We Found Jason Lisle’s New Website

Remember Jason Lisle? He’s the creationist astrophysicist who used to work for Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. We posted about him quite often.

Everyone remembers Jason Lisle’s “Instant Starlight” Paper. That was his solution to the Distant Starlight problem. The problem — for young-earth creationists — is that the light we see from distant sources required literally billions of years to reach earth, yet the creationist’s universe is only 6,000 years old.

For reasons which have never been explained, Jason left AIG a few years ago to go to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom, where he became their “Director of Physical Sciences.” We only posted a few times about him at ICR; the last was something he wrote back in April of 2017. But now we have some news to report.

Jason has started his own creationist ministry! It’s the Biblical Science Institute. Their “Archives” lists stuff going back to July of 2017, so maybe everyone else has known about Jason’s website and your Curmudgeon is only now discovering it. Anyway, his “About” page says:

This brand-new creation-themed science ministry exists to help you rationally defend the Christian worldview against those who claim that the Bible is unscientific. Critics assert that science has disproved the Bible, particularly the history recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. The Biblical Science Institute will equip Christians to logically refute such claims and to be encouraged that science confirms the Bible.

One of the silliest myths of our culture is the story of particles-to-people evolution – that all life is an unplanned byproduct of mindless chemistry. Even more absurd is that this story is taught as if it were somehow the scientific position, as if it had abundant supporting evidence and as if it were the only rational possibility. The great irony is that the opposite is true. Evolution is nothing but a scientifically bankrupt conjecture. My conviction is that no one on earth believes in evolution for rational reasons. The Biblical Science Institute stands ready to expose the silliness and irrationality of those who stubbornly refuse to bow the knee to Christ.

We don’t know if Jason’s website will be worth following, but he has talent, so the place might be a good source of entertainment. This is one of his recent articles: Darwin’s Trap. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, he employed an ingenious trick to persuade people of evolution. [Huh?] He linked evolution to natural selection, implying that natural selection was the mechanism of evolution.

Why is that a trick? Jason says:

This was a clever trap because when something false (evolution) is linked with something true (natural selection), people are often fooled. They become convinced of the lie by seeing the merit of the truth. Darwin’s trap is particularly insidious because, in reality, natural selection is the opposite of evolution.

Wow! He explains:

Natural selection is the true principle that organisms unfit for their environment die, leaving only organisms that are well-suited to their setting. When organisms die before reproducing, their genetic information is not passed on, and is eventually removed from the population. So, natural selection inevitably involves a reduction in genetic information.

Okay, now we see where this is going. He continues:

Yet evolution requires brand new genetic information to be added to organisms in order to turn one kind into another – the opposite of what natural selection does. Natural selection doesn’t create any new traits, nor does it add the new genetic information that would be essential for Darwinian evolution. It only refers to the removal of organisms that are not already adapted to their environment.

It appears that Jason never heard of mutations, the source of variation within a species, which gives natural selection something to select. Anyway, that’s enough.

So where are we? Well, we’ve discovered where Jason has been lately, so we’ll check the place out from time to time. Who knows? We may find some good stuff to blog about.

Copyright © 2019. 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

35 responses to “We Found Jason Lisle’s New Website

  1. siluriantrilobite

    I’m bored by Lisle, but have always wondered why he left AiG. They must get along now, because he occasionally is a speaker at one of Ham’s conferences. There might of been a breakup and makeup.

  2. Natural selection is the true principle that organisms unfit for their environment die, leaving only organisms that are well-suited to their setting. When organisms die before reproducing, their genetic information is not passed on, and is eventually removed from the population. So, natural selection inevitably involves a reduction in genetic information.

    Nonsense, of course. Such an argument presumes (and indeed creationists insist on this) that no new genetic information replaces what was lost. This, however, is a purely dogmatic statement, based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of both genetics and information.

    It’s perfectly possible for new genes to emerge, and evidence that this has occurred and is occurring is accumulating. As for information, of course new information can appear; if it could not, no new ideas would ever develop. Creationists, however, embrace a slippery non-definition of the term which allows them to wave this away by claiming that new information is really just old information recycled. As with their use of the term “kind,” this is a word game, not a scientific argument.

  3. Can anyone give an example of something,, anything, where “it is designed” is an adequate answer?

  4. Karl Goldsmith

    “Christian worldview against those who claim that the Bible is unscientific.” Note how YECs always conflate Creationist with Christian.

  5. As with others like Jason, these folks are either unaware of or dismissive of the many ways new “information” is acquired by organisms. They’ve been listed here before, and they are in every biology and genetics textbook.
    They include gene duplication, partial and whole chromosome duplication, and whole-genome duplication to name a few. Human embryonic, fetal and adult hemoglobins are the result of gene duplication, quite beneficial. I’d go on, but readers here don’t need to be convinced, and Jason and his friends never will be.

  6. Holding The Line In Florida

    Seems to me that Lisle is simply striking off on his own in competition with the other creatards. Seems to think that is more gold to be had in the sheeple.

