ICR Has Disproved Darwin’s Theory

You will be stunned by what we found today at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their new post is titled Buried Secrets Can Be Worth Uncovering, and it was written by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., TH.D.

He has two middle initials, which is very classy, and he not only has a law degree, but he’s also a Doctor of Theology. He’s described at the end as “Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here are some excerpts from his post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Buried secrets sometimes surface, revealing hidden things. However, if no one is willing to do some diligent digging, much of what is concealed will remain undiscovered. For example, last year some “grave secrets” were uncovered: human bones from a Viking cemetery concealed in a coastal cliff near Orkney’s Newark Bay. No gravediggers triggered the coastal cemetery’s discovery — stormy weather did.

He’s got a couple of footnotes to that information, but we didn’t think it worth the bother to pursue them. Then he says:

Sometimes discoveries, like this one, are unintentional surprises. But such fortuitous discoveries can be expanded by “digging deeper.”

Jimmy gives an example from the bible, but we’ll skip it. Now he tells us:

When Charles Darwin announced his theory, few bothered to “check under the hood” to see if there was an empirically verifiable process that substantiated his claim that natural selection serves as a substitute creator to think, favor (or disfavor), and select animals to survive.

Yeah, nobody bothered to look for evidence. They just let Darwin blather away. Amazing, isn’t it? But then something happened. Jimmy continues:

Thankfully, ICR’s Dr. Randy Guliuzza undertook the herculean task of digging deeper into evolutionist research literature and exposed the natural selection model as an etiological bait-and-switch scam like the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Ooooooooooooh! An ICR creation scientist disproved Darwin! Jimmy has a footnote for that, which links to a couple of ICR articles. We’re not going to bother with them. Oh, all right — here’s a link to one: Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: Natural Selection’s Idolatrous Trap. It’s from ten years ago, and the claim is that natural selection doesn’t work. Go ahead, read it if you like. To encourage you, Jimmy says:

Dr. Guliuzza patiently uncovered grave secrets and reported study after study, building a mountain of bioengineering research and analysis that not only refuted natural selection as a causal agent for life’s diversity but pointed irrefutably to the exquisite innate engineering the Creator has invested in every creature.

Amazing, huh? Darwin was utterly disproved, and ICR told the world about it ten years ago. Here’s our last excerpt:

Sound bites tickle ears, but the truth is often buried in fine print. At ICR, we strive to unearth the truth and provide readable articles on creation science informed by Scripture and biblical apologetics. And we simultaneously aim to report professional scholarship that has depth.

There it is, dear reader. ICR has disproved Darwin, but it’s been buried in fine print. Now that you know, go forth and spread the word.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

15 responses to “ICR Has Disproved Darwin’s Theory

  1. Derek Freyberg

    Are you sure, SC, that it was buried in fine print and not some other more mundane material, like bovine excrement?

  2. Theodore J Lawry

    What an awesome Ark-load of utter confusion! To the extent that there is any sense in Guliuzza’s article, he seems to have got the “selection” part of natural selection (less fit produce fewer offspring) confused with the source of the beneficial mutations that evolution needs. Killing off the unfit does not create good mutations! Disagreeing with evolution is one thing, not understanding it is another. As Trump would say: “Losers, sad.”

  3. I thought that natural selection was out of favor in the early 20th century, until the Modrn Synthesis. And there have been numerous experiential checks on natural selection. And there have been other mechanisms proposed in addition to natural selection.
    On the other hand, no one has described intelligent design as an alternative mechanism in the world of life, let alone done any experimental work on it.

  4. I must confess that I had to google ‘etiological’. That shows you what a fine education does to your writing style. Pity that he didn’t include some basic biology into his field of study.

  5. From Guliuzza’s article “Darwin’s Sacred Imposter”:

    “by definition, “selecting” something implied volition and was presumptive evidence of intelligence.”

    That’s a flat, dead, straight-out barefaced lie. It’s also a blatantly obvious one that anybody with a functioning mind would immediately detect as contrary to ordinary perceived reality.

    The only conclusion to be drawn is that Guliuzza, and anybody who nods along with him, is dead from the neck up, and that includes the idiot who wrote this piece.

