Jason Lisle & Vernon Cupps — Together Again

A month ago we posted ICR: Jason Lisle & Vernon Cupps, Together, to discuss an article at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It was written by Jason Lisle, ICR’s creationist astrophysicist, and Vernon R. Cupps, about whom we previously wrote ICR Has a Creationist Nuclear Physicist.

To our delight, the dynamic duo has written a new article, titled Subatomic Particles, Part 4: Gauge Bosons, the Glue That Holds the Universe Together . Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In the previous articles of this series, we reviewed 12 of the 18 known elementary particles — nothing smaller exists. These are the six leptons and six quarks. Five of the remaining six elementary particles are gauge bosons (see Figure 1).

They spend several paragraphs discussing those particles, but don’t worry — we’re skipping that material. What we’re looking for is creationism. It takes a while, but Lisle and Cupps don’t disappoint. More than half-way through the article they say:

Having explored the 18 known elementary particles and their properties, we are struck by the orderly way in which they may be classified (see Figure 3). Why such logical organization? What worldview can make sense of this?

A truly profound question! They tell us:

In the biological sciences, living organisms can be classified into a logical hierarchy (order, family, genus, species). Creationists expect this because God is logical and has imposed order on His creation. Despite substantial evidence to the contrary [Hee hee!], secularists still tell us that evolution is the way to account for such a hierarchy, that all organisms have similarities because they share a common ancestor, and differences are due to the cumulative effect of tiny changes over billions of years.

Silly secularists! Lisle & Cupps continue:

However, evolution cannot account for the hierarchy of particles because particles do not gradually evolve. Even when particles decay, the transition is essentially instantaneous and always results in one of the 18 known elementary particles. It is not as though the electron somehow gradually gained mass over millions of years until it became a muon. Elementary particles cannot gradually change, and so we cannot appeal to evolution or any chance process as the explanation for their hierarchical classification. Only if the universe is upheld by the mind of God can we account for such order.

They’re right! Evolution doesn’t explain anything about subatomic particles! Let’s read on:

The way in which God controls the universe is so logical and mathematical that we can assign equations to it and even predict the statistical outcome of many particle interactions. We can compute the electromagnetic force accurately over great distances because of God’s order. The four fundamental forces are not a replacement for God’s power but an example of God’s power. They merely describe the ordinary way God upholds creation, and we could not make sense of them apart from biblical revelation.

Yes — it’s perfectly clear and logical — like everything else in the bible. Another excerpt:

Slightly change the charge of an electron or a quark and atoms could never form larger structures due to electric repulsion. It’s clear the universe is perfectly designed for life.

Which means — or should mean — that life will spring up wherever there’s a suitable planet, but for some reason that’s not discussed. And now we come to the end:

Furthermore, aside from the photon, subatomic particles are not things we can see with our eyes. … Rather, we infer the existence of these particles due to the effects they produce on things we can see. Therefore, we have a well-justified faith (evidence of things not seen) in these particles and their properties. Similarly, we cannot normally see God with our eyes, but the evidence of His upholding power is displayed throughout the cosmos — from the smallest bosons and quarks to the largest galaxies.

Right again — faith is the only way to go! What a great article!

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

17 responses to “Jason Lisle & Vernon Cupps — Together Again

  1. Mike Elzinga

    The way in which God controls the universe is so logical and mathematical that we can assign equations to it and even predict the statistical outcome of many particle interactions.

    Who is this “we” they are talking about?

    Having looked at the “calculations” coming out of ID/creationist leaders – particularly Lisle, Dembski, et. al. – I can definitely say that Lisle and Cupps can do no such thing.

  2. Similarly, we cannot normally see God with our eyes

    Not “normally” indicates “occasionally can” and I’d like ICR to present evidence of that. Creationists always equivocate because they know they’re lying and think a few weasel words gets them off the hook.

    Nope, Lisle and Cupps, you’re heading to the Lake o’ Fire!

  3. Elementary particles cannot gradually change, and so we cannot appeal to evolution or any chance process as the explanation for their hierarchical classification.

    Wrongo. These elementary particles’ DNA are ripe for genetic defects which lead them to decay into a life of sin and debauchery.

  4. Lets see if I got this right. Scientists think that things such as electrons and photon exist because there is evidence that there are such things that affect the world. IDers have faith that some magic creature designed them, with no evidence at all.

  5. I. How do you know that there are such invisible particles? Were you there?

    II. If the laws of nature were designed for life, and the Earth were the focus of special privilege for life, then why is it that the second law of thermodynamics causes such impossibilities for the appearance of life on the privileged planet?

  6. However, evolution cannot account for the hierarchy of particles because particles do not gradually evolve. Even when particles decay, the transition is essentially instantaneous and always results in one of the 18 known elementary particles. It is not as though the electron somehow gradually gained mass over millions of years until it became a muon.

