"I suggest you read the articles at www.icr.org. That site shows real scientists with real credentials who explain how evolution is a fraud and creationism is a valid scientific theory."

Long Version

"After dismissing the canard that speciation itself gives support to theories of organic evolution, I have given examples in which new species have arisen in a matter of only centuries, or even decades."- John Woodmorappe, Institute for Creation Research, in A Resource for Answering Critics of Noah's Ark (IMPACT No. 273 March 1996).

If the above quote is not a beautiful example of the inherently schizophrenic nature of so-called "scientific creationism", I don't know what is. How can people claim that all species must have been created 6000 years ago because evolution is impossible while simultaneously claiming that new species can arise naturally? Is there some kind of Nobel Prize for Self-Contradiction?

The cynic in you may also be amused to note that while he "dismisses" the idea that natural speciation is an example of evolution, he does not even hint at how he justifies this dismissal.

The so-called "Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) is a fine example of how creationists try to mimic the style of scientific documents without actually using the scientific method at all.

First and foremost, it should be noted that the President of ICR, Henry Morris, has made some rather bizarre comments. From his book "The Beginning of the World", 2nd edition (1991):

Now you tell me: are these the ramblings of a reasonable person? The "Negroes" lack the "intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites"? Based on the Bible, with no other evidence required? Would you go to a "science" school that is chaired by this man?

But of course, that is largely tangential to the real issue at hand, which is "regardless of what a joke ICR's administration is, are ICR's articles valid?" And on that question, ICR as an organization fails just as badly as its president does as a person. Let us look at its "Tenets of Scientific Creationism" (quote from its website as of Nov 24, 2004):

(emphasis added). Now, let us go through these "Tenets of Scientific Creationism" one by one:

Tenet #1: they claim that everything is due to a supernatural entity. Is it even necessary to explain why this is not science? Legitimate scientific theories require some kind of supporting evidence for their underlying mechanism, and they present none. While we do not make the fallacious demand that creationists demonstrate first-hand observation of creation (unlike the creationists' fallacious demand that evolution supporters demonstrate first-hand observation of abiogenesis), we do demand some kind of evidence for these "supernatural" mechanisms repeatedly cited as explanations for the existence of life, and ICR has none. Their modus operandi is to attack and distort scientists' methods of testing evolution theory's physical mechanism, and then to turn around and make the laughable claim that their own so-called "scientific theory" needs no testable physical mechanism at all!

Tenet #2: see tenet #1.

Tenet #3: its claim that all modern plants and animals were "created functionally complete from the beginning" is interesting because if true, we should expect to see that all modern species have existed from the beginning of time. So why do the oldest, deepest rocks contain no fossils of modern dogs, cats, humans, horses, etc? Why don't the oldest, deepest rocks even contain examples of modern plants? Do creationists have any explanation for this mysterious absence? Of course not; their only "explanation" is to desperately attack any and all methods of determining which areas are the oldest (including methods that have been used by geologists for centuries, since well before Darwin proposed his evolution theory in the mid 19th century).

Tenet #4: is there even a shred of evidence for this claim that the biological brain is insufficient to produce human "reasoning" and "language"? Have they ever even attempted to provide one?

Tenet #5: in order to support tenet #3, they argue that the entire fossil record was laid down at once, so there is no "oldest" part. But is there any evidence to support their preposterous claim that present-day species would all float to the top of the sediment in this "catastrophic" one-time creation of sedimentary rock that they propose? Try to search their website for one; you won't find it. And for good reason, since there is simply no way to support this absurd claim: if deposited at the same time, the skeleton of a small dinosaur (yes, not all dinosaurs were the same size) is no more or less likely to wind up at the bottom of a pile of sediment than the skeleton of a modern elephant (or a human).

Tenet #6: by arguing that "miraculous intervention" by God is "always the possibility", they are admitting that they cannot make so-called "scientific creationism" work without violating physical laws. I don't know how familiar you are with the principles of science and the scientific method, but this is clearly not science. Moreover, all of their so-called "research papers" are written with this assumption in mind, so that they quote scientific principles for the purpose of making their articles look credible, but shamelessly ignore them when it suits their purposes.

Tenet #7: an "originally-perfect created order"? Like tenet #3, this one is unusual because unlike most creationist claims, it actually produces testable predictions. To wit, if this tenet is true, then we should be able to find fossil evidence of these superior, more "perfect" life forms from the primordial era. So where is it? Where is the fossil evidence of these perfect life forms from the dawn of creation? Why are ancient homo sapiens fossils smaller and weaker than modern Man?

