ICR Sues Texas

Would you be ok with a World Religions course where the tenets of the world's major religions are taught to students? Such a course would fit in just fine within the secular school curiculum. Most people think it is morally wrong for a government to take tax dollars and spend that money on religious indoctrination. Perhaps you should visit the Middle East to get a good dose of how a theocracy works. I think you would come running back to the good ol' secular US in about a week. What special classes? You mean all this time I could have skipped paying my state taxes? Damn it!! Why didn't you tell me this earlier? Actually, no they don't have that right. The US Constitution forbids it. Again, if you want to live in a country where this does occur I would suggest Saudi Arabia. Also, I think the UK is allowed to spend tax dollars on religious education if you are interested in living on the other side of the pond. But the government is limited to acting in a secular fashion. The government is not closing down churches or throwing people in jail for going to church. Everyone is free to practice their religion as they see fit. However, the government does not have this right.

If I remember right, there is also a fair percentage who list their religion as "Jedi". I might have to move there myself. Is there any viable political movement to change this practice? Are any of the political parties campaigning on a platform that calls for the abolishment of government support for religious schools?

You could find out who lives life as a smartass atheist by including the option:D) Used the Force.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We do observe evolution occuring. For example, we can observe that mutations occur in bacteria that cause them to be antibiotic or bacteriophage resistant. We can also observe that these mutations become fixed in the presence of antibiotic or bacteriophage. So we can directly observe the production of variation through random mutation and the subsequent selection of those mutations. In this sense, evolution is a fact. It does occur.From our observations of how evolution occurs in the past we can make hypotheses about what we should and should not see in the morphology of living species, in the genomes of living species, and in the fossil record if this same process were active in the past. For example, if evolution occurred in the past then we should see transitional fossils that are part mammal and part reptile. At the same time, we should NOT see fossils that are part mammal and part bird. We then use the fossil record to test these predictions. The same applies to the distribution of characteristics in modern species and to comparisons of genomes found in living species.So what testable predictions does ID make? What should we NOT see if ID is true, and why? What types of fossils should we NOT see if ID is true? What type of shared genetic markers should we NOT see if ID is true? The theory of evolution is capable of making these types of predictions, but is ID capable of the same? Last I checked, modern species are very real as are their genomes. The fossils are real and not imagined. All of these things a very knowable and observable, and they can be used to test the theory of evolution. That is false. We require that scientific theories make testable predictions. The theory of evolution does just that. Does ID? Not from what I have seen. For evolution to occur all you need is life. We have evidence that life exists.For ID to occur you need a designer outside of the life we observe. Where is that evidence? Science requires empirical evidence and theories that make testable predictions. Evolution has both. Does ID? Not from what I have seen.

Did Galileo need to know the origin of every rock in order to determine that a small rock and a large rock fall at the same rate?We don't need to know the origin of life in order to know that it evolves. That is my question to you. How do we test for this? If it is untestable then it is not science. I am not asking for the origin of the designer. I am not asking how the designer came about. I am asking for evidence that the designer exists. All evolution needs is for life to exist, and we have that evidence. We don't need to know where the first life came from in order to test the theory of evolution. DNA paternity tests work just fine without knowing where the first life came from, as one example. The show me how to test it. Describe and experiment that can be run to test this hypothesis. Also, describe the observations that would falsify this hypothesis, the things one should not see in the experimental results if design is true. IOW, take the step beyond rhetoric and show us the science. In order to have evidence you need hypotheses that make specific predictions. So what are these specific predictions and what are the experiments that can test these predictions? That is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You seem to ignore a third option: both are wrong. However unlikely, it is still possible that life changes over time through a natural process that is different than that described by the theory of evolution.As an example, I could have set up the same dichotomy for Newtonian gravity and gravity fairies. Either Newton's laws were right or gravity fairies were right. Since the orbit of Mercury and other observations demonstrated that Newtonian gravity was wrong then it had to be gravity fairies, right? Of course, this ignores a third possibility, both are wrong, and in fact that is the case. As it turns out Relativity is the right answer. The problem here is that you get both logic and the scientific method wrong. You don't understand how the scientific method works, and you base arguments on logicla fallacies.

So how would you define the scientific method so that ID and Creationism could fit under the banner of science?

No, you didn't. Nowhere did you describe a detailed and testable hypothesis including the null hypothesis. In fact, you entirely skip over the step of the scientific method where you construct a testable hypothesis. You simply go from observation to conclusion without anything to tie them together.For example, the theory of evolution predicts that in the past there should have been species with a mixture of reptile and mammalian features. The theory also predicts that there should NOT have been any species in the past with a mixture of mammalian and bird features. We then look at the mixture of characteristics in fossils to test these predictions.So what does ID predict as it pertains to the mixture of characteristics in fossils, and why? Does it predict anything?

That is rhetoric, not evidence. Can you give us a real world example of "operates independently as organisms in a coherently, orderly fashion"? And sometimes it's not? It sounds like design makes predictions, except when it doesnt. Notice how you changed the words there? We require evidence of implentation FOR BOTH OF THEM. We can observe the implementation of evolutionary mechanisms in the lab. So do you have any observations of this supposed designer implementing any designs in the same way? So you are saying that design is actually evolution? That evolution is the designer? They are observed to produce random mutations that can either be non-adaptive, maladaptive, or adaptive. We then observe that this mutation is either passed on in greater numbers or disappears, depending on how the mutation interacts with the environment. Nowhere in this process is a designer observed nor required. Then demonstrate it. Then why haven't we seen you construct a testable hypothesis and then test it? How does one claim that the existence of order and organization is due to design?

