Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 6 of 549 (506133)
04-22-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
04-22-2009 4:20 PM


Yes, I'm embarrassed to live in this freakin' state. But I like to eat, and my job is here......
Well at least Texas is handling the ICR a lot better than California did!
The ICR was founded in San Diego and later moved to Santee, inland from San Diego just past El Cajon. They didn't move to Texas until two years ago in 2007:
quote:
Morris said the move was intended to give the ICR a central national location, Dallas' proximity to a major airport, and a larger population for their ministry
A history of the accreditation of their graduate science program is here: Institute for Creation Research - Wikipedia In 1981 they got formal approval from the state to offer degree programs. When that approval came up for renewal in 1988, a visitation committee came to inspect their facilities and observe them in action. That committee voted against renewal, which led to the ICR suing State Superintendent Bill Honig and willing, which got them permission to operate until 1995. When that date rolled around, they got a religious exemption from the state. Also, they had created their own accreditor, TRACS, and had accredited themselves. Part of their problem is that Texas does not recognize TRACS accreditation. And I guess that since a lawsuit had worked for them in California, then it will in Texas too.
I had gotten a copy of the 1988 visitation committee's report through the NCSE. On thing I remember was that they observed a graduate class in biochemistry, I think, and it had been pointed out to them that the class used the same textbook as most other colleges and universities. But the way that they were using that textbook! The entire class was going through the book page-by-page and crossing out everything that the professor was telling them to ignore. "We don't believe that. And we don't believe that either."
You Texans stand your ground and keep them in their place, y'hear? Somebody's got to explain to them how the cow ate the cabbage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2009 4:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 16 of 549 (506273)
04-24-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by subbie
04-24-2009 3:45 PM


Re: Yangs and Kohms?
The Omega Glory, which I believe was mid or late second season.
BTW, that was strictly from memory. I had not followed that link before, but I'm sure I would have recognized it immediately.
Similarly, when a Christian heard that I'm an atheist, he kind of challenged me by asking me what I believe in. I took a moment and thought about it and, corny as it may sound, came up with : Truth, justice, and the American way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 04-24-2009 3:45 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 04-24-2009 4:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 241 of 549 (578362)
09-01-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Buzsaw
09-01-2010 10:36 AM


Re: ICR Science
Perhaps you and Dawn would like to finally answer my question of "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?", which is also the title of the topic I had proposed and which I have now bumped back to the top. If you really want to promote ID as science, then you must be ready to demonstrate just exactly how including supernaturalistic explanations is supposed to work effectively in hypothesis building and testing, etc. You know, the nuts-and-bolts of how science works. Especially since ID's goal is to change all of science to include supernaturalistic explanations (part of their misguided campaign to destroy philosophical materialism, which isn't even a part of science -- methodological, yes, but not philosophical).
Please re-read the opening post of that topic to reacquaint yourself with the question. I'm still waiting for someone to actually answer that question, a fundamental question that must be answered if ID's plans for science are ever to even be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2010 10:36 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 09-01-2010 11:19 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 245 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 12:03 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 251 of 549 (578582)
09-02-2010 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 12:03 AM