Tenet #8: this is an attempt to justify their anti-scientific methods, with a spectacular example of circular logic. In essence, once you strip away the carefully worded rhetoric, they are basically saying "since religious beliefs are true, it is appropriate to assume religious beliefs are true when conducting scientific inquiry".

Tenet #9: this is a completely pointless attempt to justify ICR's existence, and represents no scientific or even quasi-scientific claim, much less an argument.

It is worthwhile to return to tenet #3 and look at it again, because it inadvertently admits the existence of evolutionary processes. Read it carefully: it acknowledges that there have been "changes in basic kinds" over time. What they (and most creationists) fail to realize is that any such changes, regardless of whether they choose to classify them as "horizontal" or "vertical", are nevertheless examples of evolution as it is defined in biology. They will argue that these changes are limited to "information already present in the DNA", but that argument implies DNA stasis, which we know to be false. In reality, the only times you will even find two individuals of the same species which share identical DNA is in the case of identical twins. In any case, by acknowledging that change can occur within "basic kinds" over time due to "variation", they unwittingly acknowledge that Darwin's theory of selection from variation is valid. They merely believe that this process has limits: limits for which they can produce no direct evidence. You may ask why they would make such a damaging (albeit carefully cloaked) admission; the answer is simple: they believe in the story of Noah's Ark, and it is impossible to fit all of the millions of modern species into an Ark of the size described in the Bible. But according to the Bible, all of the "basic kinds" have already been created, so they are forced to acknowledge that most of the modern species evolved from a far smaller number of "basic kinds".

Summary

It is true that ICR is the foremost leading bastion of "scientific creationism". But it's also true that this should be a source of embarassment rather than pride to creationists, for ICR is chaired by a man with delusional notions of racial superiority, its "Tenets of Scientific Creationism" are grossly unscientific even upon cursory inspection, and ICR actually admits that it is possible for a large number of species to evolve from a smaller number of species: a devastating admission which essentially undermines their entire case. For if millions of species can evolve from hundreds, then hundreds can evolve from one. And with no one able to identify even a single organ possessed by Man that is not also possessed by other primates, Man could certainly have evolved from primates.

The fact that ICR stubbornly refuses to refer to observed natural speciation as "evolution" is nothing more than a laughable proof of their dishonesty. So the next time someone cites ICR.org, merely remind him that ICR.org actually supports evolutionary speciation, and that they hang their entire doctrine upon the notion that it is only possible within certain predefined limits: limits for which they have never produced a shred of evidence, never mind a testable mechanism.

As for the claim that ICR's articles are authored by real scientists, that may be true in some cases (although there are many cases of people using fraudulent credentials from places such as the "Pacific College of Graduate Studies", "The University of Physical Sciences" in Phoenix AZ, "Patriot University" in Colorado, "Indiana Christian University", and other such unaccredited diploma mills). But it is also true that in those limited cases where an ICR author actually has legitimate and topically relevant credentials from a respected and accredited university, he submits his creationist "research" to ICR but not to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Why? The answer is painfully obvious: even an ICR creationist knows deep down that creationism has no scientific validity. Just as they acknowledge evolutionary speciation without admitting evolution works, they quietly acknowledge the scientific invalidity of creationism without admitting that either.

To return to the top of this article, ICR is an unwitting proof of the impossibility of reconciling creationism and science without self-contradiction, and that is all they are. It is also worthwhile to note that you can't prove anything by simply saying that ICR says it's so. The argument that ICR has a handful of qualified experts is utterly specious in light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists (particularly those in the field of biology) accept evolution theory, not to mention the fact that none of ICR's creationist articles have passed peer review. And if you understand the subject, you should be able to argue it yourself instead of copying and pasting articles from ICR.org (for if you don't understand it well enough to argue it on your own, then how are you knowledgeable enough to judge whether ICR.org's arguments are valid?).

Short version

If one doesn't want to bother going into long detailed explanations of why ICR does not meet its own claims of objectivity, one could simply point out that it is a fallacy to use a third-party opinion as evidence. If you understand the arguments ICR uses, you should be able to paraphrase them and defend them yourself. And if you don't understand the arguments they're using, then you have no business stating that they've successfully proven their case because you obviously have no way of telling whether they've really done so.

Fallacy watch:

• Appeal to Authority (assumes that ICR's opinions can be treated as evidence by simply invoking their name, without having to explain why they are correct).