Research at ICR

Hi Folks,

I’m taking a break from the “God’s Law” series (which I do intend to continue in the near future) to get settled in at my new position here at the Institute for Creation Research.  ICR is the leading biblical creation research organization, and I have recently been granted the role of director of research.  I’m really excited about what is happening here, and you can expect to see some new resources coming from ICR very shortly.

The research taking place here is just so encouraging to those of us who hold to a biblical creation worldview.  I have seen some preliminary results of one project in particular that so compellingly confirm a “young earth,” that I honestly don’t know how secularists could deny it.  (Of course, I’m sure they will).  After this has been peer-reviewed and published, I will provide more details.

It is a great time to be a Christian!  And I am honored to be part of ICR and to work with such fine Christians.  Keep us in prayer.  And for more information about ICR, check us out at  If you haven’t already done so, please sign up on the website for our *free* monthly magazine “Acts and Facts.”

35 Responses to Research at ICR

  1. Christopher Cutler says:

    Thanks for the update. God bless!

  2. Cheri says:

    Congratulations on your new post!!

    It is indeed a great time to be a Christian. Like TV and the internet, all of the new info we have about the world is an amazing tool to find out about how God works and share it with others.
    Just stick close to God and He’ll guide you.

  3. Hello sir! Congrats and many blessings to you. I was fortunate to stumble across a video on the AiG site of you giving the Ultimate Proof talk, and now I’m working through your book of the same title. Thanks for all that you do, and be encouraged that folks like me try to keep you covered in prayer! These are indeed exciting times for me… Thanks for helping others to see how exciting and relevant to everything God’s Word is, and that it’s OK to be intellectual (fearing God first–Prov 9:10) and a thinker.

  4. Jacob Harper says:

    As a Christian and someone studying astrophysics, it makes me sad to see that such otherwise brilliant minds succumb to the lies of Creationism.

    Jesus’ message of love and salvation does not disappear if the universe is 13.6 billion years old.

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      Hi Jacob,

      Swap “Creationism” with “Evolutionism” and I totally agree with your first sentence. Most otherwise brilliant scientists have not considered how an evolutionary worldview cannot justify the necessary preconditions for logic and science. If evolution were true, science would be impossible (as I have demonstrated in my book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”). Yet most people just haven’t bothered to actually think about it.

      As to your second sentence, Jesus’ message of love and salvation would indeed disappear if the universe were billions of years old. If fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, then death existed before Adam sinned. In that case death cannot be the wages of sin, making Christ’s death on the cross utterly pointless. Salvation is meaningless apart from Genesis.

      An “old” universe would also make Jesus a liar, since Jesus affirmed the literal history of Genesis (e.g. Matthew 19). I would encourage you to read up on these issues and give them some thought. Don’t just blindly accept everything a professor says. Learn to be discerning.

      • Jacob Harper says:

        Dr. Lisle,

        I don’t think this is the proper medium for any debate of remark. I’m also certain that’s not what either of us want. But I would still like to say a few things.

        1. I mentioned nothing of evolution. I study physics, not biology, and I try not to venture into the fields where I can be outmaneuvered due to my ignorance. If you wish to speak of the stellar process/cycle, that’s more like it. And the fact that stars exist refute every premise you have.

        I have thought about these things. The difference is that I do not struggle to reconcile objective, observable fact with a book written by iron-age goat herders.

        2. Your entire doctrine of sin and death is on shaky theological grounds. And that’s how you base your conduct of “science”?

        3. “The Starlight Problem” is your biggest problem. I’ve looked into it, and you claim to propose a solution. You infer a *changing* speed of light over time.
        I’m not much of a physicist as of yet and even I can see the problems with such a baseless assertion. Just by googling this, I found quite the eloquent response:

        Your paper wouldn’t survive submission in journals like Nature and Science, which is where I think your awesome research in grad school went. If you’re so certain you’re right, why not allow it to be examined in a *true* peer review process?

        I try not to accept everything anyone tells me without justification, just like I don’t accept everything the Bible tells me without justification. I don’t like executing girls who become prostitutes via burning at the stake, but that’s just me.

