4.5 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institute for Creation Research | 3/3 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:21:27.765353+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Scientific criticism === Young-earth creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists, including most scientists who hold to the Christian faith, with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as not science. Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine. Pigliucci notes that any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by Biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists. As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism, and the association adopted by the ICR between the second principle of thermodynamics and the Bible's account of the fall of Adam. Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy." On January 7, 2007, the National Center for Science Education reported that Grand Canyon: A Different View, edited by Tom Vail and published by Master Books, the publishing arm of the Institute for Creation Research, and described as promoting "a young-earth creationist view of the geology of the Grand Canyon," was facing new scrutiny by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in December 2006. The Chief of the Park Service's Geologic Resources Division recommended its removal on grounds that it "does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; [and] does not further the mission of the National Park Service". A report by the National Center for Science Education, written by Chemist Karen Bartelt was critical of the ICR representatives and displays in the "museum".
=== Criticism from old Earth creationists === Old Earth creationists are opposed to the ICR. Gary North opposes the ICR on the grounds that they think the second principle of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR's activities a "fraud". The old-Earth creationist organization Answers In Creation criticizes the ICR, including a critical review by Kevin R. Henke of the ICR's dating claims. Henke concluded that the ICR's "research" was improperly conducted and "was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals". Another creationist opponent of ICR and its doctrine is Hugh Ross, who accepts the scientific consensus of a 4.54 billion year old Earth and is critical of ICR's cosmological models as well as their attempts to solve the starlight problem.
=== Criticism over awarding degrees === The ICR attracted much opposition when it sought approval (unsuccessfully) in Texas to operate a master's degree program in science education. An April 2008 survey by Texas Freedom Network showed the majority of science faculties in Texas are opposed to ICR's request to issue science degrees with 185 (95% of respondents) opposed to certifying the program and 6 (3%) in favor. Officials of the institute state their goal is to integrate Biblical creationism with science. Since their program is intended to prepare students who are or will become teachers, the developing program is controversial. In public statements, ICR officials said that scientific literacy would be emphasized, but science advocates critical of the ICR said the institute's true goal is to restore religious creationism to science classes in the public schools. Texas declined to accredit the ICR science program (see above).
== References ==
== Further reading == Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 624. ISBN 0674023390.
== External links == Institute for Creation Research – Official website