Beware of the 'Institute for Christian Research'

By David J. Stewart | March 2015

       Our churches are in trouble today. False doctrines are creeping into our fundamental churches by the hour. One of those heresies is a Young Earth. I do not support the heretical teaching of a Young Earth, as espoused by the 'Institute for Creation Research' (ICR). In fact, I have a problem with Henry Morris getting paid $100,722 and Henry Morris III $140,131 in 2013. That's three and a half times what Diesel mechanics get paid. ICR rakes in about $7,000,000 a year.

Another false prophet is Ken Ham, who rakes in around $20,000,000 a year. Still another Young Earth heretic is Eric Hovind, and his father Kent Hovind. I do support Dr. Hovind's defense against his wrongful imprisonment. If they're going to prosecute Mr. Hovind, then so should they Ken Ham and others, like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar. And for that matter, if you want to find real criminals, arrest Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi for insider trading! If you're a preacher, you go to jail for J-walking, but if you're a member of congress, you get away with treason and fraud.

Henry Morris III pays himself almost three times what the average U.S. fireman makes in a year. What is their profession? ... pushing the heresy of a Young Earth! Christianity is not a business. This is so wrong. I read on CreationToday (Eric Hovind's website) today that they are a “parachurch ministry,” and that it would not be proper for them to debate controversial issues. What a major copout! What hypocrites! They can rake in the big bucks pushing the anti-evolution ATM button all around the country, but when it comes to abortion, gay marriage and the Rapture, they have nothing to say.

I am a nobody, but Jesus is somebody, and I know Jesus as my Savior, so that makes me a somebody in Christ! For whatever it's worth, I am calling for all Christians to ban giving money to these selfish groups, please. Don't be stupid. Why make them rich from a racket that manipulates certain popular hotly debated issues, while tossing everything else to the dogs? I've noticed that Eric Hovind and his sidekick Paul Taylor are getting extremely vague on how to be saved, trying to take a middle-of-the-road, non-offensive approach to as much as possible. ALL THEY WANT IS TO MAKE MONEY AND GET FILTHY RICH!!! Last year, Eric Hovind uploaded a Facebook video begging ministry supporters for $600,000 to keep the ministry going! I am against today's money-making ministries! Jesus told us to labor to give to the needy, not exploit His name to sell things and get rich personally.

Clearly, the subject of evolution verses creation by God (Creationism) is a hotly debated issue. Sadly, this fact has made it an easily exploited area by greedy men to turn Christianity into a business. Ken Ham's organization alone takes in approximately $20 million a year, and now they're building a Noah's Ark Theme Park in Kentucky for $73 million that's projected to rake in several billion dollars when completed. Is this all Christianity means anymore, dollars and cents? It seems that everyone speaking the name of the Lord these days has something to sell. Even more repulsive is when you check Charity Navigator online and find out that they pay themselves extravagant salaries nearly four times what policeman and firemen get paid each year. Henry Morris III paid himself $140,131 in 2013. I think it is unethical!!! As far as I'm concerned, these men have turned God's house into a den of thieves!

I am against ICR for teaching a Young Earth heresy. It's not a personal matter. I don't think anyone in a so-called “ministry” should get paid exceedingly more than the average working man. A minister is supposed to be a servant. Instead, they serve themselves. If the truth be told, 99% of ministers would instantly quit if they weren't making money from it. I wish they'd all quit! The genuine men of God will continue serving God, even if they don't make a penny, like me. My reward is you getting saved and close to Jesus!

Having said that, I want to point out that every Young Earth heretic I've studied (Ken Ham, Eric and Kent Hovind, Henry Morris III), confuse the lies of evolution with the truth of an Old Earth; thus, confusing people to the truth of an Old Earth. Check for yourself online and research the information and you will discover that Young Earthers have to far stretch their claims, distort facts and make bizarre assumptions in order to justify their heresies! The Kentucky Noah's Ark Theme Park will have dinosaurs on the ark! Oh boy!!! What a sad joke! Why not have Hollywood actors on the ark too? My friend, there were no dinosaurs on the ark. Dr. Henry Morris III actually teaches that there were baby dinosaurs aboard the ark with slowed metabolisms (stunted growth). Really? You'd have to be desperate to believe anything to accept this nonsense!

Folks, the Bible says that Adam named every living creature (Genesis 2:19), but he didn't name even one of the dinosaurs or prehistoric animals, because they weren't there to name! Modern scholars and scientists have named all the dinosaurs!

