I’ve just seen the latest ICR Acts&Facts, which purports to be a summary of creationist research projects. The summaries are set out similarly to scientific papers, with sections on ‘purpose’, ‘methods’, ‘results’ and ‘impact’. But after scanning some of the ‘methods’ sections, I had to make sure this wasn’t published on April 1st.
Here are a couple of examples:
“In search of this, I studied Scripture, prayed, and made some theoretical calculations with pencil and paper.”
“I was unable to find the original, unaltered climate data used in the Pacemaker paper. So, using the figures in the paper, I very carefully reconstructed these data sets…”
These are described as major projects from an eminent research institute.
How can it be said to constitute research if they have literally stated that they would never publish a result they felt they couldn’t square with their creationist beliefs?
Breaking news: We’ve found another thing we feel like can be framed to support our preconceptions!
AiG has that, but I don’t know that ICR has stated that officially.
I doubt there is much distance between ICR and AIG on these matters. Here’s one of ICRs declarations of faith:
- The Bible, consisting of the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament and the 27 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.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.