ICR Warns Against Babblings & False Knowledge

We have a good one today from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled The Babblings and Contradictions of False Knowledge, written by Henry Morris III, the son of ICR’s founding patriarch (1918-2006). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. It begins with a scripture quote:

O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

Henry III explains the relevance of that passage:

There are many warnings in Scripture of the power that deception can have. The manipulation and misrepresentation of factual truth and biblical insight can undermine our faith and confidence in God’s Word. … Paul challenged young Timothy to avoid the “falsely called knowledge” since it would cause some Christians to stray from their faith. We live in an age that could well be a candidate for the most deceptive age since the one before the great Flood of Noah’s day. [Wow! That’s really bad!] The twisting and distortion of facts by evolutionary naturalism are brazen in their falsehood but extremely shrewd in their presentation.

Those evolutionists are not only brazen, they’re also shrewd. Henry III says:

Recently, Dr. Neal Frey [Who?] carefully analyzed a potential series of biology textbooks that are recommended for acquisition by Texas schools. Because those recommendations affect the purchase of tens of thousands of textbooks, many other state schools across the nation are likely to acquire the same books. These textbooks will be required reading and the source for mandated instruction throughout public schools.

Christian parents must be prepared to cope with the sophisticated shaping of this “falsely called knowledge” foisted on their children and taught by gifted instructors and “expert” proponents of the open onslaught against the Bible’s message. The following insights, drawn from Dr. Frey’s analysis, will help you teach your children to become critical thinkers, enabling them to tell truth from error.

A three-year-old article in the Dallas Morning News tells us about Dr. Frey, the textbook analyzer: Longview man is on crusade to stop ‘liberal bias’ in Texas school textbooks. It says “he studied for a doctorate in American intellectual history at the University of Virginia but did not finish his dissertation.” Okay, back to ICR. Relying on Dr. Frey’s analysis, Henry III tells us about the evolutionists’ fraud and tricks:

Phylogenies, or evolutionary trees, are diagrams that illustrate how certain plants or animals supposedly evolved and branched out from common ancestors. Evolutionary biology textbooks falsely imply that evolutionary phylogenies (tree diagrams) that are based on biochemical similarities usually agree with the trees that are based on anatomical similarities. … Therefore, evolutionists assert that these similarities demonstrate the evolutionary relationships between living creatures.

The textbooks never note that the trees based on biochemical similarities often contradict each other. [Gasp!] Nor is it ever mentioned in these textbooks that no amount of deep time is sufficient to enable the evolutionary development of any branch of these trees, let alone an entire tree itself. This body of “falsely called knowledge” is simply presented as known and accepted fact among the expert scientists of our day.

The tale of fraud continues:

The massively discrepant facts openly declared as science in these evolutionary trees are carefully obscured by vaguely defining evolution as “descent with modification” or “change over time” without specifying descent from what with which modification(s) or exactly which changes from what over time. Evolutionary textbooks blur this huge problem by insisting that various life forms “converged” based on one characteristic that is often alleged to have diverged from another life form. … Convergence is another evolutionary mystical, mental construct.” No hint is given in these textbooks that such reasoning is not based on objective facts.

The fraud is massive and never-ending. Let’s read on:

Often unstated and completely ignored is the evolutionary assumption that processes during the unobserved ages of the past were operating at the same rate and with the same chemical and physical properties as we observe and measure today. This uniformitarian assumption is usually expressed as “the present is the key to the past.” Thus, modern measured rates and processes are used to extrapolate the long ages of past evolutionary history — which itself is an assumptive dogma not demonstrated by empirical data.

Shocking! Here’s another excerpt:

Yet, in spite of the evolutionary story resting so firmly on a uniformitarian assumption of the unobserved past, the same evolutionary biology textbooks will insist on the openly opposite idea that life spontaneously generated from non-life, a non-uniformitarian principle that has absolutely no data to support it. Science — the observable, testable, repeatable study of present processe — insists that life only comes from pre-existing life. [Hee hee!] Everything that science knows about life verifies this simple principle that new life is never the result of non-life. To state otherwise is to consciously fabricate and willingly promote a fallacious error.

Darwinists are really horrible people! Here’s more

The contradictions to evolution offered by the overwhelming evidence of the design of living things [Overwhelming evidence !] are the antithesis of evolutionary biology. It’s clear from the Scriptures that those who embrace these manufactured evolutionary stories — no matter how cleverly arranged and shrewdly couched — do so because they wish to have an intellectual basis for rejecting the Creator [Egad!] so clearly presented in the “things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Henry III has a few more paragraphs, but we’ve given you the essence of his article. Now that you know what scoundrels the evolutionists are, go forth and join the battle against false knowledge. If you don’t, you are without excuse.

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

21 responses to “ICR Warns Against Babblings & False Knowledge

  1. “The evolutionary assumption that processes during the unobserved ages of the past were operating at the same rate and with the same chemical and physical properties as we observe and measure today” is not an assumption but on inference from data, there is no way of even accounting for the existence, let alone the chemical structure, let alone the sedimentary texture, of ancient rocks. And this “assumption” has as a corollary that radioactive decay rates were the same in the distant past as they are at present.

