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:
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.