Bias Check: Institute for Creation Research

[SYZ]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

[Gwaithmir]

The Principles of Scientific Creationism is nothing more than a steaming pile of  

[skyking]

yep not clicking any of that, the stench is palpable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Shocking!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So many creation stories, with very little, if any, congruence. A god would have given us one.

[no one]

Is it really research if you already know what you're going to find?

Even if what you find isn't what you were looking for, it's what you're looking for.

[Minimalist]

Here's Kent Hovind's doctorral "thesis" as released by Wikileaks... if someone wants a few good laughs.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hov...tation.pdf

[airportkid]

... check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.

• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of “negative” changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
  

• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe.
  

Here we see that a perfect creator created a perfect universe that's imperfect.  One of the infinite possibilities available in word salad is self-contradiction, which to some tastes is its most important feature.

[adey67]

Two words: fucking nutbars.

[Gwaithmir]

Here's Kent Hovind's doctorral "thesis" as released by Wikileaks... if someone wants a few good laughs.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hov...tation.pdf

I got through about half of it before quitted in disgust. Hovind is either the biggest liar whose writings I've ever read or the stupidest person in the country. He would have been laughed out of the college I attended back in the late 1960's. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Patriot University grad?

[Minimalist]

The (ahem) campus of Patriot Bible University.  The caption on Wikileaks said it was taken in 2006.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing says red neck like a nice double wide trailer.

[SYZ]

Here's Kent Hovind's doctorral "thesis" as released by Wikileaks... if someone wants a few good laughs.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hov...tation.pdf

I actually wasted 30 minutes of my time scanning Hovind's "thesis".

In total, it's possibly the most ludicrous document I've ever read,
having purportedly been composed  by an individual at university
doctorate level.  It's a farrago of misrepresentations, distortions
of scientific fact, fabrication, equivocation, and blatant lies.

Hovind was 38 years of age when he cobbled this thing together,
but its grammar, sentence form and function, and syntax are more
like those of a 14-year-old high school student.

[airportkid]

... Kent Hovind's doctorral "thesis" as released by Wikileaks ...

At 102 pages it doesn't take long for Kent to go off the rails at page 9:

Where in the world did the idea come from that things left to themselves can improve with time?
Who would start a crazy idea like that?
This idea is the opposite of everything that we observe in the world today.

Kent has failed to observe the most obvious and prolific example of things left to themselves improving with time:  virtually every life form on the planet, which from birth improve in myriad capabilities and reproductive maturity.  Seeds become plants, fruits ripen, animals gain self-sufficiency, and on and on.  The fact that individual life forms ultimately always deteriorate and die, death itself improves the sustainability of a species, an ecology, and uncountable symbiotic relationships.

But has Kent ever enjoyed a Cabernet Sauvignon?  There's an article that improves left to itself.  So does concrete, which eternally increases in hardness and strength the older it gets.

A glacier left unmolested for several thousand years carved out the Yosemite Valley.  Can anyone argue that Valley was not an improvement?  Likewise the Grand Canyon emerged from an undisturbed process over time.

Certainly there are many things that erode and deteriorate without maintenance.  A major example is Kent Hovind's intellectual faculty which, left to itself, does diminish markedly.  Fortunately, much that gets better with time will outlast Kent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hovind was 38 years of age when he cobbled this thing together, but its grammar, sentence form and function, and syntax are more like those of a 14-year-old high school student.

Its argumentation is even more juvenile.

[Minimalist]

Likewise the Grand Canyon emerged from an undisturbed process over time.

Um, creatards insist the GC was carved by Noah's Fucking Flood.

Asswipes have an answer for everything.  Wrong answers... but then when you are factually challenged that hardly matters.

[SYZ]

Tom Vail, who has been leading rafting trips down the Colorado River here
for 23 years, corralled his charges under a rocky outcrop at Carbon Creek
and pointed out the remarkable 90-degree folds in the cliff overhead.

Geologists date this sandstone to 550 million years ago and explain the
folding as a result of pressure from shifting faults underneath. But to Mr. Vail,
the folds suggest the Grand Canyon was carved 4,500 years ago by the
great global flood described in Genesis as God's punishment for humanity's sin.

Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon.

"Grand Canyon: A Different View" is a 2003 book edited by Vail.   The book
features a series of photographs of the Grand Canyon illustrating 20 essays
by creationists.     The book was approved for sale in Grand Canyon National
Park bookstores in 2003, and on the web.    Vail had recently converted to
Christianity and adopted a different view of the Canyon, which, according to
a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about "a few thousand years old".

Seven US geoscience societies voiced their concerns about the book: "The Grand
Canyon provides a remarkable and unique opportunity to educate the public
about earth science.   In fairness to the millions of park visitors, we must clearly
distinguish religious tenets from scientific knowledge."   Vail's book was subsequently
removed from the Park's natural science section of its bookstore in 2004.

[Minimalist]

Yep.... that's the shithead I had in mind!

[bluewater]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

[Cavebear]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

I disagree somewhat.  I think there is a difference between bias toward facts and bias toward belief.  A scientific bias toward facts is why we live in a world of (generally) food, shelter and technology.  It is why I don't spend all day scratching soil with a stick in which to plant seeds and live in a tiny flimsy shelter with a dirt floor.

A bias toward religion is why we aren't already colonizing other planets (possibly even around other stars), afraid of an afterlife of eternal punishment, and sometimes as dumb as dogs in a pack all butt-sniffing each other.  

(No offense meant to dogs (they are what we bred them to be), but sometimes they aren't the brightest bulbs in the room...)  

I agree scientific consensus doesn't prove anything to be correct, but it is a basis for useful further learning.

[Minimalist]

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Yes.  And religitards are the worst!

[Inkubus]

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard Feynman.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Problem for the faithful is, one of these two worldviews has a method for reducing, with the goal (even if never actually achieved) of removing bias. The other worldview embraces, if we're being honest, can not survive without, it's inherent bias.

If you want to complain about the mote in the eye of science, you should address the beam in your own, first.

[Bucky Ball]

Conspiracy-Pseudoscience by Media Bias Fact Check:

Overall, we rate the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) a quackery level Pseudoscience
source based on the promotion of young-earth creationism and rejection of evolution which
is supported by the consensus of science.

Institute for Creation Research.

"For over five decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with
evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational
programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework".

For a real laugh, check out this ICR page:  Principles of Scientific Creationism.     

Scientific research, observations and experiments (from creationists and non-creationists) produce data, but differing world views effect interpreting the same data. Science does not have a consensus, but the interpretation of data from scientific investigation can have a consensus. I think that is a more honest characterization of science and the data obtained through it.

We can agree that consensus does not make something right.

We can also agree that everyone has a bias.

Show me ONE scientific study, and the data produced and peer reviewed, done by a "creationist".

No. Everyone does not have a bias. A real bias would be challenged by a peer review.
That's the way real science is done.

All "creationism" is, ... is mythology. That's fine. Mythology is how humans have created explanations for themselves for eons.
But now is the scientific age. As Joseph Campbell said, all religions have some truth. It's when they take them literally, they get in trouble.
https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-2-jose...-the-myth/