Introduction

Sceptical Inquiry into the Institute for Creation Research

________________________

Introduction
Science is strengthened through scrutiny. This remains true for all areas of science. Yet, somehow, certain ideas manage to evade enough criticism. If Intelligent Design advocates or creation scientists - same thing - properly considered their “theories” and listened to the sceptics then I imagine we’d have a very different story. In fact, if everyone considered Creationism properly, it would cease to exist. It’s not disputed that ICR and conventional scientists alike have a passion and interest for scientific research. It’s how they go about it that differs. Usually, conclusions and theories are decided on after a rigorous collection and study of data and facts. The Institute for Creation Research already knows its conclusion. I quote: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For nearly 40 years, the Institute for Creation Research has kept this immutable truth as its guiding principle.” Essentially, they are working towards proving this story, and whatever they find, whatever they conclude, they’ll make it point towards a Universe with a purpose.

All of the sources on ICR’s views will come from their website; http://www.icr.org/ which I must say is beautifully, perhaps even intelligently designed. It’s hard to ignore the aesthetics of every web page and focus on the content but when you do, you should find that it is frustratingly fallacious. So-called proofs for God and Creation are based on assumptions and other pieces of non-evidence. This is a gentle reminder that creationist debaters are all about show and image, not real science or logic.

If this organisation put forward a convincing case, the structure of the Evidence for Creation would be incredibly clever. By demonstrating that God exists, it’s safe to talk about the “Truth” about his Universe. From that we can learn about how this applies to Nature and our planet, how God reveals himself in Life Sciences and therefore all Science, and by then it will tie in with Biblical Accounts. Thus, a good case for Young Earth Creationism is presented. Unfortunately, ICR fall at the first hurdle – that is, at “Evidence for God.” Should we just refute that statement and leave it there, then? No. I’m determined to show how they keep getting up and falling over at each and every hurdle, and by the time the finish line is in sight, Darwin has already received his prize and disappeared off the race course.

NB: You’ll notice that throughout a lot of this, I won’t be using hard evidence to discredit Creation Science. Obviously you can’t prove a negative, but still, as Christopher Hitchens famously said: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Brief History of ICR

This year, the organisation is celebrating its 40th Anniversary. Since Dr. Henry M. Morris started this off-shoot of the San Diego Christian College it has become autonomous (1981) but is still sadly funded by organisations such as the Combined Federal campaign. The closest disaster we have like this in the UK is Homeopathic remedies being funded by the NHS.

In the same year they gained independence, a School Degree was somehow approved by the State of California. A Masters of Science degree can still be obtained from this graduate school, along with minors in general science, astrophysics, biology, and geology a.k.a. Genesis-9-ology.

Much more recently (2006), the Henry M. Morris Center for Christian Leadership was established in Dallas, Texas. The aim was to expand the work done by ICR, increase web presence (I call it "spam") and support their various ministries.

Mr. Morris's (I refuse to use his title of Doctor) family are carrying on his legacy by "educating" creationists in California. 2007 saw them relocate their headquarters to Dallas, Texas. I see this as predictable: it would've been braver to go somewhere not within the bible-belt. However they have a 5-acre campus with labs, classrooms, library... all sorts of facilities they like to show off, thinking that somehow it makes them a more efficient group.

Why am I doing this?

Up until mid-January this year, I used to be a Christian. Not the warm, fuzzy, orange-squash-drinking Anglican that anyone can get along with though. The sort who had started to believe in Creation, Exclusivism, Calvinism... basically, I'd never properly questioned anything. Neither did I face up to telling "un-believers" about how wrong they were because I knew that, really, I couldn't prove anything to them and I'd quickly lose the argument.

Since I bothered to question things (by reading different books, paying attention to science, and yes, praying) I've concluded that if every near-fundamentalist Christian went through this process, there would be none of them left. I'm aware now of the outright stupidity of what I had faith in, the "emotional blackmailing" and anger I caused. If anything can come close to making up for that, it would be fighting for good causes and appreciating the scientific community.

I think one way to show respect for Scientists - and that definitely includes decent earnestly religious scientists - is to make it clear the pseudosciences really are rubbish. So, the title of what I've started is: Sceptical Inquiry into the Institute for Creation Research.

Because I am inexperienced in some areas covered in the report, I owe thanks to the wisdom of everyone from a helpful Internet community who would prefer to remain anonymous, who helped. I'll make sure to thank them properly later on.

Those of you who feel strongly about real science being fought for, not just by professional scientists, please follow this Blog, offer constructive criticism and encouragement.