ICR Sues Texas

[/qs]Because we have a perfectly good explanation based on empirical evidence. There is no need to drag in pixies, unicorns, the fairy godmother, or any other explanations for which there is no empirical evidence.[/qs]Why do you assume that I need religion or magic to demonstrate that you cannot prove what you say you can.. You are streching now because you have reached a logical empass called the only two lgical possibilitesDawn Bertot

I won't be responding to this, and related, posts. We are far off topic and getting nowhere.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yes we are far off topic BUT...this is also a great example of why the ICR was turned down. ICR uses the same mind numbing process in their education and materials. Creation Science is simply a constant dance from rabbit hole to rabbit hole.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

First there is no such thing as dogmatic evidence. What evidence is needed is evidence that shows that the outcome meets the premise. Evolution does this by the convergence of evidence Why People Believe Weird Things, pg214, Michael ShermerThe point is there is no convergence of evidence of a designer or of design.Your point fits Hasty generalization pg56 same referenceYou are stating that order = design whereas there is no premise for order to even imply design as was shown with the reference to crystals.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi Dawn Bertot,Again, I am regrettably unable to make sense of much of what you say. As near as I can make out, you seem to feel that not knowing the origin of matter, energy and the natural laws of the universe means that we cannot be sure that anything happens naturally. Our position is that you need evidence of non-natural phenomena before you can start making claims that they exist. Things we don't yet know are not evidence of anything. ICR's curriculum is steeped in religion. Just a quick visit to their website yielded this under The Life Sciences, follow the link to Man Was Created by God and then to the links on that page like Man Was Recently and Miraculously Created in the Image of God. Here are a few excerpts: Perhaps you can explain to us how this isn't religion.For everyone else it clearly shows that ICR is teaching religion and not science, and that is why Texas will not provide accreditation.--Percy

Actually we could not be CLOSER to the topic, if we tried, since the topic relates to evidence and how it is obtainedWe are making steady progress in explaining eachothers side

What happens in these instances is that the real issue gets lost in the two extremesWhat the board needs, whoever they are, is a logical presentation of the EVIDENCE in relation to the issues. I dont believe for a moment you are unable to make sense of what I am saying.The evidence AT HAND simply states that both positions are demonstratable from the available data, neither of which can be proved absolutley.This is demostrated in the fact that if the same measuring rod is used and applied and the requirement is the same for demonstrating that matter is eternal or self-sustaining, that is required for the observation of design, then the aforementioned will also fail as any kind of evidence in understanding our existence.But the same rules and evidence that the atheist or evolutionist insist upon for a theist are not the ones her or she uses when it comes to thier position.This can be easily demonstrated, if evidence is what the topic is actually aboutHow is ICR, coming in thier suit? We in the Churches of Christ are not affiliated with this group, even though we are aware of who they areDawn Bertot

Your statement here is a testament to two facts. One, it illustrates that you do not understand the nature, purpose and application of EVIDENCE in a case such as ours. Two it demonstrates you are not thinking for yourself and are echoing borrowed ideasFor the simple reason, no one would actually state that evolution is evidence for that which is not knowable, ie, how things are here in the first place.Evolution like design, which is also observable is only one of two possible solutions Bluescat, think for yourself.If you honestly believe that evolution does something that design cannot in its application of demonstratable evidence as to the how and why ultimatley, you really dont understand any logical form of argumentation WowDawn Bertot

Your desire to "understand our existence" is, I think, a religious or at least spiritual goal. Science is just trying to understand how the world works. To do this we do not need to demonstrate "that matter is eternal or self-sustaining."We observe the processes of evolution in every reproductive event. Each reproductive event took place only because the parents were selected, and the offspring are modified copies of their parents because of the mixing of genes and mutations.Whether or not we observed the parents' conception, we assume they came about the same way as their offspring. Don't you assume this, too? And also for the grandparents and great grandparents and so on? Don't you believe that your parents came about pretty much the same way you did? And that your grandparents and great grandparents came about pretty much the same way you did?Where is your evidence that at some point something different happened when a designer intervened in the reproductive process? Read Message 1 again. The word "evidence" does not appear. What's at issue is ICR's inability to satisfy the Texas criteria for accreditation, which includes the curriculum.--Percy

Before one can apply evidence, there must be evidence. Where is the design evidence. Your beliefs aren't evidence as for thinking for myself, I do but I don't let my own bias interfere with the evidence so when someone else can explain the point better I defer to the one with more expertise.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

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.

