ICR Says Darwin Was All Wrong

This will surely convince you to abandon your foolish Darwinist beliefs, dear reader. We found it at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Their headline is Are the Galapágos Islands a Laboratory of Evolution?

It was written by Frank Sherwin, M.A. (Note that he touts his Master’s degree.) At the end of the article he’s described as “Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A recent Livescience article is entitled “The Galápagos Islands: Laboratory of Evolution.” [Here it is.] It addresses, among other things, “unique examples of plant and animal life.” The islands contain a variety of biota (the animal and plant life in a particular area), such as the Galápagos giant tortoise, sea lions, the varieties of finches, waved albatrosses, penguins, marine iguanas, and hundreds of native plants. A wide variety of unique species are normal for environments around the world, but where is evidence for real, demonstrative, vertical evolution that the title of the article alludes to?

Yeah, where’s the evidence? Sherwin says:

It appears Darwin’s conclusion was simply wrong. [Hee hee!] Life in the Galápagos makes far better sense from the biblical creation model. As God created animals and plants “after their kind” (e.g., Genesis 1:11), He included genetic variation and a variety of built-in adaptive mechanisms so that those initial creatures and all their descendants could move in and fill various niches in ecosystems throughout the world (Genesis 1:28). One need only look at bears in all their variation: polar, black and brown — there are well over a dozen black bear sub-species alone — but they’re all bears in the genus Ursus and can interbreed. Fruitflies have always been fruitflies, and roses have always been roses. Horizontal variation is the rule — not vertical evolution.

Darwin was a fool! Sherwin continues:

Not once did he [Darwin] actually address any origin of any species in his book, ironically entitled On the Origin of Species. He did write quite a bit regarding variation found in certain types of plants and animals selected for by human endeavors such as the common wild rock pigeon found around barns and city statues. But he never addressed vertical evolution, also commonly called macroevolution.

Actually, Darwin did address the issue — rather extensively. We wrote this back in 2009: What Did Darwin Do? Alas, our links in that post to Darwin’s text are no longer working and we haven’t yet replaced them, but you can read the whole book online here: Origin of Species (6th Edition). Let’s get back to Sherwin:

The famous Galápagos finches are usually presented as Exhibit A for Darwinian evolution [Really?], but all of the “new species” of finches are still finches and can interbreed. This is clearly not an example of real evolution, it’s an example of the variation we see in species. Different islands (e.g., James Island, Albemarle and Chatham) of the Galapagos have slightly different tortoises. Zoologists can identify the island a tortoise came from based on the shape of its carapace (shell). Again, this is just variation of the tortoise kind — the kind of variation we see all over creation. There is no evolution.

Gasp — there is no evolution! And now we come to the end:

So, although the Galápagos Islands has [sic] some unique plant and animal life, there is no real evolution occurring. Perhaps a better, more scientific title of this article could be, “The Galapagos Islands: Laboratory of Creation’s Variation.”

Think about it, dear reader. Maybe Sherwin is right!

Copyright © 2018. 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

20 responses to “ICR Says Darwin Was All Wrong

  1. Unaccountably, I can’t find the reference to “genetic variation and a variety of built-in adaptive mechanisms” which the ICR says are explicit at Genesis 1:28.

    But I’ve only checked the KJV; presumably, some other translation includes those vital nuggets..

  2. News flash! Creationist who doesn’t even know what “biological evolution” means says that it has to be impossible. Meanwhile super magician magic must work because he believes it does.

    The reality is that you cannot ever educate someone who starts by rejects education. The only things that Frank Sherwin has “proved” are that he is such a bigoted willfully ignorant fool and that he cannot be educated.

  3. after their kind (e.g. Genesis 1:11
    The King James Version of Genesis 1:11 (with my emphasis added)
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    Bad enough, but also.
    Please note that this does not say that God created stuff “according to his/its/their kind”. It says that
    1) the earth brought forth grass
    2) the herb yielding seed
    3) the fruit tree yielding fruit after its (i.e. the fruit tree’s) kind
    Note that it wuldn’t make sense to say that the first one means
    1″)the earth brought forth grass … after his (i.e. the earth’s) kind

  4. @Zetopan
    Yes. But also note that magic must work in the way that I want – it can’t involve evolution, of course. Even though the Bible does not say a word, positive, negative, or neutral, about evolution. For the same reason that the Bible doesn’t say anything about partial differential equations, the moons of Neptune, or superconductivity. The Bible is written as if it were the product of an Ancient Near Eastern culture. Sort of like the world was created as if it had a history of billions of years.

  5. Michael Fugate

    One does need to remember this is the supposed “God” who also did this after creating Adam:

    “18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

    Makes one wonder what was actually transpiring during the trial and error process. How did Adam know if they were a fitting help meet? Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge.

