|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Usually Adminnemooseus is on duty in the wee hours (US), but I see no posts from him last night, so I'm going to do what I said I would do a couple days ago in Message 444:
Percy in Message 444 writes: Starting Tuesday, if there's still active discussion in this thread, I will begin moderating as Admin.
The topic is ICR's efforts to gain accreditation for their Masters degree program in science. The content of messages that do not address the topic will be hidden. Dawn Bertot's ideas do not appear to be related to the topic, so discussion of these ideas should end in this thread. Dawn Bertot, please enter a topic proposal for your ideas over at Proposed New Topics and I will work with you to promote it as quickly as possible. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Dawn Bertot, please enter a topic proposal for your ideas over at Proposed New Topics and I will work with you to promote it as quickly as possible. Understood
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Off topic content hidden. --Admin
Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality You do the same with "Design". Your magic leprechaun is Design. You take all of the observations we have, none of which need a magic leprechaun in order to explain why they occur, and then insert "the Designer did it".
His illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter. All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilites But both are observable No, my story illustrates the difference between reality and fantasy. In reality, we have a defendant whose DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, hair, and fibers match the evidence found at the crime scene. You say we should ignore the evidence of the defendant's guilt and instead put magica . . . err, I mean a supernatural designer on even explanatory ground. You are actually saying that a magica . . . oops, did it again . . . supernatural designer magically poofing things into being without any evidence to support it is on the same ground as mechanisms we observe in reality. Well, sorry chum, it isn't the same. Added by edit: To swing this back around to the topic, what I am attempting to show is the lack of scientific reasoning in the Design conclusion. This is why ICR was denied their petition to establish an accredited science education program. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Add hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Off topic content hidden. --Admin
You do realize the way we establish evidence is that we use the same mechanism, correct So you are saying that Design is evidenced by the observed mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection?
I can observe the mechanism in action and what it produces COMPLEX ORDER Then please list for us the observations of this supposed designer actually designing something.
A simple question here to remove the inaplicabilty of your whole illustration and show how it is not valid as an analogy. Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No? That is what we are trying to determine, whether the defendant or the magical leprechaun left the evidence at the crime scene. According to you, since we don't know the origin of DNA we can't use DNA as evidence. We can't use shoe prints because we don't know the origin of the laws that regulate the molecules in the shoe. On and on we have to throw out all of the evidence because of your "you weren't there, so any answer is legit" reasoning. Edited by Admin, : Add hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Summary.
The ICR can teach whatever they like, but they can't pass it off as science. By analogy, there are people who have a thriving business selling manure. But it would be unlawful for them to do so if they tried to sell it as cake. Now, the THECB has said that they will accredit this bunch of charlatans as teachers of "Creation Studies" or "Christian Apologetics", or "Genesis Studies", or "Biblical Studies", or "Creation Apologetics", or "Origins Theology" or any accurate description. But the ICR want to be accredited as teaching science when they're not. There is no obligation on the part of the state of Texas or anyone else to conspire with the ICR in perpetrating a fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Off topic content hidden. --Admin
Dawn Bertot responds to me:
quote: But the evidence is not inconclusive. We routinely observe "order, rules, and laws" arising all on their own without any designer. Why is your pet example any different? What specific observation are you referring to that leads you to conclude something different? Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: I did and I am. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part as observation shows. Do you have evidence that something else is involved? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved? Be specific. Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: I already did: Observation shows no designer was present. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved? Be specific. Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: Incorrect. I stated what was observed: No designer was involved. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude something else is involved?
quote: Why not? We can observe that no designer is involved. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude something else is involved? Be specific. Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: I can think of at least two other possibilities. Why can't you? Now, will you please answer the question? Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? Edited by Admin, : Add hide. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Off-topic content hidden. --Admin
But the evidence is not inconclusive. We routinely observe "order, rules, and laws" arising all on their own without any designer. This is not only a foolish statement but an ignorant one. Rrhain you were not there
Why is your pet example any different? What specific observation are you referring to that leads you to conclude something different? It not an example R, thats the point, I cant give you an example of something i did not observe and neither did you
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? This is a relative nonsensical statement like can God make a rock bigge than he can lift. If he designed it then no, if he did not then yes. But we cannot know this outside the scriptures. Its only one of only two logical possibilites Bertot writesquote: R writesI did and I am. The marbles are ordered by rules and laws without any designer taking part as observation shows. Do you have evidence that something else is involved? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved? Your so-called observation is limited therefore inapplicable as provable evidnce
I already did: Observation shows no designer was present. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude that something else is involved? Just show me the beginning of time or whatever and all the details involved at that specific time and you will have proved your point
Why not? We can observe that no designer is involved. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise? What observation did you make that allows you to conclude something else is involved? Your first statement demonstrates the force of my point about evidence. You know you cannot do that The other observations are the order itself and it being squarely between the only two logical possibilites. Neither is provable both are demonstratable, both should be taught as scientific applications. The Bertot principle is irrefutable, either logically or from a standpoint of observation and it certainly is demonstratable as evidence Dawn Bertot Edited by Admin, : Add hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you are really determined to be wrong and off topic, could you at least do it alternately?
Y'know, you could make a post which is on-topic but wrong, and then follow it up with a post which is off-topic but right ... and so forth. Only I'm fairly sure that when I started this thread I had a topic in mind, and it was not "whatever gibberish has most recently drifted into the head of some guy called Bertot".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...about 15 days and 150 messages ago.
Die, you accursed topic, die! Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
PER PM COMMUNICATIONS WITH PERCY - THIS TOPIC IS REOPENED AND ON STANDBY PENDING NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ICR SUES TEXAS CASE.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Which "new developments" would these be?
Appeals? New claims by ICR? Links if possible, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
There are no new developments that I am aware of, but I would like the thread to remain open in case of that eventuality. On-topic discussion may also continue.
It was easy to think the thread had gone off-topic while we tried to understand Dawn Bertot's position, which is why Adminnemooseus closed it a couple times, but it eventually became clear that Dawn was advocating ideas of his own that, to the extent we understood them, were unrelated to the topic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
It was easy to think the thread had gone off-topic while we tried to understand Dawn Bertot's position, which is why Adminnemooseus closed it a couple times, but it eventually became clear that Dawn was advocating ideas of his own that, to the extent we understood them, were unrelated to the topic. To make it clear, I think ICR is on the right track, they simply need a little fine tuning. The tuning would simply be that they present creation from the standpoint of design exclusively. I agree that the introduction of the miraculous or a specific religion into church and state matters is probably not going to fly. They should not expect, nor should they be disappointed when they are rejected This in no way however is a slap in the face to the design argument, which or course supports itself Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
But violates parsimony, and is, therefore, not good science.
This in no way however is a slap in the face to the design argument, which or course supports itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But violates parsimony, and is, therefore, not good science. Careful now, we are trying to stay on topic. If ICR took this approach, they might meet with much greater success. Ive debated it publically and would do so again and again, with anyone willing to step up to the plate. Its to easy to miss Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024