  2. No. Should be “And this “assumption” has as a corollary that radioactive decay rates were the same in the distant past as they are at present,” I humbly beseech the Sacred Aardvaark to correct this grievous error, and if this miracle is granted I promise never to molest an aardvaark again

    [Voice from above:] All aardvark-dom rejoices.

  3. design of living things
    The difficulty is not to be found in the evidence for design, but rather “what is design?”

  4. It is amusing and ironic that a warning “Against Babblings & False Knowledge” quotes from 1 Timothy, as that epistle is now widely viewed as having not been written by Paul, but by some other author after his death.

  5. Frey claims “Often unstated and completely ignored is the evolutionary assumption that processes during the unobserved ages of the past were operating at the same rate and with the same chemical and physical properties as we observe and measure today.”

    Well, since processes were operating on the same chemicals, if you think their electrons did something different in the good ol’ days, you’d better have some pretty good evidence if you want to convince biologists, chemists and physicists you have a better theory. But I doubt someone whose graduate study was American intellectual history is likely to have such a theory.

  6. But scientists are trying to discover variations in space and time – and any other conditions – in important physics. Most scientists would be happy to discover an unexpected variation.
    Meanwhile, just consider the assumptions of how things were when the Bible was composed. How much testing have those assumptions stood up to?

  7. chris schilling

    “We live in an age blah blah blah… deceptive… something-something…Flood of Noah’s day.”

    If hyperbole this idiotic was punishable by divine wrath, Henry III’d be the first one to be washed away, while the rest of us waved goodbye.

  8. BTW, the scriptural warning in 1 Timothy was directed against “gnosis”, that is, Gnostism, which is sometimes called the first heresy of Christianity.
    Old timers will remember the 1981 Little
    Rock Creationism trial, and Langdon Gilkey’s testimony when he compared Creationism to Gnosticism. See his account in his book “Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock” pages 104-105 and mentioned in the judge’s judgement in footnote 18.

  9. “We live in an age that could well be a candidate for the most deceptive age since the one before the great Flood of Noah’s day.”
    Which confirms what I wrote yesterday – if fundagelicals accept the Global Flood they might as well accept climate change as well.

    “but did not finish his dissertation.”
    In countries like Germany and the Netherlands this means Neil Frey cannot be called a Dr. To me it looks like a classic case of a fraud bearing false testimony (about evolution theory). That’s one of the aspects I like about creacrap – replace Original Sin by human stupidity and the Great Flood by Climate Change and the Biblical story makes sense. It’s just that creacrappers themselves are the villains, with their deceptive tricks.

  10. “Convergence is another evolutionary mystical, mental construct.” No hint is given in these textbooks that such reasoning is not based on objective facts.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, these picture by no means present objective facts:

  11. FrankB, in countries like Australia, as in the Netherlands or Germany, a doctoral candidate cannot claim the title until his/her PhD thesis has been completed, read, assessed, defended, accepted and the degree formally conferred. I had no idea that it was even possible anywhere else to do so short of that.

    The only difference in nomenclature use between us and Germany that I know of is that the custom here is to use only the senior honorific, so that a Professor with a doctorate (which of course they all have) is “Professor Soandso”, rather than “Herr Professor Doktor Soandso”. Forgive me – I do not know what is the convention in the Netherlands.

  12. @FrankB, it’s not convention. It’s fraud

  13. @DaveL: you are forgiven; it’s on this very blog that I’ve learned not to quickly assume that things here are the same as elsewhere.

    The convention in the Netherlands is to omit all titles. If you ever get the chance to meet the Dutch king it’s OK to greet him with “Good morning, Mr. Orange-Nassau” and offer to shake hands. It’s the same for judges, professors etc. Personally I think we Dutch have taken “just do normal” a bit too far, so I would be inclined to use some simple titles (“Hello, professor/majesty”), to express appreciation without misplaced humility.
    Anyone using a title that’s not earned is not only considered a fraud, but also a insufferable pompous [bleep!]. In Dutch politics you can get away with quite a lot (including getting drunk, committing adultery and having a teenage son being arrested for burglary), but not with pimping up your CV.

  14. Michael Fugate

    Babbling – like this guy?
    https://sports.yahoo.com/folau-claims-bushfires-gods-judgement-gay-marriage-014611536.html

    Why then does some sin go unpunished?

  15. @Michael Fugate,I thought it was 9/11 that was the punshment for gay marriage

  16. Michael Fugate

    I bet God is regretting that promise not to destroy the earth ever again.

  17. He didn’t promise not to destroy the earth ever again, only not to flood it. That’s why climate change can’t cause too much sea level rise. He would be within his rights so to change the climate that most or all of our fertile land turned to desert.

  18. Michael Fugate

    Chap 8
    20And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

    21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

    22While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

  19. @Michael Fugate
    I have been mistaken these many years: thank you for your correction. I retained from my contacts with fringe groups the idea that the Earth should be twice destroyed, once by water and once by fire.

  20. The Fire the Next Time in Wikipedia
    “The book’s title comes from the couplet “God gave Noah the rainbow sign / No more water but fire next time” in Mary Don’t You Weep, a Negro spiritual.”