Is ICR's GENE project science?

[Mallon]

The following was published in ICR's July newsletter:

Do you have cousins?
Would you like to participate in the ICR GENE Project?

The ICR GENE team is studying variation in the human mitochrondrial
genome. We are currently seeking people and their maternally related
cousins to participate. If you have a cousin and would like to help by
donating a few of your cheek cells, please call ... . We will provide the
materials you need and instructions on how to collect the cells and mail
them back to ICR. ...

Also note the following from John Morris on the ICR website (bolding mine):

The plan is to focus on analyzing the human genome, demonstrating the certainty that man and the animals have no common ancestor. A second goal is to establish the limits of the created "kind," delineating the limits of biological adaptation. I really do feel that in genomics we can conclusively show that "evolution by modification from a common ancestor" did not happen!
The GENE project, as did the RATE project before it, began with a time of concentrated prayer. Collectively and individually, the scientists recognize that unless God blesses them with insights and success, nothing of lasting value will result. With His help, the satanic stronghold of evolution can be breached.

My question, especially for those YECs out there, is whether you feel this is science. Should ICR call what they are doing "creation science," in light of the fact that they have already stated their conclusions?

 

[crawfish]

What happens if they can't prove their assertions? Do they publish? Do they falsify the results? Or do they let the whole thing silently die?

 

[Mallon]

Might be worth asking. I really don't see how they can show that man is not related to the other apes if they do not survey the mitochondrial DNA of apes as well.

 

[KerrMetric]

This dog and pony show is only for one reason - so that they can tell the people donating money to them that they are actually getting off their backsides and doing something. Of course, whether they actually do do something is a different question. It's all for appearances.

 

[pgp_protector]

What happens if they can't prove their assertions? Do they publish? Do they falsify the results? Or do they let the whole thing silently die?

I vote #3

 

[Galle]

Well, I think that Mallon has answered the central question. They've started off stating their conclusions and they are pursuing this project with the purpose of supporting their religious beliefs rather than to further knowledge. Like the RATE project, this is unambiguously not science and is simply intended to give their followers something that has a science-like appearance (as long as you don't look too closely). As Morris says, this isn't that different from the RATE Project.

What happens if they can't prove their assertions? Do they publish? Do they falsify the results? Or do they let the whole thing silently die?

Well, they certainly can't publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, but that's OK--to their followers, mainstream scientists are just part of the secular/materialistic/anti-Christian/etc. conspiracy. ICR isn't looking for scientific recognition, so they won't even try. Like RATE, they'll put something up on their website, which will then be credulously repeated for years, regardless of criticism. I suspect that the results will probably be cherry picked data, perhaps compared against a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, maybe with some bad math thrown in (a variation on crawfish's #2 possibility).

 

[archaeologist]

is science such a closed-minded, elitest, intolerant group that there is only one way to do anything? their way?


obviously science has problems and i wonder if they think they are God or equal to Him? seems that way as so many people look to it, before looking to God for the answers.

 

[KerrMetric]

is science such a closed-minded, elitest, intolerant group that there is only one way to do anything? their way?

No - we just see so much crap coming from Creationist sources it's hard not to laugh our behinds off. After the laughter subsides then we rip it to shreds. It's quite fun I might add.

What part of conclusion before theory didn't you get in the OP quotes?

 

[Mallon]

Please don't indulge him, folks. I don't want to see this thread derailed so soon.

 

[laptoppop]

This dog and pony show is only for one reason - so that they can tell the people donating money to them that they are actually getting off their backsides and doing something. Of course, whether they actually do do something is a different question. It's all for appearances.

And you know this how? Do you really think the Lord approves of you slandering other brothers and sisters without actual knowledge of the situation? Or are you on the ICR board and have been in on the meetings for this project?

 

[laptoppop]

My question, especially for those YECs out there, is whether you feel this is science. Should ICR call what they are doing "creation science," in light of the fact that they have already stated their conclusions?

Strange, I thought stating a hypothesis and then designing experiments to test it was a standard method in science. Yes, they have "expected" results -- but don't most experiments have those? I have enough confidence in their integrity to expect them to announce the results one way or the other -- and I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary with this organization. Of course, one issue is that the likelihood is that, like most complex experiments, the discussions will rage about methodology and results no matter what -- but then again, that can be very healthy.

 

[Mallon]

Strange, I thought stating a hypothesis and then designing experiments to test it was a standard method in science.

Are hypotheses normally stated in this way, pop?

The plan is to focus on analyzing the human genome, demonstrating the certainty that man and the animals have no common ancestor.

As scientists, we are never "certain" of an hypothesis. It seems pretty obvious to me that the folks of ICR have already reached their conclusion. In fact, it seems they're following the same rubric that AiG does. They reject evidence that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

 

[Galle]

And you know this how? Do you really think the Lord approves of you slandering other brothers and sisters without actual knowledge of the situation? Or are you on the ICR board and have been in on the meetings for this project?

I didn't realize that reporting on ICR's pretend-science projects now constituted "slander". I'll have to file it away in my creationist-to-English dictionary.

ad hominem: any unflattering evaluation of a creationist. "That dirty, evil, lying Nazi evolutionist said I was ignorant when I said that there are no transitional fossils. He should be banned for ad hominem!"

arrogance: coming to conclusions that don't explicitly mention God.

closed-minded: the state of mind which precludes one from treating creationism as being equal to conventional science. "Their refusal to teach creationism alongside evolution is just closed-minded!"