Re: ICR Science
No, you may not resort to such a cop-out. You are advocating something that will kill science. Why are you trying to kill science?
From the opening post of that thread, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) Message 1 (emphasis added):
In Message 245 I wrote:
And from what I understand of the Wedge Document, ID's goal is not really to "teach the controversy", but rather it is to eliminate evolution and to pervert science into their own image, effectively killing science as well.
In Message 250, Beretta replied:
effectively killing science as well.
Believing in ID cannot possibly kill science.
I contend that Beretta is dead wrong. ID's goal is to reform science to be based on supernaturalistic explanations, or at the very least to include them. It is the inclusion of supernaturalistic explanations that will kill science.
The task before Beretta and any other ID advocate is to prove that ID will not kill science. A required component of that proof is a detailed description of just how ID-based science is supposed to operate. Certainly their ID idols have already provided them the answer. And if even they haven't come up with a description of how their brave new science will function, then why not?
It is totally immaterial and irrelevent that you are not a scientist. That cop-out will not fly! You are advocating a system whose goal it is to transform science into a supernatural-based endeavor. On the face of it, that means taking an incredibly immensely success system and preventing it from working at all by requiring it to use supernaturalistic "explanations". As I described in that opening post (again with emphasis added):
Here is basically how science currently works. We observe the natural world and form hypotheses to try to explain what we observe. Then we test those hypotheses by using them to make predictions and then either conducting experiments or making further observations. Those hypotheses which prove correct are kept and subjected to further testing, while those that don't pan out are either examined for what's wrong with them and they either get discarded or a correction is attempted which is then subjected to further testing. Out of this process we develop a bundle of hypotheses which are used to develop a theory, a conceptual model of the natural phenomena in question and which describes our understanding of what that phenomena are and how they operate. That theory is used to make predictions and it is tested by how good those predictions are; thus the theory undergoes further testing and refinement and correcting. And that testing is not performed solely by the developers of the theory, but also by other members in the scientific community who have a vested interest in finding problems in that theory because they may be basing their own research on that theory -- if that theory turns out to be wrong, then they want to know that before they start their own research based on it.
Now, an extremely valuable by-product of all this hypothesis building and testing is questions. In science, the really interesting and valuable discoveries are the ones that raise new questions. Because questions help to direct our research. Because by realizing what we don't know and what we need to find out, we know what to look for and we have some idea of where to find it. Without those questions, science loses its direction and gets stuck.
Science cannot use supernaturalistic explanations, because they don't explain anything. We cannot observe the supernatural either directly or indirectly; we cannot even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Supernaturalistic explanations cannot be tested and hence cannot be evaluated nor discarded nor refined. They cannot produce predictions. They cannot be developed into a conceptual model that could even begin to attempt to descibe a natural phenomena nor how it works. And supernaturalistic explanations raise absolutely no questions and so provide absolutely no direction for further research. "Goddidit" explains nothing and closes all paths of investigation. Supernaturalistic explanations bring science to a grinding halt.
Before embarking on this crusade to kill science, surely you had carefully studied ID. Surely you would have learned how it works and how it intended science to function after its transformation. Surely at least one of those ID "scientists" must have described it. After all, the most fundamental question is just exactly how science is supposed to function successfully after its transformation. Regardless of whether you are yourself a scientist, you surely must have read at least one of those ID "scientists" describe that! If not, then why not?
Or are you going to tell us that you are completely ignorant of ID as well? That you have no idea what you are crusading for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 12:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 9:12 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 261 of 549 (578691)
09-02-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Buzsaw
09-02-2010 9:12 AM


Re: ICR Science
Steve Austin's PhD was financed by the ICR -- or more accurately by the Creation Research Society, which the principle members of the ICR belonged to before forming the ICR. They weren't after the knowledge and expertise, but rather the piece of paper to bolster their claim of actually being scientists.
While in school, Austin wrote articles for the Creation Research Society Quarterly under the pseudonym of "Stuart Nevins" IIRC. I've read some of those articles. He included standard creationist false statements and misrepresentations, such as stating that geologists believe in strictly uniform rates of sedimentary formation; ie that a formation that took a given number of millions of years to form was laid down at a constant rate of a certain fraction of an inch per year. A post-graduate geology student ignorant of simple facts known even to high school kids? Or should we say a creationist with no moral objection to lying?
Similarly, his Grand Canyon "studies" include taking samples for radiodating that he knew from his training would yield false results. Again with the lying.
ID does indeed seek to kill science. ICR's "creation science" consists almost solely of attacking science. And at the very least you are crusading to have those forms of "science" accepted as actual science. Even though neither ID nor "creation science" works!
You're trying to get us to accept "sciences" that don't work! That cannot work! If you disagree that they don't work, then explain how they are supposed to work! Or be ready to explain why nobody has been able to come up with that explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 09-02-2010 9:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 286 of 549 (578895)
09-02-2010 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dawn Bertot
09-02-2010 8:26 PM


Gamers are Your Superiors
This from a man that openly admits to being a gamer. Ouch
Computer gaming is the epitome of the personal computer world. Gaming software incorporates virtually every aspect of software design. Games push the hardware to its absolute limits. Serious gamers, of which hooah appears to be one, live and operate on the bleeding edge of computer technology. Not only must they be intimately familiar with the operation of every piece of hardware on their systems, including how those pieces interact with each other, but they must also know how to push their hardware beyond its design parameters, pushing the envelope even further.
I said overclocker
Ok, what is that
Central Processing Units (CPUs) are the central brains of computers. They are constructed of combinatorial and sequential binary logic circuits (my Air Force technician training included the detailed tracing of logic signals, AKA "chasing sparks", through the logic diagrams of a functional CPU). The sequential circuits require a clock, a square wave signal that steps the CPU through its instruction-acquisition and -execution sequences. The faster the clock rate, the faster the CPU will run. Obviously, if you want the CPU to run really fast, it needs to be able to handle a high clock rate.
Every CPU is rated for the maximum clock rate that it can handle. This is one factor in determining how fast a computer is -- remember that the next time you shop for one. Overclocking is when you run a CPU faster than it is rated for. This is a rather dangerous thing to attempt, since overclocking can fry a CPU if you don't handle it right. IOW, you really have to know what you are doing and you really need to know how to test whether you have exceeded that individual CPU's own capabilities.
With all due respect, you don't have a clue.
And I have to agree with hooah's warning, your brain probably can't handle it.
PS
Now then, just how is this dang-fool ID-science/creation-science supposed to actually function?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-02-2010 8:26 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2010 11:54 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2010 12:54 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 289 of 549 (578923)
09-03-2010 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by hooah212002
09-02-2010 11:54 PM


