Darwinists — ICR Explains Your Problem

Creationists often wonder how something as bizarre as the theory of evolution has been able to persist so long — especially when it clearly contradicts the bible. At last we have the answer at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Their title is Why Don’t They Believe in Creation? It was written by one of ICR’s creation scientists, Brian Thomas, about whom we’re told: “Dr. Thomas is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.”

Here’s how Brian answers the question in his title, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this].

After an ICR scientist presents convincing evidence for biblical creation, listeners often ask, “If all you just said is true, then why don’t most scientists believe it?”

That question occurs to every creationist. What’s wrong with those Darwinists? Brian has the answer. He says:

We may discuss Y chromosomes that contain only a few thousand years’ worth of mutations, as expected from Noah. [Hee hee!] We may talk about a sedimentary rock layer deposited by a mud pulse that blanketed a whole continent at once, as expected from Noah’s Flood. [A whole continent at once!] Hundreds of similar superb science examples support Scripture. How do nature-only scientists treat these observations? For the most part, they won’t even look at them.

Shocking! Then Brian tells us:

A human behavioral trend called the bandwagon effect might play a role in this avoidance. [The what?] The American Psychological Association’s online dictionary defines it as: “The tendency for people in social and sometimes political situations to align themselves with the majority opinion and do or believe things because many other people appear to be doing or believing the same.”

Are you suffering from the bandwagon effect, dear reader? Then pay close attention. Brian continues:

When we ask “why don’t they believe in creation?” we assume that secular scientists use more pure logic than people typically do. [Yeah, that’s the assumption.] Perhaps some robot mind would unerringly follow every data trend to its logical conclusion regardless of consequence, but not scientists. [Why not?] Humans may well refuse to see a conclusion that contradicts what everyone around them believes about origins. In other words, one reason why they don’t believe in creation is that if they did, they would have to admit that almost everyone they respect is wrong about nature making us without one miracle. They would have to jump off the world-size bandwagon that refuses the divine.

Ah yes, that explains it! (It also explains the persistence of creationism, but we’ll ignore that.) Let’s read on:

Naturalists who bail from their bandwagon face ostracism. [Gasp!] Do they have the emotional strength to stand against their peers? … Then there are spiritual implications. If a committed naturalist examines, say, the Y chromosome mutation rate or global sedimentary rock coverages that lead straight to Noah and his Flood, then where else does that lead? It would mean that the Bible has correct history and thus a correct assessment of personal sin. … Many who refuse to admit to sin likewise refuse to hear evidence that implies it.

That could be your problem, dear reader. Skipping a bible tale, we come to the end:

Even some naturalists overcome peer pressure and begin to track with truth. I was one of them! [Wonderful!] I needed to see lives of peace renewed in Christ, and I needed to see that the Bible aligns with reality. God was kind enough to oblige. [Yes!] We can cast seeds of truth with words of grace. The people we encounter might believe after all.

And you might believe, dear reader — if you have the courage to abandon your sinful Darwinist ways and get off the science bandwagon. That bandwagon only goes to one place, and you don’t want to spend eternity down there!

Copyright © 2020. 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

38 responses to “Darwinists — ICR Explains Your Problem

  1. “Why Don’t They Believe in Creation?”
    Because creationists are a bunch of liars. Some of them get cured – and give up creacrap.

    “We can cast seeds of truth with words of grace. The people we encounter might believe after all.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Many a creacrapper has tried on internet – words of grace typically didn’t follow.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Textbook example of projection…

  3. Creationists love to lump all the ‘secular’ scientists together and use Dawkins as their spokesperson. They like to overlook/ignore the fact that half of normal scientists actually are religious. In parallel, almost all theologians accept mainstream science. They know that, but lie about it.

    “If all you just said is true, then why don’t most scientists believe it?”
    But what you just said it is NOT true! That is the problem.

  4. Michael Fugate

    What is interesting to me is the extreme right ties of creationists – check out point of view radio or real science radio – crazy stuff.

  5. And what does an Intelligent Designer do so that the world of life has the
    pattern of variation that we see in nature?

  6. Michael Fugate

    It is never clear when apologists like Brian claim they once accepted evolution or were atheists what they really mean by that. Did they have a doubt one day when they were 15?

    Thomas and his buddy Jeff Tompkins were on right wing radio and Brian claims to be an expert on biochemicals in fossils. So much so, that his PhD advisor who apparently hangs out a creationist meetings (where else would Thomas be) recruited Brian into his lab. According to Thomas, his advisor told him he would not need to give up his cushy job at ICR nor leave Dallas to complete a degree in the UK – he wanted him that badly.
    https://pointofview.net/show/wednesday-october-23-2019/
    Brian shows up about the 1:08 mark in the 2nd half of the show.