  6. Eddie Janssen

    Anyone any idea why Sherwin uses the English names for the different islands?
    (Albemarle = Isabela, James Island = San Salvador and Chatham = San Cristobal)

  7. Why don’t they just write their own Bible from scratch?
    They can leave in all of the boring parts of Leviticus that nobody reads. They can leave out stuff like the Sermon on the Mount. And they can add in all of the stuff about ice ages, the barrier between micro and macro …

  8. Michael Fugate

    Better yet, they can get God to fill in all the details as it relates to current scientific knowledge. A new edition every few years would be ideal.

  9. Sherwin implies that no macro-evolution has been observed since the species can still breed with each other. However, biologist Kelsey Luoma identified three instances involving finches, mice, and flies where Sherwin’s definition of macro-evolution was met. In these cases, separate breeds branched off and within a few years, the resultant organisms were incapable of breeding with the original population. Her full article is at http://tiny.cc/hv3ojy

  10. Eddie Janssen asks

    Anyone any idea why Sherwin uses the English names for the different islands?

    Duh! That’s easy.

    Because English is the language Jesus spoke in the Bible! Everyone knows that!

  11. TomS references

    all of the boring parts of Leviticus that nobody reads

    If only that were so!

    But I think that the hard-core Christian Dominionists not only do read all the small print in Leviticus, but take it very seriously indeed. If they were ever to achieve political power, Margaret Attwood’s Gilead would no longer be fiction.

    It’s worth noting that the principal donor to the Discoveroids is just such a Christian Dominionist…

  12. “vertical evolution”
    What the heck does that even mean? As compared to horizontal and diagonal evolution? Of course evolution has been demonstrated all the times that speciation has been observed last 100+ years, but Sherwin LeFranque doesn’t seem to bother.

    “Fruitflies have always been fruitflies, and roses have always been roses.”
    Oooohhh! This is horizontal evolution! Sherwin LeFranque is right! We biased athiest evilutionists never saw it! When you dance the micromambo you dance horizontally! Dancing thye macromambo would mean moving upward and we all know that gravity doesn’t permit! Checkmate!

    “Fruitflies have always been fruitflies, and roses have always been roses.”
    Yup and the fox always remains a fox and the goose always remains a goose and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. Now what genius wrote that down again? Hint: he also claimed that a jew always retained the character of a jew and he started a world war.

    “there is no real evolution occurring”
    Apparently only a false one. Now I’m confused – micro evolution, macro evolution, horizontal evolution, vertical evolution, real evolution, false evolution – what’s next? Perhaps circular evoluition? Differential evolution? Psychedelic evolution?

  13. @MolineS thinks erroneously he has caught our beloved creacrappers: “where Sherwin’s definition of macro-evolution was met”.
    Nope. Not at all. They still belong to the same kind. Macro-evolution means evolving from one kind into another. And Sherwin Lefranque carefully avoids to specify what he means with “kind”.
    One species of finches may evolve into another. They still belong to the kind “finch”. Etc. etc. etc. Broaden the set of “kind” as far as desirable. Learn this lesson from me: you can’t beat creacrap, because creacrappers don’t obey the rules of mentally healthy people like you and me.

  14. Michael Fugate

    “Kind” is continually redefined to ensure that macroevolution cannot occur.

  15. You cannot stop macroevolution by redefining words, you must have laws forbidding it like in Kansas. (Look for “Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution” 😉 )

  16. @FrankB

    Horizontal evolution is like horizontal dancing, you know, like:

    “Birds do it, bees do it…”

    Vertical evolution is where evolution merely jumps up and down, on one spot. That’s the sort of evolution that’s always left on the sides, lonely and forlorn, at dance halls and parties because no-one wants to “dance” with it.

    Michael Jackson used to do his moonwalk, which is kind of evolution, but in reverse.

  17. It may have been a dozen years since I got my Masters, but I believe MA stands for Master of Arts. I also have an MA.

    I’m not so stupid as to pretend to be a scientist…

  18. @thespartanatheist
    In Sherwin’s case, I think any degree is better than none. It says “I am not some yokel, I am an ‘educated’ person”.
    Unfortunately, the substance of his writing doesn’t warrant any veneer of credibility or respectability. However the shortcomings are lost on his target audience, and they will respond to any criticism with the Christine Keeler defence “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they”.

  19. The “tortoise kind”? How many kinds are there supposed to be, and how many species does each one include? Where are the boundaries?

    Creationists have an annoying habit of defining the k-word flexibly, so that each you-know-what can have as many or as few species in it as are convenient for them.

  20. All evolution is micro-evolution. It stays within the kind “carbon-based life on Earth”.