Re: Gamers are Your Superiors
In the Air Force, I was a 30574 (Electronic Computer Repairman, Supervisor Level -- though the USAF has since transitioned to an MOS system). In the Navy, I was a Data Systems Technician Chief Petty Officer, until that rating was merged in with Electronic Technician (ET). In civilian life, I'm a Senior Software Engineer, working primarily in embedded software in C with utility test software in C++, though in the past I've done a fair amount in assembly (boy, that would certainly blow D.B.'s mind!). I have seen so many programmers who viewed hardware as some abstract concept, but as a technician (and an electrical engineering student, though as a computer science major I took the EE course just for fun -- in the microprocessor class, it was fun to see the proud EE majors flounder with such simple concepts) I have been down to the metal!
My personal regret is that, as a family man, I have never had the time to devote to gaming (as a member of the military, gaming offers valuable training, but my military role has always been support (in Viet Nam, the Army's story was that for every single combat troop there were 100 support troops) and as a family man I have never had sufficient time for gaming, though I'm still working on my personal software project to support Larry Bond's Harpoon).
Still, gaming is what drives personal computers out on the bleeding edge! My game is software, but the arena is still hardware!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2010 11:54 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Omnivorous, posted 09-03-2010 7:43 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 308 of 549 (579095)
09-03-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
08-31-2010 9:44 PM