  7. The creatards are such liars that they don’t dare do the least little experiment that would quickly show how st00pid the flood story is. Any 10yr-old not programmed by christANALs can tell you what is wrong with the flood BS.

  8. Dave Luckett

    I wonder…

    Chromosomal mutation rates correct for only a few thousand years since species divergence? And if those rates were extrapolated over, say, five million years, and deleterious changes eliminated, what would be the result? Can you say “species and genus separation”?

    And “a mud pulse that blanketed a whole continent at once”. Gosh, I wonder why that is not found, then? Rather, a very deep series of layers of different strata is found. Well, maybe all the mud got washed off into the oceans, which were gouged out by the outflow and thus greatly deepened. (Don’t look at those friction coefficients. You can hear only the sound of my voice.) Ah… well, maybe it wasn’t, on account of it’s not there, either. Rather, a continually renewing deep ocean floor that spreads from ridges is observed. Material continually and currently wells up, pushing the land on either side further apart, thus explaining their neat fit, and if run backwards, provides a time scale which is – inexplicably! – in the hundreds of millions of years, when the Bible clearly implies it is only a few thousand. Funny, that.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    Roll out the paleobiochemistry expert to talk about psychology and theology. What a waste.

  10. “We may talk about a sedimentary rock layer deposited by a mud pulse that blanketed a whole continent at once, as expected from Noah’s Flood. [A whole continent at once!]”

    Which continent is this?

  11. chris schilling

    “Many who refuse to admit to sin likewise refuse to hear evidence that implies it.”

    Yeah, because who doesn’t enjoy being guilt-tripped into buying a cure for a non-existent ailment? Don’t follow the bandwagon — climb aboard Brian’s wagon!

    Brian is like a salesman for pod people — he wants to do you a great deal on mass conformity. Or, as the “freaks” in the Todd Browning classic chanted: “One of us! One of us!”

    Stay classy, Brian.

  12. Think about how the YECs give explanations for how Noah’s Flood accounts for geology.
    They are telling us that undirected natural causes can produce complex
    patterns.
    Then think about the YEC argument that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that undirected natural causes cannot produce complex patterns.

  13. All creationists are liars. All creationists are dishonest. If you start with that, everything else falls into place.

  14. Crazy creationist says “We may talk about a sedimentary rock layer deposited by a mud pulse that blanketed a whole continent at once, as expected from Noah’s Flood.” …..WOW. I noticed the last time I was at the Grand Canyon that there were dozens of major “blankets” of different types of sediments with different fossil assemblages ..does this mean Noah’s Flood was composed of hundreds of content wide “pulses” of sedimentation that according to radiometric age dating spanned some 500 plus million year and ALL containing completely different animals and plants that lived there during deposition???
    Thats crazy !!!!!!!!!@! Literally…… I have a recommendation for doktor thomas. BUY. A. SCIENCE. BOOK.

  15. @CharlesD is disgusted and complains: “What a waste.”
    Such is the nature of creacrap.

    @Anon advises: “Think about how the YECs give explanations for …..”
    Been there, done that. First thing that strikes is that YECs don’t even try to formulate a criterion to decide which kind of evidence requires a naturalistic explanation and which kind requires a supernatural one.

  16. Is there a good way to verify that Thomas got a PhD at Liverpool Uni? What’s to stop anybody adding “Dr.” To their name?

  17. @FrankB
    Anon was me, sorry I forgot to sign.
    “Formulate a criterion” – no need to get so fancy. Just “be consistent”. Can natural, undirected processes account for very complex patterns? Like geology, which has the appearance of massive coordinated change over time of plants and animals being deposited as fossils, all those complex body structures being laid down in the same layers worldwide – can that be the natural result of a single Flood? (Not to mention being encapsulated in amber, and the differences in DNA.)
    Or is it that changes in DNA can’t occur naturally over millions of years?
    Make up your mind.

  18. @Och Will,You have described flood geology correctly. This is exactly the explanation given by Morris and Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood, which is the foundational text for 20th-21st century YEC

  19. Michael Fugate

    Here’s Brian’s info- I posted this last year…
    Here is his dissertation:
    https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3033541/
    Thomas, BD (2018) Collagen remnants in ancient bone. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.

    Based on acknowledgements, his advisor is Prof Steve Taylor B.Sc,ACGI, MEng PhD, C.Eng, FIEE, FInstPhys DSc DIC
    Professor
    Electrical Engineering and Electronics
    Chairman of University Staff Christian Fellowship

  20. docbill1351

    Taylor got his BSc at Imperial College in 1978, the same year I finished getting piled higher and deeper there. Lookie all the fancy letters! ACGI, the Associateship of the City and Guilds of London Institute is awarded to a person graduating with a BSc in engineering from Imperial College. Likewise, the DIC, the Diploma of Imperial College, is granted to a person earning a PhD at IC, although Taylor got his PhD at Liverpool, but the rools change over time. The DSc is often awarded upon publishing 50 papers and Taylor exceeded that many times over. The guy’s really good without all the credential inflating.

