ICR Says You’re Not Descended from Apes

This was found at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of of all creationists outfits, the fountainhead of young Earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Adam or Apes Dallas Film Premiere at the ICR Discovery Center, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Join us on Thursday, December 15th for the Dallas film premiere of Creation Class: Adam or Apes at the ICR Discovery Center! Be among the first to watch this new film, ask questions during a live Q&A session, and enjoy a meet & greet with the film’s producers and talent. Tickets are free [Wow!] but registration is required. Seating is limited — we encourage you to reserve your tickets today.

Exciting, huh? Then they say:

Ever since Darwin [the beast!] proposed his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, scientists have been eager to find proof. The hunt for clues to human evolution takes center stage. Fossil specimens are frequently presented to the public as undeniable confirmation that modern man developed from an ape-like ancestor. Are these claims valid? Is the evidence so ironclad that no one can dispute it?

Well, is our descent from apes really undeniable? ICR tells us:

Join ICR paleobiochemist Dr. Brian Thomas as he unravels some of the biases inherent in the scientific community and dismantles the claims regarding several alleged “missing links.”

This is thrilling! ICR continues:

Can science and faith be reconciled? [Can they?] What should we believe about the Bible’s account of human origins and Earth history? ICR’s Creation Class series affirms the accuracy and reliability of Scripture. [Hooray!] Join ICR experts as they teach how science — from genetics to geology — confirms the truth of God’s Word.

Wowie — what a wonderful film!

The rest of ICR’s post is even more exciting. They have a trailer from the film that you can look at, and they have a link where you can register to go and see it. Well — what are you waiting for? Oh, be sure to tell ’em the curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

34 responses to “ICR Says You’re Not Descended from Apes

  1. Thanks, SC; useful. The trailer describes the scientifc literature as “behind closed doors”, so it seems as if Brian Thomas is advancing a conspiracy theory. That would interest me greatly in my own work, so I’ll chase him up

  2. I think maybe just this once, the Institute for Creation Research has got it backwards. Scientists since Darwin’s time haven’t been looking for proof or Darwin’s theory, they’ve been looking for disproof. And, sad to say (for the ICR), they haven’t found it!

  3. Did Darwin take somebody else to the prom or something? They seem too obsessed over it.

  4. @Peter N, no. Darwin’s theory was long since disproved, with the discovery of genetics, much as Dalton’s theory was disproved by the discovery of diatomic molecules with both atoms of the same kind. But Darwin’s hypothesis of common descent has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, much as the atomic constitution of normal matter has been confirmed b eyond reasonable doubt.

  5. @Richard, the focus on Darwin is a way to (a) pretend it was one person’s idea, and (b) ignore everything we have learned since 1871

  6. It seems that the big problem for creationists has been the physical relationship between humans and chimps, gorillas, and other apes.
    Even though that was not mentioned in the original presentation by Darwin, the popular reaction focused immediately on humans as primates.

  7. chris schilling

    Perhaps that’s why Linnaeus originally categorized Homo sapiens, orangutans and chimps together in the same genus? That’s not quite how we classify them now, taxonomically, but he obviously saw the similarities. I think of Darwin bonding with Jenny, the orangutan in London Zoo, as well.

    In other words: some astute people, steeped in natural history, saw the connections, both morphological and behavioural, long before the later wealth of genetic and fossil evidence clinched the case.

  8. @TomS, If “kinds” are anything broader than species, then humans and chimps are of the same “kind”. (though it wasn’t until 1941 that we had the baramin concept). AFAIK, Darwin steered clear of public discussion of human evolution until 1871, but Bishop Wilberforce went straight to the point in the 1860 debate. Btw, Huxley’s sharp rejoinder is genuine, as recorded in the Oxford gazette at the time: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2017/10/huxley-wilberforce-darwin-apes-and-grandparents-a-victorian-scandal-revisited.html

  9. There is a quotation of John Wesley in wikiquote.org, beginning “animals of the MONKEY class …” which remarks on the pride of those who do not recognize the relationship.

  10. Chrome gave me this, which mocks those who take pride in their appearance, but does not, I fear, hint at common ancestry:

    „Animals of the MONKEY class are furnished with hands instead of paws; their ears, eyes, eye-lids, lips, and breasts, are like those of mankind; their internal conformation also bears some distant likeness; and the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride of such as make their persons the principal objects of their admiration.“ — John Wesley A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation; Or A Compendium of Natural Philosophy New York: Bangs and T. Mason, 1823, Part the Second, Chapter I, volume 1, pages 147-148. Wesley Center Online http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/a-compendium-of-natural-philosophy/chapter-1-of-beasts/

    Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1828953-john-wesley-animals-of-the-monkey-class-are-furnished-with-han/

  11. Evos try to fool the world, not that we are descended from apes, but that we have a common ancestor. Meanwhile deep in the gene lab, we have discovered our closest relative—-sharing the most genes, is———drumroll———-bananas. So those yellow delights and us must have a common ancestor. QED.

  12. @Paul Braterman
    No, John Wesley did not say that humans shared ancestry with “monkeys”. He was just pointing out the physical similarities. (Rather like Linnaeus.)