In addition, the Bible teaches that the greatest of all beasts is the lion. Proverbs 30:30, “A lion which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any.” Surely if allosauruses and tyrannosauruses had dwelt amongst men, then they would have been the strongest among beasts and mentioned instead of lions. No lion would be a match for a Velociraptor, one of the most aggressive and predatory of the dinosaurs. T-rex were meat eaters, but likely scavengers; not hunters like the Velociraptor.

What we need in America is for local New Testament church pastors to start preaching the truth, and stop supporting the rogue religious salesman who make millions of dollars each year from exploiting the Holy Bible for personal gain. The heresy of a Young Earth is spiritually dangerous, because it drives sensible people away from hearing the Gospel. They reasonably detest the intellectual retardation of anyone who teaches that dinosaurs roamed the earth 4,500 years ago and were aboard Noah's ark. About the best evidence that Young Earthers can come up with to support their unscriptural claim that dinosaurs lived with man is folklore tales of fire-breathing, flying, dragons in children's myths. As one of my favorite evangelists said, “Please don't act stupid, we're trying to have a revival here!” Amen to that! END

*NOTE: The following article by Dr. Henry Morris is very good, minus the junk about a Young Earth. I do agree 100% that evolution is a big lie, and I agree with Dr. Morris on that issue. I thought the information was worth reading, so I've posted it for you to consider, to hear both sides. Again, please note that I do NOT agree with Dr. Henry Morris' nor Henry Morris III's Young Earth views AND HERE'S WHY. I believe that the Bible plainly teaches an Old Earth view and that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, just as legitimate science evidences. Here is an excellent work on the subject (.PDF file). I do NOT believe in evolution of any sort. I believe that mankind has only been in existence since 6,000 years ago. I believe in an Old Earth, but Young Man. The excellent exegeses by Dr. Arthur C. Custance titled, WITHOUT FORM AND VOID expounds Genesis 1:1-2 to evidence that God's original creation became without form, and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep. Something chaotic happened that caused the earth to become without form and void. Lucifer! END ~David J. Stewart

Willful Ignorance

By Henry Morris, Ph.D.

“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.” (II Peter 3:5)

We frequently receive requests from readers asking us to reply to anti-creation articles appearing in their local papers. The problem is that such articles appear so frequently all over the country--in scientific journals and popular magazines as well as newspapers--that we could not possibly reply to all of them. When we do try to write such a response, it usually is not published anyway. Even when one is published it usually is edited and its message diluted.

Consequently, we have in recent years tended just to ignore these attacks and to get on with our mission. However, a recent lead editorial in our own local paper (San Diego Union-Tribune, 8/5/05) was so blatantly misleading that I was almost tempted to write to the editor anyhow.

The article, in fact, was itself written as a negative reaction to President Bush's recently publicized statement that he felt intelligent design should be taught in public schools along with secular evolutionism, thus allowing students to think and decide for themselves. The writer called his editorial "Creationism Redux," by which title he seemed to be suggesting that the intelligent design movement was nothing but "creationism with a slick makeover" (his words). Intelligent design, he said, is "worthy of respectful acknowledgement in any discussion of philosophy and religion," but any "admiration for its scientific value is laughable." Even so, he says it is "much more compelling than crude theories of creationism, which depict Bible class as tantamount to biology 101 and geology 101 combined."

The best one can say of such gratuitous comments is that this anonymous editorial writer, and many other such opinionated wordsmiths, "willingly are ignorant," as the Bible's insightful phrase (II Peter 3:5) puts it. They have simply not done their homework before pontificating.

Since that writer presumably lives in San Diego, he easily could have checked with some of the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. He claimed that few creationists or I.D. advocates have degrees in biology, but that is wrong. ICR's biology chairman has a Ph.D. from Harvard, for example, plus much research experience. There are also dozens of fully credentialed biologists in the Creation Research Society and other creationist organizations. Creationists may be in the minority, but scientific truth is never determined by majority vote. And that minority is growing as more and more biologists and other scientists are becoming aware of the actual evidence.

The editorialist approvingly cites a surgeon who has argued that evolution must be true because "physical adaptations to environmental pressures have been documented in hundreds of modern species." This kind of supposed "proof' is given as the main evidence of evolution by almost all evolutionary apologists. The adaptation of insects to pesticides and the different beaks on the Galapagos Island finches (the evidence that so impressed Charles Darwin) are among the most common "evolutionary" adaptations cited by evolutionists.

If they would read almost any book by creation scientists, they would know that such horizontal variations (or microevolution) and adaptations are accepted by all creationists, who recognize them as evidence of the Creator's forethought. Each creature has been designed with a genetic system that can recombine its components as needed to keep it from becoming extinct when the environment changes. But evolutionists don't want to imply any validity to creationism by debating its advocates or reading their books. This looks like willful ignorance. We stress again and again that it is only the concept of macroevolution (the transmutation of reptiles into birds and mammals, or of apes into men, or other "upward" changes) that we find void of scientific proof.