        • Nick L. says:


          With all due respect, I disagree with several of your assertions in your conversation with Dr. Lisle. You stated “the fact that stars exist refute [sic] every premise you have.” Actually, such is not the case. If you’ve read Dr. Lisle’s book, you’re well aware that the reliability of our senses (such as our eyesight when looking up at the stars) depends on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
          You also stated that the difference between you and young-earth creationists “is that [you] do not struggle to reconcile objective, observable fact with a book written by iron-age goat herders.” Putting the gross mischaracterizations aside, young-earth creationists do not struggle at all to reconcile empirical evidence with the Bible. On the contrary, the evidence actually fits marvelously with the historical accounts of the Bible. Also, even if your premise were true and there were contradictions between the Bible and the observable world, why would that be an issue for you? Where, outside of a literal Genesis, do you base the requirement of non-contradiction?

          Thirdly, the ‘shaky theological ground’ actually belongs to those who try to reconcile death before sin with Christ’s redemptive work on Calvary. Those who accept this doctrine are forced to reconcile the existence of thorns several million years old with God’s clear introduction of thorns following the Fall. They are also forced to try to account for the significance of shed blood, without which there is no remission of sins, if blood has been shed since the dawn of existence.

          The supposed problem involving distant starlight is really not the ‘problem’ it is often presented to be by secular scientists. You said that you’ve researched Dr. Lisle’s stance on this subject, but you mistakenly attribute to him the theory of a change in the speed of light. If you’re interested in a more plausible explanation that Dr. Lisle has written on in depth, I recommend looking up his article on Anisotropic Synchrony Convention in the Answers Research Journal. I think you will find the ARJ more instructive on this particular point than Google.

          You also stated you “try not to accept everything anyone tells [you] without justification, just like [you] don’t accept everything the Bible tells [you] without justification.” If you are not willing to accept everything the Bible tells you without justification, what is your ultimate standard for reality? Is it your own empirical experiences? This is really all you are left with once you discard Scripture as an ultimate standard, but empiricism is an untenable philosophy. It holds that the only truth is that which can be directly observed, but this concept itself cannot be directly observed. The fundamental qualifier for truth in an empirical worldview thus fails its own standard! Like relativism, empiricism is self-refuting.

          Nick L.

          • Dr. Lisle says:

            Nick – that was an excellent reply. Thanks for chiming in. Jacob apparently hasn’t read much on this issue or given it much thought, and you gave some great starting points for him to begin to study it.

          • Steve says:

            “Putting the gross mischaracterizations aside”

            This is referring to “iron-age goat herders” I presume. I cannot put that aside because it happens A LOT. I don’t know where this originated but evolutionists thrive on saying the Bible was written by goat-herders for goat-herders. So let’s talk about that. Moses is attributed to writing the book of Genesis. Moses was raised in the house of the Pharaoh. Moses was one of the most educated men in Egypt. Hardly an iron-age goat-herder.

  5. Stephen Peterson says:

    I’m looking forward to hearing more!

  6. Dr. Lisle,
    I have a Master’s in Physics from Purdue University. I teach high school physics and college physics at two local colleges when needed. I would like to pursue a PhD, but I would rather it be in service to our King. Do you know of any opportunities to work on a PhD in physics, or in the philosophy of science, under Christian professors, with the purpose of defending a young earth Christian worldview?
    Congratulations on your change to ICR. I pray God reveals to you many wonderful insights about His creation.
    Thank you,
    Tony Dunn

    • Brad says:

      Science that seeks to defend Biblical creation is by definition NOT SCIENCE. It’s deceitful.

      [Dr. Lisle: “Science” doesn’t literally “seek” anything. It’s a tool we use to test certain types of truth claims. It happens to strongly confirm the Bible. But then again, the methods of science are predicated upon the orderly and uniform way that God upholds the universe. Science is based on Scripture.]

