Editing Institute for Creation Research (section)

==Criticism==
===Scientific criticism===
Young-earth creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists, including most scientists who hold to the Christian faith,<ref name="Newsweek 1987 Martz McDaniel">As reported by [[Newsweek]]:  "By one count there are some 700 [[scientist]]s (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to [[creation science|creation-science]], the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'," in "Keeping [[God]] out of the Classroom ([[Washington DC|Washington]] and bureau reports)",
Larry Martz & Ann McDaniel, [[Newsweek]] CIX(26): 23–24, June 29, 1987, ISSN 0028-9604</ref><ref name=coe_report>"Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters".{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |publisher=[[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] |access-date=November 20, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm |archive-date=March 7, 2014 }}</ref> with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as [[Pseudoscience|not science]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science | title=Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] | year=2008 | access-date = 2008-09-06}}</ref> 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 [[scientific method|framework used by scientists]].<ref name=Pigliucci>{{cite book |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |title=Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science |publisher=Sinauer |location=Sunderland, Massachusetts |year=2002 |isbn=0878936599 |page=[https://archive.org/details/denyingevolution00mass/page/46 46] |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/denyingevolution00mass/page/46 }}</ref> As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to [[non-Euclidean geometry|non-Euclidean]] and non-Einsteinian explanations of [[speed of light|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."<ref name=Pigliucci/>

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".<ref name=ncse>{{cite news | url=http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/renewed-concern-creationism-at-grand-canyon-national-park | title=Renewed concern about creationism at Grand Canyon National Park | publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] | date= January 7, 2007 | access-date =2007-01-19}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/visit-to-institute-creation-research | title=A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] | year=1998 | first=Karen | last=Bartelt| access-date = 2019-08-15}}</ref>

===Criticism from old Earth creationists===
[[Old Earth creationism|Old Earth creationists]] are opposed to the ICR. [[Gary North (economist)|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".<ref name=Pigliucci/> The old-Earth creationist organization [[Answers In Creation]] criticizes the ICR,<ref name="AnCreation">{{cite web | url=http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/institute_for_creation_research.htm | author=Answers In Creation | author-link=Answers In Creation | title=Creation Science Rebuttals: Institute for Creation Research | access-date=October 18, 2008 | archive-date=January 11, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111071458/http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/institute_for_creation_research.htm | url-status=dead }}</ref> including a critical review by [[Kevin R. Henke]] of the ICR's dating claims.<ref name="Henke">{{cite web | url=http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/institute_for_creation_research.htm | author=Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. | title=Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals | work=[[Answers In Creation]] | access-date=October 18, 2008 | archive-date=January 11, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111071458/http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/icr/institute_for_creation_research.htm | url-status=dead }}</ref> Henke concluded that the ICR's "research" was improperly conducted and "was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals".<ref name="Henke"/> Another creationist opponent of ICR and its doctrine is [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]], who accepts the scientific consensus of a [[Age of the Earth|4.54 billion year old Earth]] and is critical of ICR's cosmological models as well as their attempts to solve the starlight problem.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humphreys_debate_statement.shtml |title=Exchanges Between Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Russell Humphreys |access-date=November 6, 2008 |author=Hugh Ross and Russell Humphreys |date=August 2002 |publisher=Reasons to Believe |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080827181645/http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humphreys_debate_statement.shtml |archive-date=August 27, 2008 }}</ref>

===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.<ref name="texscience.org"/> 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.<ref>{{cite news |title=Survey shows overwhelming opposition to ICR certification
 |url= http://ncse.com/news/2008/04/survey-shows-overwhelming-opposition-to-icr-certification-001687 |publisher= [[National Center for Science Education]] |date= April 24, 2008 |access-date=May 9, 2008 }}</ref> 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).