It is your job to construct an ID hypothesis and test it with experiments, not ours. Why is it that ID supporters always want us to do their work for them?

It would seem to me that your logic leads to one unavoidable conclusion. The orderly and and consistent laws of the Universe are the Designers. We don't need anything outside of these laws to explain our observations of the natural world, so they must be the designer if you claim that a designer is required.

But how do we go from a probability to reality? What leads us from "complex order and laws" to "the designer did it"?Using your same path of evidence I could claim that rainbows more than establish the probability of unicorns, therefore the observation of rainbows evidences unicorns whether or not I actually observe a unicorn. I have used your same "path of evidence" that you are using to go from complexity to designer.In fact, I can tie any two things together using the same technique. A field of clover establishes the existence of leprechauns. Pollen establishes the existence of fairies. Clouds establish the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How does complexity and order dictate a designer? You haven't shown this. I asked my parents about this. They claim that nothing supernatural went into my construction. In fact, I have yet to come across any observations of any supernatural mechanisms that are required for the production of a new human being. All I can find are very natural mechanisms, and they appear to be sufficient for creating a new human being. Everything from the production of gametes to embryonic development to maturation is all done through natural mechanisms. If you disagree, then please point to the step where we observe the supernatural at work. The difference comes in how one demonstrates the activity of either natural or supernatural mechanisms. For evolution, we can demonstrate the mechanisms through which evolution occurs through the scientific method. This is not so with supernatural mechanisms. Nowhere have you constructed a hypothesis that would demonstrate supernatural mechanisms, and then demonstrated how experiments could test this hypothesis. At the same time, the theory of evolution can be used to construct hypotheses that can be tested experimentally. In fact, there is 150 years worth of science demonstrating this. That's exactly what was done for ice and quartz crystals. They are complex designs that are the result of natural mechanisms alone.

Oh boy. Pot, prepare to meet kettle. We are saying that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNER. This is very different from claiming that there is no designer. Please show how order, rules, and laws leads to the conclusion of a designer. You need to show the reasoning. I mean, you do understand what the principles of reasoning are, don't you? But you are going one step further. You are saying that the designer is more than a probability. You are saying that the designer is real. We need evidence for that, other than a designer simply being possible. I can go buy a lottery ticket which makes it possible for me to win the lottery. However, I don't think they will take me very seriously at the lottery department when I try to argue that my possibility of winning entitles me to some cash. We observe that complex crystals do form all by themselves without the input of a designer. If you want to claim that a designer is involved then you need to evidence one. Science proposes an initiation process, and the proposes experiments to test for the outcomes of those processes. For evolution, we test to see if a nested hierarchy exists in order to see if evolution was occuring in the past. At the same time, violations of the nested hierarchy would falsify evolution.So what observations would falsify design? Any? If design is unfalsifiable then it isn't science and should not be taught in science class.

You contradict yourself here. You say that no known evidence for a designer implies that there is no designer, and then you turn around and claim that that they are two different things. So which is it? What we are saying is that natural mechanisms are sufficient on their own to produce the observations, and that adding a designer is a superfluous and unneeded mechanism. Gravity is a sufficient explanation for why we stay on the surface of the Earth. Adding undetectable gravity fairies to that explanation does not improve the explanation. It's your argument, not mine. You show it. As I stated before . . ."Please show how order, rules, and laws leads to the conclusion of a designer." And here is where we get to the meat of the problem: ID is not science.Science is not about figuring out what the possibilities are, since such a list is infinitely long for any phenomenon. Science is about TESTING possibilities, and eliminating them if they don't pass the test. You are stuck at the possibility stage. In order for ID to be science you need to advance to the testing stage. You haven't done that. All you are stuck with is a dogmatic claim with no way of testing it or falsifying it. But we can TEST for these processes. From our knowledge of thermodynamics and molecular structure we know that water should have a slight positive charge on one side and a slight negative charge on the other. We can then predict how those molecules should line up in the solid phase. That prediction is a hexagonal pattern. Guess what we observe? A HEXAGONAL PATTERN.This is the difference between science and design. Science is able to predict what we should and should not see if the hypothesis is right. ID doesn't even construct a hypothesis. No one is saying that "evolution was a product of itself". That is your gobblygook talk. What we are saying is that when you have imperfect replicators competing for limited resources then evolution is an inevitable result. It is unavoidable given those circumstances. No need to insert any kind of designer. The observed natural mechanisms explain it just fine.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So orders, rules, and laws are evidence of design because you say so? Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Why are they evidence of design, other than your say so? It is not obvious, which is why I am asking for your reasoning. All you can seem to offer is "because I say so". That is not reasoning.What if I claimed that rainbows are evidence of unicorns, and that my argument is obvious and self-demonstrating? Would you accept it?

I thought we were talking about how life was designed. This doesn't involve the origin of life. Your argument is based on the unevidenced assertion that complexity, order, and law indicate design. Then we have to ask a pretty simple question. The origin of what? The origin of lightning? Known natural laws explain this quite nicely. The origin of me? Well, my parents seem to think that I came about in a very natural way. The origin of rocks? We understand that just fine to with regard to known and observed natural mechanisms? The origin of species? We understand that just fine through the known and observed mechanisms of evolution.So what is the "ORIGIN" you are speaking of? You need to be specific. Science is not the act of observation. Science is the act of constructing and testing hypotheses. This is why design should not be in science class, because it is incapable of constructing and testing hypotheses. Design is not science because it fails to apply the scientific method.