    You’re right. This one’s an absolute classic.

    aside from the photon, subatomic particles are not things we can see with our eyes.

    Is there a word stronger than “absolute”? Hey, guys, come and look at my photon.

  7. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    This is the second time that I have run into this reference to “secularists” very recently in which it used in a sense that equates it to someone who doesn’t believe in any gods. Which is just plain dumb. Secularism is a stance on the what the relationship between religion and government should be and says nothing about whether one is a theist, atheist, accepts evolution, or rejects it. There are plenty of theist creationists that are also secularist.

    Is this just another attempt to poison the well as they do by conflating “evolution” with many independent disciplines of science in order to muddle the waters for their ill educated brethren? It also makes one wonder if it isn’t driven by a desire to frame and cloud things to promote dominionism. I don’t know how they can write crap like this and not feel any sense of shame over its intellectual dishonesty.

  8. I don’t know how they can write crap like this and not feel any sense of shame over its intellectual dishonesty.

    Because they are professional creationists. All professional creationists lie. All of them. Evolution can’t explain subatomic particles? You’re [edited out] [edited out] [edited out] me, right? That is so insanely obtuse that it can only be explained as a deliberate attempt to misdirect and misinform which is the definition of a lie.

    I see Lisle following in the footsteps of Dr. Dr. Dumbski, peddling the old good time religion and snake oil until, in the end, he runs out of customers and opens up a Kwik-E-Mart in Nebraska. Sad when you think about how astrophysics is a pretty cool discipline to be in now.

  9. “Similarly, we cannot normally see God with our eyes…”
    And since you also can’t see the gigantic invisible magenta alien slug creatures that live inside all stars they must also exist.

  10. Yeah, I remember Lisle:

    Lisle on galaxy formation:
    http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=115005#p115005

    Lisle on laws of nature, and presuppositionalism, etc:
    http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=99312&Page=2#1634909

    Lisle and the starlight/time problem:
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/09/happy-jason-lis.html

    Lisle and various bits of creationist claptrap:
    http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=108068

  11. Yeah, I remember him:
    This is a perfect example of how he thinks. He takes the observable evidence, and throws god in there in order to make things fit with his creationist young universe views:
    http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=115005#p115005

  12. michaelfugate

    Classic ruse. Biological evolution can’t account for something no biologist would ever claim it could account for. Since biological evolution can’t account for diversity in subatomic particles, then it can’t account for diversity in living things?

  13. However, evolution cannot account for the hierarchy of particles because particles do not gradually evolve. Even when particles decay, the transition is essentially instantaneous and always results in one of the 18 known elementary particles. It is not as though the electron somehow gradually gained mass over millions of years until it became a muon. Elementary particles cannot gradually change, and so we cannot appeal to evolution or any chance process as the explanation for their hierarchical classification.

    And what does this have to do with biological evolution?

    In any case, “elementary particles” can and do change over time. the subject is addressed in this article, which took me all of 30 seconds to find on the Web.

    Only if the universe is upheld by the mind of God can we account for such order.

    Rubbish. We’re back to the image of God racing from one lever or dial to another to keep his designed universe running. Any decent engineer knows that a machine that will break down unless every little detail of its operation is constantly monitored and (correctly) adjusted is poorly designed. (Incidentally, this applies to the human body, which neither perfectly monitors nor perfectly adjusts itself–which is why we get cancer, get old, and eventually die of one thing or another. But I guess that’s just because Adam and Eve ate that apple.)

  14. @Eric Lipps

    The site you link to, 2c, presents a fairly unorthodox model of the universe. I’m not sure how much its account of evolving particles can be relied upon.

  15. I can confirm what Docbill writes. Every single creationist I’ve met on internet last 6 years or so rather lies than admits he (very rarely a she) is wrong. It’s not so much that creationists are incapable of learning something new; they refuse to and are proud of it.

  16. Laurel and Hardy — I mean Lisle and Cupps — write:

    “The way in which God controls the universe is so logical and mathematical that we can assign equations to it and even predict the statistical outcome of many particle interactions.”

    Dammit, guys! Thats the Uniformitarianism heresy you’re committing again! How many times do your Creationist masters have to tell you, particle interactions and the laws of physics are *not* predictable! They could change at any moment, rendering all our particle decay-based dating methods useless!

    I suggest Lisle and Cupps turn in their quills and be consigned to remedial Creationist retraining so remember to disavow Uniformitarianism in their writings, instead of affirming it like they did here.

    “We can compute the electromagnetic force accurately over great distances because of God’s order.”

    But insert a time element, and we can’t compute squat, right guys? Try to get your story straight before you blab to the media next time.

  17. It’s a difference between true, scientific uniformitarianism and false, evolutionary uniformitarianism.