  7. At present, there are several solutions to the light time problem by John Hartnett (1+), Russ Humphreys (2) and Jason Lisle. These are all my friends. I still prefer Russ’s original white hole cosmology. I have added at few “perks” to this model in my stars and galaxies course to help complete the model. This includes the light time problem, redshifts (and so called ‘blue shift problems’), and the creation of the CBR. The model could address cosmic element abundances with nuclear physics computations. Acceleration is still an area of inquirey.
    Here at Bob Jones University, we offer a strong background and a heavy research emphasis for students wanting to go into Astronomy and Astrophysics. Please visit our facebook page for ongoing activities.!/BJU.Physics

    • Brad says:

      Why not just accept what the evidence shows, instead of lying to yourself.

      [Dr. Lisle: Exactly. The evidence for creation is so obvious, a person would have to expend great effort lying to himself in order to convince himself of the contrary. (Romans 1:18-22).]

  8. Bryan says:

    Any updates on the OP? Just wondering how things are going. 🙂

    Exciting stuff!


  9. Thomas says:

    Thanks for the update. I just discovered your blog today, and love it! I am so grateful to you and others who work to teach the truth of God’s word. I agree with you that it is a great time to be a Christian!

    Just a side note, could you explain (in a condensed version if it is too long for a blog comment) your theory on the starlight issue? I have heard it discussed before, but would be interested in hearing your take on the issue.

    Thanks, and God bless.

  10. Steven says:

    I watched a youtube video where Mr. Lisle flat out states “any scientific fact which contradicts the bible, I throw out and go with the bible.” How could this in any way, shape or form be a scientific outlook ? You have the answer to all questions so why bother to research them ? Especially when the truth of the answers disproves your predetermined outlook ?

    • Joseph says:

      Science is a generalization fallacy. That is, all swans are white until a black sheep is found. The facts that are produced by the science you swear to now will change. A fact that you take as a contradiction to the bible changes and then there are no contradictions. Jesus walked on water and today we have inventions to enable us to walk on water. Science relies on the fundamental truths of the bible such as logic, morality, uniformity, etc. You cannot do science without absolute truth; you cannot have absolutes without a God.

      Think about this, the second law (law of energy decay) means that the universe will ultimately die a “heat death” so all the facts you will swear or die by today will no longer be.

      The bible reveals absolute truths that transcend the changing nature of science because the bible reveals our purpose, past and future. God upholds our present so things should be uniform, that’s why after being burnt by touching hot water I don’t touch it the next time. The evolutionary ‘accidents’ ideas run counter to uniformity. Science shows us how things currently work the bible reveals why it should work.

      We are justified by the transcendental nature of the Word of God to accept its revealed absolute truths over any ‘temporary’ contradiction.

    • John W says:

      God is truth (John 14:6), God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and the Bible is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore we know with certainty that the Bible is true in everything it touches upon. It is also the case that not everything that is true is touched upon in the Bible.

      What we know from the Bible may comprise less than 1% of the totality of our knowledge, however it is the foundation from which all other knowledge is attainable. For instance, we know that nature will exibit a certain degree of uniformity (the idea that we can use past experience to predict future events) because God promised thus (Genesis 8:22). This knowledge allows us to utilize the scientific method to probe creation and discern truth about things upon which the Bible does not directly touch, such as the laws of physics. If the understanding of a scientific observation appears to contradict the clear teaching of the Bible, then the understanding must be in error, because if the clear teaching of the Bible were invalideted, the scientific method, which is founded upon biblical teaching and upon which the scientific understaning is based, would also be invalidated. To state it another way, using science to disprove the Bible would be like using the laws of physics to disprove the laws of mathematics. Since the laws of physics are based on the laws of mathematics the attempt would be absurd. One cannot have a “scientific outlook” while denying the truth of the Bible, because science is only justified from the Bible.

      In regard to why research should be conducted, given the truth of the Bible, all that is in the Bible is truth, but not all truth is in the Bible. To acquire truth not touched upon in the Bible one must probe or research creation using methods, such as the scientific method, founded upon the certain truth of the Bible. In fact, biblical christians are strongly motivated to study God’s creation, and many of history’s greatest scientists have been biblical christians (Newton, Maxwell, Kepler, etc…).