  7. Michael Fugate

    Lisle kindergarten report card comment “does not play well with others”.

  8. @Karl Goldsmith:
    Perhaps it would help if Lisle would define “Christian Worldview”. I always thought it meant adhering to the Golden Rule — you know, love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, turn the other cheek, etc., etc.

    I had about ten or twelve years of perfect attendance in Sunday school (!), and can’t recall hearing or reading about Jesus saying anything about evolution or lack thereof, age of the earth, The Flood, or anything else that constitutes a creationist worldview.

    Implying that accepting scientific explanations of our universe’s phenomena is somehow un-Christian is a dangerous and deceptive tact to take. There is no way a rational and informed person can accept a 6,000 year old universe, a Flood that covered the entire Earth, or all species of life poofing into existence in one week. So, if creationists such as Lisle and Ham are insisting that these creationist ideas must be accepted to be considered a Christian, there won’t be that many rational, intelligent, and informed people considering themselves Christian.

    Moreover, it is a very dangerous idea for the adherents of any religion to consider themselves morally superior to all others. That’s what starts wars, holocausts, and irrational hatred. If there is such a thing as “God’s Chose People”, we are ALL God’s Chosen People — Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, agnostic, atheist, etc., etc., etc.

    As for creationist “leaders” such as Ham, Lisle, and all the rest — it’s impossible to follow someone who insists we throw away our rationality in order to swallow their creationist dogma.

  9. Oops — forgot to close the bold. Thanking the Benevolent Hand in advance, I call upon the Mighty Curmudgeon to correct my error after “ALL.”
    Thank you.

    [*Voice from above*] All is well, my son.

  10. “Jason has started his own creationist ministry!”
    How comforting that the future of this nice blog is guaranteed.

    “defend the Christian worldview against those who claim that the Bible is unscientific”
    Aha – all those christians who maintain that the Bible is not a science book are no christians.

    “We may find some good stuff to blog about.”
    I do hope Jason will blog about physics, because some variation is always welcome. Also his particular take on evolution theory is pathetically weak, even according to creacrap standards.
    Oops, my bad. Creacrappers don’t have any standards.

  11. @TomS asks desperately: “Can anyone give an example of something,, anything, where “it is designed” is an adequate answer?”
    Yes, the blueprint of a machine. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what you had in mind.

    @RSG is also a bit desperate: “Perhaps it would help if Lisle would define “Christian Worldview”.
    Why, the correct definition of course is the Bible as interpreted by Lisle (or Ol’Hambo or some other YECer we’re dealing with at a given moment).

  12. Ross Cameron

    Credit where credit is due–Jason got one thing right—‘people are often fooled’.

  13. If Jason’s branched out on his own, perhaps there is more money to be made pushing creationist claptrap than is generally realized. Fleecing the flock pays well.

  14. @FrankB
    I look at a blueprint of a machine. Yes, that blueprint was designed. Someone asks me about that blueprint.
    Where did that blueprint come from?
    Who produced it, when and where?
    What is that macihine supposed to do?
    Why does the blueprint have this particular line over here?
    etc., etc., etc.
    And I explain, “It was designed.”

    What is one to make of my answer?
    Now, just think of this: The IDers want to say that a weed, or a algal mat on a pond, or a mold on a damp wall are also designed. So, when I say that the blueprint is designed, I might telling you that it just grew there on that sheet of paper.

    Are you lost daddy I arsked tenderly.
    Shut up he explained.

    Ring Lardner, “The Young Immigrunts”

  15. @Scientist
    Jason and his ARRRRGHonauts and their quest to fleece some gold.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Lisle pronounced lie all meaning all lies?

  17. If a YE creationist starts to moan about evolution he should be sent straight to a Geology 101 class. First get a handle on the age of the earth.

  18. It appears that Jason never heard of mutations, the source of variation within a species, which gives natural selection something to select.

    Also Recombination, which mixes and matches the mutations in new and novel ways.

  19. I have a question! (say that in a funny British accent like the guy in “Thumb Wars”.

    If all the answers you need for science are in the Bible, they WHY would you need more than one ministry dedicated to spreading that information?

    Unless it’s all about competing for dollars from the gullible……

  20. Follow the money. Hambo is a cheap old dingo. Lisle probably he deserved more of the Hambo dung pie and was denied.

    ICR is simply Hambo Lite, without the moolah. They are a skin-flint operation out of a strip mall near Dallas. I’ll bet Lisle wasn’t getting even a fraction of the dung pie at Hambo’s emporium.

    So, he’s striking out on his own.

    Alternatively, Lisle could be such a supercilious SOB that nobody could work with the insufferable git. Anyway, be on the lookout for Lisle’s Uber service, coming to a neighborhood near you.

  21. @TomS concludes: “So, when I say that the blueprint is designed, I might telling you that it just grew there on that sheet of paper.”
    Not good enough. Blueprints growing out of paper still are not evidence for any Grand Old Designer …… (blessed be Mofo!).

