? Another excerpt:

But, there is no natural “selector” to substitute for God. So, because evolutionary theory cannot explain the arrival of earth’s living creatures, there are no logical candidates to be the “survivors” who are “fittest.”

Wow — that’s amazing! Here’s the article’s conclusion:

Bait and switch is nothing new…. [E]volution’s sales pitch, “natural selection,” is a serpentine snare. Don’t fall for the naturalistic bait!

Jeepers! All this time, your Curmudgeon thought that surviving long enough to breed was the natural selector. Now we feel so foolish!

[Addendum: We’ve written twice before about Johnson’s articles at ICR. See ICR v. Paredes: Second Impressions, about ICR’s unsuccessful litigation in Texas over the accreditation of its school’s “Master of Science degrees in Science Education,” and also Zillions of Witness for Creationism, about how your blood cells are “proof” of creationism.]

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

18 responses to “ICR: Evolution’s Devilish “Bait & Switch”

  1. This is another one of those articles where the writer is so wrong – on such a basic concept – that the only conclusion one can reach is that he is deliberately lying. It’s impossible to be that stupid and still be literate.

    Granted, the ICR occupies a small single-story building on a street corner in north Dallas, surrounded by industrial buildings, so being the “Chief Academic Officer” might not be the prestigious title it would be at an actual educational institute. Still, even for an “institute” the size of most preschool/day care centers, a bit of honesty in that position would seem to be a requirement.

  2. Jeepers is right! Just think, every time I roll a die, someone must be “selecting” what the final outcome will be! The cards I’m dealt in a friendly game of poker were the result of “God’s will”!
    Should’ve known.
    Oh, and one other thing. As Ed pointed out, this has so much dumb in it, it’s difficult to know where to start. I’ll take a stab at it, however. How about when he mixes “evolution” and “origins”? Origins (to which I’m assuming he means “origins of life”) means “abiogenesis”, which is different from evolution. Not that he cares, I’m certain. He’s doing “God’s work”, which means that any and all means to that end are justified. Even if it means violating the eighth commandment.

  3. I was trying to determine where his name stopped and the alphabet soup started. Thanks for the clarification.

  4. Ed: “This is another one of those articles where the writer is so wrong – on such a basic concept – that the only conclusion one can reach is that he is deliberately lying.”

    I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re so compartmentalized that they can’t see their errors. But you’d never know it from my posts, because I’m forced mostly to counter those 99+% of fellow “Darwinists” who give anti-evolution activists too much benefit of the doubt. Here, though, Like you I suspect something beyond simple projection. Even if the Dr. Dr. completely misreads “Darwinists,” he must be aware of the Discoveroids, and how virtually everything they say and do involves a bait-and-switch. Why is he not at least including them in his accusation? Especially since he’s from an organization that does not appreciate the DI strategy.

    BTW, while I think that most anti-evolution activists do deliberately spread what they know are falsehoods, I still give them the benefit of the doubt that they truly believe they are telling noble lies.

  5. Where’s natural selection when you need. Most of these creationists seem to dumb to surive.

  6. Where’s natural selection when you need. Most of these creationists seem to dumb to surive.

    They’re parasites. We take care of them. We develop the technology. We run the economy. We make the advancements in health and medicine.

    All creationists have to do is show up to their dental practice (all drugs and tools provided by scientists and manufactured by godless, atheist Chinese labor), bill their patients and spend the rest of their time trying to destroy society. Creationists are the tapeworms of civilization.

  7. DocBill

    I like the way you make the creationist persona a dentist. Though I’m not sure what would be more painful a dental procedure vs listenong to a creationist rant.

    Regarding the icr article… I’m reminded of Adam Sandlers academic bowl where the principle says in response to his wrong answer that the audience is dumber for having listened to him and may god have mercy on his soul.l

  8. Frank J says, “BTW, while I think that most anti-evolution activists do deliberately spread what they know are falsehoods, I still give them the benefit of the doubt that they truly believe they are telling noble lies.”

    I’m not so sure about the purity of their motivations. The DI is certainly interested in selling books, Ken Ham is promoting his museum, and many other ” professional anti-evolutionists” may be trying to promote enrollment in their Christian schools.

  9. Jimmy Johnson, J.D., Th.D, needs to tell the DI crowd they need to modify their “theory” — “The Intelligent Designer” is also “The Intelligent Selector”. How could Behe — being the genius ID theorist he is — have missed this?

  10. It AiG and ICR had a “who is dumber” contest, would there be a winner?
    Or, maybe just two loosers.

  11. RetiredSciGuy: “I’m not so sure about the purity of their motivations.”

    Neither am I. I’m just doing what nearly everyone on our side does, which is to err on the side of “innocent until proven guilty.” I just don’t go as far as most, who insist that anti-evolution activists “believe X” or “don’t understand Y, and don’t give readers much chance to decide for themselves.

    What I find especially annoying is when the same person, at the same time, accuses an anti-evolution activist of “not understanding evolution” and “lying.” Sure, it’s usually some of each, but putting it that way makes our side look confused and/or closed minded to the casual reader, who’s often a fence-sitter.

  12. Jack Hogan: “How could Behe — being the genius ID theorist he is — have missed this?”

    Hair envy? (Yes I know it’s not that Jimmy Johnson – I just couldn’t resist)

  13. I just added this addendum to the article:

    We’ve written twice before about Johnson’s articles at ICR. See ICR v. Paredes: Second Impressions, about ICR’s unsuccessful litigation in Texas over the accreditation of its school’s “Master of Science degrees in Science Education,” and also Zillions of Witness for Creationism, about how your blood cells are “proof” of creationism.

  14. Frank J, maybe they are just attempting to “save our souls” by their corruption of science, which in their minds would be a “noble” cause. Nonetheless, they are corrupting science, whether they understand evolution and are prevaricating, or are just dumb.

    Since James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D, has both two doctorates AND two middle initials, I’d say he has the capacity to understand evolution. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean he’s a liar. Since he has two middle initials, he deserves a classier term. Prevaricator should work.

  15. The funny thing is that Darwin, at Wallace’s urging, tried to substitute Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” for “natural selection” precisely because of dufuses like Johnson:

    http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1452.3&pageseq=57

    And look how *that* stopped creationists in their tracks!

  16. This is a bait and switch that only creationists could fall for. The rest of us understand that the survival of offspring is contingent on physical/intellectual attributes within a non-static environment. The selector is the interaction of those attributes with changes in the environment not some intelligence.

  17. “The serpent baited Eve, in Eden, with the promise that eating the forbidden fruit would make Adam and Eve “as gods.” This was the first and worst case of false advertising.”

    Genesis 3: 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

    These people don’t read their own d*mn Bible.

    Idiots.

  18. @LRA
    “They’re not stupid they’re just drawn that way!”
    (Adapted from Roger Rabbit)