Institute For Creation Research

[Cantuar]

Cantuar, would you be able to point out any specific "lies about science" you found on their website? Can you back it up with sound evidence (not your interpretation of it)?

First, I've been told by two or three research astrophysicists who have heard Duane Gish speak that he misrepresents astrophysics research in ways that can't come close to being accidental. The entire ICR page on the incredible shrinking sun is based on out-of-date and incorrect work and is supported by nobody who is active in the field of solar physics. The ICR and AiG have been repeatedly told about the mistakes in that work, and yet there it still is. Too good a story to cast aside, or something. Their page on lunar origin, while discounting a number of early theories, isn't saying much about the current theory of collsion with a Mars-size object; it just says that the theory discounts some major objections whereas the articles in science magazines are saying that the theory explains the data so far. It's trying hard to give the impression that there are no explanations that rely on natural phenomena. It's either out of date or misrepresenting the state of research. There's a whole lot of documentation on the web about how Duane Gish has stated something in a debate, been challenged, retracted it, and gone right ahead and repeated it fairly soon after. The astrophyisics stuff is the work I'm most familiar with, but I don't suppose it'd be hard to find similar problems with their presentations about radiometric dating and genetics. I've certainly heard complaints about them from workers in the field of molecular biology, but I'm just more familiar with astrophysics.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Me too foodforthought, and I am offended when people whom I respect are called liars, without evidence of those lies to back up the accusation.

I thought you would never ask.  Here's a few for starters:

Blatant lie in ICR's Acts and Facts newsletter

Karen Bartlett's visit to the Museum of Creation and Earth History
This article contains a good overall picture of the dishonest and misleading tactics the ICR employs.

Numerous examples of Duane Gish's propensity for misleading and lying to his audiences.

These guys simply can't be trusted.  They have too much history in telling falsehoods to take anything they say seriously without verification.

I'm sorry that you placed your trust in people who didn't deserve it, but maybe it will help you be more careful next time.

-brett

 

[Cantuar]

Thanks, Euphoric, that's the stuff I meant by "There's a whole lot of documentation on the web about how Duane Gish has stated something in a debate, been challenged, retracted it, and gone right ahead and repeated it fairly soon after."

I still remember one phone call from an astrophysics prof who works in the Bible Belt. Apparently creationist organisations had been given equal time to respond after each episode of the PBS Evolution series, and one of them involved Duane Gish standing there talking nonsense about astronomy, and she'd managed to sit through it. Took quite a while to get her calmed down after that. Especially since she gets complaints from students every time she mentions "billions of years" in her classes - or at least the dean of the faculty gets complaints about her.

 

[aleksok]

I think when someone's faith is not nailed down they get nervous about 'scientists' who can 'out debate' them. It's human nature to get defensive when one is unsure or uncommitted. I think thats the source of the baseless bashing of ICR.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by aleksok
I think when someone's faith is not nailed down they get nervous about 'scientists' who can 'out debate' them. It's human nature to get defensive when one is unsure or uncommitted. I think thats the source of the baseless bashing of ICR.

Pull your head out man!  These objections aren't based on lack of faith.  They're based on ICR and it's principal players not being truthful.

First of all, real science isn't done in oral debates.  Real scientists engage in written debates where each argument can be properly analyzed and researched.  Strangely enough, most of the major YEC proponents have a serious aversion to written debates.  Try getting Kent Hovind to engage in a written debate.  He won't do it.  He's refused repeatedly by claiming not to have time.  A pathetic excuse to avoid having to defend his ridiculous claims.  Try doing a search on written debates by Gish, Morris, Hovind, Hamm, or any of the other major YECs.  Not transcripts of oral debates, actual written debate.  They seldom if ever do it.  In reality, this forum is closer to legitimate scientific debate than the circus side-shows these guys engage in.  That alone should tell you something.

Secondly, if you say that the information I linked is baseless, tell me why.  Don't stoop to handwaving and accusations of poor faith.

If you want to defend YEC fine, but don't simply dismiss any information that disagrees with your a priori conclusions.  Find out why it doesn't damage your case.  A little effort might give you a better idea of where your contentions really stand.

