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:
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.