Look what just appeared at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Is Evolution ‘Fake Science’?
It was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled How to Spot Fake Science. The not-too-subtle implication of the article is that Christians skeptical of ‘consensus science’ claims are being duped by pseudoscience. Based on their published material, BioLogos clearly thinks that criticisms of evolutionary theory fall into this category. Ironically, however, a number of the stated characteristics of pseudoscience apply to evolutionary claims.
We’ve written about that website. They do good work. See, e.g.: Discoveroids Hate BioLogos, Love Adam & Eve. It’s no surprise that ICR doesn’t like them. Jake claims their arguments are pseudoscience. He says:
According to the article, one characteristic of pseudoscience is that “explanations are made up after the fact to fit whatever outcomes are observed.” Closely related to this is the tendency to invoke “built-in explanations for the cases when the idea fails.” Evolutionists do this all the time.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, evolutionists are always making stuff up. Jake gives us what he claims is an example:
This tendency to “explain away” contradictory data was illustrated by a recent article purporting to explain why crocodiles have remained the same for 200 million years. [Jake links to: Why crocodiles have changed so little since the age of the dinosaurs.] The very first sentence in the news article claims that “a ‘stop-start’ pattern of evolution, governed by environmental change, could explain why crocodiles have changed so little since the age of the dinosaurs.” Of course, if evolution were true, one would expect creatures to not remain the same for hundreds of millions of years. [Yeah, they should change wildly, all the time!] Creationists would argue that crocodiles have not evolved simply because evolution isn’t true. [Hee hee!] The fossils show abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction — not evolution.
All the evidence is on Jake’s side — or so he says. Then he tells us:
Another trait of pseudoscience is that “scientific-sounding terms or jargon are used in imprecise, incorrect, or undefined ways.” [Indeed! For example: specified complexity.] Evolutionist invocations of ‘natural selection’ is a classic example of this. [What?] When one reads the evolutionist technical literature, it is very clear that evolutionists are ‘fuzzy’ regarding the precise meaning of this term, despite its centrality to evolutionary theory.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids, on the other hand, are always precise — see, for example: Casey Defines “Complex and Specified Information”, and also Discovery Institute: It’s All About Definitions. Jake continues:
Creation author David Coppedge has rightly ridiculed evolutionary storytelling as the claim that “stuff happens.”
David Coppedge? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See Ken Ham Defends David Coppedge. Let’s read on:
But if evolution explains everything [Everything?], does it really explain anything? One can always come up with an after-the-fact ‘story’ to explain observations that contradict evolution. But according to the BioLogos article, isn’t that one of the characteristics of pseudoscience?
This is tragic stuff, so we’re skipping a lot. Here’s another excerpt:
The subject of origins is inherently religious or philosophical [Really?], and some evolutionist philosophers of science have acknowledged that evolution is a religion. [What?] Some supernatural (“beyond nature”) cause must be invoked to explain our universe. Evolutionists claim otherwise, but their own theories compel them to invoke entities that are effectively supernatural, such as other universes.
Are you compelled to invoke supernatural entities, dear reader? The only supernatural entity your Curmudgeon invokes is the Cosmic Aardvark — which is quite understandable. And now — at last — we come to the end of Jake’s article:
Because creationists candidly acknowledge that a supernatural Creator is required to explain our existence and unashamedly acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator, creation critics are quick to label creation science as “pseudoscience.” [Get ready, here comes the bombshell:] Yet these critics often overlook the fact that the charge of pseudoscience can just as easily, and with more far more justification, be applied to evolution.
Yes, dear reader, you’re also guilty of spewing pseudoscience. Now that Jake has explained it, isn’t it time you changed your ways?
Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.