      • Brad says:

        We know the Bible is true because it says so?

        [Dr. Lisle: Straw-man fallacy.]

        Even though the books in which this is said didn’t actually refer to the Bible because the Bible didn’t exist?

        [Dr. Lisle: You may want to study up on the history of how the Bible was written.]

        Christians are stupid.

        [Dr. Lisle: This is an abusive ad hominem fallacy. It is often what people resort to when they have absolutely nothing logical to say.]

    • Zach says:

      Can you provide a link to the video?

  11. Brad says:

    Any “scientist” who sets his conclusions at the outset and then goes on only to try to prove his conclusions correct is not a scientist at all.

    [Dr. Lisle: What scientific experiment did you perform that proves your statement? Or did you merely assume that philosophy at the outset, and then go on only to try to prove your conclusion correct?]

    Creation science is by definition NOT SCIENCE, because it sets out to prove what it already claims to know.

    [Dr. Lisle: With all respect Brad, this shows that you don’t know much about creation science. I would recommend you read up a bit on this before commenting further. A good start would be our new book “Creation Basics and Beyond.” Right now, you are arguing against a straw-man.]

    This makes creation scientists intrinsically deceitful. That means you’re a liar.

    [Dr. Lisle: Not that I agree. But for the sake of argument, why would lying be wrong if creation isn’t true? You seem to be applying creationist/Christian principles, and simultaneously denying creation. This makes no sense to me.]

  12. sue says:

    Dear Mr. Lisle,
    Such a blessing to have found your blog. I am not well educated, but for most of my life I believed in evolution. That changed about 3 years ago when I came to terms with the fact that the Lord is sovereign – and He created the universe in six 24 hour days. Even I am perceptive enough to know that ripping out Bible pages to support old earth is worse than pointless. I like the ICR website because the articles explain things – unlike evolutionary science, which tends to dazzle and confuse people with jargon. Maybe the evolutionists don’t know what they’re talking about 🙂

  13. John says:

    I always find it curious that secularists and evolutionists attribute fairness and scientific superiority to anyone who argues their side. They have determined their worldview and interpret everything they find in light of it, twisting everything to fit. I is sort of like the media – what doesn’t fit is not reported, and what is reported is so slanted as to be meaningless. I have followed creation thinking for over fifty years, and I find creationists to be far more willing to admit if they were scientically wrong than evolutionists. Tat. To be expected, because those who believe in a creator know they are accountable to the creator. Those who are agnostic or atheistic have no oral compass, so lying is justifiable to achieve their end, which to make everyone cel berate their idea du just. The rank hypocrisy is galling – we see it in politics, in the pathetic old-earth evangelical blogs, and in e pseudo-scientific community that clas every debate they are losing is somehow over. I plan to hear Dr. Lisle lecture tomorrow in Philadelphia!

    • Hannah says:

      Tell me, how much research have you actually done on evolution, and what scientific texts have you read on the topic? Blindly believing what creationists tell you to believe doesn’t count as doing research on evolution, you know.

      • Zach says:

        What rational justification do you have for the uniformity of nature, which is crucial for science, in an evolutionary universe?

  14. Charles says:

    Jacob wrote, “Your paper wouldn’t survive submission in journals like Nature and Science, which is where I think your awesome research in grad school went. If you’re so certain you’re right, why not allow it to be examined in a *true* peer review process?”

    I didn’t see an answer to this question. If it is answered elsewhere, could you direct me to the answer? If not, could you answer it here?

    • Dr. Lisle says:

      His comment was an obvious “no true Scotsman fallacy.” Our research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

      • charles says:

        Thanks for the reply!
        That is great that you are planning to submit your research to peer-reviewed journals.

        I just looked at
        and all the papers listed are “Technical Papers.”
        Were those peer-reviewed? If so, what is the process of peer-review for these Technical Papers? If not, why not?

      • charles says:

        I forgot to ask one more question… Is that a comprehensive list of ICR research papers, or are there others listed somewhere else? I realize that might just be your list of technical reports, and maybe you have a list other peer-reviewed articles elsewhere.