In fact, it is just such a reaction on the part of evolutionists that seems to fit Peter's prophecy (in II Peter 3:3-4) so perfectly: ". . . there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This is precisely the concept of naturalism, or uniformitarianism, which dominates most scientific thinking today, stressing that all natural processes have operated since the very beginning of the world in the same way they do today.

God's Word, the Bible, says otherwise, of course. God "rested" after the six days of creation "from all His work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:3). Whatever processes were used by Him to create and make all things in that beginning week, are, therefore, not in operation today, so cannot be observed scientifically. But most evolutionists categorically deny that there ever was any real creation; therefore they insist that everything must be explained by some kind of evolution.

That is exactly what Peter prophesied would be the situation in the last days. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water." That is, Peter was predicting that a time would come--the last days of the age in fact--in which people would be scoffing at Christ's promised return. The reason for such an attitude would be--not just ignorance--but willful ignorance of the primeval creation of the heavens and the earth by the omnipotent Word of God.

Their refusal to understand or even consider the evidence for creation can thus only be described as willful. It reminds me of an atheist professor whom I was trying to win to Christ many years ago while I was teaching at a secular university. I gave him two excellent books to read setting forth the strong evidences for the deity of Christ and the divine origin of the Bible and he at first agreed to read them. A few days later, however, he angrily returned the books, saying he had started reading one of them but then changed his mind and refused to read any more. What he said, as I recall, was something like this; "I don't care what the evidence is: I just don't want to believe" and that was that!

The writer of the local editorial, in common with almost all of the multitudes of evolutionist writers on this issue, insists that evolution has been proved by science, whereas creation (and also more currently, intelligent design) is simply religion and thus should not even be mentioned in science classes.

But evolution has not been proved by science. Surely they ought to know this. Science is based on observability and repeatability but there is no recorded example of true macroevolution in all the thousands of years of human history. That in itself is proof that it is unscientific. Furthermore, there is no way to test it. No matter what kind of evidence for creation is presented, evolutionists can devise an evolutionary "just-so-story" to explain it away.

If they resort to the fossil record and the imagined billions of years of pre-history as their proof (as they, in fact, have to do, since macroevolution is not observed in action today) they must use the principle of uniformitarianism as their warrant for doing so, just as Peter prophesied they would do! "The present is the key to the past" has been their watchword. Even there, however, they can find no real evidence of evolution. In all the billions of fossils known to exist, not one example of a real evolutionary transformational series has ever been found. There ought to be multitudes of such series there if they ever really existed.

There is, therefore, no real scientific evidence of either present or past evolution. Furthermore, the universally acknowledged scientific law of increasing entropy seems clearly to indicate that any significant vertical evolution toward greater organized complexity is impossible without certain artificial constraints (which evolutionism cannot demonstrate are available). Willful ignorance again!

Once I had a formal debate with two biologists on the faculty at a state university. I used the entropy law as one of my main arguments, but neither of the evolutionists even mentioned this argument in their rebuttals. In the question period that followed, the professor who was teaching the course in engineering thermodynamics at that university asked them how they would answer the argument, which seemed valid to him. After consulting with each other, they said they did not know how to answer it, since they had both done poorly in physics. But they still insisted evolution was science.

Peter's prophecy also included the evolutionary rationalization for assuming evolution through long ages in the past. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, . . . the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:5-6). The Greek word for "overflowed" literally means "cataclysmic." But evolutionists deliberately ignore the Biblical record of the global deluge of Noah's day, as well as the geological evidence of that terrible worldwide cataclysm.

The fact is that virtually every geological formation shows by its fossils and by its very structure that it must have been deposited very rapidly--indeed catastrophically. Although individual formations in a vertical column may be separated from each other by one or more time gaps, there are no worldwide time gaps. That fact can only be explained by a worldwide cataclysm, primarily hydraulic in nature.

Hundreds of anti-creationist articles have been published in recent years, and the Intelligent Design movement is currently being subjected to the same ill treatment. Many of them have been more sarcastic and insulting even than this one mentioned here. The common theme of all of them is that evolution is scientific, while creation and intelligent design are not. The utterly fallacious nature of such a pronouncement is hard to explain by anything other than willful ignorance.

* Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

Website Of Dr. Arthur C. Custance (1910-1985)

The Flood: Local Or Global?

Evolution Or Creation

Books by Dr. Arthur C. Custance

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” —Hebrews 11:3

Learn the Word of God

God's Simple Plan