ICR Sues Texas

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.

But violates parsimony, and is, therefore, not good science.

won't work either. The Dover vs. Kitzmiller ruling makes it clear that, as far as US law is concerned, ID is simply another form of creationism. That means that the courts will deem an ID based course to be just as religious as an explicitly creationist one.You are free to disagree with that all you want (on another thread) but from a pragmatic point of view, emphasising design won't help ICR's case.

The trouble is that they are creationists. The whole point of the ICR is to serve as a creationist propaganda front. The only reason anyone would want to do their "science education" course in the first place is to learn how to make children into creationists.

Hopefully they are predisposed to decide against the utter dishonesty like what was presented by ICR. That is their job. ID and Creationism can never be science simply because they begin with a conclusion.

The Institute for Creation Research Brings a Flawed Lawsuit
Against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating BoardTexas Citizens for Science Claims ICR Has No Valid Legal Justification for Its LitigationA Report and Analysis by
Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
President, Texas Citizens for Science
2009 April 20
Updated: 2009 December 3
Updated: 2010 June 22
Updated: 2010 September 1The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) filed a lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) on Tuesday, 2009 April 16. The lawsuit names as defendants the eight members of the THECB in both their official and individual capacities, thus making it expensive for each member. No doubt all will be represented by the same team of attorneys, but each will have to consider their individual financial liability, which will be unappealing and discouraging to them. This will intimidate them to settle with terms favorable to ICR. ICR could have just sued the THECB as an institution, but that would not be mean-spirited and intimidating enough for the litigious ICR.In addition, probably all of the appointed THECB members are social and religious conservatives appointed by Governor Rick Perry who presumably would want ICR to have its Masters Degree in Science Education, and would certainly have voted in favor of ICR if Dr. Paredes had originally recommended that. The THECB members correctly decided, however, that they must support Commissioner Paredes' recommendation, which he reached after carefully evaluating ICR's application using a team of professional scientists and science education professors who had the actual expertise to perform the evaluation. (The first evaluation team had no one on it who was competent to professionally evaluate ICR.)

Are you asking about the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board?

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!

ICR couldn't do it using their academic staff and then professional lawyers over a period of months.

They were up against professional scientists -- by which I mean real scientists, not creationists pretending to wear lab coats -- and legal precedent.

You'd be fucked over in 10 minutes; the other ten would be spent in you trying to yell over the sound of them laughing.

Yeah right. You couldn't even convince me and I'm a layman. In fact, you couldn't convince anybody in this thread.
Please, start up your own thread with Percy, so we can discuss further. I'd love to see you get around the problem of parsimony.

In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses. Occam's razor also states the "principle of parsimony"; however, some argue that parsimony should not be elevated to the status of a general principle.[1]

Already did that in Message 418, which you ignored.

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).

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?

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.

You cn contact them here.But perhaps you feel that you have better things to do.

The first team was incompetent/unqualified. The second was not incompetent/unqualified.
The second group was professional scientists. Their advice was given before the Board made their decision, because the Board followed the recommendations of the Commissioner and he followed the recommendation of the scientists.

Which as I mentioned earlier, is that neither creationism nor its bastard offshoots are science.

So, first you criticise for not having professional scientists do an evaluation, then you criticise the people evaluating it for being "scientists, not .. thinkers".
So which are they, Dawn? Are they scientists or are they not?

You'd be fucked over in 10 minutes; the other ten would be spent in you trying to yell over the sound of them laughing.

You're criticizing the process because you disagree with the decision, but the fact of the matter is that what ICR wants to teach in Texas bears no resemblance to what accredited science programs in that state teach.

It encapsulates my whole post in one sentence. It has a reasoned chain of thought, backed by definitions and/or evidence, to hold it up. I find it ironic that you call my post bluster despite ignoring the actual content, and then say you'll leave a reply until later, but presenting your conclusion now? Very poor form, even for a creationist.