The ICR Needs YOU!

A month ago the Natural Historian was wondering where the next generation of creation scientists were hiding – not the next crop of believers, but the next “scientists” like Russell Humphreys and Henry Morris. The Institute for Creation Research may be asking themselves the same question as, accompanied by a stock photo of a person in a lab coat inspecting unlabelled agar plates, Jake Hebert writes in the newly-released December Acts & FactsWanted: Young Creation Scientists“:

ICR, together with the rest of the creation science movement, has made great strides in the last 40 years. In many areas, the superiority of the creation worldview has been clearly demonstrated. Even now, ICR is making exciting discoveries in the fields of biology and geology, and we have started new research initiatives in the field of astronomy. However, there is much work that still needs to be done, and this work is hindered by a lack of trained scientists.

Yes, it’s all like that. I’ll not spoil it for you by quoting more – go and read it all, next time you need a laugh. The take-home message is that budding creationists should by all means go to university and get a science degree, but they should keep their heads down so they don’t get “persecuted.” I’m guessing Hebert means “laughed at” there.


I realise that I’m not yet done with the previous month’s edition of the magazine, so I’ll get back to that before I do much further on December.

About these ads

3 thoughts on “The ICR Needs YOU!

  1. “Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person with an interest in science—have you considered cultivating that science interest for the glory of God?”

    Interesting. Many early European scientists (like from 300-600 years ago) considered the pursuit of knowledge through objective observation of the world around them as better understanding the mind of god, and using what they believed their god gave them in order to understand the world that their god created.

    Contrast that with the likes of ICR who want people to ignore what they see around them and come up with excuses to fit observations into a book compiled by goat herders over the course of a few hundred years over 1500 years ago that the ICR tries to read literally to mean one thing while a literal meaning of other parts have to be interpreted to fit into the literal meaning of the other parts.

    /end rant

  2. Quoting from Hebert’s short screed: “ICR, together with the rest of the creation science movement, has made great strides in the last 40 years. In many areas, the superiority of the creation worldview has been clearly demonstrated….”

    “Great strides?” WHAT is Hebert TALKING about??? I think I have read pretty nearly everything that the ICR and other young-Earth so-called “scientific” creationists have published over the last 40 years, and all I’ve seen in it all is Whack-A-Mole NON-science. In what SCIENTIFIC area has the superiority of the creation worldview been clearly demonstrated? I didn’t see that identified. What scientific contribution to objective knowledge about natural history that CRUCIALLY supports the young-Earth creation worldview has any YEC scientist made? Is there even ONE example that can stand-up to critical examination?

    If I am missing something, I beg the ICR to help me out by spelling-out examples that support the truth of their glowing self-praise, if they can and will. And for his or her own sake I sure hope any candidate interested in applying for employment as a scientist with the ICR begs similarly before committing to the ICR.

  3. Thanks for the link and finding that article. ICR’s site is really hard to navigate. Other than what they highlight on the front page these days everything is buried deep on their site. I get the impression that they have decided to communicate through newsletter direct to the faithful and are not so much interested their message through the internet medium. Yet another way they are using different tactics than AIG.
    But regards this short note. Fascinating that they are suggesting that those interested in science find a school with a “rigorous academic program” to attend. Was the ICR program not rigorous? actually I think what they want are PhDs which they can say have ties to good programs and thus lend them credibility (it won’t actually do that but to their followers it will which is all that is important). Interesting that a place like Cedarville which has a geologist faculty member from ICR graduate school is not the ideal place to attend. I am sure they know that Cedarville would be a safer place to send interested students but they also know that a degree from Cedarville isn’t going to get them into graduate school and they won’t benefit from having Cedarville trained students. I also think they probably are aware that the training from these programs doesn’t result in good scientists. If this is their plan, then they really have no real hope of attracting professional scientists to their movement.

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s