    I found it interesting that, apparently from his university website, Taylor only had 5 PhD students, Brain being one. Brain’s thesis examined Medieval, Ice Age, Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Devonian bone fragments for collagen using Mass Spec. Oh, the irony!

  21. No relevant results for Thomas BD on Web of Science from 2014 onwards; papers with this name are on completely different subjects, and presumably different people.

    Thesis abstract comes up at Michael’s link, https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3033541/. I quote: “In this study, four separate and independent techniques confirmed that SHG reliably detects trace amounts of collagen protein in certain Medieval and Ice Age bone samples. Additional results indicate that SHG detects faint traces of collagen in unexpectedly old bone samples, including dinosaur bones.” This seems to confirm the very large time difference between ice age and dinosaur. But perhaps the miraculous effects of Noah’s flood, as well as sending the continents skating, and pulse generation of carbon14, also included degradation of dinosaur collagen.

    Actually, I think it’s a great pity that they haven’t publish this work in a journal, although anyone really curious about it can always get hold of the thesis. Maybe they couldn’t agree on a text that Brian and his supervisor were both willing to sign off on

  22. Michael Fugate

    In the radio show I linked to above, Brian says that his PhD advisor actively recruited him at a conference in which Brian presented on soft tissue in fossils. This was while Brian was working at ICR and based on literature reviews only (presumably a creationist conference?). From Brian’s telling, his advisor convinced him to work toward a PhD on this project knowing that (and possibly because) Brian is a young earth creationist.

  23. @Michael Fugate, this might have been a completely legitimate undergraduate conference, but in any case, this might have been a potentially good move by the adviser. If the adviser is a committed Christian, but anti-creationist, he may have been trying to get a poacher to turn gamekeeper

  24. Michael Fugate

    If that is the case, it failed miserably. Then again, it could be another case of the Salem Hypothesis.

  25. docbill1351

    In the radio show I linked to above, Brian says that his PhD advisor actively recruited him at a conference in which Brian presented on soft tissue in fossils.

    That all makes sense, now. Mary Schweitzer first reported collagen in fossil bones in 2006 or so. Brain was flapping his gums at ICR and Taylor was writing for Old Hambo over at AIG. There is NO WAY Brain would be presenting anything other than coffee and donuts at a legit scientific conference. Therefore, it is plausible that they met at a creationist conference. Taylor is definitely a YEC and he probably saw an opportunity to help Brain get piled higher and deeper. Accidit stercore.

  26. ” Taylor is definitely a YEC”; do you have a link? Lots ofTaylors around

  27. @ Paul Braterman…as a geoscientist its always fun to ask rhetorical questions laying out a FEW of the many geologic issues creation “science” flood geology violates isn’t it ???!!!! Morris and Whitcomb … thanks for detailing that. 🙂

  28. Michael Fugate

    Paul, he writes articles for AiG
    https://answersingenesis.org/bios/steve-taylor/

  29. docbill1351

    @Paul B

    Yeah, his mug is on the AIG site along with this lovely quote:

    Many years later, I am more than ever convinced not only of the truth of the Christian Gospel, but also of the harmony between the biblical revelation and true science.

    Scientist by day, moron at night.

  30. Rather moron day and night – he pulls off the No True Science fallacy.

  31. @Michael Fugate, @docbill1351, Indeed. See this, not even funny, except for the unintended humour of the date: https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-models-the-need-for-an-integrated-approach/

  32. Not only the date is funny, also the year – that integrated approach has yielded exactly zero results last 20 years. So I have to correct my previous comment a bit:

    rather moron day and night, year after year.

  33. Michael Fugate

    “Scientific” – You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if engineering and medical schools posted disclaimers about faculty like Lehigh did?

  34. Michael Fugate

    It is interesting that creationist engineers Stuart Burgess and Andy McIntosh are both on the editorial board of the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics – a journal produced by the International Information and Engineering Technology Association. McIntosh has published openly creationist papers there.

  35. docbill1351

    Whew, that was quite a kollection of kookie! Vapor canopy, runaway subduction, fountains of the deep.

  36. Didyou notice the *vertical* deposition of strata, thus solving the succession time problem?

  37. Michael Fugate

    I love the way they keep changing the names of their journals… no matter the name – still not science….
    1978
    Ex Nihilo
    Creation Ex Nihilo
    Creation

    1984
    Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
    Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
    Technical Journal
    Journal of Creation

  38. It’s self-referential. They create journals ex nihilo