ICR Is Labeled a Junk News Website

Wikipedia defines Fake news as:

a type of hoax or deliberate spread of misinformation, be it via the traditional news media or via social media, with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically.

As we’ve reported recently, creationists have been attempting to use the phenomenon to their advantage — see Klinghoffer Says Evolution Is ‘Fake News’, followed not long thereafter by Ken Ham Is a Victim of ‘Fake News’.

Now we have a new development, reported by the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their headline is ICR Falsely Placed on False News List, written by Brian Thomas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A Harvard library website that offers ways to spot “fake news” links to a non-Harvard Google doc with “Tips for analyzing news sources.” The doc lists hundreds of “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical ‘News’ Sources,” and as of this writing the list includes the Institute for Creation Research.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he says:

As soon as we learned of it, we contacted the assistant professor behind the list, a Harvard journalism web resource that linked to the list, and the Harvard library that also linked to the list. Our respectful requests for removal from the list — after all, ICR.org does not report false news, misleading news, clickbait, or satire — brought a variety of results.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Can you imagine the reaction of the fake news list folks at Harvard? Well, what were the results of ICR’s protest? Brian tells us:

After our request, the list manager specified ICR.org as “junksci,” as though ICR purveys junk science. Junk science describes conclusive-sounding statements with no support from experiment or observation. Examples of junk science include flat earth theories, manipulated climate reports, and a variety of unproven health-related claims.

“Junksci” — that’s beautiful! Brian continues:

ICR actually tries to expose some junk science. … ICR.org contains thousands of science articles that painstakingly reference original technical science sources. … Should those who read the “fake” list consider the hundreds of secular science journals that our articles reference as junk, too?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If a creationist website quote-mines or otherwise misrepresents the actual research reported in a legitimate science journal, should the science journal also be considered junk? Let’s read on:

ICR.org clearly and repeatedly promotes and describes good, referenced science. So, why are we on this “false” list? What’s really going on?

Why is ICR on the junk list? It’s so unfair! Another excerpt:

Our scientists believe the Bible. When we report on the good science behind stunning ingenuity in DNA repair enzymes, for example, we feel free to credit the Creator. When we report on the good science behind preservation of short-lived tissues still persisting in dinosaur and other fossils, we feel free to include the Bible’s recent Flood as a reasonable explanation. Today’s anti-Creator, anti-Bible attitudes clearly clash with this biblical history.

The way Brian explains it, the creation scientists at ICR are the good guys. Here’s how the article ends:

We challenge readers to search for legitimate junk on ICR.org, having confidence that peering into ICR.org’s nearly half-century worth of content similarly reveals a long trend of good science — conclusions based on experimental results and reliable eyewitnesses.

Okay, dear reader, you’ve been challenged. Can you find any “legitimate junk” on the ICR website? Well, can you?

Copyright © 2017. 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

16 responses to “ICR Is Labeled a Junk News Website

  1. So AiG were omitted from this list (and presumably Trump’s Twitter feed too)?

  2. Our Curmudgeon issues a wonderful challenge:

    Can you find any “legitimate junk” on the ICR website?

    Not if we apply the famous Casy Luskin Junk Filter! For since all the crapola on the ICR helps their fundraising from the rubes–that is, since it has a function, no matter how nefarious–it can’t be ‘junk’!

    …Damn, I still miss Casey so much!

  3. Michael Fugate

    Wouldn’t you love to see that email exchange? ICR pleading that the earth really is 6000years old and the flood really, really happened? Too funny.

  4. They are correct the ICR is NOT junk science!! It aint good enough to be junk!!

  5. Hans Weichselbaum

    Great news!! Finally a positive reaction coming from all these ‘post truth’, ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’. People are starting to wake up and clean up the mess.

    “ICR.org clearly and repeatedly promotes and describes good, referenced science”
    If there is a prize for best job in cherry picking, quote mining and distorting of facts – ICR should get it.

  6. Michael Fugate

    The contentious word in that sentence is “good”; ICR defines it as “in agreement with ICR’s interpretation of the Bible”. That is not how very many others would define “good” in relation to science.

  7. I wondered just how easy it would be to find junk science on the ICR site: first stop, the “About Us” page (http://www.icr.org/tenets), first section “Principles of Scientific Creationism”. Bingo!

  8. Then we should soon expect the Dishonesty Institute as well as AIG to likewise be placed on this list of JunkSci providers and expose them for the frauds they are?

  9. I’m thinking the ghosts of the Scottish Enlightenment are smiling today.
    I know I am. Logic and knowledge have pushed the darkness back a few more steps. Thanks Harvard .

  10. Creationists should embrace this. They are the original, the most pedigreed fake news and alternative facts around. They were the path-breakers and now they should embrace this as affirmation of their trend-setting status!

  11. Ross Cameron

    Fake News? Let me count the ways——–

  12. http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-evidence-for-recent-global/

    RATE’s own measurement of 14C levels in ten coal samples using one of the world’s best AMS laboratories strongly confirms both this reported range in 14C/C ratio and the lack of dependence of this ratio on position in the rock record. In terms of 14C age, if one makes the assumption, as is normally done, that the 14C/C ratio in these fossilized organisms when they died was close to that of today’s atmosphere, the range in 14C/C ratio of 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern value corresponds to 14C ages between 44,000 and 57,000 years.

    In other words, it is at the limit of the detection equipment.

    A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all but the very youngest fossil material in the geological record was buried contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been a major global cataclysm.

    Or, perhaps a better inference is that there is a gigantic leap of faith here.

    Using a lower, more realistic estimate for the biospheric 14C/C ratio prior to this cataclysm reduces the actual 14C age by roughly a factor of ten from about 50,000 years to a value of about 5000 years. This latter age estimate, of course, is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the life on the planet, both plants and animals, in a single brief cataclysm some four to five millennia ago.

    In other words, because the coal samples are “older than the hills” and far exceed the limits of the detection equipment, so that some contamination and some equipment residue produce extremely tiny amounts of C14, we must add a fudge factor of -10X and conclude that there was a global flood some 5000 years ago–in spite of there being no evidence for such a flood.

    Hmmmmm. Sure seems like junk science to me.

  13. Ross Cameron

    Coyote, always thought the lack of mention of Ice Ages in the bible could have been the clincher. Then there`s there`s the different isostatic rebound between land and ocean.

  14. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    This was kind of a slick dog whistle-y move on Brian’s part, slipping this in between flat Earth and medical quackery …

    After our request, the list manager specified ICR.org as “junksci,” as though ICR purveys junk science. Junk science describes conclusive-sounding statements with no support from experiment or observation. Examples of junk science include flat earth theories, manipulated climate reports, and a variety of unproven health-related claims.

    Translation: Junk science like those manipulated IPCC reports and heck, while we are at it, the entire consensus on Climate Change. Everyone knows Yahweh/Jebus would never allow us to crap up the birdcage so badly. Praise be.

  15. ICR should be flattered, at least they used the term news.

  16. What about the IDiots? When you Google and they are the only source.