Darwinism: a supposed scientific theory that is in fact a cult based on the writings of Charles Darwin. It is responsible for most of the evils of the 20th century, such as Nazism, communism, tolerance, gay rights, birth control, and school shootings.

evidence: see Scriptural Quotations

humility: believing that God created the Earth just for humans and that the rest of the universe is merely an afterthought.

intolerant: insisting that science come to conclusions based on facts instead of fitting the facts to a pre-determined conclusion. "is science such a closed-minded, elitest, intolerant group that there is only one way to do anything? their way?"

religion: anything that's not Christianity. "Evolution is just a secular religion for atheists!"

science: an evil conspiracy to drive God out of public life, as opposed to true science.

slander: accurately reporting on a creationist organization's activities.

true science: anything that confirms a creationist's beliefs. "True science will never contradict a literal reading of the Genesis account."

Word of God: a creationist's interpretation of the Bible.

 

[archaeologist]

kerrmetric:

No - we just see so much crap coming from Creationist sources it's hard not to laugh our behinds off

why would you laugh? if science was open-minded and had nothing to be afraid of, then what ICR does wouldn't matter.

i mean, if the secular scientific method was correct, then they would not be scared of what others do in the name of science.

mallon:

Please don't indulge him, folks. I don't want to see this thread derailed so soon.

i am not derailing but asking a question for clarification. is science so elitest that the only way to do science is through the secular methods?

i would like a serious answer to this. because judging from the 1st quote above--it seems that arrogance and superiority rule what science thinks about different ways of doing things.

kind of like what is referred to in other circles as 'THE CLUB'. if it doesn't meet 'the club's' criteria then it is invalid even though it may be right.

They reject evidence that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis

but then, evolutionists reject evidence which disagrees with evolution. so is this the pot calling the kettle black? or to put it biblically--is this an example of hypocrisy?

 

[Mallon]

i am not derailing but asking a question for clarification. is science so elitest that the only way to do science is through the secular methods?

We do science according to secular methods because we are forced to. Nobody on earth has the ability to quantify God or His actions, and thus, we are left to our own limited senses if we want to learn about how the world works (what you call "secular science"). That does not make science "elite." That makes it realistic. Science admits its limitations and does not attempt to surpass them by venturing into the metaphysical (although individuals might).
I know you're going to disagree with this and rant and rave about how science is the tool of the devil, so please spare us what we know is already coming.

but then, evolutionists reject evidence which disagrees with evolution. so is this the pot calling the kettle black? or to put it biblically--is this an example of hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is saying something like "is science such a closed-minded, elitest, intolerant group that there is only one way to do anything? their way?" and then arguing that the only way to interpret Genesis is literally.
If you want to debate the evidence against evolution, please start a new thread.

 

[laptoppop]

Are hypotheses normally stated in this way, pop?
As scientists, we are never "certain" of an hypothesis. It seems pretty obvious to me that the folks of ICR have already reached their conclusion. In fact, it seems they're following the same rubric that AiG does. They reject evidence that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis:

Granted, this is specified in a more assertive manner than most hypotheses. However, I believe that they are honest and will report on their findings even if not supportive of their position, as they have in the past.

 

[plainswolf]

My question, especially for those YECs out there, is whether you feel this is science. Should ICR call what they are doing "creation science," in light of the fact that they have already stated their conclusions?

I suppose I'll wait and see first. I would say it's science, perhaps it may turn out to be prejudiced science, but science non the less if the are doing actual analysis of human and other genes.





+

 

[archaeologist]

i do not need to rant or rave, i am just making points.

Nobody on earth has the ability to quantify God or His actions, and thus, we are left to our own limited senses if we want to learn about how the world works

why would yuo want to quantify God? what purpose would that serve?

no you are not left to your limited senses to figure out how the world works, you just limit yourselves to that aspect.

how science is the tool of the devil

you don't get it and i am sure you never will.

Hypocrisy is saying something like "is science such a closed-minded, elitest, intolerant group that there is only one way to do anything? their way?"

no that isn't hypocrisy, that is asking a question with a point. one which you avoid answering.

If you want to debate the evidence against evolution, please start a new thread.

wasn't here todebate evolution, i am here because of the attitude i saw in the anti-ICR posts which certainly weren't of God.

they are free to conduct science any way they want to and if they are following God, who are you to criticize their methods?

those of you who follow secular ways have no standing to judge what they do or how they do it. If Jesus leads them todo it that way--what is it to you? here is a passage from John 21:21-23:

21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

[bold mine}

 

[Galle]

i do not need to rant or rave, i am just making points.

You claim that science is evil and wrong for ignoring God, that evolution (even such evolution as the spread of antibiotic resistance) doesn't happen, that scientists are closed-minded because they don't accept creationism as a valid scientific theory, that ICR is justified because they claim to act in service of God, that criticism of ICR is therefore "not of God", and that evolutionists reject contrary evidence. And throughout it all, you simply assert this as if we were obligated to accept this uncritically. Whether this constitutes "ranting and raving" or "just making points" is necessarily left as an exercise to the reader.

If you're going to defend ICR's actions as "doing science in their own special way", you're going to need to recognize that not everything can be called science. Homeopathy is not science and it is hardly closed-minded to say so, nor is it hypocritical to point out that its proponents ignore evidence. Geocentrism is not science and it is hardly closed-minded to say so, nor is it hypocritical to point out that its proponents ignore evidence. Likewise, ICR's current attempt to prune or otherwise misrepresent the evidence to fit their pre-conceived beliefs, as done previously in RATE, is by no means scientific.

 

[KerrMetric]

I would guess that 99% of the folks at ICR are no brothers and sisters of mine. I have personally met and been lied to by several of their head nitwits. I know for a fact Duane Gish is a liar.