-brett

(edited to correct typos)

 

[aleksok]

written debates and oral debates are 2 completely different things; one is not 'superior' to the other.

you comment sounds like box building to me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

aleksok - a suggestion...
Take ICR's best material & post it here. Ask the other creationists on this board to help you defend it. Allow the rest of us to critique it. See how well it holds up as representation of fact. Repeat with the next best material. I think you will be able to see for yourself why the ICR gets criticized.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by aleksok
written debates and oral debates are 2 completely different things; one is not 'superior' to the other.

you comment sounds like box building to me.

For scientific purposes, written is most certainly superior to oral debate.  As I mentioned before, in written debate assertions and evidence can be properly researched and carefully analyzed.  In an oral debate, one can assert anything and back it up with questionable evidence and not be found out or proved wrong until after the fact.  Not only do the ICR guys and others know this, they rely on it.  If one is not superior to the other, where are all those written debates between Gish or Hovind and scientists?

-brett

 

[Morat]

written debates and oral debates are 2 completely different things; one is not 'superior' to the other.

  It depends entirely on what your goal is.

  If you goal is to sway a group of people using passionate language and rhetoric, oral debates are superior. You can get away with a lot of stuff (logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, misrepresentation of evidence, omission of evidence, etc).

  If your goal is to determine what is correct (or most correct) versus reality, written debates are far superior, because it allows each participant time to research (and check) their opponent's words.

  An oral debate is about swaying an audience. Which is why politicians love them. You don't need truth, facts, or reality on your side. Just an ability to speak effectively.

  A written debate is about facts, and reality, and truth. It's why politicans avoid them. You have to use the truth, the facts, and reality when engaging in them because you can't use the fancy rhetoric of an oral debate without getting nailed to the wall.

  Or did you think it's a coincidence that few-to-no prominent Creationists will engage in written debates?

 

 

[aleksok]

lets not get the idea that ICR or evolutionists are going to 'prove' anything. Special creation by God is not provable and neither is evolution.

My gripe with science is it's always creating 'alternative' explanations for sin. i.e. murdering babies is 'family planning', fornicators are 'co-habitors', irresponsible people are 'homeless people'. Evolution has created materialism, atheism, and post modernism where there is no one truth but everything is true (except Christianity). Science wants to pretend that sin does not exist and that man is not accountable to God.

 

[Morat]

  Nothing in science is provable. Nothing. "Proof" is the province of math and logic.

   However, to be scientific and to be science something must be both testable and supported by evidence. Evolution is both. Special Creation is neither (and most emphatically not the first).

My gripe with science is it's always creating 'alternative' explanations for sin. i.e. murdering babies is 'family planning', fornicators are 'co-habitors', irresponsible people are 'homeless people'.

  That's science? Really? Wow. So there's a Journal of "Using Names Some People Don't Like"?

   See, it seems to be that you're taking societal movements which you don't like, and labelling them "Science" and "evolution" so as to make your case easier. That's called a "Strawman".

Evolution has created materialism, atheism, and post modernism where there is no one truth but everything is true (except Christianity).

  Don't forget communism, paganism, idolatry, toilet-paper that tears, blindness in small children, rains of brimstone, rape, murder, Nazis, and gall stones.

 

Science wants to pretend that sin does not exist and that man is not accountable to God.

   Actually, science doesn't, because science isn't a person. Science uses methodological naturalism, but there are good and valid reasons for that. Specifically, science knows it's limitations, so it sticks to stuff it can cover. I'd be perfectly happy to discuss this at length.

 

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by aleksok
lets not get the idea that ICR or evolutionists are going to 'prove' anything. Special creation by God is not provable and neither is evolution.

This assertion is so wrongheaded it's difficult to know where to begin.  First, science isn't provable, at least not in terms of absolute certainty.  Logic is provable, math is provable.  Science is about theories supported or refuted by evidence.  As Morat said, science must be testable and supported by the evidence.  The attempt to pretend that evolution and YEC are on the same level in terms of testability and evidential support is absurd.  YEC isn't testable.  Find one single testable model of the world being created by a supernatural being.  What test do we apply to determine whether or not a god created the universe?

Originally posted by aleksok
My gripe with science is it's always creating 'alternative' explanations for sin. i.e. murdering babies is 'family planning', fornicators are 'co-habitors', irresponsible people are 'homeless people'. Evolution has created materialism, atheism, and post modernism where there is no one truth but everything is true (except Christianity). Science wants to pretend that sin does not exist and that man is not accountable to God.