Re: ICR Science
Percy writes:
In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science.
Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe?
Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists ...
No, the ICR does not have a science methodology and it actually works against developing an improved understanding of the universe. Yet again, if you disagree and truly believe that they do have such a methodology, then please present a description of that methodology that demonstrates its validity. Yet again, if that methodology does exist, then it must have been described by the creationists themselves many times over the past decades that they've been churning out their materials. Especially considering that their avowed aim is education. I've certainly never encountered any such description of a working methodology and I'm quite certain nobody else has either.
Also, you are conflating ID "science" and "creation science". Even though ID has been incorporated into "creation science", they are actually not the same things and they have different histories.
"Creation science" was created at the end of the 1960's in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) and in response to the striking down of the "monkey laws" that had been in effect since the mid-20's. Now that the teaching of evolution could no longer be barred for religious reasons, creationists adopted the strategy of claiming that their teachings are scientific and so they want to bar evolution education for scientific reasons. In reality, their teachings are religious. In preparing "public school" materials, they would simply take their existing blatantly religious books and make superficial cosmetic changes (eg, removing Bible verses, change "God" to "Creator", fail to identify who this "Creator" was supposed to be), such that the entire effort became known as "Hiding the Bible". Despite all their efforts to play "Hide the Bible", their materials are still blatantly religious, such that when Arkansas Act 590, 1980, (a sister law of the Louisiana law that was struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) mandated the teaching of "creation science" in the name of "balanced treatment", the teachers assigned to creating the curriculum could not find any suitable materials (except for a single Reader's Digest article), finding the ICR "public school" materials too blatantly religious.
So where did all those materials come from? They weren't all created ex nihilo in 1968, even though a lot were produced in the late-60's/early-70's -- bibliographic searches through creationist claims that actually cite their own creationist sources often trace back to around 1972. But many of the leading creationists of that era had been working on their own claims for many years, even a decade or two. For example, Dr. Henry Morris and Whitcomb published their Flood Geology work, The Genesis Flood, in 1961; it not only contained the basis for Flood Geology, but also Morris' earliest (to my knowledge) stab at his human population claim (AKA "The Bunny Blunder"). Nor did they create it all themselves, but rather they drew from the writings of prior creationists, such as George McCready Price (the true father of Flood Geology, having published his attacks on geology from 1906 to 1923). For that matter, attempts to find geological evidence of Noah's Flood date back to the Biblical Geologists of the early 19th Century, including one of the founders of modern geology, Adam Sedgwick, who had started out looking for the Flood but ended up realizing that the evidence indicated otherwise.
So there has been a long history of people trying to find scientific evidence supporting the Bible ... or rather supporting their beliefs about the Bible. While we may rightfully suspect the honesty of some creationists in a number of cases, I prefer to think that all creationists started out with honest intentions. But the problem is that they start out "knowing" what they must find and what they must not find, or else "Scripture would have no meaning" (John Morris of the ICR stating why the earth can be no more than 10,000 years old) and that is not what they find. At that point, there are a number of things the seeker can do. Creationists do the wrong thing. They ignore and even deny the evidence. They start lying about the evidence both to themselves and to others. They create and promote deceptions such as "creation science".
That's what the ICR's "research" is. Ignoring the evidence, they misrepresent science and then use whatever means they can to discredit that misrepresentation. When the ICR was in California and ran into problems with accredidation in the late 1980's, the state sent a visitation committee to the ICR's graduate school on a fact-finding mission. It's been a long time since I've read their report, but one event still sticks in my mind. Their tour guide pointed out that the biochemistry class used the same textbook as leading universities, but guess what they were doing with it. As a class, the instructor had them all going through the book, page by page, and telling them which parts to cross out because "We don't believe that."
And there's a name for their "scientific discoveries", well an acronym actually: PRATTs. They're not doing science; they're trying to do science in.
ID is a slightly different beast. Instead of starting out trying to promote and defend a particular narrow interpretation of the Bible, its originators and proponents started out having other kinds of difficulties with evolution, mainly philosophical ones. For example, in an essay lawyer Phillip Johnson, one of ID's founders, explained his reason for opposing evolution: it doesn't leave anything for God to do. As a movement, the other main problem they have is their misunderstanding that science is based on philosophical materialism and so one of the movement's goals is change science so that it would also make use of supernaturalistic "explanations".
While most people didn't become aware of ID until 1987 when Edwards v. Aguillard had exposed "creation science's" game of "Hide the Bible" and creationists then immediately switched to the game of "Hide the Creationism" by embracing ID. Actually, ID goes back at least to 1981, which is when I saw Phillip Johnson on Nova. He had recently written Darwin on Trial which tried to present science as functioning like a court of law and so he wanted to apply courtroom rules of evidence to evolution. My reaction was, "What an idiot! Science is much more like a police investigation, following hunches and looking for clues and piecing it all together. It's only after the investigation has been completed that a complete case can be put together for the courtroom."
Both "sciences", ID and creation, have political and social agendas. Neither of them want to "develop an ever improving understand of the universe". Neither of them actually does science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2010 9:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 339 of 549 (579573)
09-05-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2010 2:36 AM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
Dawn, I do not know which branch you served in, but do not drag the U.S. military into your own personal theological debacles! I am still serving! If you had actually ever served, then you would know full well that, while you still had every right to your own personal beliefs, opinions, etc, you were expressly advised to keep your military affiliation out of it! Have you never been counseled by your Public Affairs Officer?
Please do not ever suggest any military support for your imaginations. You are entirely on your own here! If you had ever actually served (as I have), then you have known that!
Edited by dwise1, : HTML correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2010 2:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2010 3:04 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 353 of 549 (579668)
09-05-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Dawn Bertot
09-05-2010 3:04 AM


