Creationists dispute editorial: ‘We don’t teach that’


Henry Morris III, CEO of the Institute for Creation Research, which hopes to grant graduate degrees in science education in creationism, responded to the Dallas Morning News’ editorial (see “Science and Faith,” or look here) which urged the State of Texas not to authorize degree-granting authority, in a letter published New Year’s Day.

In a brazen demonstration of chutzpah, Morris complains he and his faculty don’t know what principles of science they deny.

It came as a surprise to both faculty and administration when the editorial stated that the Institute for Creation Research “rejects so many fundamental principles of science.”

ICR would like to know which “principles of science” are supposedly rejected by our school. Surely not Newton’s gravitational theory. Nor Mendel’s laws of heredity. Nor do we deny natural selection, suggested by Edward Blyth 24 years before Charles Darwin’s writings. All were creationists.

What ICR scientists openly question is Darwin’s “descent with modification” or macroevolution. Even renowned evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that “evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory.”

Despite what The News implies, ICR is a science-oriented institution, employing experts since 1970 whose credentials meet or exceed the qualifications of numerous secular universities and who conduct research across various disciplines. Many researchers bring extensive experience from such recognized facilities as Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, Cornell, UCLA and Texas A&M.

Amazing.

Can anyone who has read ICR materials over the years, read that letter with a straight face? Plate tectonics? Thermodynamics? Using the Bible as a science text? “Hydrological sorting” and a subterranean rain cycle? Speed of light and Big Bang cosmology? Opposition to space exploration?

That’s not science. That’s not even normal.

The full text of the letter, from The Dallas Morning News:

ICR disputes editorial

Re: “Science and Faith – Be vigilant on how they intersect in our schools,” Thursday Editorials.

It came as a surprise to both faculty and administration when the editorial stated that the Institute for Creation Research “rejects so many fundamental principles of science.”

ICR would like to know which “principles of science” are supposedly rejected by our school. Surely not Newton’s gravitational theory. Nor Mendel’s laws of heredity. Nor do we deny natural selection, suggested by Edward Blyth 24 years before Charles Darwin’s writings. All were creationists.

What ICR scientists openly question is Darwin’s “descent with modification” or macroevolution. Even renowned evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that “evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory.”

Despite what The News implies, ICR is a science-oriented institution, employing experts since 1970 whose credentials meet or exceed the qualifications of numerous secular universities and who conduct research across various disciplines. Many researchers bring extensive experience from such recognized facilities as Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, Cornell, UCLA and Texas A&M.

The graduate programs of ICR, while similar in factual content to those of other graduate colleges, are distinctive in one major respect: ICR bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God, as opposed to the naturalistic, atheistic presuppositions of evolution.

Perhaps before suggesting that men and women of faith have no place in teaching science, The News should verify the credentials and scientific contributions of those it impugns who are both committed Christians and recognized, productive scientists.

Dr. Henry M. Morris III, CEO, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas

8 Responses to Creationists dispute editorial: ‘We don’t teach that’

  1. Bob Sweeny says:

    Morris is talking smack, when he says he talking THEORIES, not principles. I love how he didnt even answer the main question, just beating around the bush.

    Like

  2. Parva Caepa says:

    The wild thing about trying to fit science into the narrow confines of an ancient text is that it requires inventing even more mythology….such as saying that God “aged” the earth the way he “aged” Adam and Eve, who were created fully grown, speaking and aware of the difference between good and evil. While they agree with one of Darwin’s first observations: that species change and diverge due to natural selection, they cannot accept the amount of time it takes to create the countless species that result. Letting “nature take its course” might work in the long run, but we are entering a fast paced century where the extinction of authentic science might mean our downfall as well.

    Like

  3. jgrab1 says:

    godkillzyou says:

    > Truth will out

    It would be nice to believe that, but more and more the evidence is showing even highly “educated” people don’t understand basic science, and think scientific findings, like everything else in their lives from ethics to history, are “just a matter of opinion.”

    Like

  4. -30- says:

    The only thing scarier than these people is letting them legitimize their “science” with academic degrees.

    Like

  5. Mike O'Risal says:

    Morris doesn’t even know what the “principles of science” are. He names a list of scientific theories, not scientific principles. The letter is the usual sort of political dodge targeted toward the uneducated who often have the loudest opinions these days.

    The principle of science that ICR rejects, before and beyond even basic scientific method, is methodological naturalism. He’s dodged the entire question with his alleged rebuttal.

    Like

  6. This is really a significant problem. Evangelical and other religiously affiliated self-righteous groups have identified the education system as the “wedge” by which to establish the US as a christian nation. It is exceedingly well organized. It is up to the courts to prevent this from occurring, and this far they have done an admirable (but far from perfect) job, IMO.

    Like

  7. godkillzyou says:

    I think what we’ve all learned about Creationists is how willing they are to lie to promote Jesus. Look at the Dover trial. Judge Jones III came out and literally called the defendants LIARS… people claiming to be Christian and people who supposedly uphold a standard of “morality.” Apparently it’s ok to lie if it’s for Jesus.

    As a side note, who cares if ICR gives out degrees? Any reputable organization would look at that college on an application and say “no thanks, we’re not into sci-fi.” Then the applicant would claim that the employer discriminated on religious grounds. Then follows the scientific argument that “I thought Intelligent Design wasn’t about religion?”

    Truth will out, and stupid is stupid forever. You can’t fix it.

    Like

  8. j a higginbotham says:

    And the most basic one of all: base conclusions on data.

    The Bible … infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific …

    http://www.icr.org/home/faq/

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: