ICR Sues Texas

Can you please reference where we have observed this supposed designer actually designing organisms? You don't observe probabilities. I can show that all that is needed is the known natural laws, and that no designer is observed in the process. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to supply those observations. If your argument requires the observation of things that have not been observed then your argument is not worth the pixels it is written in. I also offered testable hypotheses, something that you have failed to supply.So I have observations and hypotheses that follow the scientific method. You do not have any observations and you can not construct any testable hypotheses. Hmm, I wonder who is doing science and who is not? There is no such thing as "absolute" evidence. What we do have are known natural laws, and from those laws we can predict how interactions in the natural world should occur and should NOT occur. We then test those predictions. We find that our predictions are very accurate. For example, we can predict that we should find fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, but we should not find fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features. That prediction has been tested hundreds of times, and every time it passes these tests. So what does ID predict as it relates to the mixture of features in fossils? Anything?As to "ordered of themselves" that is your venacular. It is word salad. Until you define what you mean it doesn't really mean anything.

So science can not look at the origin of a lightning bolt? Are you saying that we have no idea how natural laws, all by themselves, can create these lightning bolts? Are you saying that lightning bolts require a designer? Observing and explaining observations are two different things, putz.

In this case, we can observe evolution producing change in populations in the here and now. No one has ever observed this supposed designer doing anything. So I have observations of the actual mechanism. You do not. But it is necessary to demonstrate the mechanism in action, and short of that you have no evidence. All you have is assertion. If you can't observe the mechanism in action then you can not claim that it can produce anything.That is the problem here. You are confusing two things: evidence and observation. They are not the same thing. Evidence is observations anticipated by the hypothesis. You have no hypothesis, therefore you have no evidence. What does Design hypothesize for the pattern of ERV homology amongst primates? Anything? What does Design hypothesize for the mixture of features in hominid fossils over the last 5 million years? Anything?Let's cut to the meat of the argument. You claim that because none of us were there at the beginning that any explanation, no matter how unevidenced or absurd, is on equal ground with testable explanations backed by mountains of evidence. Am I right on this?So let's see how that would work in a murder trial. The prosecution presents DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, fiber evidence, shoe print evidence, palm print evidence, hair evidence, and a slew of other empirical, science based evidence linking the defendant to the murder victim. The only problem is that no one witnessed the crime. What is your defense? Since no one actually witnessed the crime it is equally likely that a leprechaun planted the evidence and designed it so that it looked as if the defendant committed the crime. What is your evidence for this claim? The very evidence that the prosecution presented, all of which, you claim, is completely consistent with a leprechaun.On top of this absurdity you would also add the following. Since no one knows the origin of DNA it can not be used as evidence. On top of that, no one knows the origin of life so no one can ever claim that a human created that fingerprint since we can't know where the first life came from. With the shoe print it gets even worse because we can't demonstrate where the matter in the shoe came from, nor the laws which allow the molecules in the shoes to interact.So, in the end, a trick playing leprechaun is on equal ground as an explanation as to why the defendant's DNA and bloody fingerprints are found all over the murder victim. Right?

No we don't. The theory of evolution makes very specific testable predictions. The theory of evolution explains the nested hierarchy found in genomes, amongst living species, and in the fossil record. The ToE can explain why apes and humans have the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes, and why the human and orangutan shared ERV are more divergent than the same ERV is between humans and chimps. Design can not explain any of this, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.Evolution makes testable predictions, which makes it science. Design does not make testable predictions, which is why it isn't science. Until you show us how Design makes testable predictions you can not claim that we are on the same playing field. Evidence is predicted observations made by a hypothesis. Since you don't have any testable predictions you don't have any evidence. Evolution can be tested. Design can not. Therefore, Evolution is science while Design is not. Guess which one belongs in science class? Guess why ICR was denied accreditation for running a science department?

No more so than Germ theory does, but then Germ theory is not trying to explain how the universe came about, nor how the first germ came about. All theories are limited to a subset of all observations, and for evolution this subset is how species change over time. That's it.So if Germ theory is not capable of telling us where the universe came from should we reject the theory that germs cause infectious diseases? If Atomic theory can not tell us where atoms came from should we throw out all the information we have learned about chemistry through Atomic theory?Why is it that any and all theories in science must account for the beginning of the universe, according to you?

Off topic content hidden. --AdminAdded 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.

Off topic content hidden. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Add hide.

To be fair, the ruling focused on the book "Of Pandas and People" which the science teachers were forced to reference during science class. ID as presented was found to be religious in nature, and did not pass the Lemon test.However, I don't think any of us would be surprised if the Dover case did weigh in to the decision made by the board when they denied ICR accreditation. A pragmatic view is exactly what we should be using here. What type of career in the sciences will a graduate from the PhD program at ICR have? Will they be equipped to do cutting edge research in the biological sciences? I think the answer is no, and emphatically no. The goal of this PhD program was not producing scientists who go on to do scientific research. They wanted to produce preachers who were knowledgable of all the creationist, anti-evolution canards that we have seen for the last 50 years. That's it. They wanted to teach apologetics, not science.

In that case, ICR should try to show how their curriculum leads to productive scientists. They need to show how their curriculum ultimately leads to productive lines of research within the biological sciences.As it stands now, no scientist is using creationism or "design" to do original research in biology. Ignoring the religious underpinnings of the ICR's curriculum for the moment, there is still a gaping hole between what is being taught and what is being done in the lab. They want to teach "theories" for which there is no application or use. If nothing else, they are wasting the student's time and money as it relates to science.So why should ICR get accreditation for a science education program when what is taught has no use within science? The board could find no reason, and neither can I.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

In that case, why don't you point us to peer reviewed scientific papers where "design" is used to construct testable hypotheses that are then tested through experimentation. From my knowledge, I know of no such scientific peer reviewed paper. Therefore, there is no "design" science. So why should "design" be part of a science education curriculum? Why should ICR get accreditation for a science education program when their program is based on ideas that no scientist uses, or for that matter a program not based on science?