Re: There is no Theory of Creation
You've been retired longer than I've been serving? Boy you must be really ancient!
When I am forced to retire next year, I will have served for thrity-five (35) years. And I had personally met our command's PAO in the 1990's and have seen PAOs referenced during this past decade.
Instead of hiding behind personal insults bolstered by your claims of military service, why don't you just answer the questions directly? Please note that I am not putting your claim of service in question, but rather your practice of using it to avoid responding to simple direct questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-05-2010 3:04 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 418 of 549 (580880)
09-12-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2010 11:00 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Why in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles
Because it does not.
Dawn, what are you doing? Have you ever trained anyone? Given our common background (you know what I'm talking about), I know that you should know how to train someone. And as such you yourself should know full well that your conduct on this thread has been contrary to the objectives and methodology that you should have been trained in yourself.
OK, assume that we are all your trainees and you are trying to train us in recognizing design. You keep spouting pseudo-philosophical claptrap and we keep raising our hands and telling you that we do not understand what you are talking about. So you respond by 1) berating us for being a pack of idiots (as well as insulting us in various other ways) and 2) by just continuing to regurgitate that same incomprehensible pseudo-philosophical claptrap that you were dumping on us in the first place. Is that really how you were trained to train your people? Sorry, but I cannot even begin to accept that any branch could be that screwed up!
To be honest, it really looks to me like you actually don't want anyone to be able to understand what you're yammering about. It looks like you're trying to implement what was described in college as, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit." Shouldn't you instead be thinking about how to convince us of the wisdom of your position? Unless you yourself also realize that it's pure bullshit, which is why you are driven to use such tactics.
But you still have a chance to convince us otherwise. Let's go back to that one line I quoted:
Why in the world should design not be included in the science room when it follows the principles
Does it? Really? Could you please demonstrate convincingly that it does? No, really! That is not by any measure a rhetorical question. Demonstrate it!
You want design to be included in science? OK, so how do we do it? Now, we already know the methodology of science, but what is the methodology of design? Specifically, how do we objectively detect design? Seriously! How is anybody supposed to look at something and determine objectively that it's the result of design? What is your methodology? Are we just all supposed to ask Dawn because only she can tell? Because so far that's all we've been given. And that is just plain not good enough!
What is the objective methodology for detecting design? Until you can produce that, you're obviously just blowing smoke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2010 11:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 525 of 549 (582717)
09-23-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2010 2:33 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
It would only take me 20 minutes to convince the THECB otherwise
With all due respect (which I normally state is not intended in the Woody Allen sense, but in your case I will make an exception), I have seen your BS posted here. Repeatedly. There was an expression in college: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."
Dawn, all I have ever seen you post here has been pure bullshit. Do you want to present a case for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board? Do so! Right here and now!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 2:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 8:27 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 540 of 549 (582813)
09-23-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 528 by Dawn Bertot
09-23-2010 8:27 AM


Re: Deja Vu - The feeling this topic's been reopened before
If its BS, then you had be prepared to dewmonstrate why
Already did that in Message 418, which you ignored. Your "nearly 120 posts" consist of verbose postings of pseudo-philosophical ramblings using undefined terminology, none of which makes any sense. Your response to repeated requests for definitions and clarification and for verification of our own attempts are rewording what we think you are saying are all met with more obtuse verbose postings. Your actions have made it abundantly clear that you do not wish to convince us by informing us of the wisdom of your position (which would be dazzling us with your brilliance), but rather by confusing us (which would be baffling us with your BS).
You state that you are an experienced debater and have been successful at it. Then why don't we see you employ your debating skills here? Oh yeah, you are. Your approach in debate must be pretty much the same as that of the leading creationists at the ICR. The Gish Gallop, for example, consists of spewing out so many false claims in a short time that his opponent would need to take hours in educating the audience as to why those claims are false, whereas that opponent is only given 5 to 20 minutes in which to respond. Your posts do certainly look like Gish Gallops and I'm sure you employ them in verbal debates as well. Unfortunately for you, they don't work as well in a written format.
Your posts also remind me of Sid Caesar's "double-talk" -- on Your Show of Shows, Sid and cast members would carry on conversations in a foreign language, but in reality they were just speaking a lot of gibberish sprinkled with some actual foreign words and with English words made to sound like a foreign word, so that the audience could still get the gist of the conversation. Similarly, what you've been posting is a lot of gibberish with some impressive-sounding words thrown in. When you do that verbally, I'm sure that it goes right over the heads of your confused audience, but it still seems to sound to them that you are really saying something, they just can't understand it. Doesn't work as well in a written forum, does it?
Nor would it work on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. They have too much experience with other far better BS'ers, professional BS'ers, to be taking in by your "double-talk". Creationists and lawyers from and for the ICR. And, I'm sure, representatives from the Discovery Institute and/or related ID organizations.
Also, in that same Message 418, I asked you to provide the methodology that a design-based science would need in order for scientists to reliably and objectively detect the presense of design in naturally occurring phenomena. You never provided it, even though being able to provide that methodology is fundamental to the issue and is absolutely vital for your position. I've bumped my So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) topic, Message 222, just for you so that you can enlighten us as to the nature of that methodology.
As I said before, if you refuse to provide a reasonable description of that methodology (ie, not a BS or "double-talk" reply), then that would mean that you are just blowing smoke. And if no ID writer has ever present one either, then that would show that they're just blowing smoke too, that there is no practical basis for "design science", and hence no reason to include "design science" in the classroom and every reason to not include it.
Edited by dwise1, : ending

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-23-2010 8:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-24-2010 1:31 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024