        • Dr. Lisle says:

          Yes, I believe all of those technical papers were peer-reviewed. The ones near the top were published in the ICC proceedings, which is peer-reviewed. Some are part of the RATE book, which was heavily peer-reviewed. We also publish in the CRSQ, the ARJ, and the JoC, all of which are peer-reviewed.

          At ICR, we require all our science articles to be peer-reviewed. Any science articles that appear in Acts & Facts or on our website are peer-reviewed, mostly by other scientists on our staff, but occasionally with outside reviewers. When we publish in outside journals like CRS, the journals use their own experts to review the article.

          The process is pretty standard. The journal content editor selects several experts in the field to review an article and check for accuracy. These experts make a recommendation to the content editor, either (1) Publish, (2) Do not publish, or (3) Make changes and resubmit. Under option 3 the reviewers will make suggestions for what needs to be fixed in the article for it to pass peer-review, and the author must either accept those changes or make a compelling counter-argument.

          Is there a comprehensive list? No. I can barely keep track of technical articles that I myself have written.

          • charles says:

            Are CRSQ, ARJ, and JoC all creationist publications? I’m assuming CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly. JoC = Journal of Creation. Is that right? What is “ARJ”?

            You said, “When we publish in outside journals like CRS, the journals use their own experts to review the article.”
            What journal is “CRS”? Is that a creationist journal?

            People accuse creationists of not subjecting their research to peer review. You have demonstrated that you do seek peer review.
            I think what the critics mean, however, is peer review by people who are not creationists. I have no idea what the facts are, which is why I am asking, but what I am hearing from you gives the appearance that ICR is not subjecting its research to peer-review by non-creationists. Is this true? If it is, is the criticism valid or are there good reasons for doing things this way?

            • Dr. Lisle says:

              Hi Charles,

              Yes, the ones I mentioned are creationist journals. We have found that many secular journals will disallow papers with creation-affirming conclusions, not because there is anything wrong with the paper, but simply on the basis that it has a creation-affirming conclusion. This is not a rational reason to reject a paper. The CRS (Creation Research Society) was created as a means for creation scientists to publish quality, peer-reviewed research – hence their quarterly journal (CRSQ). The JoC also serves that purpose, as does the ARJ. The ARJ is the “Answers Research Journal.”

              When evolutionists complain that we don’t engage in peer-review since we don’t often publish in secular journals, they are committing the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Namely, there is nothing in the definition of peer-review that requires compliance to a secular worldview or secular peers. Peer-review means to be reviewed by peers – those with expertise (usually a Ph.D.) in the relevant field. The critic almost always has a double-standard; namely, do evolutionists publish in creation-based journals, and seek peer-review from creation scientists? If not, can we conclude that their papers are not really peer-reviewed?

              Should creationists invite evolutionists to peer-review their papers? There might be some value in that. And sometimes we do. The RATE research project used both creationist and evolutionist peer-reviewers. However, if I’m writing a scientific paper that has implications for origins, I find that it is more valuable to be critiqued by someone who is thinking rightly about origins – a creation scientist. We’ve seen (even on this blog) that evolutionists are not good, clear thinkers when it comes to origins. So, they tend to be less helpful in critiquing a paper with origins implications than a qualified creation scientist.

  15. charles says:

    Thank you for taking the time to reply and answer my questions. I admire you for your convictions and your willingness to follow your convictions despite criticism. I don’t believe what you believe about origins, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.

    As I’ve taken up enough of your time and space here, I’d like to write a post on my site that includes this conversation and a link to this page. I am guessing that the reaction from my few readers, if any choose to comment, will be negative. Feel free to stop by and clarify and/or defend your views.

    If you strongly object to my posting this conversation elsewhere, please let me know why. I will try very hard to not misrepresent what you have said. My plan is to post this conversation and a link to this page, and add a few of my own thoughts in a civil manner.


  16. Nina Ruth says:

    Hi Dr. Lisle,

    What do you think of the Cassini spacecraft set for today, and in light of the beautifully-timed ground-breaking event for the new Discovery Center, do you have any updates you’d like to share – especially on the planetarium?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *