ICR: Trees are Proof of Creationism

We suspect that some of you may still be struggling to shake off the lies you learned when you studied evolution, so today we’re going to settle the matter for you — with the help of the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Their latest article is Urban Trees Point to Creation. It was written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:

A recent U.S. Forest Service study estimated that the trees planted along California streets provide a billion dollars’ worth of human benefit each year. And that benefit comes cheap. This analysis reveals five tree-related benefits that identify where trees fit in the origins controversy.

They provide a footnote — which is very scholarly! — with a link to the study they’re talking about: Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Then ICR briefly summarizes the reported benefits of urban trees, some of which are:

• Increase property value, mostly through aesthetics
• Reduce air-conditioning costs by providing cooling shade
• Improve air quality by absorbing pollutants

They also mention health benefits, referring to “a 2013 study showing lower death rates in well-treed neighborhoods.” We weren’t aware of that. But then ICR’s analysis goes beyond such mundane things. They ask:

Did trees evolve or were they created?

And then they provide the answer:

Tree cells use suites of enzymes to construct wood. Their extraordinary precision and ingenious design defy tree evolution. In other words, tree design could not arise by natural processes any more than a tornado could somehow construct an airplane from a pile of raw materials.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s that old creationist maxim, the Junkyard tornado. This is great creation science! Let’s read on:

The beauty and variety in tree leaf shapes and textures also defies evolution. If all trees descended from a single tree ancestor, as evolutionary dogma asserts, then why did nature not select a plain leaf shape that merely executes photosynthesis most efficiently? Instead, tree leaves come in a delightful array of intriguing varieties, apparently intended to reveal the Creator’s appreciation for variety.

You have no answer to that, do you? ICR continues:

And fossils show no evidence of evolutionary transition from non-wood plants to woody trees. Fully woody trees suddenly appear as fossils, just as they appear fully formed today.

Jeepers, they’re right! Where’s the fossil of something that was half water lily and half oak tree? You know the answer — there isn’t such a fossil. So ICR declares:

Instead of natural processes slowly evolving trees, a supernatural process appears to have suddenly created them.

The logic is undeniable! Here’s more:

The impressive list of California street tree benefits shows that trees meet human needs. And meeting our needs implies intentional kindness.

After a scripture quote we’re told:

So according to this Psalm as well as other Scriptures, the same Lord and Creator who uses trees to load us with daily cost savings and health benefits also offers all people everywhere an escape from death through forgiveness of sin.

Are you convinced now, dear reader? If not, there is no hope for you.

Copyright © 2016. 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

23 responses to “ICR: Trees are Proof of Creationism

  1. And, if any further proof were needed, what did Noah build the Ark out of if not . . . trees???!!??!1??

  2. docbill1351

    Yeah, but where did Noah find Amish carpenters, hmmmmmm?

  3. Don’t be so unscientific, docbill. Who needs Amish carpenters when you have dinosaurs to do the heavy lifting?

  4. michaelfugate

    Brian is a deep thinker. His review of Christian philosopher James Spiegel’s book “The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief ” is a case in point. Did you know that people become atheists because of their fathers? It’s true – every notorious atheist had either a dead, absent or abusive father. Not only that, they want to be immoral. And when you are immoral your heart hardens and you reject God. It is an endless positive feedback loop that spirals into the Lake of Fire. But, if you spend time reflecting on the beauty of creation, avoiding lewd entertainment and reading good books, then you will be able access the truth.

  5. “Instead of natural processes slowly evolving trees, a supernatural process appears to have suddenly created them.”
    Kind of like a tornado in a junkyard?

  6. “The impressive list of California street tree benefits shows that trees meet human needs. And meeting our needs implies intentional kindness.”

    Creationists are like little kids who think that everything is “for” something in egocentric terms.

    The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    why did nature not select a plain leaf shape that merely executes photosynthesis most efficiently? Instead, tree leaves come in a delightful array of intriguing varieties, apparently intended to reveal the Creator’s appreciation for variety.

    Oh, that’s a new one, the creator chooses variety over efficiency. That’s why he makes fish that walk, fly, breath, not to mention swimming mammals. All just for variety.

  8. michaelfugate

    Do you think accreditation agencies are looking into Stephen F. Austin’s biology program after reading this article?

  9. @Charles Deetz: I think you’re on to something there. Variety over efficiency. Because whatever else the imaginary creator may be, inefficiency is one of his/her/its major characteristics. That’s why 99% of all creatures on the earth have gone extinct. Why his/her/its dearly beloved are on only one of the 10^20 or so planets in the universe. And, by the way, why it took him/her/it more than 4×10^9 years to get around to sticking his dearly beloved on that insignificant chunk of rock in a tiny solar system in an average galaxy among the 10^11 or so he/she/it made for entertainment and variety.

  10. WELL!!!!! I’m certainly convinced ‘tuters. ! Where do I sign up for the fluffy cloud option???

  11. “why did nature not select a plain leaf shape that merely executes photosynthesis most efficiently?”

    Because, of course, if you closely examine every environment that has trees in it you will find that all of those environments are identical? OOPS!! Creationism has always been a very special kind of stupid that is oblivious to reality. One suspects that they are both deaf and blind.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    And then there are tree rings, which are about the easiest proofs YEC is wrong.

  13. Is there only one tree kind?

  14. I think that I will never see

  15. Somewhere, amongst the trillions of planets in our universe, in a galaxy far, far, away, a tornado just swept through a junkyard and left behind a fully assembled 747. Unfortunately, the natives of that world had no idea what a 747 was, and left it to rust in place, considering it a curiosity of no particular value.

  16. jimroberts

    @Toms:
    “… a theory dumber than ID”

  17. “If all trees descended from a single tree ancestor, as evolutionary dogma asserts…” Evolutionary “dogma” asserts no such thing. Trees are not descended from a single tree ancestor, rather, they evolved many times in different lineages. Here are some independent lineages: tree ferns, cycads, and conifers. Among the flowering plants, palm trees (monocots) evolved independently of trees (dicots) in the rosid family (maples, apples) which evolved independently of trees in the asterid family (olives, ashes). All of these are independent of the magnolias. As usual, this creationist (ignorantly or willfully) doesn’t understand biology.

  18. * The impressive list of California street tree benefits shows that trees meet human needs. And meeting our needs implies intentional kindness. *

    Passerine birds also need trees. Does that make the blessed designer favour the avian “kinds” over us mere humans?

  19. realthog asks

    And, if any further proof were needed, what did Noah build the Ark out of if not . . . trees???!!??!

    But Genesis 6:14 says nothing about trees but tells us Noah used gopherwood, without explaining what that was.

    But I don’t understand what the mystery about it is. Everybody knows what a “gopher” is, and it really shouldn’t be beyond ones intuition that, to produce more gophers, the males of that species must periodically ‘get wood’, as it were…

  20. Thanks for posting that. As a paleobotanist my head is now bruised from hitting my desk so many times.

  21. “And meeting our needs implies intentional kindness. *
    said the fly that found a resting place on the White House.

  22. … And the smallpox virus which needed humans to survive. Aren’t there a couple of places where smallpox viruses are hanging on by depending on humans? I guess that’s intelligent design (by humans), now; but before the 20th century?

  23. Eric Lipps

    Re the evolution of leaves, here’s this article from Nature.