The Institute for Creation Research

Evolutionists seem to hold to the philosophy “if you can’t beat them, belittle them.” Recent events illustrate the manner in which they attempt to marginalize or dismiss creation research by labeling it “pseudoscience” or “junk science.”

An assistant professor at Merrimack College published an online list of “fake news” websites that were supposedly “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical ‘News’ Sources.”¹ The Institute for Creation Research was included on this list. Originally, the reason given for ICR’s inclusion was simply listed as “unknown,” but it was later amended to “junksci” (junk science).²

North Carolina State University researchers recently published a study showing that teaching students critical thinking skills reduces belief in pseudoscience.³ Pseudoscience, like junk science, could be defined as “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.”⁴ It would include a subject like astrology. Of course, we are pleased to see people abandon a belief in astrology, a practice that is both unscientific and clearly condemned in Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:19). But the researchers also categorized statements affirming biblical creation as pseudoscience!

The irony here is that most of these academics regard evolution as genuine science. Yet, evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscientific belief since it is widely but mistakenly believed to be based upon actual scientific evidence. If evolution were true, one would expect thousands of examples of fossil transitional forms documenting the transformation of one basic kind of organism into another. However, evolutionists can only claim a small number of supposed transitional forms, only a handful of which are accepted even by most evolutionists.⁵ Moreover, they have no idea how a primordial chemical soup could somehow spontaneously produce the first life.⁶

For over 40 years, ICR and other creation ministries have been exposing the “junk science” claims of evolutionary dogma.

• Evolutionists long claimed, based on fraudulent evidence, that developing embryos in the womb recapitulate evolutionary history as they grow. Versions of this tattered claim are still found in high school biology textbooks today.⁷
• Evolutionists have also long claimed that dozens of our internal organs are useless evolutionary “vestigial leftovers,” along with the non-coding parts of our DNA. Both claims have been thoroughly refuted by modern research.^8,9
• ICR’s Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has demolished the claim that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98 to 99% similar, and a prominent evolutionist has also acknowledged the falsity of this common claim. The genomes are actually only about 85% similar at best.^10,11

So, why are ICR scientists denigrated as pseudoscientists while the real purveyors of junk science are seldom called to account?

Although evolutionists are quick to fling the “pseudoscience” label at creation research, it is telling that they fight tooth-and-nail against efforts to teach students to critically evaluate and test evolutionary claims. Given that students routinely test the validity of other scientific claims in the classroom via laboratory experiments, this reluctance to test evolution seems rather odd. Granted, evolution, even if it were true, would not be directly observable within just one or two high school or college semesters. But students could at least be encouraged to critically evaluate its merits and weaknesses.

So, if most evolutionists are unwilling to allow critical evaluation of evolution, is it really science—or is it pseudoscience?

References

1. Zimdars, M. 2016. False, Misleading, Clickbait-y and/or Satirical “News” Sources. Posted on docs.google.com, accessed March 28, 2017.
2. Thomas, B. ICR Falsely Placed on False News List. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org March 27, 2017, accessed March 28, 2017.
3. McLaughlin, A. C. and A. E. McGill. 2017. Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in a History Course. Science & Education. 26 (1): 24-27.
4. Pseudoscience. Oxford Living Dictionaries. Posted on en.oxforddictionaries.com, accessed March 29, 2017.
5. Morris, J. D. and F. J. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 129-177.
6. Gish, D. 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Acts & Facts. 36 (1).
7. Guliuzza, R. J. 2016. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel’s Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination. Acts & Facts. 45 (11): 16-18.
8. Tomkins, J. P. 2012. Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise. Acts & Facts. 41 (11): 11-13.
9. Bergman, J. and G. Howe. 1990. “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional. Creation Research Society Monograph Series No. 4. Creation Research Society.
10. Tomkins, J. P. 2017. Monkey Business in the Chimp Genome. Acts & Facts. 46 (2): 9.
11. Tomkins, J. P. 2016. Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination With Human DNA. Answers Research Journal. 9: 294-298.

* Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas.