The board simply did not have anyone that had ability to challenge thier conclusions in any accruate and logical form. If the first panel was supposedly incompotent, who challenged the findings of the second panel? Or were THEY allowed free reign of opinion and presentation? My guess is that they were
That is their job: to inspect the programme, to develop an opinion on whether it is valid, and to present their reasoning behind that decision.
But it is not free reign: there are rules and criteria that they must use to judge the programme. If the programme meets them, the opinion will be positive; if not, then it will be negative.
Simple fact: ICR did not meet the criteria. Therefore the recommendation is negative. Therefore the Board did not give accreditation.
I really don't know how that could be not understood or why you're mentioning somebody in the Board "challenging" these conclusions. That is
not their job.
Also, if you want to criticise anyone for not challenging the decision properly, you should talk to ICR themselves. They were the ones responsible for making first their application god enough and then for appealing the decision. It is not the Board's job to make an application for someone perfect.
Yes, it is. You advocate intelligent design, that makes your position one of "creationism or a bastard offshoot".
Oh by the way, thats some real good objectivity in your above sentence. Your not slighted in your opinions at all are you? Didnt you say you were a scientist
Your
ad hominem is entirely unjustified. I used absolutely no subjective opinion; intelligent design is a bastardised hybrid of creationism and science. How the fuck is that a "slighted opinion"?
And, yes, I am a scientist. You know what that means? I follow the scientific method. Which means not assuming some conclusion to be correct before even looking at the evidence.
Nij writes:
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
Dawn writes:
Are you saying the BOARD is incompotent and that they cannot make a decision concerning these matters themself? Why would they need to hire a group of people to do thier thinking for them. I suppose your response here will be Uhhhh
No. I'm asking you which one you think they are: scientists or nonscientists. So answer the question and stop digging rabbit holes.
The Board are scientists themselves. The panel was also composed of scientists. The Board does not have the time to go and investigate every proposal themselves, so panels are created to check out each one and they report back to the Board, who make decisions based on the findings of that panel.
You don't think every jury goes to do the forensics work themselves, do you? You don't think every electoral officer goes out to collect all of the votes on their own, do you?
No. Other people do that job and report the evidence back to them, when the jury decides based on the evidence presented. Other people go collect the votes and count them in lots, when the officer decides which person has the higher number of votes. People aren't so fucking stupid as you to try doing everything on their own. They get help, because God is not going to come down and do it for them.
You simply dont understand a method of correct reasoning. You also dont understand I cannot and have never lost the debate on this point, because the evidence is the same for each side. The board was not presented the information in the correct logical form
I find that ironic, given that you've never demonstrated your position follows from the evidence.
You've already dragged us off-topic using that crap and in over one hundred posts, you couldn't even present us with simple definitions or an objective way to determine design. Continue to do it, then I'm fairly sure the moerators will block you again and/or close the thread. So don't.
The board was presented with an objective and detailed consideration of ICR's proposed programme. That recommendation was to decline the application because ICR wasn't teaching science. Unless you have clear evidence demonstrating that creationis, intelligent design, and/or any of those other religious ideas have scientific merit, you should provide it. You must be aware of the hundreds of threads here alone, yes?
™ Version 4.2