  13. “The ape, ugliest of beasts, how like to us!” –Cicero quoting Ennius

    Not sure what either one of them were on about since most of Ennius is lost and Cicero can be rather long-winded. 😄

  14. “Simia quam similis turpissima bestia nobis” (In case I flubbed the translation.)

  15. @richard
    “Simian … similar” a play on words.

  16. Makes sense since he was a poet. I suspect the irony of our similarity to beasts was not lost. Also I see he was supposedly skeptical of the gods too.

  17. Ennius that is. Cicero not so skeptical but in favor of what we would call religious moderates I think.

  18. Of course it’s hard to always know who was (secretly) skeptical and who was not. It may have been bad for one’s career or even dangerous at the time to be a religious skeptic.

  19. Assuming that Ross Cameron, above, was not pulling our leg about a shared genetic inheritance with bananas, he’s simply wrong. We have something like about 60% of our genes in common with bananas, about the same as with chickens, but about 96% with chimpanzees.

    All this means is that all living things have more in common with one another than we would like to think. And yes, even with bananas we share a common ancestor.

  20. ‘paleobiochemist’ Dr. Brian Thomas – is there no limit to the man’s talents?

  21. Trivia: “Following the invention of the printing press, De Officiis [by Cicero] was the third book to be printed—third only to the Gutenberg Bible and Donatus’s ‘Ars Minor’, which was the first printed book.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Officiis

  22. Of course, before we get carried away with admiration, “mister moral ethical guy” Cicero would “bend” the truth in the service of the greater glory of persuasion, and was widely suspected of manufacturing evidence and paying off witnesses to get the Catiline conspirators executed without due process. Simia quam similis turpissima bestia nobis.

  23. P.S. If you’d like to witness a true craftsman in the arts of truth-bending, watch the Nixon & Frost interviews. Most accomplished benders, like Newt Gingrich for example, give off the strong undeniable vibe of pompous windbaggery. Nixon–totally another level.

  24. “When I notice how carefully arranged his hair is and when I watch him adjusting the parting with one finger, I cannot imagine that this man could conceive of such a wicked thing as to destroy the Roman constitution.” –No, it’s not Nancy Pelosi (Trump was not President of Rome), it’s Cicero on about Julius You-Know-Who

  25. I ain’t got no skin like a banana.

    …but I know of an ex-President with the complexion of a tangerine.

  26. It is true that we, all of life, has one Source. We just disagree as to what or Who that is.

  27. @Barabbas Me
    It is possible that life on Earth has two or more beginnings. Maybe life began and then went extinct only to have a new beginning. Or maybe current life is the product of two beginnings Of course, life elsewhere in the universe could have had many beginnings.

  28. Barabbas Me: Oracular maundering. Sounds good, means nothing.

    You and we have no idea how many “sources” life has, because it entirely depends on what you mean by “source”. Do you mean “ultimate ancestor”? We can guess that it must have been one or few self-replicators, but we don’t know which, and we don’t know what it was or they were. Neither do you.

    Do you mean “origin”? There are many possible candidates. Darwin’s “warm little pond”? Clay crystals? Or do you mean “first manifestation”? DNA? RNA? Or do you mean “proximate cause”? That might be the laws of chemistry themselves. Or the presence of the reactants. Or the cascade of products that led to amino acids, their constituent atoms fused in stars, some of which went supernova. How far up the chain do you want to go? To the origins of the Universe? If by “source” you mean the original expansion of the singularity, yes, I suppose you could call that a source, if you like. It’s a bit distant from even the first self replicators. though.

    Or do you, as I suspect, mean “God”? But that’s not a specific source, either. Which God? Or do you mean “the gods”? Again, which ones? How many? What evidence do you have for the existence or action of any of them?

    I don’t know what you mean, but the candidate “sources” I listed – and there are many more – can at least be demonstrated to exist, or to have existed. God, or the gods, not so much. So we don’t only disagree about what the source was or sources were. We disagree about what can be admitted for consideration. If you want to admit God or gods, first you must demonstrate that he or they exist. Get back to us when you have done that.

  29. @Dave Luckett, you’re too kind. Barabbas is making himself look clever by combining together two very different meanings of the word “source”; origin, and originator. And at the species level, which is what is relevant here,the question of whether or not humans are descended from apes (or, more accurately, from earlier apes), which is where, for example, Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller would agree, is quite separate from the question of whether or not the process was put in motion by a deity, where Dawkins and Miller would disagree, and it is dishonest to muddle up these different kinds of issue.

  30. Me pull your leg, Davo? Try Almost Like A Whale-Steve Jones.

  31. See, it’s a fundamental disagreement about what words, language, discourse itself is for.

    I think it’s for making things clear, or at least clearer. Others differ. Well, so what? People can and do differ on everything, and are entitled to do that.

    So I shouldn’t get testy when I read the product of someone who thinks that discourse includes sly innuendo or inscrutable pronouncement, or any other form of words intended to conceal, or to multiply meaning, for the apparent purpose of demonstrating their cleverness. It’s perfectly legitimate to do that.

    No, it shouldn’t annoy me.

    So I keep telling myself.

  32. Ooooooooh, “Source” and “Who!” Must be Important. My, my, aren’t We so Important, or perhaps Not. Who knows? The Shadow do!