  22. @FrankB
    I don’t understand the relevance of your reply.
    I had asked for something that “it’s designed” would explain.
    You suggested “a blueprint”.
    I asked, “what about a blueprint does being designed explain?”
    And you told me … ???

  23. Jason, like his forerunners, knows that it is best to be the big dog in a creationism business rather than one of its secondary players, (even if there is a fancy job title).
    When will Annie Green Screen go rogue and start her own creationism center?

  24. Annie Green Screen going “rogue” is a disturbing image for such a nice, sunny morning. Unfortunately, after beaucoup cups of coffee my jittery eyes conjured up “Annie Green Screen’s Moulin Rouge Yoga, Spa and Cellulite Center” where all XL and XXL Yoga pants are half-off.

  25. @TomS asked: “what about a blueprint does being designed explain?”
    I thought this part of your musings was rhetorical. If it wasn’t it should be. And I don’t see any use in answering rhetorical questions.

    “And you told me … ???”
    My reaction to another part of your musings, the part I quoted for the sake of clarity. Was it still not clear enough?
    It’s very possible that my reply still is irrelevant; it wouldn’t be the first time. At the other hand, if my “Blueprints growing out of paper still are not evidence for any Grand Old Designer.” is irrelevant I strongly suspect your “when I say that the blueprint is designed, I might telling you that it just grew there on that sheet of paper.” isn’t either.
    But let me for the moment assume that my reaction is relevant indeed. I’ll explain it a bit further, running the risk of adding more irrelevance to an irrelevancy. Paper belongs to our natural reality. So do blueprints. The latter growing out of the first is something we can observe (if it happens), so it’s a natural process as well. Hence methodological naturalism applies, which has no need for any Grand Old Designer (not so blessed this time, I’m afraid).
    Philosophically speaking, with David Hume: we may a priori have no idea what the correct explanation of this yet to be observed phenomenon might be, any natural one will be better than any supernatural one. As always.
    Given the popularity of the word “design” among IDiots and other creacrappers I’d say this is relevant indeed for the topic. But like I wrote, I might very well be mistaken.

  26. docbill1351:
    …my jittery eyes conjured up “Annie Green Screen’s Moulin Rouge Yoga, Spa and Cellulite Center” where all XL and XXL Yoga pants are half-off.

    Now that’s a disturbing image!

  27. @FrankB
    Are you saying that being designed is something like being an artifact?

  28. The DNA in his masthead twists the wrong way – not a good start

  29. When Jason says: “natural selection inevitably involves a reduction in genetic information” and “Natural selection doesn’t create any new traits, nor does it add the new genetic information that would be essential for Darwinian evolution”, he is of course quite right. Evolutionary theory involves mechanisms for reduction of variation in a population, such as selection and drift, as well as mechanisms for increase in variation, such as mutation, recombination and horizontal transfer. As I understand the Origin of Species, Darwin accepts that he has no explanation for the source of variation, but knows that variation, however it arises, is always present, in spite of the ongoing reduction due to selection.

  30. Oops, posted too soon. I meant to say:
    If Darwin had been a fool, he would abandoned natural selection as useless, because he didn’t know how new variations occur.

  31. (Oops, I put this in the wrong place initially.)

    I hate to admit it, but I agree with Lisle about one thing – the name of his new ministry: the BS Institute.

    Finally, an “honest” creationist.

  32. And while the process of evolution was widely accepted in the 19th cnetury, the mechanism of natural selection was not. Mndelian genetics, including random variation, was rediscovered about the year 1900, and was considered incompatible with natural selecton in the period known as the “eclipse of darwinsim”, up until about 1940. (BTW, this was when eugenics popular. It was thought that purposeful action was necessary to prevent degradation, but I don’t want to suggest anything malevorent as a consequence of “design” thinking.)

  33. I skipped over the Lisle quotes because I simply can’t abide the little twerp, but in a moment of weakness I had a bit of a read and two things jumped out at me.

    1. Particles-to-People. WTF? Does old Hambo have Molecules-to-Man trademarked? I wouldn’t be surprised, the crusty old dag-rattler. Maybe I should trademark Dust-to-Dudes or Wine-Women-and-Song … oh, wait …

    2. “bow the knee.” Again, WTF? I suppose “bend the knee” is Game of Thrones, so he couldn’t use that. Well, I Googled it and, yep, it’s a thumper expression. Who knew?

  34. @docbill1351
    Particles-to-people, or molecules to man, or “goo to you by way of the zoo”
    Once again, nobody calls into question the “facts of life”, that we come to being, each one of us, by natural processes of reproduction. We start off as a single cell, we grow by incorporating molecules, we are made up of atoms.

    Take care to avoid the fallacies of composition and division.

  35. Stephen Kennedy

    Lisle is probably the most militant of the theocrats of all. I think his departure from AIG was the result of him being too much even for Hambo. Lisle departed AIG after he started posting stuff from radical theocrats Cornelius Van Till and Greg Bahhnssen (who is fortunately dead). Remember, Hambo is not an American and can not go so far as to publish material on his website that clearly supports sedition and treason against the United States.