This rant doesn't even qualify as Hovindesque.  I give it a two for lack of originality.

-brett

 

[aleksok]

it starts with evolution. thats 'science' isn't it ? once they can get evolution in the door all the other baggage comes with: atheism, materialism, post modernism, all truths are true, plus all the social implications of how people should live seeing that they are only animals and they are not accountable to God.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Thanks aleksok for the link. To bad groups like them get attacked by nonchristians who make up lies, start rumors and try to belittle other people with no sound evidence. I see it happen all the time and research into it time and time again from both sides tells you it's unfair attacks most of the time from nonchristians who just like to think they are right and don't want to even think for a second God really does exist. Very sad indeed and ruins any creditablity they have since they just protray themselves as finger pointers when they end up having 4 fingers pointed at themselves at the same time.

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by aleksok
it starts with evolution. thats 'science' isn't it ? once they can get evolution in the door all the other baggage comes with: atheism, materialism, post modernism, all truths are true

All truths are true?? Wow, what blasphemy!

You fool me not with your slippery slope fallacies, aleksok. Evolution is evolution, nothing more nor nothing less. It does as much for "letting atheism is the door" as the law of gravity does. Think about it-- what sinister atheists would let us believe that gravity is a natural force, and God doesn't stick us to the ground? When God-sticking-us-to-the-ground goes, so goes the rest of religion!

 

[aleksok]

if my ancestry origin is a pile of oily rags or swamp slime and I wasn't created by God, why should I follow any rules in how aI live? orther than avoiding getting hit by a car or swallowing something not good for me.

Seems like I can just indulge my appetites and then cease to exist when I die.

seems like it matters a whole lot what we believe to be our origin.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by aleksok
if my ancestry origin is a pile of oily rags or swamp slime and I wasn't created by God, why should I follow any rules in how aI live? orther than avoiding getting hit by a car or swallowing something not good for me.

Seems like I can just indulge my appetites and then cease to exist when I die.

seems like it matters a whole lot what we believe to be our origin.

There are many possible answers to your questions. An introductory philosophy class or text would give you a good overview.

In summary, though, it is not a logical conclusion that there is no morality without God.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Project 86
Thanks aleksok for the link. To bad groups like them get attacked by nonchristians who make up lies, start rumors and try to belittle other people with no sound evidence. I see it happen all the time and research into it time and time again from both sides tells you it's unfair attacks most of the time from nonchristians who just like to think they are right and don't want to even think for a second God really does exist. Very sad indeed and ruins any creditablity they have since they just protray themselves as finger pointers when they end up having 4 fingers pointed at themselves at the same time.

Even worse is the fact that some apologists of YEC will reduce themselves to rejection of legitimate criticism of major advocates of their belief system simply to avoid having to address the issue.  Duane Gish and ICR use deceptive practices to fool unscientific audiences.  I linked pages containing specific examples.  Which ones are baseless or unfair Project 86?  And why?

-brett

 

[aleksok]

I didn't say there was no morality without God.  There's all kinds of morality.

but the bible, specifically, is thrown out if kids are taught that they are a product of evolution and not a special creation by God in His image. 

 

 

 

[euphoric]

For those who aren't reading the links I provided, here is a specific example of Gish's misleading tactics:

In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host of the national Canadian radio program Quirks and Quarks), heard Gish's Lucy story, which clearly implied that Zuckerman had studied Lucy herself and concluded that she, along with other Australopithecines, did not walk upright. Knowing this was not true, Ingram asked Gish in the question and answer period why he had misled the audience. A show of hands indicated that about 90% of the audience had assumed from what Gish had said that Zuckerman had studied Lucy. Gish became very upset, lost his temper, and railed that he wasn't responsible for people misinterpreting his remarks (Ingram 1992).

Gish has never bothered to change his misleading story; in fact, he went on to increase its inaccuracy. In a 1991 debate with biologist Fred Parrish, Gish stated outright that Zuckerman had examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman] studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger than Lucy [sic]" (see Debates-Parrish 1991).

This specific example and a few others are detailed here.

-brett