ICR: Four Refutations of Evolution

It’s all over now, and we may as well admit it. Here are Four Scientific Reasons That Refute Evolution from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

ICR has totally demolished evolution in their latest article. One refutation would be enough, but they’ve got four — four! We can’t deny it any longer, dear reader, the wicked house of Darwin is crumbling. We know this won’t be easy for you, but it’s our duty to inform you of the latest findings of creation science; so here are some excerpts from ICR’s article, with bold font added by us:

Four clear observations show why evolution — which asserts that fish became fishermen by nature’s provision of new biological information — is utterly unscientific.

Not just plain old unscientific, but utterly unscientific. Here comes the first reason:

1. Fossils do not show evolution. Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.

Ka-boom! — no transitional fossils! This does not exist. Let’s see the next reason:

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds. Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead. A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations. Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead. None truly evolved.

Gasp! They actually proved it — you can’t get a platypus out of a Petri dish, and there ain’t no crock-o-duck. ICR continues:

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution. Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information. Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation — a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

It’s all downhill. Mutations are a one-way path to oblivion. Here’s more:

4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution. Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system. Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Here’s the stunning conclusion:

These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved through nature — and not God — then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator. But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.

That’s it, dear reader. ICR has clearly proved its case. Evolution is doomed!

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

22 responses to “ICR: Four Refutations of Evolution

  1. It’s difficult to comment on such profound idiocy and outright lies. Do creationists even bother to try going beyond skimming for quote mines and read the original research?

  2. docbill1351

    Fact of the day: You can earn a Masters of Science Education (creationism) from ICR for a mere $13,000.

    Thar’s gold in them thar quote mines!

  3. aturingtest

    “…transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system. Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.”
    Well, that’s just about as good an example of totally not understanding the very basics of evolution as I’ve ever seen. This is just Kirk Cameron’s crocoduck in fancier language. Why do these folks insist on criticizing a concept they so clearly do not understand?
    “If creatures evolved through nature — and not God — then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from beginning to end it credits God as Creator. ”
    Oh- that’s why. “goddidit”-> religion-> scripture-> cartoon misunderstanding of science-> “goddidit” and so on.

  4. (First post! Love the blog. More left leaning than you, but boy do I have a passion for biology!)
    The sad thing is that (from where I’m sitting) whoever wrote this article has found, or has been confronted with, the basic answers to all four of those “controversies.” It’s simply a refusal to accept evidence.

  5. One person’s mutation is another person’s evolutionary change, I guess.

    The ICR claims “… far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.” Sounds like there might be a few that construct new and useful information in that sea of nearly neutral mutations. Isn’t that evolution?

  6. Duane says: “First post!”

    Welcome aboard.

  7. NeonNoodle

    How many refutations of Genesis have they found, now that they’re being scientific?

  8. The fossil record is still evolving (oops). But it isn’t the only line of evidence for evolution. Consider the relatively new science of molecular biology which traces DNA in it evolutionary cycle.

  9. Jonathan DuHamel says: “Consider the relatively new science of molecular biology”

    Yup. That was creationism’s last change. A whole new, unexplored line of evidence. Unfortunately for creationism, it totally supports evolution. In fact, we don’t really need the fossil record. DNA alone is quite sufficient — at least where it’s obtainable. Where it’s not, the fossils still tell the tale.

  10. Tomato Addict

    The second reference in the ICR article has 2206 citations. Golly! ICR ought to be claiming at least 2210 reasons to refute evolution.

  11. Tomato Addict

    Closing another lost tag. I installed a HTML editor to test my posts, but the problem seems to exists between the screen and keyboard.

  12. docbill1351

    Screw the fossil record, please! Darwin did not rely on the fossil record when putting together the theory of evolution. Craig Venter rightly said that without a fossil record, none at all (!) the modern theory of evolution would be validated by the genomic record alone, that is, the gene and protein homologies that form a nested sequence. Phylogenetic analysis alone demonstrates evolution.

    So, the next time a creationist raises the fossil record, give it to them then raise phylogenetic analysis. Watch them splutter!

  13. “Scripture is not trustworthy”

    Thanks to the wonders of quote mining, I have discovered the only accurate statement in this screed.

  14. “Living creatures do not evolve between kinds. Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead. A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations. Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead. None truly evolved.”

    Normal? Mutant? Dead?

    What is “normal”?

    They are all equally “mutant”.

    In the end, they are all equally dead.

    I’m pretty sure they are lying about the fruit flies; I know they are lying about the E. Coli, which did in fact develop a new ability to digest food sources the ancestral population was unable to digest thanks to several useful mutations – that’s evolution in action.

  15. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically …

    That, is, when intelligent design was tried …

  16. the unbiblical evolutionary idea that creatures change without limits

    Where does the Bible say anything about limits to biological changes (or the lack of such limits) in creatures?

  17. @Meh “I know they are lying about the E. Coli, which did in fact develop a new ability to digest food sources”

    Their claim though is they are still E coli, no change in “Kinds”, the E coli did not suddenly turn into a croc o duck therefore no evolution.

  18. Rats, Flakey beat me to it.

    But I’ll add that since that “disproves” “Darwinism,” it must by default (and creationist “logic”) “prove” YEC, OEC, geocentrism, and thanks to that bean-spiller Behe, “universal” common descent.

  19. TomS: “Where does the Bible say anything about limits to biological changes (or the lack of such limits) in creatures?”

    In the chapter (& verse) about gene duplication and diversion. The part about redundant complexity is almost as fascinating as the part about “plagiarized” pseudogenes. 😉

  20. “Their claim though is they are still E coli, no change in “Kinds”, the E coli did not suddenly turn into a croc o duck therefore no evolution.”

    Yes but their larger argument is that mutations and natural selection “produces no new information” and that “mutations are harmful, not beneficial”; but the E Coli experiments proved those assertions to be wrong.

  21. garystar1

    Doc Bill said:

    So, the next time a creationist raises the fossil record, give it to them…

    This is one of those rare occasions where I’m going to disagree with you, Doc. The reason is that I’m not willing to give science-deniers anything. Period. Instead, I’ll bring up the fossil record AND phylogenetics. I’ll (attempt) to explain how they complement each other. Then I’ll sit back and let them splutter some Gish Gallop-y thing that will attempt, in a few sentences consisting of poor grammar and terrible spelling, to overturn two centures of good, well-earned science.
    If I were to “give” them something, that “something” would be would be what Frank J has always suggested, “Okay, let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution never occurred. Tell me the what / when / why of how we got here. Go.” I imagine that would be some spluttering, especially the first time they had to use the word “Poof” to explain some aspect of biology or geology.

  22. I dunno about that “essential organs” stuff. The ICR has been managing without a brain just fine for years.