Observations on the Institute for Creation Research

Ben Brothers, 1999.

In the course of a debate on evolution, thoughtful people referred me to the Institute for Creation Research, as a place to find a well-reasoned and scientific defense of creation science. Since I'd read similar claims in the past, I was skeptical. But I checked it out. Not at all to my surprise, it turned out to be the same stuff I'd seen in the past, a mix of religious interpretation and unscientific claims.

On one page, they laid out the ICR Tenets of Scientific Creation. I thought a rebuttal was in order, so I offer my comments below. As I find good online sources for the scientifc evidence, I'll include the links.

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

I agree, because of faith. We've not yet developed a way of distinguishing a created universe from an uncreated universe. Until we can, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Additionally, our inability to distinguish a universe created by God from one that did not require His intervention, means that any theories we derive from the universe we see are equally applicable to both scenarios.

• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

Current evidence suggests that life can indeed form from inanimate systems. When theorized conditions of an early earth are reproduced in laboratory experiments, basic enzymes and proteins do form. Proteins, once created, can combine in formations to create RNA and DNA. All this requires is time. We've had billions of years. Why couldn't God have chosen to create life by allowing the laws with which He governs the universe to run their course?

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downwarif' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

There are many examples of speciation, including many noticed in this century in controlled experiments (mainly plants and insects). Also, nature is not required to follow manmade distinctions. Our classifications are merely convenient ways to organize and analyze data more efficiently. If one admits to the possibility the an organism can change a little bit, there is no real mechanism for stopping the cycle. Successive generations of small changes will clearly lead to something much different then what was there in the beginning. At some point, it will be convenient to classify the resultant creature as a member of a separate species.

• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

The first claim can only be based on a willful ignorance of the evidence. Countless fossils and remains of hominids have been found, and they show a clear diversification from early primates to the modern class. Varying genes among the primate line can be traced back to early primates; this line is one of the best-known of all speciations, both because of natural interest in our own origins, and because it occurred relatively recently.

I have two views on the second claim. Our spiritual nature must originate from God. Since the soul does not consist of measurable mass or energy, it cannot have evolved. Since our soul is impossible to detect with scientific methods, it is impossible and pointless to speculate on when our ancestors first had souls. All in all, a fairly thorny issue. Secondly, I'm hesitant to claim that "self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language and will" are spiritual in nature. All of these things have been seen (in the case of language, reasoning and will) or deduced in chimpanzees and other more advanced species. As far as I know, man is the only species that has religion.

• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

There is almost no evidence for this. These claims are roundly discredited by all scientists, and usually don't hold up against even passing scrutiny. Among the data that contradict such claims are: measurable radioactive decay, repeatable both on Earth and in lunar samples, the helium/hydrogen mix on the sun, which suggests that fusion as been going on for about 5 billion years, the ideal gas law, which suggests that atmospheric water in the amount necessary to cause Noah's flood would pressurize the atmosphere and boil the oceans, fossil deposits across sedimentary boundaries that would be unlikely to occur if all the sediment were deposited at once after a flood, etc... There are many well-written FAQs available that debunk these claims in more depth then I'm going to do here.

On a more philosophical note, even if the Earth does not have age, it was created to appear and act like it did. First, if all rational faculties suggest that the Earth is old, the rational course of action is to assume that the Earth is old. Second, I see no reason why a loving God would create a universe so elaborately designed to deceive its inhabitants.

• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates but, since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.

If only you would "scrutinize critically" other claims you make, which seem no less miraculous...

• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.

First, a mechanism for "impairing the universe and life" is needed. Second, if a perfect creation was completed by an omnipotent God, there should be no possibility of "negative changes". The standard response, I think, is that the introduction of sin into the world is the catalyst, since God gave man free will. This is well and good from a figurative and theological point of view, but there is no evidence that human sins change the physical laws of nature, or otherwise alter the course of the entire universe. I'm quite certain that other star systems and other galaxies are quite indifferent to what we do to our own.

• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.

All considerations are appropriate in scientific studies if they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Creation science needs less emphasis on "all considerations", and a good deal more emphasis on "if they are consistent with the actual data of observation".

Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, creation science is not "exploring the manifestations of the Creator rationally and scientifically". This website seems devoted to exploring the manifestations of the Creator credulously and unskeptically.

Tenets of Biblical Creationism

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.

I agree. But this statement is based on faith, and not on science.

• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

Again, I agree. But one must be careful to distinguish between the Bible and one's own interpretation of the Bible. In particular, there is no evidence to support the notion that the Bible is always literally true. There is a great deal of evidence in support of the notion that the Bible can also be true in a metaphorical or figurative sense. As a theological and moral book, it can use stories and myth to illustrate God's design for the universe. The Bible is not a science textbook.

• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

No. There is absolutely no reason to believe in a literal six day creation. Every piece of evidence we have suggests that the Earth is billions of years old, and that the universe is much older yet. The categorical denial of a scientific theory (evolution), because it contradicts someone's interpretation of the Bible, is unscientific. This type of logic is the reason that "scientific creationism" should not be taught in (secular) school. The argument that we should present "both sides of the argument" is specious. All scientific theories should be entertained, and students taught to reason between them rationally. We shouldn't present unsupported theories alongside theories with a great deal of solid, rational evidence to support them.

• The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.

There is even less evidence for Adam and Eve then there is for a six day creation. It is pretty unlikely that the current diversity we see among people in the world could evolve in only 6000 years, or whatever the date of literal creation is claimed to be. It’s also pretty clear that things died long before the emergence of man.

• The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis I-II is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Again, I know of no sources outside the Bible which confirm or even support history as told by Genesis. Since the tower of Babel is a historical place, built well after man had spread throughout the world, it's impossible for it to have been the miraculous cause of language. It's far easier to assign this story into the category of "myths created to explain things by people who don't know the real reason".

• The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ were indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.

  The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and etemal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

This is the fundamental promise and hope of Christianity. Fortunately, it’s not at all dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis.