ICR Says Evolution Is Fake Science

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.

11 responses to “ICR Says Evolution Is Fake Science

  1. Jake is very disingenuous. How do you get physics degrees from Texas A&M and UT-Dallas and lie about physics for the rest of your life. As an old professor of mine use to say, anyone who does not believe in the validity of evolution (and I’ll add the “Big Bang”, modern astronomy, etc.) should have their Ph.D. revoked. By implication Jake should have his M.S. and Ph.D. revoked. This is like an M.D. not accepting the circulatory system but believing in the old Medieval view of human physiology. Blood letting anyone? On the other hand, why should we be surprised? Lying for Jesus is their real job. Things will probably never change.

  2. Dave Luckett

    The crocodilians of today are not the same as those of the Tertiary Age, and Hebert is retailing the usual lies to imply that they are. So the question becomes, why are some basic body types strongly constant over time?

    It answers itself. Some environments are very constant over vast periods of time. There will always be a niche for a large tropical ambush predator that lives in warm shallow water – ponds, pools, bayous, swamps, brackish or tidal water. It needs to be difficult to see in the water, able to move very suddenly and quickly over short distances, with an economy that allows it to wait for long periods – days, weeks – for prey to approach. The crocodilian body plan is ideal for the niche. In that environment, it is not disadvantaged by poikilothermy, as the water maintains a nearly constant temperature. It is not surprising that the body form would be constant.

    Jake lies. I will do him the minor courtesy of supposing that he believes the falsehoods he utters, but they are lies nonetheless.

  3. If ICR say so, it must be true…. i must therefore recant my intelligence and believe that “goddidit” henceforth

  4. The BioLogos article is well worth reading, though flawed.

    “One group uncritically accepts a claim as trustworthy. Another group immediately discounts the same claim, even if it is well supported.”
    Creacrappers sometimes are at one side, the other times at the other side.

    “So how do Christians know who deserves our trust?”
    Only christians? What Biologos writes is not for me?

    “Warning signs of pseudoscientific claims:”
    I recommend everyone to check this list.

  5. Back to My Brother Jake.

    “BioLogos clearly thinks that criticisms of evolutionary theory fall into this category.”
    Nope – it’s not criticizing evolutionary theory that’s pseudo-science, it’s the way creacrappers criticize it. You can find it explicitly in the BioLogos article.

    “explanations are made up after the fact to fit whatever outcomes are observed.”
    That’s another flaw indeed; My Brother Jake has a point. Scientists do this to adapt their theories and hypotheses while staying within the Kuhnian paradigma they work within. However he misses – deliberately of course – the real point, also mentioned in the article. It’s easy to describe evidence that would refute evolution theory; it’s impossible to bring up any evidence that refutes creacrap.

    “But if evolution explains everything, does it really explain anything?”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! Creacrap is intelligently designed (by natural entities called human beings) to keep on explaining everything, an ambition christianity has had from the very beginning.

    “Because creationists candidly acknowledge that a supernatural Creator is required …..”
    And here we meet another flaw of the Biologos article. It doesn’t mention another warning sign: lots of, but not all pseudoscience wants to replace scientific theories by supernatural explanations.

  6. chris schilling

    “Creation author David Coppedge has rightly ridiculed evolutionary storytelling as the claim that “stuff happens.” ”


    1) With Pharaoh’s troops in hot pursuit, and the raging waters of the Red sea before them, the Israelites face certain death. What could possibly save them, now?

    “Stuff happens”, Moses tells them. “You’ll see.”

    2) “But I’m a virgin!” Mary protests to the angel Gabriel when informed she will give birth to the son of God. “How can I bear a child?”

    Gabriel reassures her: “Stuff happens. Just wait.”

    3) Jesus on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you…?”

    “Relax”, his dad interrupts. “Stuff happens. I won’t spoil the surprise…”

  7. Take the great all-time example of scientific revolution: heliocentric model of the motions of the planets replacing the geocentric model.
    Both models had well known flaws.
    Even in the nineteenth century the Michelson-Morley experiment showed no motion of the Earth.

  8. @TomS: alas you’re wrong about the Michelson-Morley experiment.


    It falsified the hypothesis that light needs a medium functioning as a carrier and inspired Einstein to assume that the speed of light in vacuum is constant in every single reference frame, something that contradicts Newton.
    Both Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity are indifferent to the question whether the Earth moves with reference to the Sun or the other way round. Look up Galilean Transformations.
    This Earth-Sun thingy, in relation to the infamous Galilei trial, seems to be a typical American misunderstanding.

  9. The MM experiment did not show any motion of the Earth.

  10. The MM experiment did not show any motion of the Earth…relative to the aether.

  11. The MM experiment didn’t show any motion of the Moon, Venus, Mars and/or Jupiter either. What’s more: it didn’t show common descent. Or abolishment of slavery. Because it wasn’t about these topics.
    M&M tried to demonstrate ether as the medium/carrier of light. They failed. Nothing more, nothing less.