ICR: Mutations Are Always Bad

The creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — are giving us another example of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

Their article is headlined Mutation Underlies Fatal Heart Condition . 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. You can learn more about him here: The Mind of Brian Thomas. We’ll give you some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:

A 15-year-long project finally bore fruit after researchers painstakingly identified a specific gene mutation that can lead to sudden heart failure in otherwise healthy-looking young people.

Brian is referring to the research described in this news article from McMaster University in Ontario: Gene found to cause sudden death in young people. You can read it online without a subscription.

Then Brian says something the researchers didn’t say:

These newly published results counter the long-standing view that mutations can somehow drive evolutionary innovation.

After that, Brian goes his own merry way:

Think of most mutations as raindrops that help erode brick buildings over centuries. Raindrops can’t construct brick buildings, but they do erode them. Mistakes in mortar mixtures don’t improve brick buildings, they weaken them. Similarly, mutations never draft or upgrade genetic blueprints for protein construction. At least, no scientist has yet published a single example of that type of occurance [sic].

That last sentence is amazing, but Brian has a footnote that refers to an article by Michael Behe, a Discoveroid. On the other hand, here are some Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection, and here are some Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans.

Brian concludes by saying that this heart disease mutation illustrates “the classic question:”

How can information be built up by mutations that consistently lose it? The discovery of a mutation behind this sad heart disease offers one more reason why errors in pre-existing coding instructions represent the least likely candidates imaginable to generate life-giving information.

So there you are, dear reader. Darwin was wrong. Creation science wins again!

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

15 responses to “ICR: Mutations Are Always Bad

  1. Michael Fugate

    I can’t comment on this without upsetting the profanity filters…

  2. Think of the erosion which makes the geological hoodoos and natural bridges (those examples of irreducible complexity), and how earthquakes and volcanoes give rise to islands and mountains.
    As far as mutations, think of the mutations which gave rise to four-color vision in humans (tetrachromacy); and in the case of malaria vs. humans, human adaptation against the parasite and the parasite adapts against drugs.

  3. BTW, the battle of the mutations between malaria vs. humans is described in Behe’s book “The Edge of Evolution”.

  4. Ross Cameron

    O.k., think of us as raindrops pounding on the beliefs of nutters, gradually wearing away the nonsense that controls their lives. 🙂

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    Question for Brian: If the Creator is infinitely wise, and doesn’t play any parlor tricks with evolution, then why do human infants first acquire 20 primary teeth, which are later thrown out and replaced by 32 entirely different adult teeth? And now a great number of modern humans never even get all four of the “wisdom” molars which the great Creator had envisioned.

  6. Michael Fugate

    This month’s National Geographic discusses several beneficial human mutations.

  7. I thought creationists were always thought to be mutants.

  8. “an article by Michael Behe, a Discoveroid”; is that his December 2010 Quarterly Review of Biology paper, in which he places absurdly stringent requirements on a mutation, before he will consider it beneficial, but even so comes up with two examples that he can’t exclude or dismiss? And while two isn’t many, it’s more than you need to refute his thesis that such a thing can’t possibly happen.

    The same number includes a wonderful essay by Stefaan Blancke, entitled “Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience”; a cruel juxtaposition!

  9. Every Historian of Antiquity in Europe understands the importance of the mutation that gave invading people the advantage of lactose tolerance.

  10. @mnbo And if I’m not mistaken, completely different mutations that provide the same benefit have independently arisen in a number of African tribes.

  11. That said, creationists basically behave like would-be gods. They speak, and assume whatever they assert will simply become true. Having beneficial mutations not exist is as simple as declaring it to be so. Like a three-year-old child, they close their eyes, and assume that what they cannot see ceases to be.

  12. The long-time puzzle for me is why people take the pronouncements as infallible. Why is it so often that people will predict the end of the world, and they get a following? Everyone knows that there have been many such failures. So much so, that it is a familiar topic of cartoons. The Bible makes a clear statement that nobody knows when the end-times will happen, and that it will happen by surprise.

  13. DavidK:
    “I thought creationists were always thought to be mutants.”

    Thus supporting Brian Thomas’s assertion of “no beneficial mutations.”

  14. Ah Brian, you’d be a bit more honest if you just said that the only thing you know about evolution is that you don’t like it.

  15. How can information be built up by mutations that consistently lose it? The discovery of a mutation behind this sad heart disease offers one more reason why errors in pre-existing coding instructions represent the least likely candidates imaginable to generate life-giving information.

    Oh, for God’s sake. Mutations don’t “consistently lose” information. Gene doubling creates extra, if redundant, information, and further independent mutations of the separate copies can turn redundant genes into different ones, thereby creating further new information.