This is kinda cute, I cant figure out whether you are a really nice person or you think I am dumber than a bag of hammers, the way you talk downThats funnyPercy arguments have direct and indirect implications, assertion have to be demonstrated ans carried to thier logical conclusion for them to have validityOne cannot insist that design needs to be demostrated and that a designer needs to be demonstrated then assume they have no obligation to demonstrate anything from thier position.One needs the same rule and demonstration of evidence. Outstanding, even validnowall youneed do is practice the same type of evidence you require of me and demonstrate your above conclusion from its inceptionYour analogy is applicable ina practicle sense but it is even more applicable in a ARGUMENTATION senseThose that require strict evidence about unobserved events, should be able to provide the same evidence if they make assumptions about its operation, function and purpose My evidence would be that he designer intervined to set the process in motion in the first place, by the DESIGN that is involvedThis is not good enough for you but it is good enough for reality and the two only logical purposes for existenceBut now watch, when I say, if design is not good enough, I say to you, then how, and you say, by itself, then I say can you use the same strict evidence you require of me to demonstrate that, what do you say, "Well Bertot we dont worry about that"But from an argumentation standpoint you must. Its not just what we feel, its what we can demonstrateIts fine for the scientist to try and figure out how things work, but as soon as he asserts something in a negative or positive way he needs to demonstrate it using the same type of evidence concerning the same issues. Thats how reason worksDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

"Hes and old hippie and he dont what to do, should he hang on to the old, should he grab onto the new, he and old hippie, somethinng, something, something..........'That what you reminded me of from you old avatar, not that I mean to imply that your old. thats a country song up therBluescat, I am fine that you or anyone is not satisfied with the evidence of design as evidence, anyone can disagreeWhat you need to demonstrate that it is not evidence, is to demonstrate first, that it is not order and complexity of the highest order. Heck that is what makes it observable as evidence inn thefirst placeNext you need to demonstrate using the same type of evidence you require of me that evolution is the only mechanism that has brought about not only life here but in the entireuniverse and beyond, since now they conclude multi verseswhy do you need to do this? Because reason and argumentation and logic dictate such.It would make no sense for you to vehemently denounce my conclusions, assuming you had no alternatives, as to the solution. If your solution is that there was no starting point, it always existed and recreates itself, then demonstrate it using the same type of evidence you require of meNow even if neither of us could do this it does not matter. What is at stake is what can be demonstrated by the available evidence, CONCERNING its purposesIt so happens that both evolution has no absolute answers, it so happens that design has no absoulte solutions, but both are observable and testable, as possible solutions AND THE ONLY SOLUTION.This would be much more palatable to you and scientist if you did not view it as religion, IT IS NOTNow your disagreement on design or mine oabout evolutionisnot what drives argumentation and conclusions, its what can be demonstrated in a logical form, the conclusion of which is testable against both evidence and reality,since both are inconclusive.Now, all either side needs to do is provide absolute conclusive evidence to shut the other down. We know this cant be doneThink about it, the is a very good reason there are only two logical solutions. Because both are testable against realityDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I'll try once more (do we have a smiley of someone beating their head against a brick wall?): What is "the highest order?" Is that humans or something else? Or a quartz crystal? Or any of the other complex shapes that are formed in nature without any outside help? Evolution deals only with changes to existing organisms, not origins. You've been told this before.The theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the changes that have occurred since life began on earth. (That's all it is expected to do.) It is your assumptions that are being "denounced" not your conclusions. You have shown us no basis for reaching those conclusions via those assumptions. The available evidence suggests that nature is all that is needed to evolve the existing species that we see, along with the complex shapes, such as quartz crystals and snowflakes.There is no evidence for fairies, pink unicorns, or any other fabled creatures; nor is there any need for such creatures to explain what we see all around us. Existing scientific evidence and theory do just fine. You have yet to be able to demonstrated the "observable and testable." You have nothing beyond "it looks designed therefore it must be designed." When we test against evidence (which reflects reality) science does quite well. Religion and it's claims do very poorly. Why should be accept these conclusions based on unsupportable assumptions when religion has such a poor track record for explaining natural phenomena? The only "logical" conclusion is to follow the evidence. This is where all of your posts have failed. You need to include a massive and unevidenced assumption to make things come out the way your religious belief dictates.Sorry, science doesn't work that way. In science you need to provide evidence for your assumptions, and if your assumptions lead to conclusions that are contradicted by evidence they must be critically examined, and perhaps discarded.That is where religion fails. It keeps trying to find some evidence (anything) to support its conclusions/beliefs. So far it has not been able to do so, while science has followed the evidence to conclusions that are supportable.Design is trying to shoehorn some conclusions into the mix without the supporting evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Before I can discuss order and complexity, there must be some. Again you use your own definition of theses terms. Highest order?What does that mean? That old avatar is not as old as I am, since the avatar is me.Edited by bluescat48, : added line

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008