The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — has a new post by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. We first encountered him in ICR Has a Creationist Nuclear Physicist. ICR wrote an article about him when he was hired — see New ICR Research Associate: Vernon R. Cupps. They say:
[He worked] at the Los Alamos National Laboratory before taking a position as radiation physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where he directed and supervised a radiochemical analysis laboratory from 1988 to 2011. He is a published researcher with 73 publications, 18 of which are in referred journals.
Get ready for a real treat, dear reader. Vernon’s new article is March for ‘Science’. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017, a group of people claiming to represent science marched in Washington D.C. and 600 other cities around the world to express their views on social and political issues. But did they really represent science? What is science?
ICR’s creationist nuclear physicist will tell us what science is. He says:
Science is certainly not political; it is not determined by the popular opinions, dictates or consensus of men. Rather, it is a systematic methodology for studying natural phenomena. But it is not synonymous with naturalism — the belief that all events in the universe have a natural (material) cause.
Science is a process, not a philosophy, so it isn’t the same as naturalism; but we assume Vernon says they’re not the same because he wants to leave room for the supernatural — that is, creation science. He tells us:
Scientific methodology can be generally broken down into the following four categories:
He then defines fact, hypothesis, theory, and law — but badly mangles “law,” saying that it’s “A scientific theory which has no known falsifications and many observational and experimental verifications over a long period of time advances to the category of a scientific law.” A far better definition is provided by the National Center for Science Education right here. A law is “A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.” A theory is an explanation; a law a description — not a senior theory.
But that’s not the main focus of Vernon’s post. He continues:
So what did the March for Science hope to accomplish? Apparently they intended to eliminate opposition to Darwinian evolution and man-made climate change. They consider these two contentions to be scientific fact. But their website states that they’re interested in evidence-based policy and regulations, science education based on the weight of evidence, and free exchange of scientific research (i.e., no gag rules on scientists). Other ideas they express are political and appear to attempt to establish scientists as a special group not subject to the vagaries of economic downturns as common citizens are, yet thoroughly subject to the whims of the ruling elite.
He finally gets around to criticizing evolution:
Let’s take a look at these goals. Is Darwinian evolution a scientific fact? Well, if Newton’s Laws of Motion cannot be considered as fact, then how can such a weak hypothesis as Darwinian evolution be considered a scientific fact? The weight of evidence does not even support evolution as a viable hypothesis! There is virtually no established evidence for Darwinian evolution, but there is a great deal of evidence against it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Vernon tells his drooling readers:
For example, 1) no undisputed transitional forms exist in the fossil record when Darwin himself asserted that there should be many transitional forms in the fossil record, 2) the irreducible complexity of even simple one-celled organisms challenges the idea that they could come about in a gradual evolutionary fashion, 3) the statistical impossibility of evolution, 4) the lack of a feasible mechanism for macro-evolution, 5) the problem of how viable complex molecules for living organisms could form from a simple chemical soup, and finally 6) simple common sense: If a watch or an automobile cannot form randomly, how can the significantly more complicated life forms of Earth form randomly?
What an arlkoad! We’ve rebutted that nonsense dozens of times before, so we won’t bother doing it again. Vernon announces:
Evolution not only fails as a scientific fact, it is not even a reasonable hypothesis. It is actually an article of faith favored by those who want God removed from science, our schools, and our political and social systems.
Then he plays the same game with climate change. Here’s a sample:
Keep in mind that the models which make the most extreme predictions depend on a runaway buildup of CO2 which the globalist community inevitably attributes to human activity. But CO2 is natural, essential for plant life, and is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The net result, if this group is successful in eliminating opposition to man-made climate change, would be a carbon tax on virtually every human being living on planet earth. This is not science; it is manipulative politics.
Based on that brilliant analysis he announces:
The organizers of the March for Science claim they are against political interference in science, and yet they lobby the political establishment to prevent discourse or the teaching of any ideas contrary to the current dogmas of evolution and man-made climate change — a clear contradiction of their stated goals.
And now we come to the end:
Hopefully, the current trends toward science by decree will end before we enter a new Dark Age of Science. [Huh?] Humans are fallible and hence science is fallible, but the Word of God, under relentless attack for millennia, stands firm and immutable. Therefore, it can be our only sure foundation in this ever-changing world. Perhaps we need to stop making science preeminent over God’s Word.
In case you’ve been wondering why a nuclear physicist ended up working for ICR, that article should explain it.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.