The current lack of creationist news compelled us to search the archives of the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. We were looking for some of their more spectacular oldie-goldies, and we found a couple.
What we searched for were their claims from the past that there were no planets other than those in the solar system. We found one of those by ICR’s founder, Henry M. Morris (1918 – 2006). We’ve written about him several times before, e.g.: Henry Morris: the Ultimate Creationist. Together with John Whitcomb, he wrote The Genesis Flood, published in 1961. Morris is regarded as the father of the modern creation science movement.
Old Henry’s article is The Stars of Heaven. We can’t determine when it was written. It’s loaded with creationist nonsense, so we’ll give you only a couple of excerpts, with some bold font added by us for emphasis:
Man has always been intrigued and fascinated by the heavens. The scholars of antiquity, whether in Sumeria, Egypt, China, Mexico or any of the other early civilizations were well versed in the locations and orbits of all the visible stars. They had counted and catalogued and grouped them all and had pronounced the total number to be almost two thousand stars! But the Holy Scriptures were far ahead of these ancient scientists. According to the Bible, the stars were as great in number as the sands of the seashore (Genesis 22:17) and simply could not be numbered!
After discussing the Big Bang and the then-viable Steady State theory (this must be a really old article), he says:
If we limit ourselves to real, observational science, rather than indulging in philosophical speculation, we would have to say that the stars and galaxies have always been just as they are now since the time they were created. … Assuming, however, that the universe really is expanding, in accordance with the standard interpretation of the red shifts, there is still no proof that this phenomenon is part of some evolutionary process. The expansion could just as well have been initiated by an act of creation at any arbitrary position of the various galactic components of the universe.
Then he brings up an old clunker:
Any evolutionary model of the universe must conflict with one of the most fundamental laws of science, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
We’re skipping most of the article, but here’s the part we really liked:
Thus the earth is unique in the solar system and, for all we know, the solar system is unique in the universe. So far as we can observe, there are not even any planets anywhere else, let alone a planet equipped to sustain biological life. … Amazing though it may seem to evolutionary naturalists, the evidence favors the conclusion that man is unique in the universe and, furthermore, that he is the apex, not of the evolutionary process, but of God’s creative purposes!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then we found another old ICR article, without an author or a date: The Universe Has a Center. That one is very brief so we’ll quote the whole thing. It says:
Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.
Lordy, lordy. Let’s read on:
Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.
The fools! We continue:
In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.
So there you are. As silly as creationists may seem today, when you read at some of their older writings, they look even worse.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.