ICR Sues Texas

Hi Dawn Bertot,I'm afraid I'm not able to make much sense of your arguments, so let me try another tack.You believe that complexity and order result from design. Your evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world.I believe that complexity and order result from the natural laws of the universe. My evidence is the complexity and order observed in the natural world, and in addition everything we know about the natural laws of the universe.By what rule of evidence do you conclude that complexity and order do not result from the natural laws of the universe?--Percy

We don't think we have a rule of evidence. You keep telling us we do, but we don't know what you're talking about. So since you know what that rule of evidence is why don't you tell us what it is?--Percy

Hi Dawn,We're mostly just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I think now that you don't really mean "rule of evidence." I think you just mean logic and reason. When you say that we used a "rule of evidence" to conclude that there's no evidence for design what you really mean to say is that we used logic and reason. If you really do think there's some "rule of evidence" involved then you'll have to tell us what it is because we honestly have no idea. If you look in the article on Science in Wikipedia you can see that no "rules of evidence" are described. In fact, the only place where the article says anyting about rules is this paragraph about Feyerabend's ideas: Is it possible you're reading Philip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial? If so, keep in mind that Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist.So assuming that I now understand the point you were trying to communicate, I can tell you that you are wrong to say that we have concluded that there is no evidence for design in nature. All life on the planet is finely crafted for its environment, and in some cases, for a variety of environments. But we believe the evidence points to the laws of nature as the designer. (Of course, one doesn't usually find terms like "design" and "designer" in scientific papers on evolution, I'm just translating what we think into your terminology.)We reach this conclusion because when we examine the genetic processes of reproduction we see that there are a tiny number of errors (mutations) in each generation, and that this produces very slow but inevitable change over time. And when we look at the genetic patterns in DNA and the fossil record we see that they both reveal the type of nested hierarchy expected if they were the result of slow genetic change over time.Part of your response to Nij was: I think we've all experienced getting blank looks from people that tell us we're not being understood. I think everyone in this thread is having a very difficult time understanding what you're trying to say, and right now you're getting lots of blank looks.Nij was not trying to put words in your mouth. Nij was attempting to boil it down to something that everyone could understand. If he has it wrong then please just provide corrections, preferably in the same abbreviated form he's using.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Dawn,I'm afraid that once again I'm unable to follow what you are saying. I understand that you believe that order and complexity imply design and therefore a designer, but given the lack of evidence for any designer and given the examples you were provided of order and complexity generated by nothing more than the laws of nature, I don't see any rational chain of reasoning that connects your evidence to your conclusion.This leaves me with nothing to do except return to the main point. Texas provides accreditation for science programs that teach science. ICR teaches religious apologetics, but they call it science and request accreditation. Texas says religion by any other name is still religion and refuses to provide accreditation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi Dawn Bertot,Again, I am regrettably unable to make sense of much of what you say. As near as I can make out, you seem to feel that not knowing the origin of matter, energy and the natural laws of the universe means that we cannot be sure that anything happens naturally. Our position is that you need evidence of non-natural phenomena before you can start making claims that they exist. Things we don't yet know are not evidence of anything. ICR's curriculum is steeped in religion. Just a quick visit to their website yielded this under The Life Sciences, follow the link to Man Was Created by God and then to the links on that page like Man Was Recently and Miraculously Created in the Image of God. Here are a few excerpts: Perhaps you can explain to us how this isn't religion.For everyone else it clearly shows that ICR is teaching religion and not science, and that is why Texas will not provide accreditation.--Percy