  6. “if no one is willing to do some diligent digging”
    When again was the last time a creacrapper did any digging? Of course I’m not talking about digging scientific articles for quotes to mine.

    “Randy Guliuzza undertook the herculean task of digging deeper into evolutionist research literature.”
    Creacrappers are at least as predictable as Newton’s Laws of gravity.
    Our dear SC invites us:

    “Go ahead, read it if you like.”
    I took a brief look. Highlight: “The student pointed out that, by definition, “selecting” something implied ….”
    That’s creacrap digging for you – semantic cheapos against the scientific method.

    “not only refuted natural selection as a causal agent for life’s diversity”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! These days most YECers accept natural selection as a causal agent for hyperaccelerated post-Global Flood evolution (or variation within a kind or devolution, whichever buzzword they prefer).

    “provide readable articles on creation science”
    Yes, this is a perfect example of creacrap science.

    “professional scholarship that has depth”
    Last time I checked professional scholarship strived for professional consensus, something creacrappers are notoriously incapable of. Also depth didn’t mean inventing new variations of old clunkers.

  7. Slight addition: my “semantic cheapos” was charitable; DaveL is right of course, creacrappers are flat out lying with ““by definition, “selecting” something …”. This is not what natural selection means in evolution theory.

  8. FrankB: What enrages me is that it’s not what it means in standard English, either, not just in evolution theory. Any automatic process can select. Does water require volition or intelligence to select a path to the lowest level? When a strainer selects tea leaves out of the infusion poured through it, is it exercising consciousness? When waves order the pebbles on a beach from smallest to largest, are they selecting judiciously, with intent? When the wind creates serif dunes, has it decided to selectively arrange the sand into an aestheically pleasing shape? Are the graceful arches of a hardwood forest the result of architecture?

    I said that this idiot was “dead from the neck up”, but that’s being charitable, if you like. He can’t be that stupid, not really. If he were that stupid, forget about using a keyboard; he’d be barely potty-trained or able to feed himself.

    No. He’s lying. Does he know that he’s lying? Oh, for a theory of mind! All I can say is that if he doesn’t know that he is, he has insulated himself from reality to a degree that makes it difficult to imagine how he functions.

    Yet he does function. That’s an important datum. It implies that his disconnect from reality is selective. He disconnects in specified cases.

    It’s tempting to say that it must be conscious, in this case. That is, he knows he’s lying and has decided to lie. But that’s a step beyond what can be demonstrated from evidence. We know that selection need not be conscious. All that can be demonstrated is that there is in his mind a barrier that prevents rational thought about specific issues. We cannot say that it’s a conscious barrier.

    I’m afraid, much as I’d like to quote John 8:44 to him, to give him a piece of Jesus’s mind on the subject of liars and lies, I am constrained by my own reasoning, above. He is probably not conscious of his lie; he is not conscious of the selection of falsehood.

    Yet it is a lie, and he is telling it. Does it matter whether he knows that, or not? The effect, after all, is the same.

    I don’t know. I am bemused by how often I come to that conclusion, when commenting on this blog.

  9. @DaveL: +1.

  10. And who cares about what Darwin said or did? He is long dead and his ideas have been expanded and amplified past his recognition. Just as we don’t judge calculus badly because Newton was dimwitted about other things, we don’t judge evilution cause Darwin was dim about some minor stuff. But it it is totally obvious that creatards profess to believe in imaginary creatures. Another +1 for DaveL.

  11. @L. Long
    Newton didn’t get everything right about calculus. Major understanding about doing it right didn’t appear until the 1800s. That did not stop the usefulness of calculus.
    So, too, major understanding about evolution, in particular Natural Selection, didn’t appear until well into the 1900s.
    It is only of historical interest to study the imperfections of the understanding in the origins of sciences.

  12. Very few people, if any, read Darwin’s or Newton’s original works when they want to study the theories they formulated.

  13. Among the famous science works, the most readable are those of Galileo and Darwin. The least, Copernicus and Newton.

  14. The statement that few bothered to check Darwin’s claims.
    How can one be so ignorant of the facts? Of course, everyone knows that Darwin’s claims were subject to doubt. Even people who accepted evolution had difficulties with natural selection. This is famously so.

  15. “the most readable are …..”
    I wouldn’t know; my comment wasn’t about readability anyway.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s