Your desire to "understand our existence" is, I think, a religious or at least spiritual goal. Science is just trying to understand how the world works. To do this we do not need to demonstrate "that matter is eternal or self-sustaining."We observe the processes of evolution in every reproductive event. Each reproductive event took place only because the parents were selected, and the offspring are modified copies of their parents because of the mixing of genes and mutations.Whether or not we observed the parents' conception, we assume they came about the same way as their offspring. Don't you assume this, too? And also for the grandparents and great grandparents and so on? Don't you believe that your parents came about pretty much the same way you did? And that your grandparents and great grandparents came about pretty much the same way you did?Where is your evidence that at some point something different happened when a designer intervened in the reproductive process? Read Message 1 again. The word "evidence" does not appear. What's at issue is ICR's inability to satisfy the Texas criteria for accreditation, which includes the curriculum.--Percy

You think I'm asking something of you that I'm not asking of myself, but I'm not.The observed and demonstrated processes behind evolution are random mutation and natural selection.Now you do it.The observed and demonstrated processes behind design are ...--Percy

I was talking about one thing, evolution, and you seem to be talking about the origin of the natural laws of the universe. Let's try again, and this time we'll make sure we're talking about the same thing.The observed and demonstrated processes behind the evolution of life are random mutation and natural selection.The observed and demonstrated processes behind the design of life are ...--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,I think we're going round and round a bit here because there's so much uncertainty about what it is you're saying, and we could really use some help from you in resolving the confusion.We really can't tell what you're talking about with phrases like "order, laws and rules." Are you talking about the physical laws of the universe, like the speed of light, relativity and so forth? Could you please clarify? We don't know what this even means, and it most certainly is nothing any of us have ever concluded or stated. If you're referring to the origin of the physical laws of the universe, then probably most of us believe that science cannot at present explain how they arose, though there are a number of interesting ideas.So to repeat, please stop asking us to explain how things are "ordered of themselves," because we don't know what this means, and it isn't anything we have said. If you can clearly explain to us what "ordered of themselves" means we can tell you whether it is something we accept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

There have been times when I thought I understood what you meant, but each time I attempted to confirm you said I was wrong. You're going to have to clarify your terms. For example:

• What do mean by "order, laws and rules?" Are you referring to the natural laws of the universe?
  ​
• What do you mean by "ordered by themselves," and why do you think we believe this when it is something we have never said.

Are you talking about evolution? If so, then for the same reason we do not need to observe how the orbits of the planets began in order to plot their course, neither do we need to observe how life began to understand how evolution works. I'm afraid I don't understand what this means. Concerning evolution, why do you believe whether matter and energy are eternal makes a difference? We can observe evolution processes in action. Why do you think "self-initiation" (whatever it is) is a factor in understanding evolution? What non-observed events are you referring to? I don't know what "operate in and of themselves" means, and it's not something I've ever claimed. If you can explain what it means I can tell you whether it is something I accept. I am trying to help you out. If you can define what "ordered of themselves" means, I can tell you whether it is something I accept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Dawn Bertot,Your post was notable for quoting then not answering my two questions, so here they are again: Why do you think our position is that matter is eternal, and why do you think it makes any difference to things like evolution? Just for the record, we already know matter is not eternal. Many particles decay spontaneously, and under some theories outside the standard model even the proton can decay. Also, matter can be converted into energy - this is the basis of atomic power. Matter is not eternal. We don't believe matter is eternal, and I have no idea what non-observed events you're referring to.If you explain what it is you mean then we can address the issues you're trying to raise.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Gee, more grammar.

I'm recusing myself from further participation in this thread.Starting Tuesday, if there's still active discussion in this thread, I will begin moderating as Admin.--Percy

Did anyone post this already from the NCSE: --Percy

Don't know if anyone posted this already from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2008: Page one gives a short summary of the reasons cited by Dr Paredes, the Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, for why accreditation was denied: --Percy

Hi Moose! Thanks for helping out! I would like to see the thread remain open for discussion of ICR's efforts to gain accreditation for their program.While we haven't been able to gain a clean understanding of Dawn Bertot's ideas, we can see that they don't really have much to do with ICR or their accreditation efforts. I think Dawn should propose a new topic to discuss his ideas over at Proposed New Topics. Any further discussion in this thread should be solely ICR-related.--Percy